The apprenticeship sector has waited with bated breath since Labour’s conference in September, when plans were announced to restrict employers’ use of levy funds on level 7 apprenticeships.
Back then I described the decision as “retrograde” and assumed all level 7 apprenticeships would be axed – or at the very least the cutting of public subsidy would be “pretty widespread”.
Last week, education secretary Bridget Phillipson gave the first proper indication of what the level 7 decision will mean after many months of lobbying.
Having rolled back from removing levy funding with no exemptions, she is making an exception for young people who start a programme when aged 16 to 21. I am now amending my opinion to describe the situation as both retrograde and ridiculous.
There will be no 16 and 17 year olds qualified to undertake a level 7 apprenticeship, and a very small number of 18 to 21 year olds.
The suggestion is daft and somewhat disingenuous
The suggestion from government is daft and somewhat disingenuous. Should an age restriction be necessary, a more appropriate starting point would be for those aged 18 and, if the argument for an all-age, all-level apprenticeship programme is now lost (regrettably), include (at the very least) 19 to 25 year olds.
Leaving 16 to 21 year olds as levy fundable for level 7 apprenticeship programmes will do nothing but seriously harm public sector plans to develop the skills needed.
Any NHS trust will tell you how important it is to have the right leadership and clinical skills to meet the challenges they face. They will also tell you that the level 7 apprenticeship training they have procured is making a significant and positive impact. The idea that they can pay for the vital training outside of the levy is “for the birds”, they will say.
The government’s changes mean level 7 skills gaps will remain, hampering the ability of the NHS to meet the needs of its communities. Indeed, restricting the use of level 7 apprenticeships for the key NHS roles that have been developed at that level seems entirely at odds with the government’s mission to build an NHS fit for the future.
NHS trusts will undoubtedly question why the government has raised the possibility of restricting their ability to use their apprenticeship levy to train key level 7 roles including community nurses, advanced clinical practitioners and a range of other key NHS occupations.
A question mark remains as to how the government wants apprenticeships to support the delivery of its industrial strategy and its focus on advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence and ‘making Britain a clean energy superpower’.
Level 7 apprenticeship standards tick all those boxes, training up advanced robotics engineers, sustainability business specialists, artificial intelligence data specialists, ecologists, process automation engineers and systems engineers.
It is well understood that over 80 per cent of the 2030 workforce are already in work in 2025. Level 7 should have a key role in developing the skills of the adult workforce.
Government will not deliver its five missions or its industrial strategy by overly focusing apprenticeships on young people. It is cakeism to assume that apprenticeships can be focused on young people and entry-level roles, while at the same time maximising their contribution to the delivery of the government’s five missions.
Skills gaps and shortages exist at all levels. In an advanced economy such as ours, skills gaps and shortages at higher levels are particularly apparent.
Individuals following technical and vocational programmes do not follow a linear trajectory. Social mobility does not just happen by the age of 21, it can happen and should be supported to happen throughout an individual’s working life.
Phillipson’s decision, it would appear, is driven by political posturing and positioning. Rather than spuriously limiting level 7 funding by age, the government could have considered expanding levy parameters to raise or retain additional funding.
This would have meant more types of apprenticeships could be supported, and allowed for the levy to address vital skill shortages in the NHS and the public and private sector more widely.
Your thoughts