More than six months on from the announcement of blanket defunding for level 7 apprenticeships, last week’s revelation that there will be an exemption for 16 to 21-year-olds could be seen as progress.
There is no doubt that Bridget Phillipson and her team want to get this right. The problem, though, is that this concession will have minimal practical impact because the government’s wider strategy of focusing apprenticeships solely on young people is fundamentally flawed.
As Sheffield Hallam is home to the National Centre of Excellence for Degree Apprenticeships and one of the largest providers of degree apprenticeships in the country, we have said for years that apprenticeships work best when they work for everyone.
And so, while it may be well intentioned, this caveat still does little to address the very serious concerns around the government’s overall policy towards level 7, and the knock-on effects it could have for apprentices, providers, businesses and the public sector.
The practical perspective
Even with the latest concession, the government is still essentially condemning level 7.
Very few 16 to 21-year-olds will be qualified to undertake these courses. In our current cohort fewer than 7 per cent of level 7 apprentices are under 21, which is not enough to viably provide these standards at all.
But, if the threshold were raised by even the smallest amount, say to the normal DfE categorisation range of 16-24, then already the picture looks different and some cohorts could run, and in really economically valuable sectors. For instance, on our level 7 architect standard, 6 per cent are under 21, while that climbs to over 90 per cent when we look at under 24s.
Caution needed
Even if the government’s stated intentions were financially practical, they would still bring about concerning consequences.
An age limit would essentially pull up the drawbridge on many young people who are progressing through apprenticeship standards. Many have been told – very much in good faith – that the system is designed to create progression and have started a level 3 or 4 programme with the intention of moving through the stages.
In these cases, apprentices would almost certainly be over 21 before reaching level 7, and therefore punished for their age – and potentially mis-sold what they expected would be a structured pathway of progression.
Another side-effect which must be closely considered is the disproportionate impact that these measures could have on public services, especially healthcare. Level 7 apprenticeships train people in desperately needed skills, for key industries including the NHS.
Our level 7 advanced clinical practitioner standard, for example, would not run if it were subject to an age limit – be that 21 or 24. Individuals have to have worked their way up in the NHS to be in a role that means they can evidence the knowledge, skills and behaviours necessary to enrol.
So, this is almost exclusively a mature market, which helps committed healthcare professionals to take the next step in their careers.
These are vital skills which the government surely does not intend to curtail. But, unless it changes course, the risk is very real.
The esteem gap
As much as anything, the path which the government appears to be taking is disheartening. The all-ages approach to apprenticeships, which we – alongside many others – have long championed, is about changing attitudes and increasing opportunities.
I have always said that we will only achieve cultural change and parity of esteem once we have a c-suite that has come through work-based routes – and this is finally beginning to happen. The fear now however is that this change will mean fewer decision-makers have direct experience of apprenticeships.
They will therefore revert to favouring traditional pathways based on their own lived experience, further impacting opportunities for young people.
This surely is not what the government wants. But, unless it thinks deeply and listens closely to industry as it continues to define its policy, then these may be the unintended consequences.
Loved your comment on c suite. From a university that is a bit rich. Not one exec coming from a work based background or understanding of apprenticeships
If your cohorts don’t work, then blend it with commercial students at commercial rates. It’s called marginal cost Dan. You will then be able to run the course. May be not make money but you are running it in publicly funded assets. I call that double funding.
As for your centre of higher education apprenticeships, take the sign down and save some electric and rebrand yourselves by blending commercial and publicly funded learners.
As for the nhs, there is plenty of money for them to arrange with you again to fund a course to deliver what is required
The gravy train has come to an end for you and your colleagues Dan so think creatively for a solution