The Sacrificial Lamb: The End of Public Funding for the Level 7 Senior Leader Apprenticeship

The Cost of Pragmatism

A sacrificial lamb is a symbolic offering, not necessarily the one most deserving of blame, but the one most politically or economically convenient to give up. In public policy, such decisions are often framed as rebalancing or reform. But beneath these euphemisms lies a deeper pattern of whose voices are valued and whose development is deemed expendable.

DfE Withdrawing Funding for Level 7 Senior Leader Apprenticeship for Apprentices aged 22 and over

This metaphor has found a very real application in the Department for Education’s decision to withdraw funding for the Level 7 Senior Leader Apprenticeship (SLA) for apprentices aged 22 and over, effective January 2026. This policy shift, positioned as a strategic reallocation to prioritise entry-level skills, has sparked debate across sectors. Yet beneath the surface lies a more troubling narrative: one that pits apprentice against apprentice, and in doing so, reinforces socio-economic divides under the guise of efficiency.

Let me be transparent — I write this not only as a professional in higher education and apprenticeship delivery, but also as a current Senior Leader apprentice myself. I am just three weeks away from my End Point Assessment. My background is far removed from the caricature of privilege that so often accompanies commentary about Level 7 apprenticeships. I’m not on a six-figure salary, I wasn’t born into a network of professional advantage, and I don’t come from a family of trust funds. I grew up in a small village in the heart of South Yorkshire’s coalfields — a place deeply marked by the social and economic consequences of the mid-80s miners’ strike. That context shaped me, and it shaped my understanding of why accessible education at all levels matters.

Understanding the Level 7 Senior Leader Apprenticeship

Since its inception, the SLA has played a central role in equipping senior professionals with strategic leadership capabilities. Originally tied to master’s level qualifications — most notably the MBA — the SLA became a powerful yet politically charged feature of the Tory apprenticeship landscape.

From the beginning, it drew criticism. Seen by some as a policy manoeuvre to demonstrate that apprenticeships were no longer just for school leavers, the SLA became a target for media and political commentary. Its association with the MBA in particular sparked backlash, with headlines branding it a “middle-class grab” on public funding. This perception eventually led to the removal of the MBA as a mandatory component, a decision made in an attempt to preserve the integrity of the standard while responding to mounting political pressure.

Despite efforts to adjust its image, the SLA continued to attract scrutiny, often used as a symbol in broader debates about the purpose and beneficiaries of the apprenticeship system. Yet, in practice, it enabled a broad range of socio-economic learners to gain strategic leadership skills, many of whom would not have otherwise accessed level seven.

From Pragmatism to Prejudice: The Framing of Reform

The official rationale is that this is a budget rebalancing exercise. As the Department for Education frames it, moving funding toward lower levels will provide greater impact and wider access.

But this framing is misleading.

In my January 2025 FE News article, I challenged the false narrative that pits entry-level and degree-level apprenticeships against each other. This binary choice — support school leavers or invest in professionals — is both artificial and damaging. We need both. The apprenticeship system must support progression at every stage of a career, not just its beginnings.

This new policy sets up a two-tier system. If you’re 21 or younger, your learning is valued. If you’re older, your development is a luxury — one that the state will no longer fund. Far from advancing equal opportunity, this decision entrenches inequality by limiting access to leadership development for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

The ‘Ideal Pupil’

To understand the implications of this change, we can turn to Amelia Hempel-Jorgensen’s (2009) work on the construction of the ‘ideal pupil’. Her ethnographic study across socio-economically contrasting schools showed how working-class pupils were often shaped by pedagogies focused on discipline and compliance, whereas middle-class pupils experienced more open, personalised learning. The ‘ideal pupil’ in the former setting was quiet, obedient, and undemanding; in the latter, they were creative, questioning, and autonomous.

Now, let’s apply that same lens to apprenticeship policy.

Who is the ideal apprentice in the current model? Increasingly, it’s the young, early-career learner. Not because this group achieves greater outcomes, but because their funding is less contentious, their participation politically popular, and their development easier to frame as an ‘investment’. In contrast, the older professional, often juggling work, family, and career development, becomes problematic. They are too expensive. Too complex. Too difficult to fit into the neat performative metrics that the system increasingly demands.

Howard S. Becker’s foundational work on social class variation in the teacher-pupil relationship (1952) helps us dig deeper. Becker noted that teachers’ perceptions and expectations were shaped by the socio-economic background of their students. Middle-class pupils were more likely to be seen as capable, engaged, and deserving of development. Working-class pupils were more often seen as discipline problems or as lacking in aspiration.

By withdrawing funding from senior apprenticeships — disproportionately used by older, often working-class professionals in public service — the system now re-centres its efforts on a narrow profile of learner. One whose background, age, and cost fits the ideal. The policy doesn’t just cut funding; it cuts opportunity, credibility, and long-term leadership potential from the communities that arguably need it most.

The Threat to the Professional Apprenticeship

The decision to preserve solicitor and accountancy apprenticeships while axing others is revealing. It speaks not to merit or need, but to perceived prestige and political acceptability. These professions — historically middle class, institutionally embedded, and closely linked to traditional career ladders — retain their funding not because they are fairer or more impactful, but because they are more familiar.

What this move reinforces is the idea that some professional learning is worth investing in — and some is not. This sets a dangerous precedent. It implicitly ranks apprenticeships by their perceived class value, favouring those associated with elite or regulated professions while abandoning leadership in healthcare, education, or local government.

In short, the government has decided which professions are worth upskilling through employer taxation and which are not.

The fallout from this decision will not be theoretical. Public and private sector employers — already facing major challenges around retention, recruitment, and succession planning — now face the loss of one of the few truly popular and “in-demand” apprenticeships. For many in the NHS, Manufacturing, Financial Services or education, the SLA was the first opportunity to pursue structured, funded leadership training. Without it, career development becomes discretionary, reliant on stretched CPD budgets, and increasingly out of reach for those from non-traditional backgrounds.

Reproducing Inequality Through Policy

Becker’s and Hempel-Jorgensen’s research show us how institutional assumptions — about learners, worth, and capacity — shape outcomes. Policy is not neutral. It reproduces the values, biases, and hierarchies of those who write it.

By framing the SLA as a luxury and removing funding on the basis of age, the government has chosen to replicate a model in which only certain types of learning and learners are prioritised. If we are serious about equal opportunity, lifelong learning, and workforce transformation, we must resist policies that pit one type of learner against another. We must demand a system that supports progression — from entry level to leadership — and values all forms of growth.

The SLA may be the sacrificial lamb. But it must not become the precedent.

By Thomas Burton, Head of Apprenticeship Delivery, York St John University

References

Becker, H. S. (1952). Social class variation in the teacher-pupil relationship. Journal of Educational Sociology, 25(8), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.2307/2264096

Hempel-Jorgensen, A. (2009). The construction of the ‘ideal pupil’ and pupils’ perceptions of ‘misbehaviour’ and discipline: Contrasting experiences from a low-socio-economic and a high-socio-economic primary school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690902954612

Burton, T. (2025, January). The false narrative between entry-level and degree-level apprenticeships is a distraction from the real task at hand. FE News. https://www.fenews.co.uk/exclusive/the-false-narrative-between-entry-level-and-degree-level-apprenticeships-is-a-distraction-from-the-real-task-at-hand/