This article critically evaluates recent research from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NC VER) on the occupational structure of apprentices and trainees. This study argues that the research is flawed by the NCVER's demand that traditional trade apprenticeships and traineeships be regarded as a unitary vocational education system, New Apprenticeships. It is argued, firstly, that such an approach obscures the occupational and skill structure of traineeships. In contrast to the NC VER research, this study finds that traineeships are highly skewed towards occupations such as labouring and elementary clerical occupations. Secondly, using New Apprenticeships as the level of analysis leads to an inadequate policy response to skill shortages and the needs of individuals disadvantaged in the labour market. Thirdly, research based on the New Apprenticeships concept incorrectly implies that the qualifications and career paths of apprentices and trainees are equivalent. Finally, a related issue is the lack of commensurability of vocational qualifications at the same AQF level, and the problems to which this gives rise for the national system of classifying vocational occupations. It is concluded that in general apprenticeships and traineeships should not he regarded apriori as offering ‘equivalent’ training and qualifications, though claims for equivalence could be made on a case-by-case basis on the weight of evidence. © 2002, Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Author Keywords
Index Keywords
