Level 7 Apprenticeship Funding Changes

[cyclingmum67]

https://feweek.co.uk/level-7-apprenticeship-funding-to-be-axed-from-january-2026/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKi0v9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHo4lXGcpuhxVjTMI-tJv4ir_tOzB1fwlTvXTlPNoU4QqBtr6UZe_FiiTKLvS_aem_FRDIW0rpjFvOQaWWJScHQg

Published today - seems unfair to those who do 4 year degrees, placement years, take gap years before starting university, as most will be 22 before they graduate, and therefore ineligible to firms who use L7 apprenticeships for their training programmes.

They aren't the cohort of people this change was intended to target

My son has just turned 21 last week and will be starting a level 7 apprenticeship in September. He did a 3 year degree without any gap years and is just doing his finals now,
Apparently the new rules kick in next January, so he should be ok, but I don't understand how anyone will be eligible for level 7 in future. I guess that's the aim though.

i think for the public sector ones, they should still be funded. But accountancy firms , law firms, engineering etc - I don’t think their training should be subsidised by the government/tax payers. The partners in those firms should be paying … shame though if they pull out of the market, because it’s been a great alternative to university for some students.

You obviously don’t have a clue how it works. Levy funding is paid by all the large companies, and they will often fund the smaller non levy. But as soon as this money, paid BY THE EMPLOYER, the DfE class it as theirs and then control it.

Does this mean degree apprenticeships will now only be open to U21s? Seems short sighted.

Were the level 7 ones ever an alternative to uni? My son will be employed as an Actuarial Trainee, but I don't think he would have been eligible to apply for the job if he wasn't doing a maths-related degree.

All large firms do pay the apprenticeship levy, so are entitled to expect something back. They will presumably take on more younger apprentices (without degrees) to compensate.

The policy is supposed to encourage organisations to use their levy for the lower level apprenticeships - not for executive MBAs or graduate schemes so I’m not entirely against it tbh.

And all taxes paid by companies is the Gov’s to spend as they see fit!

A bachelor’s degree is L6, masters (including integrated) is L7.

I’ve posted on the Solicitor Apprenticeship thread.
There were 2 types of Solicitor apprenticeship funded previously, the post A level 6 year and the graduate apprenticeship.
https://www.sra.org.uk/become-solicitor/sqe/solicitor-apprenticeships/
The graduate apprenticeship version will disappear in light of this decision.
We used the graduate solicitor apprenticeship in local government legal as a way to attract and retain staff in hard to recruit areas. Need is there for child protection, adult social care lawyers etc but hard to recruit to as relatively lowly paid. They would join as a paralegal with a law degree then have training funded. It was a good model 4 days in office and 1 day at uni, SQE pass rates for apprentices were very high.
Currently there’s very few post A level solicitor apprenticeships, they are like hens teeth.

This is a terrible, short-sighted decision.

My DS is a final year undergrad architecture student. So many of his cohort were hoping to take the apprenticeship route to qualification which is now no longer available. Given that you have to have done an undergraduate degree and year's work experience before you can begin your Part 2 studies, no one will be under 21 by the time they get to that point, so no one will be able to use this route. This is terrible for social mobility and the profession as a whole. I really feel for all those graduating this year who now have no idea what to do! The choice seems to be change your career path, or accept another £20K debt in fees plus two year's living costs - so more like £40K on top of your undergraduate loans before qualifying. The salaries on offer just don't make financial sense to do this. Its a nightmare. Am sure there are other professions similarly affected.

I understand the drive to increase the number of lower level apprenticeships available but the unintended consequences of the way the government have gone about it are going to be bad :-(

The first year of CIMA, ACCA & ACA accountancy training can be taken as a L4 apprenticeship. Currently most employers let their grads go straight into L7 & ignore L4. They might decide to get funding for the first year, then continue paying for the training.

So will there be more degree apprenticeships available for 18 year olds?
As companies are less likely to give them to older people or those already employed at the company?

Working in nhs this will have a big impact. There is no funding for anything. Trainee posts for advanced practice will go as the majority of trainees need lots of expertise first.

degree level apprentices come with a wage bill. NHS have a vacancy freeze. How can they pay the wages. It’s a terrible decision.

In theory yes, but in practice probably not.

The 18 year olds (post A-levels/Gap year) aren't really competing against the older ones who are already employed at the firm and get an apprenticeship there (non-graduate one).
I don't know the numbers, and can only speak about the Solicitor Apprenticeship, but I'd be surprised if many 22+ year olds are going for Solicitor Apprenticeships. They are very much targeted at 18/19 year olds as a first job.
From the firms point of view why would you entertain a 22 year, who can't have a degree at that point, as those are that App reqs.

So, for the older ones who are already at the firm, then that may stop in the new world, so they'd need to get a degree via a different route. So, again, be surprised if the firms say "We were giving 1 App externally and 4 internally, so we'll now give 2/3/4/5 externally", because they will be extending their head count. The beauty before was that they were getting the quals/training for existing employees.

For the graduate version of the App, then 18 year olds aren't competing. Firms aren't going to suddenly switch to take on the equiv number of 18 year olds, as they would have had for the graduate version. They'll still take graduates via different routes.

It will still take some years for firms to decide if the trailblazer (post A-levels) version is better than the graduate routes.

Good article here that describes far better than me how damaging this will be for the architecture profession: https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/architecture-apprenticeships-under-threat-as-level-7-funding-withdrawn-for-over-21s/5136174.article

"“It’s clear that the department for education never thought through the implications of this,” said Brittain-Catlin. “Apprentices are tax-paying, productive members of their practices. Trained-up post-Part 1s will now be sent back to university and will have to take out student and maintenance loans. Who profits from this?”
...

The decision comes despite ongoing skills shortages in construction and the built environment. In December, RIBA, RTPI, RICS and CIOB jointly warned that removing funding from Level 7 apprenticeships would limit the sector’s capacity to meet housing and net-zero targets, while narrowing access to professional careers in the wider industry. "

It's such a terrible decision. Many of those prospective architects won't want to take out further student and maintenance loans so will change their career plans and we'll end up with a shortage of architects, or else it will only be wealthy students how can afford to qualify. How on earth is this a sensible part of a long-term skills strategy??

@pistachioicecream how did architects train before level 7 apprenticeships were introduced. I believe that was in 2018 or thereabouts, so only 7 years ago. Presumably employers funded the training before that, yes?

They want degree apprenticeships to go to young people which I think is great - but the cut off age is too young. IMO it should be 25 not 21. DS's level 6 is 3 1/2 years so if he wanted to do a level 7 afterwards he wouldn't be eligible. He's not interested at this stage anyway but it seems unfair to others who may be.

Unfortunately no, not all of them at all. The larger architectural practices might offer sponsorship - much like the magic circle law firms will fund the LPC/SQE for their trainees but as far as I'm aware beyond that, most would fund themselves with loans or personal funding. Hence the profession being criticised for poor social mobility/ widening participation rates. Apprenticeships really were a way of opening doors to the profession for talented students from different backgrounds.

@Terri926 Agree - 25 would make much more sense.

Accountants were always funded by their employers. ACA would pay for everything, whereas CCA and CIMA usually either gave their trainees the time off or the fees. It's unlikely to affect the numbers training, but there may be ways to mitigate the impact.

how did architects train before level 7 apprenticeships were introduced. I believe that was in 2018 or thereabouts, so only 7 years ago. Presumably employers funded the training before that, yes?

There wasn't an apprenticeship levy before that. Employers are probably feeling now that they already have to fund apprenticeships but they would have to pay again for their own apprentices.

I do think some organisations have used apprenticeships in a way thay weren't intended to be used as a way of claiming back the money they pay for the apprenticeship levy, so something needed to be done about the definition of eligible apprenticeship pathways, but what has been done is probably causing as big a problem as it's solving. It has also identified that there are some apprenticeships labelled as level 7 that, academically, are really only level 6. This needs to be explored.