Tag: Apprenticeships

  • Defunding level 7 apprenticeships in health and care may backfire on lower levels

    Defunding level 7 apprenticeships in health and care may backfire on lower levels

    Well, it finally happened. Level 7 apprenticeship funding will disappear for all but a very limited number of younger people from January 2026.

    The shift in focus from level 7 to funding more training for those aged 21 and under seems laudable – and of course we all want opportunities for young people – but will it solve or create more problems for the health and social care workforce?

    The introduction of foundation apprenticeships, aimed at bringing 16- to 21-year-olds into the workforce, includes health and social care. Offering employer incentives should be a good thing, right?

    Care is not merely a job

    Of course we need to widen opportunities for careers in health and social care, one of the guaranteed growth industries for the foreseeable future regardless of the current funding challenges. But the association of foundation apprenticeships with those not in education, employment or training (NEETs) gives the wrong impression of the importance of high-quality care for the most vulnerable sectors of our society.

    Delivering personal care, being an effective advocate, or dealing with challenging behaviours in high pressured environments requires a level of skill, professionalism and confidence that should not be incentivised as simply a route out of unemployment.

    Employers and education providers invest significant time and energy in crafting a workforce that can deliver values-based care, regardless of the care setting. Care is not merely a job: it’s a vocation that needs to be held in high esteem, otherwise we risk demeaning those that need our care and protection.

    There are already a successful suite of apprenticeships leading to careers in health and social care, which the NHS in particular makes good use of. Social care providers (generally smaller employers) report challenges in funding or managing apprenticeships, but there are excellent examples of where this is working well.

    So, do we need something at foundation level? How does that align with T level or level 2 apprenticeship experiences? If these pathways already exist and numbers are disappointing, why bring another product onto the market? And are we sending the correct message to the wider public about the value of careers in health and social care?

    Career moves

    The removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships serves as a threat to the existing career development framework – and it may yet backfire on foundation or level 2 apprenticeships. The opportunity to develop practitioners into enhanced or advanced roles in the NHS is not only critical to the delivery of health services in the future, but it also offers a career development and skills escalator mechanism.

    By removing this natural progression, the NHS will see role stagnation – which threatens workforce retention. We know that the opportunity to develop new skills or move into advanced roles is a significant motivator for employees.

    If senior practitioners are not able to move up, out or across into new roles, how will those entering at lower levels advance? Where are the career prospects that the NHS has spent years developing and honing? Although we are still awaiting the outcome of the consultation around the 10-year plan – due for publication this week with revisions to the long-term workforce plan to follow – I feel confident in predicting that we will need new roles or skill sets to successfully deliver care.

    So, if no development is happening through level 7 apprenticeships, where is the money going to come from? The NHS has been suggesting that there will be alternative funding streams for some level 7 qualifications, but this is unlikely to offer employers the flexibility or choice they had through the levy.

    Could level 6 be next?

    Degree apprenticeships at level 6 have also come in for some criticism about the demographics of those securing apprenticeship opportunities and how this has impacted opportunities for younger learners – an extrapolation of the arguments that were made against level 7 courses.

    Recent changes to the apprenticeship funding rules, requirements of off the job training and the anticipated changes to end-point assessment could lead to pre-registration apprenticeships in nursing and allied health being deemed no longer in line with the policy intent because of the regulatory requirements associated with them.

    The workforce plan of 2023 outlined the need for significant growth of the health and social care workforce, an ambition that probably is still true although how and when this will happen may change. Research conducted by the University of Derby and University Alliance demonstrated some of the significant successes associated with apprenticeship schemes in the NHS, but also highlighted some of the challenges. Even with changes to apprenticeship policy, these challenges will not disappear.

    Our research also highlighted challenges associated with the bureaucracy of apprenticeships, the need for stronger relationships between employers and providers, flexibility in how the levy is used to build capacity and how awareness of the apprenticeship “brand” needs to be promoted.

    A core feature of workforce development

    The security of our future health and social care workforce lies in careers being built from the ground up, regardless of whether career development is funded by individuals themselves or via apprenticeships. However, the transformative nature of apprenticeships, the associated social mobility, the organisational benefits and the drive to deliver high quality care in multiple settings means that we should not be quick to walk further away from the apprenticeship model.

    Offering apprenticeships at higher (and all) academic levels is critical to delivering high quality care and encouraging people to remain engaged in the sector.

    So, as Skills England start to roll out change, it is crucial that both the NHS and higher education remain close to policymakers, supporting and challenging decisions being made. While there are challenges, these can be overcome or worked through. The solutions arrived at may not always be easy, but they have to be evidence-based and fully focused on the need to deliver a health and social care workforce of which the UK can be proud.

    Source link

  • The Role of Apprenticeships: Cultivating an Entrepreneurial Mindset in UK Higher Education

    The Role of Apprenticeships: Cultivating an Entrepreneurial Mindset in UK Higher Education

    • Gary Gillon is a lecturer in business and management at the University of the West of Scotland. Alan Martin is a lecturer in enterprise at the University of the West of Scotland. Dr Robert Crammond is a senior lecturer in enterprise at the University of the West of Scotland.

    In its competitive market, the UK’s universities face growing pressure to be enterprising and produce graduates with real-world skills and innovative thinking. Employers frequently voice concerns about graduates lacking practical skills required in today’s workplace. At the same time, a new generation of students is more entrepreneurial and digitally agile than ever.

    A 2023 survey published by the Association of Accounting Technicians found 64% of Generation Z (aged 16 – 25) have started or plan to start their own business, in addition to nearly 5,000 start-ups that were established in UK universities during the 2022-2023 academic session.

    With regards to university students specifically, around 27% are managing a business (around 14.4% amongst graduates) or intend to do so. A good figure, but it represents a fraction of the overall student population: so what are universities missing?

    Bridging this gap between academic learning and enterprise-ready skills is critical. One promising solution, which links universities and industry, lies in apprenticeships. Called Graduate Apprenticeships (GAs) in Scotland or Degree Apprenticeships (DAs) in England, these programmes combine university study with paid and relevant work experience.

    By design, GAs or DAs place students in work-based projects from day one, nurturing an entrepreneurial mindset through hands-on problem-solving, collaboration with industry, and continuous skills development. Through this comprehensive work-integrated learning model, students simultaneously acquire practical expertise while pursuing a degree qualification.

    Bridging Theory and Practice through Apprenticeships

    Admired by politicians and desired by university management wishing to bolster their institutional offering, apprenticeships have become an integral policy instrument for addressing skills shortages in fields from STEM to digital technology.

    Introduced in 2016, they have been central to Scotland’s efforts to reduce youth unemployment. The appeal of the GA pathway is clear: apprentices earn a wage, gain a degree, and directly apply academic theory to workplace projects. Government and industry bodies recognise the value of GAs for building a skilled, innovative workforce.

    The Scottish Government’s Future Skills Action Plan (2019) highlights the role of work-based learning in addressing skills gaps and promoting economic growth. Similarly, the UK Innovation Strategy (2021) identifies apprenticeships as essential for creating an “innovation-ready workforce”.

    In short, apprenticeships effectively bridge the gap between knowing and doing and naturally encourage an entrepreneurial way of thinking far better than traditional lecture-based university programmes, producing graduates who are work-ready and adept at translating theory into practice. In addition, they reward lifelong learning and lead to the gaining of new knowledge, experiencing varied modes of learning, and the acquisition of relevant skills development for today’s organisations and markets.

    However, forms of apprenticeships have their critics. Equitable, structured accessibility and supportive routes towards the degree award, amidst low completion rates and arguable bureaucracy, remain particular challenges.

    Therefore, drastic reform on regulation and administration, as well as an image change to increase the desirability of apprenticeships to meet demand, are needed.

    This can be achieved through universities highlighting enterprising and business growth benefits as key outcomes of the apprenticeship programme.

    Entrepreneurship in Action, Not Just in Theory

    A common criticism of higher education, often expressed in media outlets, is that it teaches ‘about’ entrepreneurship rather than providing opportunities ‘for’ entrepreneurship. Apprenticeships flip this script. By spending most of their time on industry projects, apprenticeship students learn entrepreneurship by doing: identifying opportunities, testing ideas, implementing solutions and seeing results. This ‘learning by doing’ approach is far more effective than studying entrepreneurship only in theory, and apprenticeships exemplify its success.

    Hands-on work-based learning projects allow students to generate original solutions to real needs and act on them even as conditions change. This is the essence of the entrepreneurial mindset. Crucially, the aim of apprenticeships is not to turn every student into a start-up founder, but to instil entrepreneurial thinking that applies in any context, including within established organisations.

    Many apprentices initially see themselves as employees rather than ‘entrepreneurs’, so educators frame entrepreneurship as personal development, taking initiative, adapting to change, and solving problems on the job. By graduation, apprenticeship students may still pursue a conventional career but carry an entrepreneurial mindset that drives them to innovate and add value in any role. In essence, universities are creating intrapreneurs with the initiative and vision to act like entrepreneurs inside established companies.

    Key Skills Developed on the Job

    Fostering an entrepreneurial mindset requires developing a broad suite of skills and attributes. Apprenticeships are uniquely positioned to strengthen these through on-the-job learning.

    These include:

    1. opportunity recognition (spotting inefficiencies and identifying opportunities for improvement),
    2. creative problem-solving (inventing solutions under real constraints),
    3. comfort with uncertainty (making decisions with incomplete information and learning from failure),
    4. self-direction (taking initiative and managing projects independently),
    5. communication (building professional relationships), and
    6. resilience (maintaining a work-life balance).

    These are qualities employers seek in graduates. A national survey of hiring managers identified such traits as key markers of ‘work-ready’ graduates. By embedding these capabilities, Apprenticeships produce alumni who are not only academically qualified but also primed to drive innovation.

    Developing an Entrepreneurial Culture for All Students

    Maximising the impact of apprenticeships and making them more appealing requires universities to actively build a supportive entrepreneurial culture. This means going beyond isolated modules or one-off initiatives and making enterprise and innovation a core part of the learning experience.

    The University of the West of Scotland (UWS) provides a compelling example. UWS has promoted an ‘entrepreneurial mentality’ across its Business Management portfolio. Initiatives include a Student Innovation Hub where students, staff and industry partners collaborate on projects to expand their knowledge and skills around innovation and entrepreneurship in one space that leads to industry recognition.  

    Other universities are taking similar steps, integrating entrepreneurship into curricula and extracurricular activities, leveraging alumni and partners to provide students with project opportunities. Some universities have set up innovation hubs or incubators accessible to all students, offering resources to help turn ideas into ventures. This inclusive approach ensures that even those who do not identify as ‘entrepreneurs’ can gain entrepreneurial experience – whether by launching a social initiative, improving a workplace process, or starting a side business.

    By normalising entrepreneurial activity as a valued part of education, universities help students see it as a natural extension of their studies rather than a risky deviation. Combining this notion with apprenticeship offerings affirms the university as being at the service of its immediate community, transforming individuals and businesses, and contributing to local and regional economic growth.

    Professional Insights and Recommendations

    To fully realise the potential of apprenticeships in developing entrepreneurial mindsets, universities, employers and policymakers must work together. Here, we outline our recommendations:

    • Integration of entrepreneurship across the curriculum: embed entrepreneurial projects and assessments in all disciplines. National funding initiatives in Scotland already encourage such integration.
    • Empower and mentor educators: academic staff delivering apprenticeship programmes need targeted support and recognition. Well-supported educators can better guide apprentices in recognising opportunities, creating and building resilience.
    • Leverage alumni and industry networks: involve successful entrepreneurs and industry leaders in apprenticeship programmes as in-residence professionals or guest speakers. This gives apprentices expanded networks and firsthand insight into entrepreneurial careers.

    Conclusion: Shaping an Entrepreneurial Generation

    Universities appreciate that an entrepreneurial mindset is increasingly essential for creating value, whether someone is founding a company, driving change within an existing organisation, or thriving within an enterprise ecosystem. Apprenticeships provide a powerful model for contributing to this ecosystem by developing entrepreneurial mindsets and blending academic theory with practical application. This aligns higher education with the needs of a changing economy and with students’ aspirations for self-directed, innovative careers.

    Embedding entrepreneurship in higher education requires a deliberate culture change, supportive structures, and community engagement – it will not happen automatically. Apprenticeships shed light on business and societal realities, which can aid in this endeavour.

    But when achieved, the payoff is significant. Graduates leave university not only with a degree and work experience, but also with the ability to think and act entrepreneurially.

    By championing apprenticeships and entrepreneurial mindsets for all students, UK universities can drive innovation from within and empower the next generation to shape their own futures beyond graduation.

    Source link

  • Podcast: Governance, apprenticeships, trends | Wonkhe

    Podcast: Governance, apprenticeships, trends | Wonkhe

    This week on the podcast we examine the OfS penalty imposed on Leeds Trinity over subcontractual partnerships oversight. What does the £115,000 fine and a new proposed code of “ethical” governance tell us about decision-making at the top?

    Plus we discuss the government’s decision to axe level 7 apprenticeships from levy funding, and explore incoming OfS chair Edward Peck’s ten trends shaping the future of campus universities.

    With Alex Stanley, Vice President for Higher Education at the National Union of Students, Pam Macpherson Barrett, Head of Policy and Regulation at the University of Leeds, David Kernohan, Associate Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.

    Read more

    Poor quality teaching and student outcomes. But where?

    The new OfS chair identifies ten trends

    A code of ethical university governance is overdue

    Should governance reform be horizontal or vertical?

     

    Source link

  • Is federal support waning for registered teacher apprenticeships?

    Is federal support waning for registered teacher apprenticeships?

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    As momentum grows for registered teacher apprenticeships nationwide, advocates fear federal support for the workforce model is starting to wane.

    Those concerns stem from the U.S. Department of Labor’s cancellation this month of a $12 million contract to support states and districts in rolling out their own registered educator apprenticeships. Specifically, the DOL contract funded the Educator Registered Apprenticeship Intermediary initiative, awarded to RTI International, a nonprofit research institution.

    As of July 2023, DOL had funded registered apprenticeship intermediaries across industries ranging from early childhood education and healthcare to information technology and cybersecurity to accelerate the growth of apprenticeships nationwide.

    It’s still unclear why DOL severed the ERA contract, and the department did not respond to a request to comment.

    The workforce model has gained particular popularity among school districts and states as a way to address teacher shortages in critical areas, as it allows them to pay new educators as they work in classrooms under veteran teachers’ mentorship and earn teaching degrees or credentials. 

    Between 2022 and 2024, the number of participating states offering registered teacher apprenticeship programs surged from 3 to 47. On top of that, DOL data reveals the total number of teacher apprentices rose from 356 to 3,884 between fiscal years 2022 and 2025.

    In a May 16 letter to U.S. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a group of universities, school districts, advocacy organizations and nonprofits called for the department to reconsider its decision to cancel the ERA contract. The letter also noted that “the growth and scale” of educator registered apprenticeship programs “would not have been possible without the support of the ERA contract,” which was awarded in July 2023. 

    Through the five-year contract, RTI has provided states and districts with free technical assistance to implement and design their own registered teacher apprenticeship programs. This support is also “paramount” for efforts to develop national standards for registered apprenticeships in education, the groups wrote in their letter. 

    “The sudden termination of this work will significantly halt meaningful progress and disrupt services that states and districts depend on to address urgent workforce needs,” the groups wrote. “We respectfully request that the Department restore the work within this administration’s priorities or identify an alternate pathway for this critical work to continue.”

    Additionally, the group wrote that without the DOL funds, the quality of programs could worsen, administrative burden could grow for states and districts, and the department’s broader workforce priorities could slow down. 

    Supporters of registered teacher apprenticeship programs have also said the contract’s cancellation conflicts with the Trump administration’s push to establish 1 million new active apprentices. When President Donald Trump signed an executive order to “protect and strengthen” registered apprenticeships, advocates for the workforce model in education were initially optimistic.

    Teacher apprenticeships are also a strong example of successfully giving local control to schools, said Amaya Garcia, director of pre-K-12 research and practice at New America, which partnered with RTI in implementing the ERA contract. 

    As Trump continues to call for the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, Garcia said, “it’s a little ironic that an administration that claims to want to bring education back in the hands of the states is pulling back on supporting states from essentially doing just that.”

    The letter sent to Chavez-DeRemer said that the contract represents a bipartisan strategy to bolster the education workforce and address the “nonpartisan need for qualified educators.”

    Source link

  • Level 7 Apprenticeships: Babies and Bathwater

    Level 7 Apprenticeships: Babies and Bathwater

    Last September, the Prime Minister announced a “rebalancing” of funding from the apprenticeship levy (shortly to become the Growth and Skills Levy). Employers’ ability to use the funds for postgraduate-level apprenticeships would be restricted in the hope of shoring up lower levels.

    A couple of months later, Skills Minister Jacqui Smith followed up by confirming that the axing of Level 7 apprenticeships would be “pretty widespread”. What’s more, she didn’t rule out a blanket defunding.

    The government’s thinking arises from a belief that employers are taking advantage of apprenticeship levy funding to upskill mostly existing, mostly relatively seasoned staff with MBAs and similarly expensive qualifications. At worst, some employers may be using a claw-back of their levy (which is paid by employers at 0.5% of annual wage bills that exceed £3 million) to give training perks to middle managers.

    This activity may not only be offsetting those employers’ own training budgets such that the levy isn’t increasing the overall funding available, but in the process, it is also undermining what the government would prefer, namely that the money is used to address concerns about young people leaving school without more basic levels of employability.

    The Government has a point. In 2021/22, nearly half of all Level 6 and 7 apprenticeships were in ‘Business, Administration & Law’. But the employers concerned (often professional services firms, accountants and legal services) may have a point too. They may feel their commercial interests are better served (and more economic activity is generated) by training up current employees who have high demonstrable potential rather than recruiting low-level apprentices who may be less reliable, loyal or productive in the longer term. After all, they might argue, businesses don’t exist to do the government’s job of workforce planning or social engineering.

    In the second decade of this century many policy papers punningly declared that they were laying out a ‘2020 vision’. One such document in 2015 laid out the Cameron Government’s reform of English apprenticeships which heralded the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy in 2017.

    This new tax – sorry, ‘levy’ – would, it was envisioned, align skills supply with skill needs and provide a superhighway of progression for apprentices while simultaneously promoting wider access and higher standards. 

    Sadly, the vision was somewhat rose-tinted. At the time over half a million people started apprenticeships, but since then, the number has plummeted to barely a third of a million (339,580). At over 45%, the drop-out rates from apprenticeships are at a level that would make higher education blush and the system is “beset by widespread and deep-rooted quality issues”.

    Meanwhile, apprenticeships have failed to be the hoped-for driver of social mobility for those who don’t pursue university pathways. Just 5% of apprentices were eligible for free school meals.

    Given that employers recruit their apprentices and, unlike universities, they are not subject to any fair access requirements, opportunities have tended to follow traditional patterns of advantage.

    Most of the fall in apprenticeships is accounted for by the 72% collapse of intermediate apprenticeships (equivalent to Level 2, ie. GCSEs), while higher apprenticeships (equivalent to Level 4 and above) have been the only part of the market to see an expansion – by nearly three times, such that they now make up more than a third of the (albeit lower) total.

    There is no reason to suppose that excluding Level 7 apprenticeships from the funding system will suddenly make lower levels more attractive to employers. While it is true that the funding is drawn from the same pool, they are not seen as alternatives by employers: the Business Administration & Law sector is not likely to start offering intermediate apprenticeships to 16-year-old school leavers because they can’t offset their levy by training qualified professionals.

    Rather it is in other sectors, where engagement in apprenticeships has been minimal, that the government wants to see the growth. For those employers, the fact that someone else may have been using their apprenticeship levy to fund an MBA was never stopping them from creating more junior opportunities.

    What’s been stopping them is the red tape involved in setting up and running apprenticeships, the costs and inconvenience (such as the time of other staff to recruit, manage and train apprentices), and the limited perceived benefits.

    Not only is defunding Level 7 apprenticeships not likely to solve the problems in the apprenticeship market, there is also a danger that babies (training that is critical to address skills gaps) might get thrown out with the bathwater (those MBAs which the government thinks should not be publicly subsidised).

    For example, there are widely acknowledged and significant skills shortages (insufficient numbers) and gaps (insufficient skill levels) in the engineering sector, a sector that accounts for £645 billion – more than a third of the UK’s GDP. These deficits run the risk of derailing the government’s mission for economic growth.

    But engineering is also critical to regional development as the spread of jobs and higher wages are not concentrated in any particular parts of the country. Indeed, often the greatest opportunities are in those parts of the country most in need of growth and improvements in productivity. Engineering higher education is also a major driver of social mobility and opportunity: graduate premiums in engineering are both higher and more equal for those from disadvantaged backgrounds than in other disciplines.

    Level 7 apprenticeships in engineering are vital for up-skilling (and re-skilling), which is critical for the challenges outlined in the government’s industrial strategy, such as in defence, advanced manufacturing, clean energy industries, and digital & technologies (particularly AI).

    Engineering is a highly dynamic sector with an ageing population of skilled professionals. Even if we can meet the profound challenges of providing sufficient new engineers into the labour market, keeping them there and maintaining their level of expertise will rely on increasing the availability of – and demand for – a combination of in-work training and education at the highest level. 

    Achieving Level 7 qualifications in engineering (which are often instrumental in professional recognition) is generally too expensive for individuals to embark on at their own cost and, given the competitive demand for skilled labour in the context of shortages, employers are fearful that if they invest heavily in these staff they may be poached by competitors. This is a prime example of where a low-cost intervention by government can have large-scale impact.

    In other words, Level 7 apprenticeships in engineering are strategically critical. My understanding is that they are similarly vital in certain other sectors such as health.

    The government is right to ensure Growth & Skills Levy funds are spent as effectively as possible, but that will require a nuanced appraisal of what is working and what isn’t as well as a recognition that a slash and burn of waste won’t necessarily promote growth where the government wants it.

    Source link

  • The future of apprenticeships under Trump

    The future of apprenticeships under Trump

    Advocates for apprenticeship programs came into a second Trump administration with a rosy outlook on their future.

    Historically, these on-the-job training programs have enjoyed bipartisan support, and apprenticeships featured prominently in Project 2025, the conservative policy blueprint for a second Trump administration put forth by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. The plan encouraged their expansion, lauding the programs as a meaningful alternative to “the woke-dominated system of public schools and universities.”

    But now, apprenticeship proponents are divided on how hopeful to feel.

    Some maintain their optimism. They foresee a potential period of growth for the programs, as Trump administration officials and supporters speak positively about apprenticeships and nondegree pathways.

    But others worry that at least some apprenticeship programs—and their financial supports—could be hurt by the administration’s slashing of federal spending. Already, some grants supporting apprenticeship programs have been cut to trim costs or for perceived connections to diversity, equity and inclusion work. The Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship, which advises the Department of Labor on apprenticeship issues, has been disbanded, along with other federal advisory bodies.

    “If the approach is to just cut, cut, cut grants across the government—and the kind of machete-wielding, indiscriminate cutting of things continues—I think that could pose some long-term stress on the system and halt a lot of the momentum that it’s had,” said Taylor White, director of postsecondary pathways for youth at New America, a left-wing think tank, and a former member of the now-defunct advisory committee. She fears the uncertainty caused by federal spending cuts in general could scare off employers or state agencies that otherwise would have invested in these programs.

    Apprenticeship-related grants have gotten “caught up” in efforts to scrutinize government spending, said Vinz Koller, vice president of the Center for Apprenticeship and Work-Based Learning at Jobs for the Future, an organization focused on workforce development, though he doesn’t think “they’ve been the target” or that the moves are necessarily indicative of apprenticeships’ future under Trump.

    “What we are hearing from the administration is a commitment to registered apprenticeship and to apprenticeship writ large and to making it more widely accessible,” he said. “That leads us to believe, looking into the future, that’s where we’re headed.”

    Reasons for Optimism

    John Colborn, executive director of Apprenticeships for America, a nonprofit working to expand apprenticeships in the U.S., said it’s “too early to say for sure” what the next four years hold for apprenticeships. But he sees “plenty of positive signs out there,” including supportive rhetoric from current and nominated Trump administration officials.

    For example, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon posted on X in November that apprenticeship programs “are a pathway to successful careers,” praising Switzerland’s apprenticeship system as “a model the rest of the world can adapt.”

    Similarly, Trump’s pick for secretary of labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, said during her Feb. 19 confirmation hearing that she values investing in and “doubling down” on registered or federally recognized apprenticeships.

    “Right now, we’re focused on the registered apprenticeships, growing those, investing in those and making sure that those are adhered to,” she told lawmakers.

    Her comments were a notable departure from the vision for apprenticeships laid out in Project 2025, which called for a return to an earlier Trump policy of industry-recognized apprenticeships, a separate system to circumvent what Republican lawmakers view as excessive federal regulation. Registered apprenticeships are required to meet certain quality standards to receive federal dollars.

    Chavez-DeRemer’s position “came as good news to many of us listening and watching,” White said, though she wonders if Chavez-DeRemer will retain that stance if there’s pressure from the administration to do otherwise.

    Colborn believes the current administration might improve the registered apprenticeship system, including speeding up program approvals and expanding the types of occupations that offer apprenticeship options.

    He added that so far, the Trump administration hasn’t interfered with financial supports for apprenticeships that the Biden administration instituted. Under Biden, the Department of Labor announced the State Apprenticeship Expansion Formula grant program, which makes $85 million available for states and territories to grow the capacity of existing registered apprenticeships and invest in new offerings.

    “I don’t have any official word on this, but every indication we have is that that grant process is going forward,” Colborn said. “We take that as a signifier that this administration is committed to apprenticeship.”

    Some apprenticeship advocates hope the moment might be ripe to push for more support and see their policy wish lists fulfilled, including more reliable federal and state funding for apprenticeships, rather than one-off grants, and incentives like tax credits for employers to participate in apprenticeship programs.

    “There’s definitely room for the administration to make a mark on the broadening of apprenticeship into more sectors where traditionally they haven’t been as common,” Koller said.

    Causes for Concern

    Still, some advocates worry apprenticeships will be negatively affected by other policies advanced by the Trump administration.

    White, for example, was jarred by the Department of Labor’s decision to ax its Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship, a group of about 30 employers, labor organization representatives and other stakeholders that advises the department on apprenticeship-related policy.

    She doesn’t believe the move was intended to signal an anti-apprenticeship stance, given that the committee isn’t the only federal advisory body to bite the dust. A February executive order got rid of a handful of them and called on government officials to flag “Federal Advisory Committees that should be terminated on grounds that they are unnecessary.”

    But the disbanding of the committee still feels like a “confusing signal” and a potential obstacle to progress, White said.

    “What’s lost by dissolving a community like that is the connection to the people on the ground who are actually having to interpret regulation, live regulation, build the programs, implement the programs,” she added. She sees such perspectives as critical to making apprenticeships “more efficient, more accessible, more functional and, frankly, a more mainstream training option for Americans to access high-quality training and good middle-class jobs.”

    Like the advisory committee, some federal funding for apprenticeship programs and apprenticeship-related research projects has gotten caught in the crossfire as the administration works to downsize government and curtail DEI work.

    Notably, the Department of Government Efficiency’s website shows about $18 million in cuts to three grants issued by the Department of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship, according to The Job, a newsletter that covers education and workforce issues.

    Managed by the consulting firm ICF, one of the grants was for “technical assistance and coaching support” and one for “industry engagement and outreach.” DOGE’s documentation said only that the grants were terminated “for convenience,” meaning the cuts were in the government’s interest. Another impacted grant was for “technical and coaching assistance support,” managed by a subsidiary of the American Institutes for Research. The Job also reported in late February that several research projects related to apprenticeships had their federal funding frozen.

    Another victim of federal cuts was Reach University, a nonprofit institution with a mission to offer on-the-job credentials, called apprenticeship degrees. The institution lost three grants, totaling $14.7 million, from the Education Department. (Teacher-training grants at other institutions have also been slashed for supposed connections to DEI. Three teacher preparation groups sued the Department on Monday over the slew of grant cuts in the field.)

    The grants to Reach were supposed to support apprenticeship-based degree programs training teachers in rural Arkansas and Louisiana through 2028. One program helps associate degree holders earn bachelor’s degrees while learning teaching skills on the job in local schools. (The grant application mentioned that the program is a partnership with Delgado Community College, a predominantly Black institution in New Orleans, and would “increase the number of teachers of color in high-need Louisiana schools,” The Job reported.) The other two grants were partnerships with nonprofits to help people in more isolated rural areas earn teaching credentials on the job.

    Joe E. Ross, president and CEO of Reach, wrote to Inside Higher Ed that he remains “hopeful” the university will regain the funds through the Education Department’s internal appeals process, and he said university leaders are in touch with department officials. Despite the financial hits, he’s optimistic the administration will be good news for apprenticeships over all.

    “We are confident that the projects funded by these grants align with long-standing, bipartisan priorities, including those of this administration,” Ross said. “As applied by Reach, all three of these grants are a merit-based, discrimination-free application of federal funds to meet the department’s long-held priority of alleviating the teacher shortage with residents of the local community.”

    Source link

  • Apprenticeships are not an “alternative” to uni, they’re alt-uni

    Apprenticeships are not an “alternative” to uni, they’re alt-uni

    On the first Sunday in July, Ipswich runs a free music festival at Christchurch Park.

    It’s a great experience for Ipswich – it’s one of few times in a year where the town is full and busy.

    Anyone from an Ipswich secondary school will likely have fond memories – meeting their friends on Hippie Hill – seeing multiple people you know all at once, getting into mosh pits, going on the Booster. The list goes on.

    But despite my advocacy for Ipswich, I once found myself anxious to attend. Earlier in my apprenticeship, I had difficult experiences at work with a frequent performer at this festival.

    This is something which, nearly six years after the ordeal ended, I am still coming to terms with.

    Something which has helped me a great deal is the idea of exposure therapy. This is the act of revisiting certain ideas and places from a new reference point.

    The intent is that it neutralises any bad associations with an idea or place by creating new associations. Over time, more neutral or even good experiences will outnumber the bad ones.

    It’s like treating grief as a ball in a jar, where the jar grows around the ball over time. The pain is still there when the ball hits the jar, though the ball is much less likely to hit the expanding insides of the jar.

    Along these lines, I approached the 2024 Ipswich Music Day with a fresh perspective. Seeing the band in the programme made me reflect on the rhetoric around being an apprentice and how it’s positioned alongside other options.

    No alternative

    I would argue that apprenticeships are not an alternative to university, at least not in all cases. Whilst it is a clear-cut alternative in some cases, such as advanced apprenticeships, it is more complex for Higher and Degree apprenticeships.

    In these cases, it is debatable – on the one hand, these apprentices can attain qualifications at the equivalent level of a degree without attending a university.

    In others, such as in my own personal experience, going to university was a core part of my experience – my qualification was a degree accredited by a university.

    Gaining an academic education is what drew me to my degree apprenticeship, along with the opportunity to meet other students and experience (and create) a stimulating academic environment with them.

    The difference in my case was that I wanted to apply what I had learned much more immediately and meaningfully – doing this would allow the knowledge to be retained more easily for me.

    Maybe my experience is not universal – I can’t claim to know what other students’ experience has been like.

    Nevertheless, I did my best to gain a fulfilling student experience, which was easier to achieve when I lived locally.

    Whilst I did attend the university Film Society and meet up with friends, I did not have the “full” experience – I wasn’t living away from home, and I didn’t have as much free time to study and discover my interests. This is because much of the free time was consumed by a full-time job.

    On paper, it does appear to be mostly work with some study release thrown in. This only accounts for the official contact hours, respectively from the employer and the university. To do well as a degree apprentice, you need to be willing to invest time in serious, self-paced academic study outside of the allotted contact hours. From my experience, this was as much as the time I spent at work.

    If people who have chosen these options with the express intention of not going to university realise that they have to go to one, then they’re going to dislike the experience or drop out altogether.

    Therefore, a contradiction presents itself:

    Why is an option promoted as an “alternative to university” when half of it involves going to university?

    The common resolution to this contradiction for policymakers and marketers is to just diminish or hide the role of the university as much as possible.

    Then, the purpose of the apprenticeship is perceived as solely a means of gaining employment, rather than for its educational merit – university, within this paradigm, is viewed as a distraction or an obstacle to be traversed in order to accomplish solely career-focussed success

    But the problem with the approach is disengagement, both socially and academically.

    Making the most of it

    For me, making the most of the educational aspects of the apprenticeship is as important as making the most of the position of employment.

    The goal of an apprenticeship is to start from nothing and to gain experience in a given domain – my own experience shows that the creation of a virtuous cycle of learning is essential in gaining this experience:

    The root of the contradiction is a separation between the experience of studying for a degree and the other aspects of university education. These other aspects are often overlooked, of which I have some first-hand experience.

    When I have made genuine efforts to engage with every aspect of the experience, I am told that I should have gone to university full-time or that I am spending too much time focussed on academics at the expense of my professional work.

    Seeing the band in the Ipswich Music Day programme made me reflect on an approach to resolve the contradiction of promoting degree apprenticeships to people who don’t want to go to university. This solution arguably comes from a change in definitions.

    The band defines itself on their website as being “alt-rock”. Alternative rock is a broad genre of rock defined by the fact it is influenced from a diversity of independent music genres.

    It is defined as an alternative to forms of rock that were becoming mainstream, such as arena rock – it is a different approach to the common genre of rock. Alt rock is not an alternative to rock as a whole – jazz and classical music are not considered “Alt Rock” for this reason.

    We can see that alt-rock doesn’t describe a genre separate from rock. Its approach is different, with alt-rock defining a range of heterophonic subgenres.

    Likewise, it can be argued that we should consider arguing for “alt-uni”. This terminology would reflect the fact that degree apprenticeships are alternative to the mainstream of full-time university education, but are not an alternative to university as a whole.

    It’s still uni

    Arguably, degree apprentices bring a range of learning approaches and knowledge to universities, such as through their professional training.

    When I have previously suggested this idea, some argued that “alt-degree” would be a better term, as it focuses on the approach to the degree rather than the university.

    But I believe the approach to a degree should be the same for all students, and this expectation contributes to the challenges of completing a degree apprenticeship.

    The definition of what this alternative approach would constitute may vary amongst apprentices. Some debate is definitely due, though I would say that the following are important to the definition of alt-uni:

    • Every second of university experience matters – an apprenticeship is finite, and we have less time than full-time students. This means careful evaluation of the experience to get the best outcome, academically and socially
    • We can immediately and meaningfully apply both academic and professional work to improve the world
    • There is the need to establish new precedents over accommodation, socialisation and engagement with university [youth] culture
    • We can provide positive role models for studentship unencumbered by student debt, as a means of encouraging the reduction of student debt to ensure that the best options are available for all types of student
    • We approach university similarly to students on scholarship. We have effectively been given a scholarship that covers our full loans. I would argue that apprenticeships should seek scholars across the university to inspire each other
    • We cannot socialise as much as other students, but socialisation with them is valuable. This is especially true for apprentices of school-leaver age

    Degree apprenticeships are not an alternative to university when a university education is involved.

    Instead, just as alt-rock is not an alternative to rock, they should be conceived as an alternative approach to university (“alt-uni”).

    This approach necessarily requires intentionality, balancing a university life with professional work. Done right, it will create a more inclusive, experience-rich education that values both theory and practice.

    Source link

  • Podcast: REF people and culture, spending review, apprenticeships

    Podcast: REF people and culture, spending review, apprenticeships

    This week on the podcast universities failing to promote diversity will face funding cuts – so said The Times. We chat through the controversy building around the REF.

    Plus we look at what the sector is asking for in the spending review, and consider the government’s push for lower-level, shorter apprenticeships.

    With Shitij Kapur, Vice Chancellor and President at King’s College London, Jess Lister, Director (Education) at Public First, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.

    Read more:

    Universities UK submits to spending review

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

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

    Societies that are humane are thoughtful about promoting equality, diversity and inclusion

    Predictably bad education

     

    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