Episode 165 - *Bonus* ARB's Reform of Practical Experience in architectural training

This week we will be talking about the ARB’s latest report on the reform of Practical Experience in architectural training. This episode content meets PC1 - Professionalism of the Part 3 Criteria.

Resources from today's episode:

Websites: 

• https://www.ribaj.com/intelligence/architects-registration-board-arb-professional-practical-experience-commission-findings-alex-wright?utm_campaign=29/04/2025 Editor's cut&utm_content=&utm_term=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Adestra
• https://arb.org.uk/arb-welcomes-ppe-commission-report-on-reforming-practical-experience-in-architectural-training/

Thank you for listening! Please follow me on Instagram @part3withme for weekly content and updates or contact me via email me at part3withme@outlook.com or on LinkedIn. 

Website: www.part3withme.com

Join me next week for more Part3 With Me time.

If you liked this episode please give it a rating to help reach more fellow Part3er's!

Transcript

Episode 165:

Hello and Welcome to the Part3 with me podcast. 

The show that helps part 3 students jump-start into their careers as qualified architects and also provides refresher episodes for practising architects. If you would like to show your support for the podcast and help us continue making amazing content, click on the link in the episode notes to sign up to our subscription. I also offer one to one mentoring services to help you with your submissions, exams and interview, head over to our website to learn more or reach out to me on LinkedIn through the Part3 With Me page, or instagram my handle is @part3withme or email me at part3withme@outlook.com. 

I am your host Maria Skoutari and this week we will be talking about the ARB’s latest report on the reform of Practical Experience in architectural training. Todays episode meets PC1 of the Part 3 Criteria.

As the profession faces challenges from regulatory changes (notably post-Grenfell), rapid technological evolution (such as AI), the climate crisis, and a societal push for greater diversity and inclusion and as part of the ARB’s general reform with the Code of Conduct, the structure of Part 1, 2 & 3, they identified it was also necessary to review professional practice criteria architecture students must undergo to obtain their accreditation. 

As such, they commissioned an independent report in February 2024 to recommend improvements and which outlines the proposed transformation to the professional practical experience to better support future architects in gaining quality work experience. This review and reform, seeks to modernise initial education and training, shifting from a prescriptive, time-based system to an outcomes-based model focused on demonstrable competencies.

Prior to approaching the commissioners for this report recently release report, ARB undertook an assessment in February 2023 for a new regulatory approach to the ways in which architects are trained and educated. Known as Tomorrow’s Architects, it was aimed at reducing barriers to becoming an architect, including by addressing the challenges facing people from less affluent backgrounds or without existing networks in the profession. ARB’s research and data showed that the profession is not representative of the society it designs for, with underrepresentation from some groups, including women and certain ethnic groups. Therefore, ARB’s reforms form part of its commitment to tackling this by removing regulatory barriers, a proportionate approach to quality assurance and creating the flexibility for new routes to becoming an architect in the UK. Learning providers have already started to work with the ARB to develop qualifications that meet the researches outcomes and new Standards. 

Initially in terms of professional practice, ARB sought to no longer require a minimum of 2 years of employment in architecture before architects could achieve registration. The intention with this was to look at improving flexibility so that trainees could gain and demonstrate practice-based experience in a variety of ways, including through an incremental, blended approach. Essentially giving trainees the opportunity to focus on what they need to do in their professional experience to be able to qualify as an architect. ARB learned through consultation on that proposal that 60% of respondents felt removing the minimum duration alone would not address the problems that arise for those looking to gain experience and that it could have the unintended consequence of weakening the standards of the architects’ profession. 

As such, the ARB decided to revisit the requirements of practical experience and appointed an independent Commission to advise on the challenges, opportunities and requirements for practical experience under the new educational framework. The key terms the report focused on included:

• Reviewing the effectiveness of existing mechanisms for securing practical experience and identify any gaps or challenges faced by students and others training to become architects. 
• Evaluating the quality and availability of practical experience for students from diverse backgrounds, including underrepresented groups and individuals with disabilities. 
• Identifying best practices from within the UK and abroad and investigating potential collaborations between academia, the architectural profession, and other relevant stakeholders. 
• Analysing whether changes to the regulatory framework or legislation would improve the quality of practical experience available to students and others training to become architects. 
• Considering the role of central funding for architectural training in the context of meeting the Government’s objectives in relation to sustainable development, building safety and levelling up. 

So between March and October 2024, the Commission undertook extensive research, including:

• Field visits across the UK to speak to professional bodies, learning provides, architects and trainees
• Engagements with educators, employers, trainees, and professional bodies
• A public call for evidence, receiving 123 responses
• Analysis of existing survey data and academic research

The evidence base highlighted the importance of practical experience in shaping competent architects and revealed significant inconsistencies in the quality and accessibility of such experience.

Some of the Commissions Key Findings after reviewing the effectiveness of existing mechanisms for securing practical experience and identify any gaps or challenges faced by students and others training to become architects, included:

1. Firstly inconsistency and inefficiency, while examples of excellent practice exist, the current system is marked by wide inconsistency and inefficiency. Trainees’ experiences vary greatly, with many encountering fragmented support, unclear expectations, and inadequate integration between academic and practical learning.
2. The second was on high attrition rates, particularly for trainees from minority ethnic backgrounds. While undergraduate completion rates are similar to other sectors, far fewer candidates progress to final registration in architecture. Barriers identified included the cost and length of training, workplace culture, and difficulties accessing later stages of qualification.
3. Another key area of concern highlighted by the research was workplace culture. Surveys reveal high levels of bullying from 41% of respondents, discrimination from 33%, and sexual misconduct from 10%, particularly affecting women, ethnic minorities, and those with disabilities. Over a third (38%) of all professionals have experienced insults, stereotypes or jokes relating to protected characteristics; this is higher for female professionals (53%), those from ethnic minorities (46%) and those with disabilities (46%). Many trainees have also experience of poor pay, excessive workloads, and inadequate mentoring, which contribute to attrition and inequity.
4. The findings also identified a notable disconnect between academic curricula and the realities of practice. Employers often find that graduates lack key practical skills, while trainees struggle to bridge the gap between creative academic work and the commercial demands of practice. Trainees felt that some learning providers appeared ‘disengaged’ from the commercial realities of  architecture and that some employers underplayed the importance of creativity and imagination. This was compounded by any challenging personal circumstances during the transition, which led to involuntary attrition from the profession, and additional time taken for trainees to register. Good practice is found where academic and practical learning are integrated, but such models are not common unfortunately. Some suggested ARB should produce a clearer checklist about the experiences trainees should be receiving, to complement the new Academic and Practice Outcomes. 
5. It was also highlighted that existing regulatory requirements, such as the minimum two-year practical experience rule and restrictions on counting experience gained during academic study, are seen as outdated and restrictive. These rules impede innovation and the development of more flexible, blended training pathways.

Following review and analysis of these findings, the Commission then looked at the duration, quality and availability of the practical experience of trainees:

Many stressed that whilst they preferred a route that enabled them to work while pursuing their academic programme, they found this balance very challenging. Impacting their health, well-being and flexibility. They implied that programmes are repetitive and poorly planned inhibiting their progress toward registration. Trainees suggested that work done in practice could be better integrated into taught programmes at university, which would reduce duplicated effort and help them to reflect across their practical and academic work. Recommendations from trainees included better oversight from learning providers of their time in employment.

Although apprenticeships seem to tackle some of these issues, it unfortunately cannot replace the current educational framework entirely due to limitation in funding, levy provisions, employer’s preparedness and workload preclude wholescale adoption without more strategic changes to the apprenticeship structure and funding model. 

Now in terms of the impact of practical experience on registration, the commission identified that the biggest theme from these discussions was the importance and availability of good quality mentoring in the workplace alongside identified flaws in the system by trainees for recording their progress, the PEDR’s. Trainees felt PEDR’s to be ineffective as they are too cumbersome, abstract and repetitive. Trainees acknowledged that a recording system of some kind was helpful for tracking progress and reflecting on it, in a way that could inform their future development, as such, recommendations included simplifying the recording system. 

Trainees also highlighted issues regarding assessments and appraisals of their PEDR’s. There were suggestions that it would be helpful to have standard, industry-wide arrangements for defining, communicating and monitoring practical training experience, with ARB setting standards. 

These additional findings, assisted the Commission to put together their case for change,  where they identified that changes to the regulatory framework are indeed required to improve the quality of practical experience available to students and others training to become architects. Their findings for changes were centred around four key elements:

• The first one being Moral - which identified that trainees deserve equitable, high-quality experiences and structured support.
• Another key aspect that they identified in need of addressing is the Economic factor. The current system is too lengthy, costly, and inefficient, disproportionately affecting those from less affluent backgrounds.
• Then is the Professional aspected, whereby gaps between academic and practical training undermine professional preparation and lead to unnecessary repetition and frustration.
• And lastly Social. Architecture lags behind other professions in addressing diversity, inclusion, and the integration of learning across contexts.

Based on these four key elements which made their case for change, the Commission proposed Six Principles for Reform:

• The first one places trainees’ needs and experiences at the heart of the reform. They have been required to take on too much risk, while the quality of their experience is far too variable and often involves conditions that are not supportive. Its is, therefore, recommended to provide more structured and supportive environments for them, and to increase the likelihood of them getting the good experience they deserve. 
• The second focuses on Simplicity, meaning making pathways to qualification clearer and less burdensome without lowering standards.
• The third looks at effectiveness in ensuring consistency and efficiency in acquiring competencies. The process of securing and navigating practical experience needs to be improved for trainees, but without compromising on the standards necessary to join the Register and while still allowing them to develop their competence at a pace that suits their personal circumstances. 
• Then the fourth addresses whole system thinking by recognising the interconnected roles of ARB, learning providers, and employers, how they interact with each other and contribute towards a trainee’s progress towards registration.
• The fifth key principle for reform focuses on regulatory consistency building on the new ARB framework, with its new Competency Outcomes and Standards for Learning Providers, while considering opportunities in its new Code of Conduct and new scheme for continuing professional development. 
• And lastly, looking at the future focus and ensuring adaptability to ongoing societal, technological, and regulatory change. The model through which people gain practical experience must be responsive enough to adapt to the future needs of the public and profession. 

So concluding the report, the commission outlined their three key recommendations to the ARB regarding reforming practical experience in architectural training:

The first one suggests the ARB reviewing its role and removing constraints in order to lead change and drive innovation by:

• Shifting from Time-Based to Outcomes-Based Assessment thereby replacing the minimum two-year practical experience requirement with a focus on demonstrated competencies.
• Removing the double counting rule and allowing practical experience gained during academic study to count towards registration, enabling more integrated and flexible pathways.
• Clarifying and encouraging innovation by updating standards and guidance to support blended and practice-integrated programmes. Encouraging learning providers to innovate and submit new qualifications that address both academic and practice outcomes.
• Promoting the use of “Trainee Architect” Title through seeking a legislative change recognising the professional status and trajectory of those in training.
• Maintaining the UK experience requirement given the specificity of UK regulations and professional context.
• Updating recency requirements, ensuring recent experience and qualifications are relevant at the point of registration, with additional assessment for those whose experience is not recent by completing an approved Record of Competency to record and reflect on their practical experience. Trainees to be required to have completed their final accredited qualification no more than two years prior to applying for registration. For those whose qualifications and Record of Competence are completed more than two years before their application to be examined by the ARB Competency Standards Group. 
• Release of new qualifications by learning providers for accreditation which addresses both academic and practice outcomes. It is envisaged that the current three-part approach is likely to be replaced by a two-part approach, some of which would begin outside of ARB’s accreditation arrangements. ARB has already started to review this but the commission outlined that they need to clarify the transition timeline to make it clear that providers can already submit proposals for blended qualifications.
• Generally, the ARB should evaluate the impact of these proposed changes alongside their wider reforms to initial education and training. 

2. The second recommendation made by the Commission is that Learning Providers should take a  coordinated and supportive role to facilitate the trainees acquisition of all the Competency Outcomes by:

• The ARB requiring that learning providers take a coordinating role in facilitating trainees’ acquisition of all the competency outcomes, including through partnerships with employers and structured placement arrangements.
• The ARB should also work with others, including professional bodies, to help coordinate and deepen links between learning providers and employers to provide guidance to practice mentors on their role in supporting trainees’ acquisition of the outcomes.
• Standardising the Record of Competency (ROC) meaning developing and mandating a streamlined, digital record-keeping tool aligned with the ARB’s competency outcomes, replacing the cumbersome PEDR system. The new record will clearly outline the expectations and requirements trainees’ will need to meet relating to the ARB Competency Outcomes. 

1. And the third and last recommendation made by the Commission is relating to undertaking significant improvements in workplace culture and securing support to strengthen how competence is gained, by:

• Ensuring that the ARB’s new Architects Code or supplementary guidance includes specific requirements on architects to support to trainees on their journey to registration. It should be clear that mentoring involves getting the basics of support right, so that trainees are positioned to succeed. 
• Requiring all architects to undertake CPD on mentoring to improve the quality and profile of mentoring and further improving the wider culture of the profession. Mentoring should take account of individual learning needs, including how progression may be affected by protected characteristics. 
• Issues around workplace culture should also be sought to be addressed namely low pay and poor working conditions, particularly for trainees from disadvantaged backgrounds. ARB should advocate for legislative changes to ensure all trainees are covered by minimum wage regulation and enhance mechanisms for reporting and addressing unacceptable professional conduct.
• The apprenticeship route should be maintained and the ARB should work with others to raise funding. The apprenticeship route combines paid work, work-based learning and academic study in ways which are highly valuable for the future of architectural education and training. 

The Commission envisions a future where:

• Training is more integrated, with academic and practical learning interleaved rather than sequential.
• The profession is more diverse, inclusive, and representative of society.
• Trainees are better supported, with clearer pathways, structured mentoring, and fairer working conditions.
• Regulatory and cultural barriers to innovation are removed, enabling a more flexible, efficient, and high-quality training system.
• The profession is equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century, including the climate crisis, technological change, and evolving societal expectations.

To sum up what I discussed today:

• The ARB commissioned a report in 2024 on reforming practical experience in architectural training, which aims to modernise the current system by shifting from time-based requirements to an outcomes-based model focused on demonstrable competencies.
• The Commission’s research highlighted significant inconsistencies, inequities, and outdated practices in the current framework—particularly affecting trainees from underrepresented and disadvantaged backgrounds—alongside concerns about toxic workplace culture and disconnection between academic and practical learning.
• Three core recommendations were made which included reforming regulatory requirements, enhancing the role of learning providers, and improving workplace culture, with actions like replacing PEDRs with a digital Record of Competency, mandating mentoring CPD for architects, and advocating for fairer pay and better trainee support.
• Six guiding principles were proposed to shape the future of training, including prioritising trainee experience, simplifying qualification pathways, ensuring regulatory consistency, and enabling the system to adapt to societal and technological change.
• These reforms signal a broader ambition to create a more inclusive, flexible, and supportive profession, ensuring that future architects are equipped not only with technical competence but also with the resilience and representation needed to meet contemporary challenges.