Apprenticeships are frequently cited as being good for social mobility, but it’s not clear what this really means. If it’s relative social mobility, which compares the chances of people from different social backgrounds reaching a specific outcome (such as getting a degree or securing a ‘professional’ or ‘managerial’ job), it’s difficult to tell.
The Social Mobility Commission argues that absolute mobility carries greater importance. This refers to the proportion of people who have experienced social mobility in some form (e.g. being in a higher occupation level than their parents). This is enabled by change in the occupational structure – a greater number of higher skilled jobs means more people can “move up”. And if measured by income, it means living standards increasing from one generation to another.
There’s still an absence of systematic evidence but it seems that apprenticeships have a significant role in improving this kind of social mobility. It’s not so much about comparing who (from which socio-economic background), gets onto what programmes but about the way apprenticeships support growth to bring wider benefits in terms of improved jobs and higher pay. In this way apprenticeships can help create a rising tide, which lifts all boats.
Our apprenticeship strategy, however, appears to have persistent difficulties, with ambitious targets being repeatedly missed. A three million apprenticeships target, set between 2015 and 2020, fell short by almost 1 million. With drop-out rates much higher than those in the education sector, there’s an ongoing debate over standards and the definition of an apprenticeship.
The apprenticeship levy is criticised for underspending and not serving the needs of SMEs, while employers leading in the current system spend their levy allocations in ways that make policy commentators wince. Degree apprenticeships, upskilling their existing (older) workforce, has often taken priority over younger people starting their careers, especially those with lower qualifications and more deprived social backgrounds.
Some solutions appear to help, but may hinder social mobility. The government is looking to defund level seven apprenticeship programmes to reallocate resources to disadvantaged young people much earlier on in their careers, which may appear to support social mobility. But it could impact growth, which would undermine social mobility in other ways. Similarly, the commitment to expand the volume of apprenticeships by 10,000 has to be welcomed because it will bring a greater number of skilled opportunities, but the decision to shorten the length of the apprenticeship is less welcome because it re-opens issues around quality and brand integrity.
The decision to relax the requirement for English and maths for adult apprentices could be seen as opening opportunity (why make them compulsory if they can be occupationally competent without them), or closing it (not having English and maths prevents them from progressing later on) – but it could have unforeseen implications. What if 16 -18 year olds realise that they can avoid English and maths if they wait until 19 to start their apprenticeship? And of even greater concern, are the wider social and economic implications.
As the Learning and Work Institute chief executive Stephen Evans explained, this is not a good time to reduce the English and maths requirements of any educational programmes because of our national problem with low literacy and numeracy. The OECD shows that while there has been some improvement for young people, the situation for adults has deteriorated across some measures. From this perspective the new policy is a retrograde step. From a social mobility perspective, it’s a terrible mistake. Those adults are not just training for work but for life, and parents with low literacy and numeracy are highly likely to produce children with similar challenges.
When we questioned our college’s 2025 intake on social mobility issues, the data showed strong correlations between family circumstances, areas of residence, parental qualifications and levels at which students are studying. This accords with wider evidence about the inter-generational dimension of low qualifications, low literacy and low numeracy.
The Social Mobility Commission is calling for policy to refocus on the “truly disadvantaged”. In an economy driven by knowledge, and a society where status is closely associated with educational attainment, literacy and numeracy have to be priorities for investment. For a government committed to extending opportunity for all, the commitment should be for more English and maths in post-16 learning, properly resourced and funded and taught by experts paid accordingly.
Your thoughts