The government says that it wants to get more young people into secure, well-paid work more quickly.
That ambition, set out by work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden, sits behind recent apprenticeship announcements: faster approval of standards, a new apprenticeship clearing system devolved to mayoral areas and last year’s rollout of foundation apprenticeships.
Skills minister Jacqui Smith has indicated apprenticeships in areas such as leadership and management will be defunded.
This is significant: it highlights a policy direction where ministers will treat apprenticeships used primarily for employee workforce development differently from those used for career entry. The question is whether this emerging approach leads to a coherent strategy for young people or is simply an opportunity to defund specific standards that do not fit current priorities in order to make room for a continued top slice from the levy by the Treasury.
If ministers are serious about career entry for young people, then apprenticeship recruitment must become a priority and reform designed properly, leading to very significant growth in apprenticeship vacancies for young people and adults trying to start a career.
One system with two different purposes
With this in mind, the announcement that ministers will slash approval times for updating some apprenticeship standards remains welcome. The need to review standards every three years has existed for some time, but in practice it has proved difficult. With so many standards, it has never been fully delivered.
Apprenticeships currently try to serve two very different purposes with one set of rules.
On the one hand, there are standards aimed at upskilling of people already employed: often highly specific and tailored to the needs of large employers rather than SMEs. On the other, there should be broad, clearly defined pathways for young people entering the workplace for the first time.
These are not the same, yet the system largely treats them as if they are. Simply defunding employee upskilling is not the answer.
There is currently one minimum duration, a mere eight months, in place regardless of whether the apprentice is an experienced employee adding a management qualification or a 16-year-old starting from scratch. For workforce development, with prior learning, eight months may be perfectly adequate. For a young person entering the labour market for the first time, two years is more like the minimum time needed to develop occupational competence.
Defunding some management and leadership standards might suggest the government is preparing to differentiate between different parts of the apprenticeship system.
If ministers are intent on removing levy funding from workforce development standards, they must replace them with something employers can use their levy for effectively.
Simply closing down popular management or project management standards without creating alternative shorter, flexible levy-funded programmes will create understandable frustration among employers. We are already hearing this play out in discussions, particularly amongst those who have built internal progression routes around existing standards and some employers who do use management apprenticeships for career entry. If the government’s priority is the industrial strategy sectors then surely management within those sectors is a priority.
Short, high-quality workforce development apprenticeship programmes could sit alongside longer career-entry apprenticeships. If the government chooses to focus apprenticeships more clearly on occupational competence, this would help meet their manifesto commitment to make the levy more flexible.
But employers will still expect appropriate levy or co-funded routes to develop supervisors, team leaders and managers.
There’s work to do here: Skills England and DWP must also work through how to create the very significant growth needed in career entry apprenticeships.
“Clearing” must be built around providers
The proposed creation of a new apprenticeship clearing system devolved to mayoral authorities takes us to the heart of the biggest problem: access.
There’s no shortage of young people who want apprenticeships. Across the attainment spectrum, many now see them as an alternative to full time education, particularly university. The difficulty is vacancies.
The principle of a clearing system is long overdue, as the current model is fragmented. Larger employers advertise vacancies that young people can apply for directly, but that only works where annual recruitment is predictable and visible. SME employers, who may only take on one apprentice at a time, often operate below the radar.
Colleges and other providers try their best to match young people to opportunities locally, but there is no coherent application system comparable to UCAS. Without a structured application process in the first place, the idea of ‘clearing’ as a follow up makes little sense.
A meaningful system in mayoral areas should be built around providers rather than individual employers. In Year 11,12, 13 (and even later) a young person should be able to apply for a digital, health or construction apprenticeship through a local portal, expressing preferences as they would for higher education. Providers, acting as umbrella organisations for occupational routes, should coordinate vacancies with employers and manage interviews and offers, formalising what many already do informally.
Clearing would then be an ongoing process, not just a late-summer rescue exercise. The system would start while young people are still in full-time education and respond to vacancies throughout the year.
Devolving this to mayoral areas makes sense because labour markets are local. But it must go beyond a simple vacancy-matching portal. It should function as a structured, rules-based access system, with providers central and fairness embedded. Yet even the best application and clearing system cannot conjure vacancies that do not exist.
Foundation apprenticeships aren’t working
Foundation apprenticeships underline the scale of the challenge. With only a handful of starts since introduction, they have yet to gain traction.
Part of the confusion lies in their positioning. Labelled as level 2, they resemble what would previously have been considered pre-apprenticeship provision. They are intended as an entry point, allowing young people to test a sector and develop basic skills before progressing.
However, employers are expected to pay the apprenticeship minimum wage for what is, in effect, speculative activity. At around £8 per hour, this is well above youth apprenticeship pay in many countries with strong systems, particularly for 16 and 17 year olds. For smaller firms in particular, that is a significant barrier to overcome given the risk and reduced productivity involved.
If foundation apprenticeships are to succeed, they may need reframing as genuine pre-apprenticeships: college-based starts that transition into employment, or structured work trials before full apprenticeship status. Without that adjustment, they will not generate the additional entry-level vacancies the system needs.
Reform must be strategic
Recent announcements highlight a direction of travel and challenges for employers to grapple with. Faster reviews, clearing and foundation routes all acknowledge that young people need clearer and more reliable pathways into work.
The likely defunding of some management and leadership standards illustrates the government’s direction. But selective defunding is not the same as a strategy for young people.
Career-entry apprenticeships are fundamentally different from workforce development. They should be longer, structured and clearly occupational. Workforce development programmes can be shorter and more flexible. Both have a legitimate place in a levy-funded skills system.
If government removes one without properly designing the other, and without a clear strategy to expand vacancy-based opportunities for young people, then employer engagement will weaken and access will not improve. This will require a high profile employer leadership campaign, new incentives and programmes such as pre-apprenticeships.
If the overriding imperative is to get more young people into secure, well-paid jobs, then apprenticeship clearing cannot be an afterthought. It must sit within a broader redesign that separates purposes clearly, protects employer confidence in the levy, and actively grows real entry-level vacancies.
Without that, the rhetoric will continue to outrun the reality.
Your thoughts