Westminster · 1 November 2023 · MBKB
How to Optimise
Apprenticeships
Amidst Degree Devaluation
A roundtable convened by MBKB in Westminster, co-chaired by Peter Aldous MP and Mark Bremner (CEO, MBKB Training). Major apprenticeship employers — from transport and policing to childcare and facilities management — examined why the apprenticeship system struggles to retain learners, and what regulatory reform would actually help.
12
roundtable participants
4
reform themes examined
1
MP co-chair
Tackling Retention Rates
Low retention rates were the first and most extensive theme. Attendees examined structural contributors — classroom burden, inadequate wages, and a lack of employer commitment — rather than attributing dropout to individual learners.
Scrapping the apprenticeship wage and paying a proper wage would improve apprentice retention.
— Mark Bremner, CEO, MBKB Training
Classroom burden
A major employer in the transport sector stated that many of those employed 'struggle' with classroom-based study. An employer of childcare apprentices agreed: some drop out because they cannot 'keep up with the work'.
Apprenticeship wage as dropout driver
The apprenticeship minimum wage — £5.28/hr at the time of the event — was identified as attracting lower-quality candidates and causing better-qualified prospects to choose more remunerative employment. Peter Aldous endorsed moving to a more 'sensible' wage.
Employer commitment required
A construction sector attendee argued that 'commitment from the employer (was) essential.' Retention demands a comprehensive strategy — not just better training provider quality.
No clear academic pathway
Peter Aldous noted that some difficulty stems from apprenticeships lacking the same 'guidelines of a clear academic route' that university students receive — leaving learners without a structured map of their progression.
Bigger discipline in the system is needed to tackle the low retention rates in the sector.
— Peter Aldous MP, Waveney, Chair of FE & Lifelong Learning APPG
The Apprenticeship Levy
The levy — introduced in 2017 — was a central topic. Attendees acknowledged it had brought apprenticeships into some organisations that would otherwise not run them at all. But they were equally direct about its distortions: organisations spending money to meet the two-year expiry deadline rather than to build genuine learning structures.
There is consensus in the sector that there needs to be a review and reform of the Levy.
— Peter Aldous MP, summarising roundtable consensus
Apprenticeships as financial decisions
One attendee ceded that their business 'took on apprentices as a financial decision' to recover levy money. Another acknowledged their organisation 'would not be doing apprenticeships' at all if not for the levy — reflecting the double-edged incentive structure.
Two-year expiry causing hasty spending
The levy's two-year expiry was identified as pushing businesses to 'spend the money as quickly as possible' to fill spaces, rather than taking a considered approach to recruitment — a perverse incentive by design.
Modular reform needed
Attendees from transport and the public sector argued for a more modular approach: being able to 'pull parts' from different programmes, fund IT skills or English within the levy, and tailor provision to individual learner and departmental needs.
Provider exploitation of the system
Mark Bremner noted that haste to spend the levy has led to some training providers offering 'fast-tracked' apprentices without adequate support structures — exhausting funding while delivering little real progress.
Wrong incentive
A public sector attendee argued that 'simply spending the levy was the wrong incentive' behind introducing apprenticeships. The system as designed encourages volume over quality.
Levy as 'development fund'
One attendee advocated reframing the levy as a broader 'development fund' — allowing funds to cover a wider range of training, not limited to classroom-based programmes that meet traditional apprenticeship standards.
Minimum Duration Requirements
The twelve-month minimum duration requirement — introduced in 2012 — was a source of near-unanimous frustration. Attendees agreed the regulation was no longer fit for purpose and actively contributed to dropout.
Duration requirements must become fit for purpose up and down.
— Mark Bremner, CEO, MBKB Training
Twelve months as dropout driver
A construction sector attendee stated that the length of commitment on certain programmes was directly behind some dropout rates. They questioned why an employee should sit on a 12-month programme when an alternative upskilling course would take three months.
Six months can be enough
Mark Bremner argued that some programmes only require six months of training to bring an apprentice to an adequate standard. Forcing extension to twelve months is an unnecessary use of resources for apprentices, employers, and providers.
Complexity should determine duration
Bremner highlighted inherent variation in complexity across apprenticeship standards — duration should be tailored accordingly to optimise the learning experience, not fixed by a blanket regulatory minimum.
Flexibility diversifies the sector
A public sector participant argued that removing minimum duration requirements would introduce a more flexible, modular approach — diversifying the types of learner the system can accommodate and serve.
Consensus position
Peter Aldous agreed that minimum duration requirements “put some people off” enrolling in programmes. The roundtable reached a collective view that the twelve-month rule — while originally intended to guarantee quality — has become a structural barrier that reduces programme quality by forcing artificial extension.
End-Point Assessments & Online Provision
Discussion of delivery mechanisms — both the EPA regime introduced alongside levy reform in 2017, and online-first provision — revealed genuinely divergent views from major employers. Rather than a clear consensus, the picture was nuanced: EPAs are a source of friction for some learners and valued by others; online delivery is increasingly preferred by apprentice cohorts themselves.
EPAs — friction and disengagement
One employer found that EPAs 'put people off' completing their apprenticeship. In their experience, apprentices completing Level 4 sometimes concluded there was 'no point' going on to the formal end-point assessment — undermining the programme's official completion.
EPAs — motivation for others
In contrast, another attendee noted their apprentices 'loved' going to end-point assessments to gain their qualifications. Peter Aldous noted that EPAs were introduced to create consistency 'right across the spectrum' — a goal not yet fully realised.
Online delivery preferred by apprentices
A public sector employer reported that feedback from their apprentices showed a preference for online delivery. MBKB — an entirely online provider — received an 'Outstanding' classification from Ofsted for its apprenticeship provision.
Online without geographical limits
Mark Bremner argued that online delivery allows cohorts to form without geographical constraints, enables 'bitesize' class delivery, and supports effective one-on-one teaching — countering the assumption that online means impersonal.
Apprentice feedback showed a preference for online delivery.
— Public sector employer, roundtable attendee
Online provision, properly used, could have a significant role to play in the overall reform and development of the apprenticeship system across England and Wales.
— Peter Aldous MP
Key Findings & Participants
- → Retention demands a comprehensive strategy — employer commitment, quality training, a structured academic framework, and a more competitive wage are all necessary conditions.
- → The apprenticeship levy needs review and reform, focusing on tackling inflexibility, discouraging hastened spending, and guaranteeing effective provision.
- → The twelve-month minimum duration requirement is no longer fit for purpose; duration should be tailored to programme complexity.
- → End-Point Assessments produce divergent outcomes — a source of disengagement for some cohorts, a motivating qualification milestone for others.
- → Online provision is not a compromise — MBKB's Outstanding Ofsted classification, and employer-reported apprentice preference for online delivery, suggest it is a viable and effective primary format.
Westminster, 1 November 2023 — MBKB roundtable
Peter Aldous MP
Chair, FE & Lifelong Learning APPG, Waveney
Mark Bremner
Chief Executive, MBKB Training
William Walter
Managing Director, Grade Communications
Lisa Elcocks
Chief Operating Officer, MBKB Training
Lorraine Cameron
L&D Business Partner, Thames Valley Police
Fiona Burke
HR Director, McGinley Support Services
Andrew Clark
Corporate Affairs Director, Go-Ahead Group
Kate Large
Director of L&D, Mitie
Sophie Hayter
Apprenticeship Manager, N Family Club
Cheryl Porter
L&D Coordinator, Durham & Darlington Fire & Rescue
Lesley Bamber
UK Apprenticeship Manager, WTW
Rhiain Cooper
Professional Development Business Partner, British Transport Police
