In this blog, Jonathan Bourne, Managing Director of Damar Training, discusses how NEET numbers and the decline in apprenticeship starts amongst younger people require a re-think at Level 2.
“The middle solves the riddle” is a phrase I have heard used to describe the puzzle around UK skills and low productivity. In England, only 4% of people have level 4 and 5 qualifications as their highest qualification, compared to around 20% in Germany. The “middle” means level 4 or 5, which is lower than undergraduate degree level (level 6) but higher than A levels (level 3).
Whether or not this middle layer of skills and jobs is really the problem is unclear. What is certain however, is that the skills sector has a challenge to address near the bottom of the skills ladder, at level 2 and potentially even before. And, if you can’t get onto the ladder, you have very little chance of climbing up it, whether that be to level 4, level 5 or to degree and post-graduate level apprenticeships.
Apprenticeship starts continue to decline at levels 2 and 3
Apprenticeship start numbers for the first quarter of this academic year were up by 1.3%, to 132,560. However, all of this growth and more came from apprenticeship starts at levels 4 to 7.
Levels 4 and 5 were up by 8.1% and level 6 and 7 starts by 10.9%. Level 3 starts were down by 1% (56,200 to 55,640). But it was level that 2 fell the most, by 5.2% (28,400 to 26,920). The data for the last full academic year tells a similar story:
- Level 2, down from 76,280 to 70,840 (-7.1%)
- Level 3, down from 147,930 to 146,920 (-0.7%)
- Higher (levels 4-7), up from 112,930 to 122,230 (+9.2%)
The challenge is made worse by the fact that lower level apprenticeships are often undertaken by younger people progressing from school or college into their first job. In the first quarter of this year, under 19s made up 38.7% of level 3 apprenticeship starts (21,510 of 55,640) and 57.4% of level 2s (15,450 of 26,920). Meanwhile, at levels 4 to 7, under 19s were just 9.7% (4,860 out of 50,000).
The lower proportion of the youngest apprentices on higher apprenticeships is no surprise. Generally, these are for roles that take several years of training and experience. They are often progression opportunities for younger people as they climb the career ladder. A level 2 apprentice aged 17 may well progress to a higher level apprenticeship in their early 20s or later.
The issue is the number of young people starting apprenticeships – just 41,810 16-18 year olds out of 132,560 (31.5%) in the first quarter of this academic year (always the busiest quarter for young people). Last academic year it was 78,930 out of 339,580 (23.2%).
Slightly more young people are beginning apprenticeships at level 3+, but the total number of youngsters starting apprenticeships has barely moved in five years. Meanwhile, numbers not in education, employment or training (NEET) are on the rise. 13.4% of 16-24 year olds in September-November 2024, up 1.3% in a year, with young men being the hardest hit (source: ONS). The government and the DfE are working to address these issues, for example with the creation of new “foundation” apprenticeships (details tbc), and they are close to the top of the skills agenda for devolved authorities such as Greater Manchester (the second coming of the Kickstart scheme being the most recent evidence of this). So, increasing the number of young apprentices really matters.
The state-of-play at level 2
As someone leading an apprenticeship provider, I suspect that part of the solution to the problem of dwindling level 2 and flatlining level 3 apprenticeship numbers lies closer to home. Not with employers, providers or young people, but with the apprenticeships themselves.
The government’s plan to “defund” most apprenticeships at level 7 will not increase starts at levels 2 or 3. But it will reduce progression opportunities and weaken the top rung of the apprenticeship ladder. And the removal of the requirement to achieve functional skills in English and maths, whilst it may lead to an increase in the number of apprentices aged 19+, it will likely deter some employers from recruiting 16-18 year old apprentices.
There are, currently, 132 different apprenticeship standards at level 2. In 2023/4 there was activity across slightly more level 2 standards (146) but it is the levels of activity that are telling.
In the 2023/24 academic year, 40 standards had starts are described as “low” (0-5) or “10” (6-10) – the numbers are rounded. A further 37 had 20 to 100 starts. 100 is the point when, in our experience, a standard becomes just about viable. 100 starts a year generally allows more than one provider to offer an apprenticeship (vital for competition and choice) but doesn’t mean national coverage, so it still won’t be available to all employers and apprentices.
The remaining 69 standards accounted for 68,980 starts, some 97% of the total.
The top ten standards account for over 53%, as follows:
| Early Years Practitioner (ST0888) | 6,460 |
| Adult Care Worker (ST0005) | 6,240 |
| Hairdressing Professional (ST0213) | 5,230 |
| Carpentry and Joinery (ST0264) | 4,150 |
| Customer Service Practitioner (ST0072) | 4,100 |
| HM Forces Serviceperson (Protective Services) (ST0222) | 2,780 |
| Hospitality Team Member (ST0233) | 2,380 |
| Retailer (ST0327) | 2,290 |
| Production Chef (ST0589) | 2,230 |
| Bricklayer (ST0095) | 1,990 |
| Total: | 37,850 |
Note the lack of alignment between the “top ten” and the eight growth-driving sectors identified by the government, although construction and health (two key underpinning sectors) do feature.
Other observations: The top three are in notoriously low-paid and low margin occupations/sectors and so it is perhaps unsurprising that employers in these sectors are keen to use public funding to help train their staff. Also, whilst the country needs trained HM Forces servicepeople, surely that training would have happened without apprenticeships so where is the economic benefit, specifically, of the apprenticeship?
Re-thinking level 2 apprenticeships
One feature of these more successful apprenticeships (in terms of starts at least) is that they are quite broad. “Retailer” for example, is easily understandable and covers a wide range of entry level jobs in retail. Look further down the list and the jobs become much more niche. For example: Express Delivery Operative (740 starts), Highways Maintenance Skilled Operative (220), Fenestration Fabricator (50). These are all, no doubt, important and valuable jobs, but what are the chances of a young school or college leaver wanting or being able to access one of these apprenticeships? How likely is it that careers advisors or parents will be aware of such opportunities. And, frankly, how on earth do most 16-24 years olds know whether or not they would be suited for one of these roles?
Also, in the future, many of these narrow job roles are likely to be replaced or superseded and most apprentices are bound to move on to different jobs at some point.
Some apprenticeships overlap. A Sports Turf Operative (130 starts) will learn subtly different skills to a Golf Greenkeeper (410). But might it not be better to have a broader apprenticeship in horticulture that builds transferable skills across the sector and can also be tailored to take into account the particular needs of an employer?
For most of us, first jobs are about learning a broad sweep of knowledge, skills and behaviours. We rarely know what we want to do or what we are suited for in our teens or early 20s.
The OECD has pointed out that general education in apprenticeships in England is limited to functional skills courses typically lasting around 100 hours in total. That compares to 400 hours in Switzerland, around 480 hours in Germany, and 588 hours in Norway.
Many sectors require a common core of knowledge and skills across a variety of individual job roles. These, together with the wider functional skills (not just English and maths) that young people need could be embedded in fewer, better, level 2 apprenticeships. Where, for example, is content on artificial intelligence, which is going to affect every single apprentice? This does not mean we lose the tailoring for individual areas. Rather, providers and employers could, and should, be trusted to develop this content together. I hope that the planned changed to end-point assessment will make this easier.
Achieving these goals need not be revolutionary. Some apprenticeship standards, frankly, should go. But only where we have ensured that there is another, broader, standard that employers can use instead. It makes sense also to prioritise those entry level roles that can be stepping on points to valuable careers in priority sectors. The government’s plans for foundation apprenticeships have not yet been revealed in any detail and so may address some of these issues. However, I am unconvinced that a new tier of apprenticeship is what is needed when we could improve what we already have.
Similar points could be made about some level 3 apprenticeships. However, as we get to the “middle” and beyond, jobs and apprenticeships rightly become more specialist in nature – just as careers do. The ladder of opportunity is not linear. It is shaped like a tree, with a broad, strong trunk and branches that extend upwards and outwards.
At Damar, we have worked, for many years, to develop pathways that allow talented individuals to achieve their potential. Sometimes they are able to step on to an apprenticeship at level 4 or above. Others, particularly our younger apprentices, are better starting at level 2 or 3 and progressing to higher level apprenticeships with Damar or elsewhere, or moving on to higher education.
I would dearly love to see more younger apprentices and a better choice of suitable programmes, particularly at level 2. The proposed level 2 Business Support Assistant apprenticeship will help. However, the view that every apprenticeship has to relate to a distinct occupation needs to be challenged, particularly at levels 2 and 3. This idea was baked into IfATE thinking but should now be questioned by Skills England. Rather than debating whether or not “business support assistant” is, or is not, a distinct occupation, could we not have built an entry level apprenticeship in business? One that allows people to develop and apply the knowledge, skills and behaviours required in a wide range of first office jobs, and equips them with the tools to progress further.
Without high quality, understandable and available entry points, that meet the needs of the country as well as those of apprentices and employers, progression to the “middle” is made harder. And, with the prospect of reduced or no funding for the highest level of apprenticeships, young people’s chance of reaching their full potential is diminished further. I hope that the strong new leadership team at Skills England will reflect and consult carefully before making changes that may have unintended and adverse consequences.
This is the longer version of an article in FE Week edition 490.