HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL ± VOL 8 NO 1 5 T his article examines the attempt in recent years to revive apprenticeship training in traditional sectors and to extend it to new sectors of the economy. Apprenticeship had long been the main formal method of entry training in Britain and the main means whereby ®rms created intermediate skills. However, unlike in Germany, this form of training was not extended beyond traditional occupations and, moreover, in Britain it had been in decline since the late 1960s. Attempts to reform apprenticeship from the 1960s onwards met with some success, but were often limited in content and patchy in implementation. Stimulated by the need to improve skill levels, in 1993 the Conservative government announced a major initiative to revive apprenticeship training and to extend this employment-based system of skill formation to non-traditional, occupational sectors in the form of the `modern apprenticeship’. The ®rst section of the article provides the necessary background for an understanding of the context of the modern apprenticeship. The following sections analyse its introduction and operation in three sectors ± engineering, construction and information technology (IT) ± chosen for their contrasting inheritances in terms of training and their different experiences under the modern apprenticeship. On the basis of this, the final section considers the reasons for sectoral differences and levels of success and draws some broad conclusions. BACKGROUND The modern apprenticeship contains both traditional and new elements. It is similar to traditional apprenticeships in that it alternates productive employment with on- and off- the-job training. It is based on a set of reciprocal rights and obligations between employer and trainee which are set out in an agreement or contract. The employer agrees to provide training in skills, usually of a broad occupational kind; the apprentice agrees to work for a wage which is relatively low compared to the qualified worker’s rate until the apprenticeship comes to an end. In this way there is an incentive for both parties to see the apprenticeship completed, and some of the costs of training are shared between the parties. A new departure under the modern apprenticeship is that costs are shared three ways between the ®rm, the apprentice and the state through a government subsidy for off-the-job training. The introduction of public funds has implications for accountability, with the government delegating design of industry frameworks to sectoral Industrial Training Organisations (ITOs) and delivery and quality assurance to local Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs). The modern apprenticeship also differs from traditional apprenticeships in a number of other ways: it covers a broader spread of occupations (over 70);the details of the training and skills to be acquired are set out in an industry framework which is intended to ensure quality and consistency throughout a sector; and it is not based on time-serving or traditional vocational qualifications, but the acquisition of competency-based National The modern apprenticeship: new wine in old bottles? Howard Gospel, King’s College, London, and Centre for Economic Performance, LSE Alison Fuller, VETRA, Leicester