The phrase “the middle solves the riddle” has been used to describe the UK’s productivity and skills gap at levels four and five, which is often highlighted as the problem. But an equally pressing challenge lies at the lower end of the skills ladder particularly at level two. For many, without access to entry-level apprenticeships, progression to higher levels is unlikely.
Level 2 and 3 apprenticeships in decline
Apprenticeship starts grew 1.3 per cent in the first quarter of this academic year. However, growth is concentrated at levels four to seven (over 9 per cent). Levels two three apprenticeships continue to decline, by 7 and 0.7 per cent respectively.
This is particularly significant for younger apprentices. Over half of level two apprentices are under 19, compared to one in 10 at levels four to seven. Yet 16-18 numbers remain stagnant. In the first quarter of 2024-25 just 32 per cent of all apprenticeships were started by under 19s, with little change in the last five years. Meanwhile, the number of young people not in education, employment, or training is rising: over 13 per cent of 16–24-year-olds in mid-2024, up from 11 per cent two years earlier.
The government is seeking to address these concerns with new “foundation” apprenticeships, the relaxation of functional skills rules and shorter apprenticeship durations.
But is there a problem with the apprenticeships themselves?
There are currently 132 different level two apprenticeships. Many struggle to attract meaningful learner numbers. In 2023-24, activity was recorded across 146 level two standards yet:
• 40 standards had under 10 starts.
• 37 had between 20 and 100 starts (100 is probably a minimum threshold for longer-term viability, competition and choice).
• Just 69 standards accounted for 97 per cent of all level two starts.
The top 10 level two apprenticeships represent over 53 per cent of total starts, none of which align with the eight government-designated growth sectors. Nor do they facilitate progression into these sectors, although two key underpinning areas, construction and health, are represented. Several are in low-paid, low margin industries. HM Forces training is undoubtedly valuable but probably replaces training that would have taken place anyway.
However, one feature of successful apprenticeships is their broad appeal. Niche apprenticeships such as express sortation hub operative (10 starts) have limited accessibility and exclude most SMEs. Young people and career advisors are unlikely to be aware of them, limiting uptake.
Such narrowly focused apprenticeships risk obsolescence as job roles evolve. Many could be consolidated into broader, more flexible standards; a general “horticulture” apprenticeship could encompass both sports turf operative (130 starts) and golf greenkeeper (410), offering greater career flexibility while maintaining sector-specific customisation.
General education in lower-level apprenticeships is lacking
Apprenticeships include limited general education – typically 100 hours of functional skills training, now relaxed for adults. This was already far less than Germany (480 hours) and Norway (588 hours).
Most sectors require transferable skills that span multiple job roles. Robust level two apprenticeships could embed these foundational skills – including emerging areas like artificial intelligence – while allowing for employer-led specialisation. Planned changes to end-point assessments may facilitate this.
Reform does not require drastic overhaul. Some apprenticeship standards should be phased out – but only if broader alternatives exist. Entry-level apprenticeships should be designed to function as stepping stones into high-growth sectors. Adding another layer through foundation apprenticeships may be unnecessary when existing structures could be improved.
A need to strengthen apprenticeship pathways
While level three apprenticeships share some of these challenges, specialisation becomes more relevant at higher levels. Rather than resembling a ladder, progression routes should resemble a tree – broad and strong at the base, with branches extending upwards and outwards into specialist high-value careers.
The government’s plan to de-fund most level seven apprenticeships will not increase level two or three starts but will weaken progression routes. Meanwhile, removing functional skills requirements for adults is bound to deter some employers from hiring younger apprentices and risks diluting the value of apprenticeships. Both policies jar with the government’s stated goal of breaking down barriers to opportunity.
The proposed level two business support assistant apprenticeship is a welcome addition, but the notion that all apprenticeships must be tied to distinct occupations needs reconsideration. Why not create a broad “business” apprenticeship that equips learners with transferable skills across multiple office roles? Such flexibility would improve accessibility and long-term employability.
Without well-structured entry-level apprenticeships, moving up the ladder (or climbing the tree!) and reaching the “middle”, becomes significantly harder.
I hope Skills England will work to avoid unintended consequences of apprenticeship reforms that could limit rather than expand opportunities.
Your thoughts