Last week an independent commission on professional practical experience (PPE) in architecture published the results of a year-long investigation, setting out a ‘roadmap for reform’ to transform how future architects get quality work experience. Chris Husbands, chair of the PPE commission (see full comment at bottom), said the current system placed ‘too much burden on individuals’ during their journey to becoming architects and that change was ‘both necessary and possible’. He told the AJ: ‘While there is evidence of very good practice, the fact is that current arrangements for practical experience are inefficient, inconsistent and, too often, ineffective.’Advertisement Among its headline recommendations, the report calls for the ARB to remove constraints to flexibility and innovation during the education of architects, for example by scrapping the need for all of the Academic Outcomes to be achieved before the Practice Outcomes in its new education system. The commission also demands thats schools of architecture – and any other educator under the broader ‘learning providers’ banner – should take a co-ordinating role in ‘facilitating trainees’ acquisition of all the Competency Outcomes’. It also wants ‘significant improvements in workplace culture’ in how competence is gained. The ARB set up the practical experience investigation following the findings of a consultation launched by the regulator into its once-in-a-generational reform of the existing architectural education regime and the scrapping of Parts 1 to 3. The  regulator had said it wanted to drop the minimum two years of professional practical experience needed to qualify as an architect, reducing the time taken to qualify as part of its drive to modernise and open up the current system. However, a majority of the 672 consultation respondents (60 per cent) had disagreed with the plans to remove the minimum duration of professional practical, mainly due to fears that the move could reduce standards.Advertisement As a result, the ARB committed to revisiting its proposals with the support of an independent commission. After carrying out ‘extensive engagement with a variety of stakeholders’, Husband’s team concluded: ‘The [current] two-year minimum [experience requirement] does not specify the range or nature of practice to be acquired, nor does it guarantee the quality of the experience gained. ‘It is also possible that the two-year requirement gives an overly optimistic expectation to trainees about their route to registration. The challenge facing trainees is often not in the regulatory two-year minimum requirement for practice, but in how practical experience is planned, managed and acquired.’ Husband added: ‘Our recommendations will involve change for almost everyone, but they will make a difference to the future of a vital profession. They will strengthen architecture, make training more effective and coherent, and make for a more diverse and inclusive profession.’ Too much responsibility and risk lies with trainees on their route to registration Responding to the report, ARB chair Alan Kershaw said: ‘The commission’s evidence is extensive in demonstrating that too much responsibility and risk lies with trainees on their route to registration, that this is not fair nor efficient, and that it must change. ‘Its report provides a compelling vision for how to improve the experience of those trainees and the opportunities to create that change. Such a transformation will be fundamental to how future architects achieve the competencies they need to deliver high-quality architecture.’ Other recommendations for the regulator to act on include: the ARB should describe anyone in the process of completing their initial education and training as ‘trainee architects’; the board should set minimum standards for a new streamlined and standardised Record of Competency (ROC), which must be used by schools of architecture; the ARB should require all architects to undertake CPD on mentoring; the ARB should work with others, including professional bodies, to ‘help consolidate and deepen links’ between schools of architecture and employers. Jack Pringle, chair of the RIBA board of trustees, said he was ‘encouraged by some of the findings’ from the commission’s report, but hoped it would prompt speedier action from the ARB on delivering educational reform. He said: ‘[To] ensure a brilliant and diverse pipeline of talent into the profession we need fresh thinking and new approaches, starting with modes of study, which should be more flexible and, in some cases, shorter. ‘We are particularly keen to see the development of a five-year admission to registration route emerging as a viable educational model, and will work with schools and the ARB to support this development. ‘However, education reform, particularly around practical experience, has been far, far too slow in coming and I hope that the ARB Board will now act quickly in response to the commission’s recommendations. In particular, recommendations that improve accessibility to the profession by removing unnecessary barriers to entry and requiring PPE to be outcome, rather than time-based, should be strongly encouraged.’ Pringle added: ‘Some of the recommendations have significant implications for learning providers, so we are ready to engage with ARB, students and practices to help ensure that all routes into learning and professional practice work for all.’ ‘Gaining practical experience is inefficient, inconsistent and too often ineffective – our recommendations will change that’ Chris Husbands, chair of the commission on Professional Practical Experience Chris Husbands Our recommendations will overhaul how new architects are educated and trained, giving them much stronger entitlements to training that develops their competence and professionalism. Our independent commission was established in February 2024 in response to concerns about the ability of trainees to access, thrive during, and succeed through their practical experience. Today our report, with our recommendations in full, has been published after it was presented to ARB. Over the past year we have listened to new architects, to learning providers and to architectural practices. We have reviewed responses to a public call for evidence and drawn on the findings from an ARB-commissioned study of workplace behaviours and culture. We have considered the coherence of academic and practical training, working conditions and support for learning in the workplace, trainees’ experience of learning, barriers to progression and potential regulatory changes. While there is evidence of very good practice, the fact is that current arrangements for practical experience are inefficient, inconsistent, and too often, ineffective. There is inconsistency in trainees’ experience. Excellent practice is not the norm. We suspect that these findings will not be a surprise, and we set out a case for change that is moral, economic, professional and social. The most important conclusion of the commission is that the problems future architects face in accessing high-quality professional practical experience are deep-seated and embedded in over 60 years of established habits. If change is to happen, then it will require cultural and behavioural change across the entire profession. The regulator, learning providers and architects’ practices all need to give much higher priority to the learning and development of new architects. As they do so, the rewards will be extensive. Our recommendations will build stronger relationships between learning providers and practices. And, perhaps most importantly, they will contribute to shaping a more confident and diverse profession, which is more representative of the society it serves. To this end, we recommend three interlocking changes requiring actions from ARB as the regulator, learning providers and practices. That word ‘interlocking’ is important: because current practices are so deeply embedded, a coherent approach is needed across the sector. The first major recommendation is that ARB must remove constraints to innovation; that means, for example, removing the requirement that all of its Academic Outcomes should be achieved before its Practice Outcomes, focusing attention on the competencies new architects need to demonstrate rather than specifying arbitrary time minima for practical experience and, as a result, allowing practical experience acquired as part of a qualification to provide evidence toward the acquisition of the Practice Outcomes. The second major recommendation is that learning providers should take a coordinating role in facilitating trainees’ acquisition of all the Competency Outcomes, either through fully integrated programmes or by much clearer signposting of routes towards successful acquisition of the Outcomes in future. This role should be underpinned by a new streamlined Record of Competency which must be used by all learning providers, helping trainees track and reflect on their progress. Our third major recommendation is that significant improvements in workplace culture need to be secured to strengthen how competence is developed. We know what good practical experience looks like. It involves paid employed work, with effective management and supervision, underpinned by the right support for individuals so that their work experience complements their academic journey to registration as an architect – and all in an environment where they’re treated fairly. We understand the profound financial challenges many practices face, but we want mentoring skills to become integral to the skill-set of all architects. Each of these overarching recommendations is worked through in detail in our report, and the recommendations reinforce each other to drive real change across the profession. As a Commission we found some exceptional practice, but we also met trainees deeply frustrated by their experiences of training. We saw enough outstanding practice to know what is achievable. Our recommendations will involve change for almost everyone, but they will make a difference to the future of a vital profession. They will strengthen architecture, make training more effective and coherent, and make for a more diverse and inclusive profession. Husbands is an expert in education policy and improvement, particularly in policy in relation to teachers and teaching in school. His achievements include chairing the independent Skills Taskforce on UK vocational education and training policy between 2012 and 2014 and being knighted for services to higher education in the 2018 Birthday Honours. He is also chair of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF), served as board chair of the Higher Education Statistics Agency and the Doncaster Opportunity Area Partnership Board until October 2022.