Apprenticeships in flux: When reform becomes rationing

Written by Rob Colbourne OBE, CEO Performance Through People

If you don’t like challenge and change, the skills and education sector, particularly where funding is driven by government contracts such as apprenticeships is not for you.

Since 2001, England has had 15 Ministers responsible for education and skills, each with apprenticeships somewhere in their portfolio.

By contrast, Germany has had roughly 10 such ministers over the past 50 years. The result is telling; Germany’s apprenticeship system is widely regarded as a global exemplar, built on decades of stability and coherent policy.

England’s, meanwhile, has been subject to near-constant reform.

Major apprenticeship reforms began in 2017 with the introduction of the levy, and change has continued relentlessly ever since.

Each new minister arrives determined to leave their mark, often introducing reforms they deem essential and frequently without meaningful consultation with the experts who deal with the unintended consequences of these decisions on a daily basis.

Too often, those consequences are felt far from Whitehall, by providers and employers trying to make the system work.

Looking ahead, apprenticeship reform is shaping up to be a defining feature of 2026. The language from government suggests “prioritisation” or “streamlining,” but for many in the sector, “rationing” feels like the more accurate term.

From 1 January, anyone over the age of 21 will no longer be funded for a Level 7 apprenticeship.

Only a limited number of under-21s i.e. those already in roles applicable to Level 7 will remain eligible.

This raises an important question; are we moving towards a deliberate strategy to push apprenticeships towards younger people, who currently make up a minority of participants - and if so, is this really seen as a solution to the NEET crisis?

Over the past decade, whether through LEPs, combined authorities or DfE initiatives such as HTEQ, the sector has been strongly encouraged to focus on Level 3 to Level 5 programmes.

In many cases, this has been at the expense of Level 2 programmes that are critical for progression and inclusion.

Now, further uncertainty looms.

Recent “chatter,” highlighted in a CMI press release, suggests the government is considering withdrawing funding from some key management standards.

These standards do far more than develop individual managers; they strengthen leadership, improve strategic capability and deliver real value to junior staff who are mentored by supervisors undertaking Level 5 management qualifications.

At PTP, we currently have more than 200 individuals completing management qualifications, many at Level 5.

The feedback is overwhelmingly positive, particularly on their improved ability to lead effectively, reduce costs and plan for the future.

Pulling the plug on these programmes would destabilise the market, damage employers and ultimately create new problems for government.

Leadership and management apprenticeships do not compete with opportunities for young people; they complement them.

Employers are unlikely to recruit and invest in young talent if they lack confidence in their supervisors, line managers and team leaders—the very people who make up the majority of participants on leadership and management programmes.

There is a crucial difference between refusing to stand still and changing for the sake of change. Employers, particularly SMEs, are fatigued by constant reform and ever-shifting rules that too often have a negative impact on their businesses.

The message from the sector is simple: by all means evolve and improve, but do not break something that isn’t broken.

A recent FE Week news report states Ministers insist no decisions have been made “yet” on streamlining England’s suite of popular management courses, however, my 40 years’ experience in the sector tells me recommended means road to required and no decision made yet means its on its way – very worrying for all.