In the view of many educators, the negative bias toward the trades and technical training may be responsible for the relative lack of funding for apprenticeship training. It is perceived that apprenticeship support in secondary schools is weak because of traditional attitudes and practices on the part of educators and parents who would rather support university careers for their students and children (Information Development and Training Inc, 2001; Kaminura et al., 1998). A lack of financial resources and competing priorities may result in new secondary schools being built without the infrastructure required for teachers dedicated to delivering courses that might prepare students for apprenticeship. Put another way, the lack of a culture of apprenticeship has meant that, provincially and federally, public funding for apprenticeship is still primarily directed to post-secondary institutions (Viswanathan, 2002).
The lack of adequate secondary school supports
takes many forms (
). Since youth lack ongoing
support during high school, respondents suggested
that resources were needed to “case
manage” interested individuals through high
school, keep contact with them on a personal
basis, and keep the trades alive as a career
option. A number of interviewees maintained
that introducing trades to students late in high
school is too late (
). Coordinating bodies that
help students become involved in apprenticeship
can play a key role in overcoming this barrier.
Student and parent focus groups also identified a number of related resource barriers in the school system and the broader apprenticeship system:
Secondary literature also pointed to a lack ofhigh-school career and trades programs, andaccess to apprenticeship programs. For example,CLFDB (1994) cited the need for new school-to-work transition models, particularly in new apprenticeable occupations—a conclusionsupported by other research (InformationDevelopment and Training Inc., 2001).
For college apprenticeship, lack of funding is seen as a significant institutional problem (CSLS, 2001). In some jurisdictions, government funding does not cover the full cost of technical training and institutions lose money on every apprentice; training budgets have not kept pace with the growth in registration (MacCulloch and Henley, 2002). In one province, recent changes in education policy have resulted in the cost of apprenticeship programs increasing dramatically (
). As a result, demand for such programs is vulnerable to labour market conditions.
Employers in some jurisdictions also felt that more resources were required to support various aspects of apprenticeship, including activities related to promoting apprenticeship and recruiting
participants (CME-NS, 2002; MacCulloch and Henley, 2002;
). Similarly, some individuals
noted that resources in the apprenticeship system might be too scarce. As a result, growth in demand for new apprenticeships may not be met (MacCulloch and Henley, 2002). More broadly, marked regional variation in apprentices’
satisfaction with apprenticeship training was also observed (Prism Economics and Analysis, 2000A).
For respondents in one jurisdiction, the prevalence
of poaching was closely tied to adequacy of provincial and territorial apprenticeship resources. Specifically, jurisdictions may lack sufficient staff and resources to enforce apprenticeship regulations, particularly apprentice/
journeyperson ratios in rural areas
(
). In automotive service and collision repair, for example, spokespersons noted that, in some jurisdictions, employers hire far more apprentices than permitted under the ratios. These employers maintain these apprentice staffs by poaching apprentices from other employers for slightly higher wages. Since this wage is still below that of journeypersons, employers are able to maintain
a competitive position in the industry, with work done not by journeypersons but by apprentices. Without adequate enforcement, this situation will not be redressed. As a result, a minority of employers are left to support the formal apprenticeship system.