Between 2017 and 2024 there was a 25 per cent reduction in the number of engineering apprenticeship starts in England. Underneath this headline statistic is the potentially more worrying one that in the same period, level 2 engineering apprenticeships starts fell by over 50 per cent. The High Value Manufacturing Catapult has been exploring this further by speaking to employers, providers, and young people who are considering their next steps. Against the backdrop of policy that is seeking to drive up apprenticeship opportunities for young people, we need to ask whether level 2 apprenticeships remain viable in engineering. Apprenticeships are a hugely attractive progression route for young people, with employers often receiving many times more applications than they have positions for. However, there are limited numbers of entry level opportunities and employers tell us that these need to be balanced against their experienced workforce, to ensure they can continue with their core business as well as training apprentices. Just because policy is driving more funding towards lower-level apprenticeships, it doesn’t mean that employers will have the capacity to take on more entry level apprentices. Our research further showed that employers are concerned about the risks posed by entry level apprentices. Government data shows that level 2 apprentices currently have a completion rate of 64 per cent, whereas those on higher level apprenticeships are much more likely to complete successfully. Taking on higher level apprentices is much less risky for employers, and this is shown by the net increase in all levels of engineering apprenticeships other than level 2. The standards themselves are increasingly becoming an issue for both employers and providers. Our research suggested that the content of level 2 apprenticeships is often not technically complex enough to give apprentices the skills they need for roles in modern engineering workplaces. However, some of the hand skills delivered are still valued. Providers discussed that it can often be expensive to deliver level 2 apprenticeships due to increased technical expectations and funding restrictions. One provider we spoke to explained how they roll level 2 and 3 apprenticeships together to provide a balance of hand and higher-level technical skills. The question remained as to whether the reduction of entry level apprenticeships in engineering is an issue or whether it is symptomatic of changing technical competencies in the workforce. For example, the original battery skills framework, published in 2021, made use of the lean manufacturing operator standard at level 2 for production line staff in gigafactories. But Workforce Foresighting data published in 2025 suggested that these roles were no longer relevant and that the base level of qualification should be level 3. Having level 3 as an industry entry point would undoubtedly freeze many young people out of engineering opportunities and would be detrimental to the provision of good career entry and progression routes. There needs to be a compromise to address these issues. One option would be to re-balance engineering apprenticeships in light of changing industry expectations. The use of academic levels has long been unhelpful when describing apprenticeships and addressing this through newly focused entry, intermediate, advanced and higher engineering apprenticeships would allow for greater relevance to employers and enable progression pathways to be clearer. Apprenticeships are not good at providing progression. And as they are focused in skilling someone for a role, you could argue they don’t need to be. However, showing clear progression routes from entry to higher level opportunities, with newly aligned capability outcomes, would better enable career development to happen. Entry level apprenticeship roles in engineering are disappearing for a wide range of reasons and simply forcing funding for the training component back towards them is not enough. Employers need to see the value of entry level opportunities and a rapid route to competence in the workplace, and learners need to see that they have opportunities to gain a foothold in an engineering career. The use of the statistics alone is too blunt an instrument to use to make decisions. There needs to be a fundamental and systemic change to secure the future engineering workforce.
Anon 17 April 2026 “Government data shows that level 2 apprentices currently have a completion rate of 64 per cent”. Completion and achievement are not the same thing. 64% is the achievement rate. The completion rate (more accurately described as the retention rate, those who were retained as a proportion of the leaving cohort), for level 2 is 65.6%. There are also big differences in employment status and stability between lower and higher levels. For example, 24/25 starts data shows that at L2, 21% were employed for 12 months or more at start, whereas in L4+ this was 60%. Differences in achievement rates are arguably reflective of the increased risk associated with new staff (not necessarily level). If DfE published achievement rates by level and employment length at start… New hires are inherently more risky. It’s not surprising that the levy triggered a drift towards higher levels and existing staff. If you have a new business cost (levy) and want to manage the impact, you take a risk management approach and look for certainty. The key question for the wider economy is whether the manager to worker ratio is now out of balance and is the structure/mechanics of the apprenticeship system and levy a hindrance or help. There are some really interesting factors that will come into play from the pivot away from higher levels, older learners and incentivising SMEs. Given that non-levy and lower levels have lower retention, how much drag will be created on achievement rates and in turn how much less ‘on-programme’ funding and 20% completion payments will be ‘earned’.