The road less travelled: The passage towards a market-based apprenticeship system in England

Policy twists and turns

England continues down the road leading toward a demand-based system where vocational qualifications or programs can be created or amended to meet emerging labor market demand in a timely manner. The development of the apprenticeship system, dating back to the 1994 rollout of Modern Apprenticeships (MAs), sought to address the shortage of intermediate, technical-level skills in a demand-led way (Fortwengel et al., 2019). Originally designed for 18 to 19-year-old apprentices to work towards a qualification at the European Qualification Framework (EQF) level 4, this was soon expanded to broader age groups and to apprenticeships at levels 2 and 3 (Mirza-Davies, 2015). The standards for training in the MA were to be designed by sectoral groups and focus on competency-based training that led to a qualification (Fortwengel et al., 2019). Almost from the start, concerns were expressed about the quality and volume of apprenticeship provision, for example, the report from the Modern Apprenticeship Advisory Committee (2001). This led to repeated government reviews and policy reforms over the last 30 years (Hogarth & Gambin, 2021). The path to an employer/demand-led system went through many reforms (Banks, 2010; Leitch, 2006; Richard, 2012), and the introduction of the apprenticeship levy announced in 2015 (applied to UK employers with an annual pay bill over £3 million who are charged 0.5% of their pay bill as an apprenticeship levy). In particular, the Leitch Review advocated greater use of markets to ensure that supply meets demand (Unterweger et al., 2024).

The award of externally accredited qualification was formerly an essential part of an apprenticeship. This was criticized as reinforcing the supply-led approach by the Richard Review, which drew attention to the "welter of qualifications that, like stepping stones, serve to support the apprentice's progress often without ever declaring their final competency" (Richard, 2012). Qualifications were thought to be too far removed from the field of work, too cumbersome to adapt, and too numerous for employers to fully understand what the qualification represented regarding skills obtained. As a result, the government phased out Frameworks and introduced Standards (other changes included the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, an increase in the quality and length of apprenticeships, and a drive to increase the use of apprenticeships; Hordern, 2021). Apprenticeship Standards were to be focused and directly tied to occupation. Employers would design the Standards, not sector bodies, as was the case with Frameworks. Rather than embedding qualifications, Standards would introduce End Point Assessments (EPA), to be undertaken at the conclusion of the training, which would "assess the competence of apprentices against the requirements of the occupation" (Hordern, 2021). A newly formed governmental agency, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) would oversee the development of Standards by creating Trailblazer groups—employers in the given occupation. The Trailblazers would define the occupation, identify the knowledge, skills and behaviors at the core of the occupation, and create an EPA plan to assess the apprentices' competencies against the occupational standard. Qualifications may remain in an apprenticeship standard, but only if the Trailblazer group supports this approach.

Many interviewees described the frequency of policy reviews and reforms as, in the words of a training leader, "difficult to keep up with". Another explained that the apprenticeship system is prone to "tactile policymaking" wherein each government aims to tweak the system—echoing Keep (2006) who wrote that "national policy is now locked into a cycle whereby the state finds it necessary to intervene, frequently and in detail".

Depending upon one's perspective, the system might be regarded as flexible in that it is responsive to demand or a free-for-all that produces a profusion of apprenticeship Standards where would-be learners cannot see the wood for the trees. Despite the Richard Review's call for streamlining provision, the number of apprenticeship standards has ballooned, from 79 Frameworks in 2005 to 569 Standards in 2024 (Richard, 2012). Although originally designed to support the school-to-work transition and provide the labor market with intermediate skill levels, the composition and level of participation has drifted from these original aims. Data from the DfE show that following the introduction of the levy, new apprenticeship starts have fallen substantially (Fortwengel et al., 2019; Roos Breines et al., 2024). Employers are now more inclined to provide apprenticeships—and thereby recoup their levy payment—to upskill existing employees. Linked to this is an increased provision of apprenticeships delivered at a level equivalent to EQF level 5 and above (Fortwengel et al., 2019; Roos Breines et al., 2024). Similarly, the number of young people starting an intermediate level apprenticeship has declined. In short, after the introduction of the levy and related changes to the structure of apprenticeships, there are fewer new apprentices and those in apprenticeships are older and in receipt higher-level training.

Impact of reforms on apprenticeship content in two occupations

Industrial mechanics mechatronics maintenance technicians are trained in various manufacturing and engineering capacities. Reflecting the broader trends, new apprenticeship starts in this route are down overall, but manufacturing and engineering generally remain strong, and industrial mechanics remains one of the more popular apprenticeships in the route (Enginuity, 2023). The apprenticeship is delivered at a level equivalent to EQF level 4 and lasts 42 months (not including the assessment period). Despite the general policy churn surrounding apprenticeships in England and the degree of changes in the field of work (computers, digitalization and robotic equipment becoming the norm in this period), the industrial mechanic apprenticeship demonstrates a large degree of stability. While curricula have been subject to many updates related to the technologies utilized at work, the core remains the same. For example, while previously apprentices learned how to use milling and cutting machines, now they learn computer-aided processes for milling and cutting through computer aided design (CAD) and computer numerical control (CNC) machining.

Healthcare support workers operate under the guidance of nurses or other healthcare professionals in hospitals, clinics, and general practitioner (GP) surgeries (NHS Careers, 2024). The duties of a healthcare support worker will vary depending on the location of work. In hospitals, they may wash and dress patients or make beds, while in a GP surgery, workers may sterilize equipment or perform health checks (NHS Careers, 2024). The apprenticeship is at EQF level 3 and takes 12 to 18 months. As with industrial mechanics, the healthcare worker apprenticeship standards demonstrate a large degree of consistency over the last three decades. This is despite rapid technological changes that will have impacted the field of work, ranging from electronic medical records to equipment to monitor patients' vital signs. The text, however, of the apprenticeship standard is suitably vague so as not to name technologies utilized by healthcare support workers. This allows for flexibility by the employer and training providers to more quickly adapt to changing demand in the field of work rather than waiting for standards to be updated, a process which can take multiple years.