Category: Featured

  • HEI and the Nature of Work

    HEI and the Nature of Work

    Source link

  • A call for more transparent college pricing (opinion)

    A call for more transparent college pricing (opinion)

    Despite frequent media reports about the high cost of college, many students pay much less than the eye-catching sticker price. Students enrolled at four-year institutions living away from their parents face the highest sticker prices. But only around a quarter or fewer of those enrolled at public institutions (for state residents) or private nonprofit four-year institutions pay that sticker price. The remainder receive financial aid. Even most high-income students receive merit-based aid. How are they supposed to know how much they will have to pay?

    Here is how colleges and universities could help. They can provide students with tools that lead them through a financial aid “information funnel.” Provide limited financial details (just family income?) and get an instant ballpark estimate at the top of the funnel. Provide a few more details, get a better, but still ballpark estimate. Keep going until you get an actual price. Extreme simplicity at the beginning of the process facilitates entry; the funnel should have a wide mouth. If the result is below sticker price, it can promote further investigation. Along the way, positive reinforcement through favorable results (if they occur) supports students continuing through the funnel.

    Courtesy of Phillip Levine

    This approach represents a significant advance over past practices, as I detail in a report newly released by the Aspen Economic Strategy Group (AESG). Historically, colleges provided no preliminary estimates. Students filed their financial aid forms (FAFSA and perhaps CSS Profile), applied to a college, and received their admissions decision and financial aid offer (if admitted) at the same time. Who knows how many students didn’t bother to apply because they believed they couldn’t afford it?

    This began to change in 2008. The Higher Education Act was amended at that time to require institutions to provide “net price calculators” by 2011 that were intended to provide early cost estimates. Unfortunately, the well-intended policy hasn’t been very effective because these tools often are not user-friendly. They may represent a useful step higher up the funnel relative to the ultimate financial aid offer, but they remain toward its bottom.

    Other steps have been taken along the way attempting to provide greater pricing information to prospective students. The government launched new webpages (the College Navigator and the College Scorecard), which provide college-specific details regarding the average “net price” (the amount students pay after factoring in financial aid). But the average net price mainly helps students with average finances determine their net price. Besides, using the median rather than the average would lessen the impact of outliers. It’s a much better statistic to capture the amount a typical student would pay in this context. Additional data on net prices within certain income bands are also available, but they still suffer from the biases introduced by using the average net price as well. What students really want and need is an accurate estimate of what college will cost them.

    The most recent advance in college price transparency is the creation of the College Cost Transparency Initiative. This effort represents the response of hundreds of participating institutions to a Government Accountability Office report detailing the inconsistency and lack of clarity in financial aid offer letters. To participate, institutions agreed to certain principles and standards in the offer letters they transmit. It is an improvement relative to past practice, but it also is a bottom-of-the-funnel improvement. It does not provide greater price transparency to prospective students prior to submitting an application.

    Institutions have also engaged in other marketing activities designed to facilitate communication of affordability messaging. Some institutions have begun to provide offers of free tuition to students with incomes below some threshold. The success of the Hail Scholarship (now repackaged as the Go Blue Guarantee) at the University of Michigan supports such an approach. Many of these offers, though, do not cover living expenses, which is a particular problem for students living away from their parents. In those instances, such offers may be more misleading than illuminating.

    In 2017, I founded MyinTuition Corp. as a nonprofit entity designed to provide pricing information higher up in the financial aid information funnel. Its original tool, now used by dozens of mainly highly endowed private institutions, requires users to provide basic financial inputs and receive a ballpark price estimate. More recently, MyinTuition introduced an instant net price estimator, which is currently operational at Washington University in St. Louis, based solely on family income. Given the limited financial details provided, those estimates include some imprecision; the tool also provides a range of estimates within which the actual price is likely to fall. These tools are an easy entry point into the process, which is what the top of the funnel is designed to accomplish. More such efforts are necessary.

    If we could do a better job communicating the availability of financial aid, it would also contribute to better-informed public discussions about college pricing and access. One recent survey found that only 19 percent of adults correctly recognized that lower-income students pay less to attend college than higher-income students. It is a legitimate question to ask whether the price those students pay is low enough. But we cannot even start the discussion with such limited public understanding of how much students across the income distribution pay now. Any step that colleges and universities can take to facilitate that understanding would be helpful. Improving the transparency in their own pricing certainly would be an important step they can take.

    Phillip Levine is the Katharine Coman and A. Barton Hepburn Professor of Economics at Wellesley College and the founder and CEO of MyinTuition Corp.

    Source link

  • A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    Authored by Dr Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford.

    The loss of a student to suicide is a profound and heartbreaking tragedy, leaving families and loved ones devastated, while exposing critical gaps in the support systems within higher education. Each death is not only a personal tragedy but also a systemic failure, underscoring the urgent need for higher education institutions to strengthen their safeguarding frameworks.

    Recent government data revealed that 5.7% of home students disclosed a mental health condition to their university in 2021/22, a significant rise from under 1% in 2010/11. Despite this growing awareness of mental health challenges, the higher education sector is grappling with the alarming persistence of student suicides.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a rate of 3.0 deaths per 100,000 students in England and Wales in the academic year ending 2020, equating to 64 lives lost. Behind each statistic lies a grieving family, unanswered questions and the haunting possibility that more could have been done. These statistics force universities to confront uncomfortable truths about their ability to support vulnerable students.

    The time for piecemeal solutions has passed. To confront this crisis, bold and systemic reforms are required. One such reform – the introduction of an opt-out consent system for welfare contact – has the potential to transform how universities respond to students in crisis.

    An opt-out consent model

    At present, universities typically rely on opt-in systems, where students are asked to nominate a contact to be informed in emergencies. This has come to be known as the Bristol consent model. Where this system exists, they are not always invoked when students face severe mental health challenges. The reluctance often stems from concerns about breaching confidentiality laws and the fear of legal repercussions. This hesitancy can result in critical delays in involving a student’s support network at the time when their wellbeing may be most at risk, leaving universities unable to provide timely, life-saving interventions. Moreover, evidence suggests that many students, particularly those experiencing mental health challenges, fail to engage with these systems, leaving institutions unable to notify loved ones when serious concerns arise.

    Not all universities have such a system in place. And some universities, while they may have a ‘nominated person’ process, lack the infrastructure to appropriately engage the mechanism of connecting with the emergency contact when most needed.

    An opt-out consent model would reverse this default, automatically enrolling students into a system where a trusted individual – such as a parent, guardian or chosen contact – can be notified if their wellbeing raises grave concerns. Inspired by England and Wales’ opt-out system for organ donation, this approach would prioritise safeguarding without undermining student autonomy.

    Confidentiality must be balanced with the need to protect life. An opt-out model offers precisely this balance, creating a proactive safety net that supports students while respecting their independence.

    Legislative provision

    For such a system to succeed, it must be underpinned by robust legislation and practical safeguards. Key measures would include:

    1. Comprehensive communication: universities must clearly explain the purpose and operation of the opt-out system during student onboarding, ensuring that individuals are fully informed of their rights and options.
    2. Defined triggers: criteria for invoking welfare contact must be transparent and consistently applied. This might include extended absences, concerning behavioural patterns or explicit threats of harm.
    3. Regular reviews: students should have opportunities to update or withdraw their consent throughout their studies, ensuring the system remains flexible and respectful of changing personal circumstances.
    4. Privacy protections: institutions must share only essential information with the nominated contact, ensuring the student’s broader confidentiality is preserved.
    5. Staff training: university staff, including academic and professional services personnel, must receive regular training on recognising signs of mental health crises, navigating confidentiality boundaries and ensuring compliance with the opt-out system’s requirements. This training would help ensure interventions are timely, appropriate and aligned with legal and institutional standards.
    6. Reporting and auditing: universities should implement robust reporting and auditing mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of the opt-out system. This should include maintaining records of instances where welfare contact was invoked, monitoring outcomes and conducting periodic audits to identify gaps or areas for improvement. Transparent reporting would not only enhance accountability but also foster trust among stakeholders.

    Lessons from the organ donation model

    The opt-out system for organ donation introduced in both Wales and England demonstrates the effectiveness of reframing consent to drive societal benefit. Following its implementation, public trust was maintained and the number of registered organ donors increased. A similar approach in higher education could establish a proactive baseline for safeguarding without coercing students into participation.

    Addressing legal and cultural barriers

    A common barrier to implementing such reforms is the fear of overstepping legal boundaries. Currently, universities are hesitant to breach confidentiality, even in critical situations, for fear of breaching trust and privacy and prompting litigation. Enshrining the opt-out system in law to include the key measures listed above would provide institutions with the clarity and confidence to act decisively, ensuring consistency across the sector. Culturally, universities must address potential scepticism by engaging students, staff and families in dialogue about the system’s goals and safeguards.

    The need for legislative action

    To ensure the successful implementation of an opt-out consent system, decisive actions are required from both the government and higher education institutions. The government must take the lead by legislating the introduction of this system, creating a consistent, sector-wide approach to safeguarding student wellbeing. Without legislative action, universities will remain hesitant, lacking the legal clarity and confidence needed to adopt such a bold model.

    Legislation is the only way to ensure every student, regardless of where they study, receives the same high standard of protection, ending the current postcode lottery in safeguarding practices across the sector.

    A call for collective action

    Universities, however, must not wait idly for legislation to take shape. They have a moral obligation to begin addressing the gaps in their welfare notification systems now. By expanding or introducing opt-in systems as an interim measure, institutions can begin closing these gaps, gathering critical data and refining their practices in readiness for a sector-wide transition.

    Universities should unite under sector bodies to lobby the government for legislative reform, demonstrating their collective commitment to safeguarding students. Furthermore, institutions must engage their communities – students, staff and families – in a transparent dialogue about the benefits and safeguards of the opt-out model, ensuring a broad base of understanding and support for its eventual implementation.

    This dual approach of immediate institutional action paired with long-term legislative reform represents a pragmatic and proactive path forward. Universities can begin saving lives today while laying the groundwork for a robust, consistent and legally supported safeguarding framework for the future.

    Setting a New Standard for Student Safeguarding

    The rising mental health crisis among students demands more than institutional goodwill – it requires systemic change. While the suicide rate among higher education students is lower than in the general population, this should not be a cause for complacency. Each loss is a profound tragedy and a clear signal that systemic improvements are urgently needed to save lives. Higher education institutions have a duty to prioritise student wellbeing and must ensure that their environments offer the highest standards of safety and support. An opt-out consent system for welfare contact is not a panacea, but it represents a critical step towards creating safer and more supportive university environments.

    The higher education sector has long recognised the importance of student wellbeing, yet its current frameworks remain fragmented and reactive. This proposal is both bold and achievable. It aligns with societal trends towards proactive safeguarding, reflects a compassionate approach to student welfare and offers a legally sound mechanism to prevent future tragedies.

    The loss of 64 students to suicide in a single academic year is a stark reminder that the status quo is failing. By adopting an opt-out consent system, universities can create a culture of care that saves lives, supports grieving families and fulfils their duty to protect students.

    The time to act is now. With legislative backing and sector-wide commitment, this reform could become a cornerstone of a more compassionate and effective national response to student suicide prevention.

    Source link

  • Running a Workshop: Guidelines for Engagement and Impact – Faculty Focus

    Running a Workshop: Guidelines for Engagement and Impact – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Running a Workshop: Guidelines for Engagement and Impact – Faculty Focus

    Running a Workshop: Guidelines for Engagement and Impact – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • HEDx Podcast: Student ombudsman Sarah Bendall – Episode 153

    HEDx Podcast: Student ombudsman Sarah Bendall – Episode 153

    The new First Assistant Ombudsman in the Office of the National Student Ombudsman, Sarah Bendall, has a plan to hold universities to account.

    Six days into this new role, she sat down with Martin Betts to outline the background to the office and role, and how she plans to provide a route for students to ensure they have a safe, fair and secure experience.

    Coordinator of Welcoming Universities Cate Gilpin joined the conversation to ask Sarah what her short and long term priorities are and how she expects to action key reform areas outlined in the Universities Accord.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Food insecurity is a problem on campuses: How can we fix it?

    Food insecurity is a problem on campuses: How can we fix it?




    By: Cate Gilpin and Martin Betts

    in On Campus, Top Stories


    February 10, 2025

    Food insecurity is not just a growing issue at a societal level, it’s an urgent crisis for students at Australian universities.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Higher education institutions have invested time, effort and money in level 7 apprenticeships

    Higher education institutions have invested time, effort and money in level 7 apprenticeships

    Many readers might have had an experience along the following lines. You’re on a call, in a meeting, at an event – and someone just happens to let slip that they are doing a postgraduate apprenticeship through their work.

    Questions bubble up: isn’t this person someone in a position to fund their own studies? Or perhaps: don’t they already have a master’s degree? You might even be thinking: your manager really lets you duck out of work for training so often?

    Now this is pure anecdote – and forgive me if it’s not quite as frequent as I’m assuming – but it’s proved to be a pretty powerful one as debates over apprenticeships have percolated in the press and in the back of policymakers’ minds for the last few years. Allied with controversies over supposed “MBA apprenticeships” (or more recently, MBA top-ups and management training for senior executives), it’s led fairly directly to where we are now.

    The government has announced that “a significant number” of level 7 apprenticeships will be removed from levy eligibility in England. The accompanying enjoinder for employers to fund them by other means (if they so choose) is likely the death knell for most of the affected courses, given that without the incentive of levy spending they will largely look like ungainly, over-regulated and rather long bits of exec ed.

    Now we still don’t know exactly what decision the government is going to take. And Labour’s moves here do have other motivations – the policy intention is to stop employers spending their allowances on (older, already qualified) existing staff, and therefore give them a free hand to take on younger apprentices at lower levels, including with so-called “foundation apprenticeships”, though there is zero detail on how this shift in employer training priorities is expected to come about.

    But still – if this was the only priority, money could have come from elsewhere. The fact remains that level 7 apprenticeships have various black marks hanging over them, whether or not justified, which have made them a safe target to go after. Is it really a good use of taxpayers’ money to fund long and expensive courses of what is overwhelmingly in-work training?

    Whose fund is it anyway?

    A big part of the issue, however, is this sense that the levy is really “taxpayers’ money”. It isn’t – it’s half a per cent of an employer’s annual pay bill, assuming said pay bill is £3m or more. Alison Wolf’s recent report for the Social Market Foundation vividly spells out the issue here – employers have become hyper-aware of what they “owe” and are incentivised to spend it as fast as they can, a perverse incentive of the current system which has made level 7 programmes more attractive than policymakers assumed.

    Much of Labour’s current skills policies have their genesis in a period when employers were not successfully deploying their own levy contributions, and there was a question of how better to direct underspends. This is very much not where we are now. And there are many employers who are not well set-up to pivot to entry-level apprenticeships (think solicitors, for example), or who are stressing their own workforce’s need for higher-level upskilling and pursuing productivity gains rather than a larger headcount.

    It could be that the non-apprenticeship part of the growth and skills levy will help square this circle – employers will be able to invest in shorter, possibly more useful workforce training this way, rather than running headlong towards level 7 programmes as the only game in town. The problem is that the government has gone very quiet about this, and we have no sense of what kind of courses will be in scope here.

    And much like with the employer national insurance rise, it doesn’t seem to have been thought through how publicly-funded bodies are meant to respond here – NHS trusts and local councils being big users of the apprenticeship levy, by dint of their size. If the government doesn’t want them spending their levy funds on this type of provision, is it asking them to spend cash from elsewhere in their budgets?

    Caught in the middle

    Stuck between employers’ wishes and government’s aims (or the imagined taxpayer investment) are those education and training providers who have poured resources into making higher-level apprenticeships work. And when we’re talking about level 7 qualifications, it’s universities that have done a lot of the running.

    If you had said a decade ago that many if not most universities would be founding and scaling up teams dedicated to reaching out to employers, thinking about training needs, even coordinating levy transfers across partners and supply chains (as the Edge Foundation’s recent research found) – well, it would have sounded like something dreamed up by a think tank, a laudable ambition unlikely to ever come true. And yet, here we are.

    The Department for Education and Skills England may decide to limit only a couple of standards – as the chart below shows, simply scrapping the Accountancy and Taxation Professional and Senior Leader standards would dramatically change the landscape (though we’d likely be back in the same position in a few years having a similar conversation about the Senior People Professional and Systems Thinking Practitioner ones).

    But once the government starts taking a pick-and-mix approach to standards (as opposed to letting a properly independent arms-length body do so), it opens the door to it happening again and again. If there is a substantial defunding of level 7 apprenticeship standards, expect the next few years to see targets on the back of others, even at level 6 – and an accompanying disincentive for universities to keep pressing ahead seeking out partnerships with employers.

    The removal from levy eligibility of standards that currently have a high uptake will have an immediate impact on those providers invested in them. Below, DK has charted apprenticeship starts by higher education institution (and a few other public bodies as they are lumped together in the DfE data, though as you may have noticed above some for-profit universities appear in the private sector category instead).

    The default view in this chart shows level 7 starts in 2023–24, broken down by standards, so that you can plumb the impact on different providers of different approaches to defunding. And if you’re getting nervous about what else Skills England might fancy doing once it’s finally got the level 7 announcement out of the way, you can look at provision at other levels too.

    Source link

  • The barriers that must be removed for degree apprenticeships to meet NHS workforce targets

    The barriers that must be removed for degree apprenticeships to meet NHS workforce targets

    The recent notion that level 7 apprenticeships will be ineligible for support from the apprenticeship levy has caused consternation amongst training providers, especially in healthcare.

    Training providers and employers are urgently seeking clarity on the government’s position – the current “announcement without action” leaves stakeholders unclear about next steps and further risks the reputation and role of apprenticeships in skills development.

    The development of advanced roles in health or shortened routes to registerable qualifications significantly relies on level 7 apprenticeships. The NHS Long Term Workforce Plan is full of examples of how advanced and new roles are needed now and in the future.

    Once again, decisions are being made by the Department for Education without consulting or collaborating with the Department of Health and Social Care, which means that questions are left unanswered. It is not the first time that training providers and University Alliance have called for joined up thinking and, unfortunately, it certainly won’t be the last.

    Expansion of opportunity

    Health apprenticeships at the University of Derby started small with level 5 provision about ten years ago (subsequently expanding to levels 6 and 7) – we could not have foreseen the enormous expansion of opportunity both in health and other industries that would follow.

    I am proud to say that “I was there” when the nurse degree apprenticeship standard was approved in 2017 – the culmination of two years’ collaboration between the Nursing and Midwifery Council, government, Skills for Health, employers and training providers.

    There were challenges, but we made it, and it opened the door to transformation in how healthcare professionals are educated.

    A bumpy road

    But the journey remains bumpy, and apprenticeships seem to be experiencing a particular period of turbulence. New research conducted by the University of Derby on behalf of University Alliance demonstrates the need for change in how the levy is utilised, the importance of partnership working, and the support that those involved with apprenticeship delivery need in order to secure successful outcomes.

    While the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan of 2023 is itself being refreshed, we can be confident that apprenticeships will continue to have a significant part to play in workforce development. However, our new research has shown how and where employers and training providers need support to make this happen.

    Employers told us how expensive they find it to support apprenticeships, with apprentice salaries, backfill and organisational infrastructure contributing to the financial burden. We know that apprentices need significant support through their learning journey, taking time and investment from employers.

    To make apprenticeships truly successful, the support required is over and above that normally expected in healthcare programmes, yet apprenticeships are specifically excluded from the NHS Healthcare Education and Training tariff. This feels like a double whammy – no support from the tariff and no flexibility in how the levy could be utilised differently, meaning that the responsibility remains with the employer to resource.

    Equally, training providers reported the additional activities and responsibilities associated with the delivery of apprenticeships. The University of Derby has recently successfully completed its inspection by Ofsted. The week of the inspection required input from teams across the University, but the enduring responsibilities of compliance and record keeping make this a continuous activity for a skilled and specialist team.

    The Education and Skills Funding Agency then came hot on the tails of Ofsted – while this is not unexpected, it has again required teams from across the University working long hours to be audit ready. These inspections have served as a reminder of the regulatory burden placed on training providers, especially in healthcare.

    A matter of commitment

    Today marks the start of National Apprenticeship Week. At the University of Derby, we are hosting a week of activities and events, encouraging aspirant apprentices and a range of employers to come and find out more about what apprenticeships can do for them. It is heartening to hear that the number of young people coming to the campus this year has more than doubled since last year’s event.

    Finally, the word is beginning to spread about apprenticeships, and we find school leavers are increasingly well informed about their post-16 and post-18 options.

    The week’s events will be ably supported by our employer partners and apprentices, truly reflecting the partnerships that have developed over the years. These partnerships take a significant amount of investment on all sides – anyone in the vocational education and training world will know that strong partnerships take time and effort to build and maintain. But even the briefest of conversations with apprentices will tell you that it is all worth it. Their confidence, passion and knowledge (their skills and behaviours too) shine through. In a city like Derby, the awareness of the positive difference you are making not only to the apprentice, but also to their family and friends, is never far from your thoughts.

    It is difficult to know how the advent of Skills England will impact the pace and scale of reform, but the present inertia may set the country back – and it certainly will if a blanket approach to level 7 apprenticeship funding is adopted, and lack of join-up between DfE and DHSC remains the status quo.

    National Apprenticeship Week 2025 has the potential to be a force for good – and should be the week that all stakeholders commit to making a difference.

    Source link

  • A blanket removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships will damage government plans to boost infrastructure

    A blanket removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships will damage government plans to boost infrastructure

    Level 7 apprenticeship growth has been one of the higher education success stories of recent years.

    Our technical education system is weak by international standards, yet high level technical skills will be vital to the urban planning and infrastructure improvement ambitions of our current government, while at the same time boosting social mobility by allowing those who can’t afford to study on a traditional course at university the opportunity to gain a postgraduate qualification.

    It therefore would appear counterintuitive that the government has been hinting that many if not all level 7 apprenticeships could have their eligibility for levy funding removed, couched in language of prioritising spending on growing lower level and new “foundation” apprenticeships.

    This proposed redistribution fails to acknowledge that progression benefits apprentices at all levels, as those moving into senior roles create new vacancies or advancement opportunities via the positions they vacate.

    Build baby build?

    Nowhere is this clearer than in the built environment sector. The UK’s housing crisis is the pivotal issue that this government has promised to tackle. Their promise to build 1.5 million new homes by 2030 is ambitious – it has been labelled unachievable by the CEO of the UK’s largest housebuilding company because of skills shortages, and most councils are reporting that it won’t be possible to achieve.

    If such a goal is to be accomplished, it will demand highly skilled professionals to streamline planning processes, deliver housing projects, and support regional infrastructure development.

    At my institution, London South Bank University (LSBU), 70 per cent of our level 7 apprentices are on the chartered town planner standard. On a day-to-day basis they address planning bottlenecks and ensure that housing and infrastructure projects meet the various regulatory and environmental standards. Only last month the first level 7 chartered town planner apprentices in England graduated successfully from LSBU having joined their employer with no prior experience in the planning sector aged 18 after completing school.

    Over half of the employers we work with at LSBU on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of increased demand and reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful. The legacy of austerity has left one in four councils expecting to apply for an emergency government bailout in the next two years. If the Treasury decides to remove levy funding, employers will not be able to fill the gap.

    If the UK hopes to comply with the Future Homes Standard and the National Retrofit Strategy V2, more highly trained architects are required. The profession is in high demand but short supply – it had been on the Shortage Occupation List until the previous government abolished the list last April.

    Level 7 architect apprentices, of which LSBU currently train 78, design energy-efficient buildings and support urban regeneration. They contribute to both public housing schemes and private sector developments by driving innovation in sustainable construction and are already supporting the government’s ambition to retrofit five million homes by 2029.

    Growth ambitions

    In addition to their clear role in developing infrastructure, level 7 apprenticeships are vital for social mobility. They open doors for individuals from underrepresented groups, in part because apprentices earn whilst they learn and aren’t put off by the prospect of incurring student debt. A true leveller of the playing field, they provide excellent career progression opportunities and higher earnings potential. A greater proportion of our level 7 apprentices are from black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds (55 per cent) and are female (52 per cent) than those studying apprenticeships at lower levels.

    Most of our level 7 apprentices are under the age of 25, so the characterisation that they are simply the reserve of older learners is unfounded. For example, at LSBU, we provide tailored pathways for young learners to embark on higher level apprenticeships in regionally relevant sectors from level 2 to level 7 through our unique group model which includes London South Bank Sixth Form (a new technically focused sixth form academy concept) and London South Bank Technical College (the first technical college for a generation).

    Level 7 apprenticeships are central to this government’s ambitions around growth, sustainability, and equality of opportunity. Despite recent increases in uptake, they have actually accounted for a slightly smaller proportion of the total apprenticeship budget over the last couple of years.

    Every standard addresses unique challenges and supports sector-specific needs. A blanket removal of funding from level 7 apprenticeships will risk planning reforms and housing developments. At the very least, apprenticeships in the ten sectors prioritised by Skills England as growth-driving need to be protected from Treasury cuts.

    Source link