Last Monday morning the Daily Mail ran an article publicising a forthcoming report by ‘The New Conservatives’ parliamentary group. A group of 25 MPs, made up of a substantial number of relatively recent entries to parliament, a lot from the ‘red wall’ of MP’s. The report was penned by Jonathon Gullis and Lia Nici – both of which with experience in the education sector. Nici having spent time lecturing in Further Education within the media department at Grimsby College, and Gullis had taught humanities disciplines in secondary schools, with Head of Year positions, prior to joining parliament in 2019. They have background in the areas discussion, Nici herself taking the HND route of higher education, so perspectives within the report would be interesting to see.

The headlines and snippets in the article are quite sensationalist – but that’s the point – force a passionate response – drive clicks. So I decided to source out the report itself and give it a fair shot. In this post I’m going to discuss elements of the report, what I agree with, what I don’t – but also HE and apprenticeships in general – particularly to do with public and media perception.

What’s the Gist of the report?

You can read the full report on The New Conservative website, it is also linked at the bottom of this post.

In short, with regards university; the recommendation is to prevent access to student loan for learners with GCSE Maths/English grade 4 or above, or EEE at A Level (or equivalent T-Level or Diploma), change the repayment of student loans such that £45 is paid a month regardless of earning, then 9% of income over £25,000 once earning hits £31,000, withdrawing loan support for ‘unnecessary’ foundation years and a proposal for some universities to offer 2-year high technical degrees that are generally offered within Further Education. With regards apprenticeships there is discussion of extending support for Small and Medium Enterprise (SME), extending child benefit for families of apprentices and structural changes to apprenticeships such as removing functional skills requirements and the ability for off-the-job training to be front loaded. There are also adjustments recommended to the apprenticeship levy, but I’m not going to explore those for now, as it’s outside of knowledge I feel comfortable to explore.

A number of these ideas are extensions or discussion points that have appeared as proposed Governmental policy previously, or extensions on what has been discussed/proposed for implementation/quietly dropped from the July 2023 “Higher Education Policy Statement and Reform” release following the DfE consultation. For example, the consultation saw the Government step back from minimum grade requirements – which were actually lighter than those proposed by Gullis/Nici here. However, there are plans to reduce what universities can charge for foundation years – although I have a slight feeling the effect of this might be the opposite of what is intended (but that’s for another time).

Let’s analyse The New Conservatives report, looking at the proposals put forward.

Where I agree (or somewhat agree):

Extension to child benefit payment for the family of apprentices – I agree, zero caveat there. Particularly given current cost of living climate, a rock solid policy idea that can only benefit the public. Although I will return to this soon, as a conclusion has been drawn relating to this which is absolutely ludicrous. 

Secondly, the comments about apprenticeship perception (and technical education in general) are generally correct. For example, the Sutton Trust state that 64% of teachers would rarely or never advise a high-performing student to opt for an apprenticeship. This is a concerning figure but may potentially miss nuance. I can only directly speak for myself but as part of IAG for year 13 students, apprenticeships sit highly on recommendations. However, I always stress with a caveat – you cannot guarantee an apprenticeship (particularly a degree level apprenticeship) – it is a job, you interview. Also, I try and avoid the following conversation;

…‘I want an apprenticeship!’, ‘What in?’, ‘I don’t know’…the benefit of an apprenticeship is a launchpad to a specific career path, not an ‘I don’t know’. You want money, not an apprenticeship.

If you know you want to be an aeronautical engineer, then yes, opportunities are there, and apprenticeship is a fantastic route and I would 100% advise a high achieving student to pursue that route. However, my high achieving students often lean towards wishing to study Maths, Physics, Medicine and Veterinary Science. Is an apprenticeship appropriate? Or am I simply offering poor guidance to a young person at that point? 

Furthermore, the perception issue with apprenticeships and technical education exists beyond the walls of schools, and so much of this is driven by media narrative. So many jobs have become graduate jobs that previously weren’t. Companies run graduate fast-track schemes for managerial positions that would previously have been filled by internal progression. Until these types of practices stop, the incentive is always there for young people, as it’s not a lie that more varied options are available to graduates over non-graduates.

The reference about short-form HE provision, which in conclusion becomes more the ability for HE to offer HNC/HND style programmes or rapid degrees. This is an area education that is bundled up as a positive in the report, which leads to a strange situation of why is the recommendation then to essentially penalise those in the sector already by adding ‘higher prestige’ competition into the mix (furthermore with proposals of HE Institutes of Technology) – if the job is being done so well on the limited budget to begin with. I appreciate the need to increase supply if we are to increase the output of learners in the sector, it just seems rather counter productive, of not supporting to further education establishments with history of delivering these programmes.

However, I believe there are ‘legs’ to short-form HE. However, personally I think a modular top-up model in the style of the Open University is more appropriate. Models such as Skills Bootcamps have already evidenced that the logistics can be there for implementation, it would just be slightly different target audiences and outcome measures – but it’s evidenced to be scalable.

Furthermore, I agree that increased funding is required for apprenticeships. Funding to support SME enterprises is great, but one thing dramatically overlooked are the providers. The margins involved in apprentice provision are tiny for further education establishments – to the point that private sector providers such as Skills Training UK Ltd have closed after 20 years of delivery, most recently Capita have announced they are leaving the market, and others such as Avado Apprenticeships Ltd have announced they are leaving the sector to focus on bespoke Software as a Service (SaaS) products. Whilst there are discussions of money and support in the Gullis/Nici report, these seem to be more targeted towards employers, with no direct reference I can find to improving margins for the providers.

Interestingly, it pulls data from a Social Market Foundation report ‘Not Just Other People’s Children’ from April 2021 – this features references to another report from the SMF from March 2021 called ‘Missing the Story: the UK Media’s neglect of Further Education’. This essay compiles mentions of HE vs FE by traditional news media and references within parliament as well (charts shown below). Between this lack of drive for funding for providers and the Gullis/Nici proposal to further bring HE providers into the higher technical space – the irony is that in a report about developing vocational and technical skilled education, Further Education seems to be being neglected still.

Where I disagree:

The criteria for minimum grades seems strange and not well defined. By what is described by Gullis and Nici, the 3E criteria (or equivalent T-Level/Applied General) is very ambiguous – to the point I couldn’t tell you if a student with a severe illness who sat 2 A Levels and received 2A*’s would be eligible. The students who fall beneath 3E or equivalent UCAS points and attend university is an incredibly minor percentage. Whilst figures for this aren’t available, the government proposal was for 2E or equivalent students to receive funding only, and an IFS study found this would likely affect under 2% of the university cohort, and Gullis/Nici state it would only have affected 2,790 students of the 2018 intake.

The proposal of cutting student loan funding for those without GCSE Maths and English at grade 4 however is more significant. This proposal does not provide a caveat for a Functional Skills equivalent. From personal experience, the areas I would see this impacting the most are within Health and Social Care, HNC/HND technical provisions and also providing a barrier for adult learners to return to education and retrain through HE. Again this proposal is most likely to impact higher technical provision – which almost seems to be going against what major proposals of the report claim.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at the costs of the government proposals (which were slightly different to those proposed by Gullis/Nici). If the policy was in place, the Maths/English requirement would have historically blocked almost 25% of those attending university who had been eligible for Free School Meals. Having the largest proportional effect on those from black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani backgrounds. The policy is a barrier to some of the most disadvantaged, who would benefit from the opportunities higher education provides.

One of the arguments often put forward are relating to drop-out rates. Yes, these students have a higher drop-out rate, but those without GCSE Maths and English see over 80% succeed in HE, and approximately half of those who graduate receiving a 1st or 2:1. These are fantastic outcomes for individuals, and whilst there are correct concerns that it doesn’t always lead to earnings above those of non-graduates, in line with graduates from other socio-economic backgrounds. However, this is a bigger societal issue about social capital, familial contacts, learned behaviours and sector knowledge, as well as potential financial support to travel, move or take ‘risks’ with their future that those from middle class (and above) backgrounds may have. This suggestion is like ‘stopping people from getting food poisoning’ by ‘starving them’.

This policy decision also doesn’t really address what it is often claimed to. It’s not going to target ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees. In fact, it would affect 22% of those historically engaged in Social Care study at higher education, this is the bevy of courses that would feel the most direct impact. Whilst not high paying, it is an essential sector. It would also potentially impact Education disproportionately, such as early years settings, specialist support assistants etc, with 9% of those in study falling foul of the rule change. Again, classified as low pay, but vitally important to society. On the flip side, it will also hit Computer Science – a generally high paying sector with a national staff and skills shortage.

Interestingly whilst there’s a push to ‘raise standards’ in HE, there is a proposal to ‘reduce standards’ in Apprenticeships – Gullis/Nici proposing to remove the functional skills study requirement from Apprenticeship provision. Only 17% of students who currently study an intermediate apprenticeship (level 2) progress onto a level 3 advanced apprenticeship (from the Sutton Trust) – let alone a higher level degree apprenticeship. I struggle to square this all with the discussion of high skilled, high aspiration claims within the report for this type of apprenticeship study – and what would be provided to the aforementioned who they would deem ineligible for student loan funding.

Let’s talk ‘Social Mobility’ – whilst balancing the needs of a nation:

A crux of a lot of articles in the media relating to ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees, and shining through in this report is essentially that Universities use the guise of ‘social mobility’ to ‘trick’ disadvantaged learners into ‘pointless study’. There’s also a slight sinister air to a lot of the media articles that accompany pushes like this.

Essentially there seems to be a suggestion when it comes to ‘Social Mobility’ that is based on 2 connected fallacies;

1) We can identify those who will “make it” beforehand.

2) Or, depending on beliefs, we can at least identify those who are ‘worthy’ of “making it” beforehand.

Neither of these things are true, and the second is highly subjective and is generally a retrospective reaction of a certain type of person to a specific individual they know. This isn’t true, you can do things to increase likelihood but realistically it requires chance and opportunity to present itself, there’s a huge amount of right place/right time. 

At governmental level, in some way I can see the thinking. Let’s say the economy sustains 1,000,000 Psychology adjacent jobs, and universities graduate 150,000 Psychologists a year – to a government this can be viewed as ‘wastage’/these degrees are letting students down, jobs aren’t there. Now there are other factors, such as large swathes of graduate jobs are not discipline specific – but the biggest thing this ignores is that it removes ‘hope’ and ‘opportunity’ from individuals.

Yes, these graduates may not get a graduate level position on day 1, but the opportunity is there for the future. Now the reason I mentioned Psychology (the figures in the paragraph above are fictional and purely for illustration) but a delivery driver we often get is a graduate in this area. As a delivery driver they would exemplify the exact issue these ministers are claiming to rally against – however they have recently been employed as a counsellor on the back of professional qualifications linked to university education.

This could not have happened without the ability for this person to go to university, at exactly the type of course under criteria that would be at risk. Now I’m not here saying one job is ‘better’ than the other, but one can clearly match the criteria of a graduate appropriate position in a more ‘white collar’ field – exactly the criteria put forth. For the individual having that opportunity to study has made a huge difference.

But to legislators like this, disconnected from ‘normal’ people, it means nothing. If there were 20 people applying for that job, with the qualifications, not currently in the sector, they see it as 19 too many. Why have 19 people qualified for 1 role? For some I think it is merely that simple. It’s not going to affect ‘them” or ‘people like them’ (those ‘worthy of making it’), so why does it matter who they disadvantage or take opportunities away from? People are indoctrinated by their own success and buy into the fallacies mentioned above, that there’s the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ and they are able to personally, or society at large, identify these people ‘worthy’ proactively.

I think back to the delivery driver in situations like this, the cynic in me feeling it benefits some to NOT allow individuals like them options and opportunities that a degree provides. It is better to have swathes of individuals trapped in “disposable employment”. They don’t have options beyond, not the opportunity to jump sectors for equivalent pay or the qualifications that allow them to leave – but they dress it up as aspiration, “it’s better for you”.

I highlighted the following quote in a post I made about T-Levels. It is from the Shadow Minister for Employment, which I think resonates here as well;

It’s the fact, much like the significant post-16 education reforms, large emphasis is made that this is for the benefit of the individuals that the decisions seem to impact negatively the most. Much like the post-16 reforms, ‘scalability’ also seems to be an issue.

Are apprenticeships the answer? Is it too good to be true?:

The following quote from the Daily Mail article, struggles to stand up the more you look at it.

“The MPs write that, in contrast, high-performing degree-level apprenticeships often deliver earnings well above those of graduates.”

There are so many justifiers in that sentence that shrink those it could feasibly support to a minuscule amount. “High performing” to begin with, not all degree-level apprenticeships, just “high-performing”. Then there is “often”. Not always, “often”. So you have to make sure your degree apprenticeship is ‘high performing’, and even then it’s still only an “often”.

Before we get into numbers, let’s take this at face value of what the report is about, that this is a suggestion to counter students going to university and getting degrees that they argue ‘do not add value’ to their potential futures and earnings, often for those with lower prior attainment. What is being offered up instead is; “Hey, the very best of this alternative are often better than traditional HE…although we’re not mentioning that this thing is highly lucrative and insanely competitive”…they may as well have said “Playing for Arsenal is more lucrative”, in there.

There is an implication throughout the report, and a number of the references it uses, that middle classes are open to choosing vocational and apprentice programmes over university, whereas working class and disadvantaged young people are shirking these opportunities for traditional higher education. There is an oft referenced article in the Times from the turn of the year, based on a discussion with a director from Price Waterhouse Cooper (PwC). PwC were quite early adopters of degree apprenticeships, even offering programmes when I was in school, and I remember as a high achiever being taken by my college to a session put on by PwC where they discussed the programme – the entry criteria for which were higher than the Russell Group university I ultimately attended.

Whilst the Times article is behind a paywall, I was able to find a Telegraph article with the same director from a week or so before. Honestly, it feels more like a ‘press release’ for PwC degree apprenticeships, dressed up as an article (potentially as a rebuttal/reconciliation to a Times ‘Middle classes stand accused of hogging prized apprenticeship’ article from a month earlier). There are some interesting stats and the director acknowledging that more should be done to target disadvantaged students with these apprenticeship programmes, but no suggestions as to how to actually do that. The timeframe very close to the UCAS deadline as well, all just feels too cute for me. Almost to the point of ‘courting’ the children of the ‘middle classes’, especially with references to the ongoing cost of living crisis. 

This view of the disadvantaged ‘shirking’ vocational education is implied in the Gullis/Nici report as well. Returning back to their proposal of extending child benefit to the family of apprentices, the report includes the following statement; “Such a set-up perhaps goes some way to explain why only five percent of Degree Apprentices are from low-income groups, compared with 6.7 percent of undergraduates.” Except it really doesn’t. Families of undergraduates do not receive child benefit either. You can apply for a degree apprenticeship with A Levels, T Levels, BTEC’s, NVQ’s – qualifications at a younger age that allow family to be in receipt of child benefit. In fact, primarily, for young people fortunate enough to get a degree apprenticeship, they are more likely to have those prior qualifications than a lower level apprenticeship.

The Level 2 to Level 3 transition rate for apprentices is only 17% for ‘young’ people as stated on The Sutton Trust website, this is dramatically lower than the 53% figure in 2009/2010 in a Department for Business Innovation and Skills report from 2013, although a report from December 2022 from the Sutton Trust puts the figure back to 30% when looking at all apprentices (not just the ‘young’), although still a large fall in 13 years. The Sutton Trust ‘The recent evolution of apprenticeships’ report emphasises that progression routes are not there through apprenticeship levels, with only 14% of higher level (L4+) apprentices having a L2 apprenticeship on their CV, and less than one in five degree apprentices having a L3/Advanced apprenticeship on their CV. This suggests early transition to vocational pathways, or specifically, apprenticeship programmes, are actually a detriment to progress through the levels of training and qualifications.

So who is most likely to make that early transition? As previously stated the report makes reference to an SMF report, pulling lots of statistics regarding less regret in those who took vocational pathways than attended university – whilst also pulling other statistics on the middle class inclination of recommending vocational training as evidence to support viewpoints. However, what the report actually emphasises is that it is the C2DE classification ‘working class’ who still have preference for vocational training routes – and less inclination for traditional higher education. In fact the report also feels the need to reference a quote from former Skills minister, Anne Milton in 2018 that “fears of a middle-class grab on apprenticeships are valid”.

This is a big issue of the Gullis/Nici report. It seemingly conflates the ‘proportion of those from disadvantaged backgrounds in a degree apprenticeship’ with ‘the number of those from disadvantaged backgrounds who want a degree apprenticeship’. These are two entirely different things. The report almost seems to suggest it’s a problem with those from these backgrounds not pursuing or having the advice to pursue these routes, when acknowledging that it’s the preference of employers to recruit from other backgrounds is a bigger societal issue to attempt to address, and would force ministers to look at social deprivation factors they essentially ignore within education, however it all links nearly with statistics from HE graduates mentioned earlier, that graduates from disadvantaged backgrounds often don’t have the earning potential of similar graduates from more privileged backgrounds.

The makeup of apprentices has changed dramatically over time. The average apprentice is now in their mid to late 20’s, and since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy in 2017 the total number of apprentices has fallen, but more specifically the proportion of intermediate apprenticeships (which tend to skew towards school leavers) have fallen to less than half the number than there was in 2017, level 3 apprenticeships have fallen as well. Higher and degree level apprenticeships have increased, but are proportionally more likely to be in London, the South East and the East of England. Whereas more deprived areas such as the North East have a higher proportion of intermediate apprenticeships than higher level apprenticeships, for the areas population.

This type of geographical disadvantage is highlighted in a recently published Sutton Trust and UCAS report called ‘Where Next? What influences the choices of would be apprentices?’. Gullis/Nici do not reference this report – giving the benefit of the doubt this could be simply due to overlapping timeframes, however they also steer clear of the December 2022 ‘The Recent Evolution of Apprenticeships’ report previously mentioned. The December report shows that the most deprived areas are not only losing apprenticeships in raw numbers, but are proportionally losing access in comparison to other backgrounds of the remaining apprenticeship positions. They verify statistically that it is prosperous areas that have benefited disproportionately from the growth of higher and degree level apprenticeships, where removal of lower levels has a greater effect on those who have been in receipt of free school meals. Even where Free School Meals receivers are more represented, this is in areas associated with lowest payoffs (Health, Social Care and Public Services etc.) as opposed to those associated with higher earnings (engineering, manufacturing etc.) – we again see the return of a familiar theme!.

The follow-up report paints an even more interesting picture. It states the number of young people in apprenticeships has fallen 30% in the last six years, but this is not down to lack of interest from young people. The drive of higher and degree level apprenticeships is often down to large scale levy paying employers are upskilling current staff, which is leading to an under representation of ‘young’ people in apprenticeships and a growth of over 25 year olds, particularly in higher levels.

The report informs that approximately half a million 18 year olds enter full-time undergraduate study every year, however fewer than 5,000 are successful in achieving a higher or degree level apprenticeship, despite 430,000 of those interested in undergraduate courses also declaring interest in apprenticeships. The main barriers that prevent someone from pursuing apprenticeships further are; geographical and cost based – where apprenticeships are situated and feeling able to afford them a big barrier, particularly those who are disadvantaged and from lower socioeconomic backgrounds being twice as likely to say this, support as part of application – more needs to be done in schools, sixth forms and colleges to support applicants but this doesn’t particularly support those attempting to progress through levels independently, and finally the available opportunities do not match with career aspirations as well.

This report also highlights some other interesting perspectives. Whilst a lot was made of the SMF report of those recommending vocational over undergraduate opportunities, this figure drops for young apprentices, as confirmed in the UCAS/Sutton Trust report – with approximately 1 in 3 going as far to say the experience was not what they thought it would be. Recent figures from the National Student Survey (the first year to include degree apprentices) show they have on average a higher level of dissatisfaction with their experience than those enrolled in full time HE, a recent FE Week article reports. This suggests either changing of opinions, or that youngsters on these programmes have very different experiences than older candidates, who are often doing with an already established employer.

From this year UCAS will be sharing apprenticeship options with undergraduate applicants in their hub, with the idea that in 2024 students can use the system to apply for apprenticeship opportunities as well. This singular system should bring down some of the barriers in application. As well as social mobility outreach for highly competitive sectors, summer school links with Russell Group universities, the Sutton Trust also run an Apprenticeship Summer School, pushed at the same level and gravitas as the aforementioned opportunities. Significant organisations involved in education are pushing the apprenticeship route, but unless the opportunities are there for young people to get on these programmes, it will all be for nought.

The Cost of HE – Can the country afford it?

A lot of the discussion from Gullis/Nici and a similar report by Conservative group Onward (which is referenced comprehensively in the Gullis/Nici document) is that the taxpayer should not be laden with the costs of higher education.

This tends to simplify to how fewer graduates are in a position now to pay back the full loan amount than before. Discussion diverts to how this is not value for money to the taxpayer, but it’s an argument which doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.

Paying back 50% of £40,000 is more than 100% of £10,000…”but the fees have went up” I hear you say. Yes, but the money received by universities has stayed somewhat static (see  below). Higher Education is funded in a three prong approach by the government; student loan, teaching grants (from the Office for Students) and research grants from (Research England). When there was a regime change in 2010 funding was progressively cut from the teaching grants (which universities counter balanced through a larger emphasis on high fee paying international learners), then they were gutted further when the loan was increased from £3,000 to £9,000 (and centralised grants which reduced loans were also discontinued). Essentially what the government pays to universities has stayed roughly the same across the period, just now a larger proportion of it is now associated with an individual to pay back as opposed to a payment to the university with an intermediary to associate it to as debt. So, yes, 50% of £40,000 is better than 100% of £10,000, as the government was always essentially paying the £40,000.

In fact I heard it argued in the early days of the fee rise that it was quite an astute policy decision, as the frustration of students was soon directed towards universities who were accused of hoarding new gains, as students did not see a perceived 3x uplift in experience, equipment and facilities – whilst higher education institutions argued to deaf ears that they weren’t actually receiving any more money than previously.

This is arguably therefore political prop in order to justify a proposed policy (of essentially ‘we should provide less opportunities to people’) in the eyes of public, who are not informed better.

Conclusion:

Much like the T Level reform there is a significant issue with scalability. Nothing in the proposals really goes to address this. The things they are wishing to implement generally do not stand up to scrutiny, and will actively disadvantage those they are claiming to be rallying on behalf of.

The ‘selling a pipe dream’ of social mobility accusation often labelled at higher education establishments is ironically ever present in this report. Preventing access to student finance funding for those without certain criteria will effect the prospects of those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds the most, particularly those from ethnic minority backgrounds. They are then selling the ‘dream’ of higher level apprenticeship progression, which is skewed against those with the aforementioned characteristics, have limited places, and those blocked from higher education funding would not satisfy the criteria for anyway.

The mask slips at times, with references to ‘low paid migrant workers’. If this is to fulfil high skilled, high remuneration and aspiration technical positions, how are these currently filled by ‘low paid migrant workers’? That doesn’t make sense. And I can’t help but think back to thoughts of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’, and maintaining a pool for ‘disposable employment’. 

Ultimately, we do need to look at enticing youngsters into growth sectors and areas of shortage, degree apprenticeships would be a fantastic way to do that. Youngsters are hungry for them, both from data presented and also from my own personal experience in education – but the opportunities aren’t there for them. Similarly there are huge barriers with regards geography and costs. In the SMF ‘Missing the Story’ essay, there is a great line about ‘social mobility’ often being conflated with ‘geographical mobility’ – that it can be possible for someone to be socially mobile without leaving their home town. As someone in the North East, so often I have heard the advice of ‘get out of the North’ if you want to ‘make it’.

Ultimately I don’t feel these proposals are going to address any of that, and even ‘short’ analysis keeps bringing us back to inequalities embedded within society, which it could be comprehensively argued that if these proposals were pursued as policies, would likely increase.

Whilst policy makers may want to bury their head in the sand and pretend don’t exist, they clearly still do, as regardless of pathway – there is one common theme that keeps appear that seems to influence outcome and opportunity. None of this fixes that.

I promise to actually talk about teaching and learning again soon. 🙂 

References, Reading and Links

Daily Mail Article (2023) – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12502731/Low-achieving-pupils-banned-taking-student-loans-MPs-claim.html

The New Conservatives’ plan to upskill Britain (2023) – https://www.thenewconservatives.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/upskill-report-2023-v4_web.pdf

Department for Education ‘Higher Education Policy Statement and Reform: Government Consultation Response’ (2023) – link

Onward ‘A question of degree’ (2019) – https://www.ukonward.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/J6493-ONW-A-Question-Of-Degree-190104.pdf

House of Commons Library ‘Higher Education Funding in England (2021)’ – https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7973/CBP-7973.pdf

Social Market Foundation ‘Not just other people’s children: what the public thinks about vocational education’ (2021) – https://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Public-attitudes-to-vocational-education-April-2021.pdf

Social Market Foundation ‘Missing the story: the UK media’s neglect of Further Education’ (2021) – https://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Missing-the-story-March-2021.pdf

Department for Business Innovation & Skills ‘Progression of Apprentices to Higher Education’ (2013) – link

Institute for Fiscal Studies ‘The impact of student loan minimum eligibility requirements’ (2022) – https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/IFSBN343-The-impact-of-student-loan-minimum-eligibility-requirements.pdf

The Sutton Trust ‘The recent evolution of apprenticeships’ (2022) – https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/The-recent-evolution-of-apprenticeships.pdf

The Sutton Trust/UCAS ‘Where Next? What influences the choices of would-be apprentices?’ (2023) – https://www.ucas.com/file/733561/download?token=aaDzqyKN

Times/Telegraph articles on degree apprenticeships:

• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/apprenticeships-vs-university-degrees-uk-elite-competition-middle-class-rthjcxtwc
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/middle-classes-apprenticeships-before-degrees-g2b0f2597
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/31/middle-class-students-ditching-degrees-apprenticeships-says/

FE Week article relating to NSS results (2023) – https://feweek.co.uk/degree-apprentices-less-satisfied-than-full-time-uni-students-with-their-course/

Current Apprenticeship Statistics – https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/apprenticeships-and-traineeships