Looking Back At 20 Years Of Apprenticeships: What The Data (and people) Told Me
As apprenticeships are, by definition, an employment-based programme, you might reasonably expect the pattern of apprenticeship starts to broadly track trends in the labour market. Having worked in the sector for over 20 years my starting hypothesis was to the contrary – the labour market has had little impact upon numbers, while policy has been the key driver of fluctuations in apprenticeship starts.
20 Years of Apprenticeships
What followed, through research funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation was an attempt to test that idea by looking at apprenticeship starts over a long period, going back to 2006 and exploring to what extent my hypothesis was supported by data. That turned out to be much more challenging than expected. Getting hold of consistent, long-term data on apprenticeship starts is not as straightforward. Over time, definitions have changed, frameworks have been replaced by standards, and datasets don’t always align cleanly. Simply getting to a point where you can compare like with like across different policy periods takes a considerable amount of work.
However, once the picture starts to come together, it’s possible to look at trends in a different way, not just in terms of overall numbers, but in terms of what might be driving them, and this is where the hypothesis starts to hold up. Rather than closely tracking changes in employment or wider labour market trends, shifts in apprenticeship starts often appeared to coincide more closely with policy changes, funding reforms, eligibility rule changes, and structural changes to the system itself.
To explore that further, I spoke to a range of people who have worked in and around apprenticeships over that time, which added an important layer to the analysis – the data can show you what changed and when, but it doesn’t always explain why.
Shaped by the system they work within
What came through quite strongly from those conversations was the extent to which providers, of all types, were operating within the rules and structures in place at the time. Independent Training Providers (ITPs) are often associated with periods of rapid growth in apprenticeship numbers, and the data shows they have played a significant role in driving changes in volume. But the more I looked at it, the clearer it became that this is less about provider type and more about how different parts of the system respond to the infrastructure it is set within.
ITPs are often able to respond more quickly to changes in demand and delivery requirements and opportunities. Colleges, on the other hand, are more likely to be delivering programmes that are resource intensive, with higher set-up costs, particularly in areas requiring specialist facilities, equipment, or staffing.
Those types of resource intensive programmes tend to be more stable over time. They are harder to scale up quickly but less likely to contract sharply, simply because of the investment involved – provision is relatively consistent. By contrast, provision that is less resource intensive is much easier to flex in response to changes in the system, which helps explain why some parts of the apprenticeship landscape show significant swings over time, while others remain comparatively steady. Different parts of the system are not behaving differently by accident; they are responding to what is most practical and deliverable within the constraints under which they operate.
Short-lived Advanced Learner Loans for apprenticeships
Some more specific findings illustrate this point. One was the uneven impact of wider policy changes. For example, the introduction of the short-lived Advanced Learner Loans for apprenticeships appears to have had a noticeable effect on some areas of provision, while others were far less affected. In practice, this meant that some programmes such as business admin, health & care and customer service saw a clear drop off in starts, whilst others remained relatively stable. Interviewees suggested this may reflect differences in the value placed on these programmes by both learners and employers e.g. where salaries are lower or where career pathways are less clearly defined, the introduction of a loan reduced demand.
Another example is the growth of management apprenticeships. These programmes have expanded significantly, particularly at higher levels. But the data suggests that a large proportion of this provision is being taken up by existing employees rather than new entrants to the labour market. This doesn’t make them inherently problematic, but it does raise the question about how closely apprenticeship delivery is aligned with its traditional role as a route into employment.
Together, these patterns suggest that apprenticeships are not always tracking employment demand in a straightforward way. Instead, they are shaped, sometimes quite strongly, by how the system is structured and how it works in practice.
So what’s the purpose of apprenticeships and who are they for?
Over time, apprenticeships have taken on a broader role within the skills system. They are now expected to support new entrants, address skills shortages, improve productivity, and provide progression opportunities for those already in work. Individually, all of those aims make sense, but taken together, they may help explain why apprenticeships do not always align neatly with labour market patterns – they are being asked to do several things at once.
This is where one of the more practical implications of the research starts to emerge. If the aim is to grow apprenticeship provision in areas that are more resource intensive – often those linked to priority sectors and wider economic ambitions – then the key question becomes how the system supports that.
Currently, some of those apprenticeships are inherently harder to expand. They require upfront investment, specialist delivery, and a longer lead time to scale. Meanwhile, other types of provision can respond much more quickly to changes in funding and demand.
That suggests the challenge is not simply about encouraging more delivery in certain areas, but about understanding the levers within the system that make that delivery viable in the first place. Looking back over the past two decades, one of the clearest lessons is that the way the system is set up really matters. When the rules, funding approaches or requirements change, the way provision is delivered changes too. Patterns emerge not because they were planned, but because they were the most workable way of operating within the system at the time.
For me, one of the most valuable aspects of this work was being able to step back and look at the longer-term picture. Day-to-day debates about apprenticeships can sometimes feel quite immediate and reactive. Taking a 15 to 20-year view helps to put those discussions into context. It shows that the system has been through multiple phases of reform, each with its own priorities and trade-offs, and it highlights the importance of thinking carefully about how future changes might play out in practice.
If there is one key takeaway from this research, it’s that apprenticeship trends are not simply a reflection of the labour market. They are shaped, often quite strongly, by system design and by what is practically deliverable within that system.
That also raises a more fundamental question about purpose. If a growing proportion of apprenticeships is supporting existing employees, while at the same time the programme is expected to meet a wide range of economic and social objectives, there may be value in being clearer about where apprenticeships are the right solution or where other approaches to skills development might be more appropriate. Understanding that and being clear about what we want apprenticeships to do, and for whom, feels like a useful place to start for whatever comes next.
Richard Holliday is an expert in professional awards and technical education with over 20 years of experience in apprenticeships. His career spans both governmental and professional bodies within the science and engineering sectors.
Responses