Apprenticeships are Suffering from a Split Personality

According to the NHS website, someone diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder feels uncertain about their identity and who they are. Different identities, each with their own names, personal histories and mannerisms, compete for dominance. Although not usually as lurid and dramatic as the deranged character played by James McAvoy in the film, “Split”, having a split personality is an uncomfortable state to be in.

Recent reports suggest that England’s apprenticeship system has a severe case of Dissociative Identity Disorder, and the patient is getting worse. It has developed two conflicting personalities.

Personality One is described in great detail in Simon Field’s well-researched report, “A World of Difference: International apprenticeship policy and lessons for England” (Sutton Trust, June 2025). It’s the system that most countries have developed, designed to provide a high quality route into skilled employment for young people better suited to practical learning than a more academic diet leading to a university degree. For those from low-income families in England, it’s an opportunity to “earn and learn” and not run up student loan debt.

The report sets out its key features, based on standard international practice in countries such as Germany, Australia, Switzerland, and Ireland. Personality One apprenticeships are at least two years in length, often much longer. They have a large element of classroom learning that runs alongside workplace training, and typically not only off-the-job but also the on-the-job training has to be delivered by qualified trainers. There is a strong focus on providing individual support for trainees to prevent them dropping-out. This kind of apprenticeship mobilises employers as active partners in developing exactly the workplace skills they need, while at the same time offering a vital ladder of opportunity to young people who might otherwise have struggled to get a start in the labour market.

The report is highly critical of England’s continuing divergence from this tried and trusted model. The decreasing length of apprenticeships for young people, the  frequently threadbare nature of the “off-the-job” training offered, and the fact it’s so loosely monitored. The poor incentives offered to employers to take on apprentices, and the absence - until the new Foundation Apprenticeships arrive this September - of any focus on supporting disadvantaged groups through, for example, pre-apprenticeship programmes. All this is reflected in the steady decline in the numbers of 16-19 year olds doing Level 2 apprenticeships and the high level of apprentice drop-out compared to most other countries, a worrying 40% non-completion rate.

It’s clear that the English system is not working well as an alternative route for school leavers, but this is because it’s becoming dominated by Personality Two apprenticeships, which while appearing to be similar to Personality One, have about as much in common as Mr Jekyll had with Mr Hyde. The similarities are in their architecture: both are designed around employer-influenced content and standards, both combine on and off the job training, and in both the trainee has full-time employment status. But office blocks are not high-rise apartments, and trams are not trains, no matter how similar their components are.

Personality Two apprenticeships are all about in-house staff training and development for employees of any age. The features that employers are looking for from Personality Two apprenticeships are quite distinct from Personality One. They are primarily concerned with improving workplace efficiency and productivity, not individual career development. With an eye on cost, and aware that they are dealing with relatively experienced trainees, off-the-job training tends to rely more on self-directed and on-line learning. Achieving competence is the key goal, so the duration of the apprenticeship is not so important, and quite often individuals who achieve job security or promotion through their apprenticeship training drop out without completing the full standard, driving poor retention statistics. Many employers find the rules and regulations around apprenticeships an annoying straitjacket; hence their continued call for much greater flexibility through the Growth and Skills Levy. In fact, as the report argues, the levy system has in too many cases incentivised employers to use their digital accounts to pay for in-house training they would have done anyway, rather than increasing the overall amount of training we urgently need to meet the country’s skills gaps and shortages.

A radical re-engineering of our system is needed. To start with, we should design a Personality One apprenticeship system for young people – say up to the age of 21 – restricting it to those who taking the first steps in their career. This should have all the desirable features Simon Field has identified, and should be funded by the state directly.

In parallel, design a workplace training system which enables employers to choose a wide range of approved training methods – online courses, Microcredentials, short “Bootcamp”-style intensive training, individual coaching and mentoring, as well as apprenticeships. Abandon the “levy illusion”  and introduce a straightforward budget to fund this. For those with longer memories, this would be the return of a “Train to Gain” strategy, though with much tighter quality control and a sharp focus on only funding training directly related to economic growth and productivity. A “Train for Growth” system.

Apprenticeships are not a substitute for workplace training for adults; workplace training for adults is not necessarily best delivered via apprenticeships. Trying to do both is causing a split personality syndrome that is causing an uncomfortable muddling up of objectives, design and standards; it’s also a poorly targeted use of resources. We need two separate systems, one to deliver a proper workplace skills strategy and one to raise the quality of our apprenticeships. To foster two healthy personalities, not one confused and troubled one.