You’re offline. This is a read only version of the page.
By Philip Knowles– Head of Learning, Professional Academy
The UK government’s recent decision to scrap funding for Level 7 apprenticeships for those over 21, effective from January 2026, has sparked significant debate. As reported by BBC News on 27 May 2025, this policy aims to redirect resources toward 16 to 21-year-olds, promising 120,000 more training opportunities for young adults and those needing to retrain. However, the move has raised concerns about its practicality and impact on learners and industries reliant on higher-level apprenticeships.
Level 7 apprenticeships, equivalent to a master’s degree, train individuals for advanced roles like accountants, solicitors, and NHS specialists such as district nurses. Philip, a commenter on FE Week, argues: “A 17-21 year-old will not have the background, experience or qualifications to do meaningfully a Level 7 Apprenticeship.” He points out that a typical progression—starting with a Level 3 apprenticeship at 16, followed by Levels 4 and 6—would take around 4-5 years, meaning most learners would be over 21 by the time they reach Level 7. For example, a 16-year-old starting at Level 3 could be 20-21 before even beginning a Level 7 programme, assuming no delays.
Martin, another FE Week commenter, highlights the risk to providers: “The likelihood of someone in that age band having the opportunity to evidence the required behaviour change through the exposure to the strategic issues that a Level 7 qualification demands is extremely unlikely.” He notes that younger learners may lack the workplace exposure needed to meet Level 7 competencies, potentially leading to low motivation and insufficient line manager support. This could increase dropout rates, a metric heavily monitored by the Department for Education (DfE), setting providers up for failure under strict accountability measures.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, as quoted in the BBC article, stated: “When we invest in skills for young people, we invest in a shared, stronger economic future.” She told BBC Breakfast that the changes aim to address the issue of those not in education, employment, or training (NEET). However, Neil O’Brien, shadow education minister, warned in the same report: “The decision to scrap higher apprenticeships will do damage to public services, particularly the NHS,” where Level 7 apprenticeships are crucial for training advanced practitioners.
Philip also shares a perspective held by some providers: “Universities are using [Level 7 apprenticeships] as ‘cash cows’ to replace the drop in Masters recruitment, and employers are using the levy to fund senior managers getting qualifications rather than upskilling the workforce.” FE Week data supports this, showing that in 2023-24, only 2% of Level 7 apprenticeship starts were under-19s, while 64% were over 24—well beyond the new funding cap. This suggests the levy, introduced in 2017, may be funding training that would have occurred anyway, rather than supporting new talent.
To address these concerns, Philip suggests a tiered funding model: “Level 3 95%, Level 4 90%, Level 5 85%, Level 6 80%, Level 7 75%.” This approach would reduce government contributions for higher levels while still offering employers a “good deal,” protecting funding for lower-level apprenticeships that serve as entry points. Such a model could balance the needs of young learners with the demand for advanced skills, avoiding a blanket cut that risks alienating sectors like the NHS.
Martin highlights a systemic issue: the chase for high-value funding bands. He notes that 165 providers offer the Multi-Channel Marketer apprenticeship at Level 3 (£11,000 funding band), compared to 51 offering the Marketing Executive at Level 4 (£6,000). This disparity suggests providers prioritise quantity over quality, potentially neglecting the support younger, less experienced learners need at higher levels. The new policy could exacerbate this trend, as providers may struggle to deliver quality Level 7 training to a small, underprepared cohort.
The government is also introducing seven new foundation apprenticeships in sectors like health, engineering, and construction, aimed at 16-21 year-olds (or up to 24 for care leavers or those with an education, health, and care plan). These GCSE-level programmes offer a broad introduction to work, as noted in the BBC report. Stories like those of Chachomwe Chiwaya and Isabel Hunt, pursuing hospitality apprenticeships at Leeds City College, show the value of entry-level training in building confidence and skills. However, the removal of Level 7 funding threatens the progression pipeline for those aspiring to advanced roles later.
While the government’s focus on young people is commendable, the proposed Level 7 funding changes risk unintended consequences. The age cap overlooks the natural progression timeline of apprenticeships, potentially setting providers and learners up for failure while neglecting critical sectors like the NHS. A tiered funding model, as Philip suggests, could better balance the needs of young entrants with the demands of advanced training, ensuring apprenticeships remain a viable pathway for all.