The Apprenticeships Debate Rumbles On

The debate on apprenticeships at the Lifelong Education Institute’s Annual Conference brought together four leading voices to assess the state of England’s apprenticeship system. With major reforms looming, panellists examined whether the current framework delivers on social mobility and employer needs and also how it might evolve to serve learners at all levels more effectively.

Brand Erosion and the Real Costs of Level 7

Tom Richmond, Senior Fellow at the Social Market Foundation, opened with a stark diagnosis: the historic prestige of apprenticeships has been diluted by an increasingly expansive definition. “When employer needs define apprenticeship priorities,” he argued, “we end up with a mockery of the brand one that burdens levy payers with inflated costs and diverges from the original social mobility mission.” Richmond cited a striking cost disparity: £14,000 per learner for a Level 7 management apprenticeship versus £3,000 for equivalent non-apprenticeship provision. He warned that over‑investment in high‑level programmes siphons funds from foundational training that could support young and inexperienced workers.

Richmond’s remedy is clear: tighten funding rules to prioritise entry‑level and youth apprenticeship places, while reserving separate funding streams for Level 6 and 7 training. Such a reallocation, he argued, would restore the apprenticeship brand and refocus it on those who need it most.

Systemic Failure and the SME Challenge

Building on Richmond’s critique, Baroness Alison Wolf of King’s College London pointed to systemic failures that limit opportunities for young people and small businesses. Her research shows only one in four young applicants secure an apprenticeship, and apprenticeship opportunities in critical skill‑shortage areas are dwindling. “The system increasingly caters to larger firms,” she noted, “leaving SMEs which make up the backbone of the UK economy struggling with bureaucracy and rigid levy rules.”

Wolf’s proposed overhaul includes decentralising apprenticeship administration to combined local authorities, enabling each region to align programmes with its labour‑market needs. She also called for an improved network of training providers vetted for quality and capacity, and for levy rule changes that would channel more resources toward foundational and youth qualifications.

Defending the Status Quo, with Tweaks

On the other side, Ben Rowland, CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, mounted a robust defence of the current framework. He praised its employer‑driven design: “Employers know best what skills they need, and the breadth of apprenticeship frameworks reflects genuine demand across sectors.” Rowland cautioned that eliminating or curtailing Level 7 apprenticeships would destabilise recent successes in workforce development.

Instead, he recommended incremental reforms such as separating short‑term upskilling programmes from entry‑level apprenticeships to preserve the system’s unique “triple helix” model, which integrates workplace learning, classroom-based training, and employer oversight. According to Rowland, this structure underpins apprenticeships’ appeal to both young entrants and experienced professionals seeking career progression.

Professor Tom Bewick of Staffordshire University echoed this incrementalist stance, warning against “radical surgery” that could unravel a globally recognised apprenticeship model. Bewick celebrated the levy’s universality, its capacity to pool employer contributions and urged widening it beyond the current 2% of firms who pay. He also argued for refining existing apprenticeship standards in collaboration with sector stakeholders, rather than discarding them wholesale. “We’ve smashed the glass ceiling by creating all‑age, all‑level apprenticeships,” he said. “Our task now is to build on that achievement.”

Voices from the Audience

Audience contributions underscored these tensions and added fresh perspectives. Gareth John, CEO of First Intuition, praised Level 7 apprenticeships for widening access in professions such as accountancy and law 70% of his learners are under 24 and from state‑school backgrounds. In response, Richmond clarified that his reforms would not bar young people from advanced programmes but rather reconfigure funding to prevent displacement.

Johnny Rich of the Engineering Professors Council asked whether higher‑level apprenticeships should adopt fair‑access criteria akin to universities. Wolf agreed this could enforce equity but cautioned against additional complexity. Petra Wilton of the Chartered Management Institute highlighted the economic value of management apprenticeships, with research showing productivity gains in sectors like health care, points Rowland energetically endorsed.

Phillip Blond from ResPublica proposed segregating levy funds to shield youth apprenticeships while sustaining middle‑management training; Bewick observed that such fund segregation, coupled with broader employer participation in the levy, could address both aims without radical system overhaul.

A Landslide Result!

Perhaps not surprisingly, given an audience predominantly made up of apprenticeship providers successfully operating within the current system, the motion in favour of “radical surgery” was decisively rejected. If there’d been more employers or young people in attendance, the result might have been very different. But the debate revealed a great deal of common ground on all sides that the current system is far from perfect and needs reform.

Charting the Way Forward

As the Growth and Skills Levy and Skills England reforms take shape, policymakers face a central question: how to better focus apprenticeships on the needs of young people and employers without dismantling their core strengths? The consensus points toward a hybrid approach—protecting and expanding access for young learners, making incremental levy rule changes, and refining funding mechanisms to balance foundational and advanced training. The debate underscored a shared commitment to apprenticeships as engines of social mobility and economic growth. The challenge now is to come up with a coherent policy package that ensures the apprenticeship brand not only survives but thrives across all levels of lifelong learning.

By Andy Forbes, Executive Director, Lifelong Education Institute