AoC Sport submits response to Occupational Maps Consultation
In November 2017 the Institute for Apprenticeships took ownership of occupational maps from the Department for Education, a resource which will help determine how occupations are categorised and in turn T levels are administered. They are now consulting on the proposed occupational maps to ensure they capture the relevant occupations in each route and that these are grouped coherently. AoC Sport has submitted the following response on behalf of the sport sector but urges colleges to also respond.
a) Are there any skilled occupations you would expect to see on the map which are not currently included?
The sport and physical activity sector’s employers have been working closely with our professional body – the Chartered Institute for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity (CIMSPA) – to develop a clear occupational map with common terminology and which is understood by all sector employers. The Health and Science draft occupational map as issued does not align to the map, occupations and progression opportunities already under development and well understood by our sector’s employers.
Our college members strongly believe that a ‘Sport and Physical activity’ career pathway should be acknowledged within the route title. We recommend the route should be amended to “Health, Science, Sport and Physical Activity”.
Within the draft occupational map the “Community Exercise, Fitness and Health” pathway does not accurately reflect the listed roles. Exercise fitness and health roles do not work exclusively in the community. Some of the occupations will work in an elite sport or education environment.
The word sport should be included in the career pathway title to reflect the list of occupations. We would recommend that the career pathway title is “sport and physical activity”.
There is no reference to wellness occupations e.g. yoga, Pilates and tai chi. These are significantly different to exercise and fitness occupations as listed in Standard Occupation Codes. We would recommend these are included in the technical occupation cluster. Furthermore, PE teacher and sport development officer are two occupations that do not have specific pathway in the occupational map despite this being a popular career for students in further education.
b) Should an existing occupation be assigned to a different route, or a different pathway or cluster within the route?
Some occupations occur in unexpected routes, leisure recreation assistant sits in sales and marketing and procurement whilst leisure duty manager is assigned to business and administration and finally, leisure team member is in the health and science route. This does not provide the desired clarity for students, employers and providers. We strongly recommend that these occupations be in the same route which we suggest Health and Science.
c) Are there any clusters, pathways or routes that have been deemed appropriate for apprenticeship only that could be taught in the classroom, and should potentially form part of the T level programme?
This is a key question for colleges and could potentially have an impact on young people and college delivery. College Level 2 and 3 ILR data indicates the potential impact on current college-based delivery, in 2015/16 there were 67,680 enrolments on Level 2 and 3 sports courses, further data shows that 8,742 students enrolled on exercise and fitness related courses.
We strongly recommend a review of the work-based routes for the exercise, health and fitness cluster. It is unlikely that it would be appropriate or possible for 16-year-olds to be able to access work based routes in this cluster yet many young people are keen to progress into such employment at 18. On the current courses students gain transferable skills such as teamwork, confidence, leadership and communication skills, which are all vital to the work place and customer/client focused environments. There appears, therefore, to be a mismatch between route and the age and needs of the students involved. We are concerned that there is not a sufficient number employers within the exercise, health and fitness cluster. Many employers within this route even those working in leisure centres are self-employed and unlikely to employ an apprentice, especially at 16.
Please feel free to use this response as a model for your own college’s response. The consultation closes on Thursday 8 February. If you have any questions regarding the consultation or AoC Sport’s response please contact Matt_Rhodes@aoc.co.uk.