MEASURING APPRENTICESSHIP QUALITY 5

Munira Wilson MP, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Education,
offers her thoughts on the urgent need for education reform,
apprenticeship improvements, and accessible lifelong learning to
address the challenges in the UK labour market.

IN THE NEWS

In a resounding call for change, the New Conservatives have
unveiled a plan that has ignited heated discussions about how best
to reform the education sector. The proposal, aimed at addressing
challenges within the post-16 education system, seeks to steer
young people towards alternative paths, most notably
apprenticeships, in a bid to address acute skill shortages.

The plan proposes a significant overhaul of the UK’s post-16
education system, including lifelong learning support, a focus on
quality and technical education, expanded apprenticeships, and
reforms to target student loans more effectively.

Authors Jonathan Gullis and Lia Nici say that there is a “common
misconception” that young people have the right to attend
university – but argue that “they do not have the right to study
‘Mickey Mouse’ courses at the taxpayer’s expense.”

According to Statista, in January this year, 11.5 per cent of
businesses reported experiencing a shortage of workers.
Additionally, Oxford data shows that over a quarter (27 per cent)
of UK workers say they lack the sufficient digital skills required
for their job role, with 29 per cent saying it had limited their
pay, promotions, and career progression.

Critics of the plan,including

Labour peer Lord Sikka, argue that the plan risks limiting access
for low-income students, fails to recognise working-class
aspirations, imposes additional financial burdens on graduates,
and does not address systemic issues within the education system.

The plan aims to address skill shortages and deter students from
pursuing low-value degrees by introducing minimum academic
qualifications for student loans and suspending loans for
underperforming courses, encouraging young people to consider
technical education, and redirecting funds from underperforming
universities to quality technical training and technical colleges.

INTERVIEW

Lia Nici MP and Jonathan Gullis MP discuss key challenges and
solutions in the education sector, including digital skills,
vocational pathways, and the transformation of underperforming
universities.

What are the most significant challenges facing the higher and
further education sectors? How will your proposals address
these?

Lia Nici: From a UK perspective, I believe our
most pressing challenge is to ensure that we have a workforce
equipped with the skills required for our country’s needs. As you
can see, I’ve shifted the focus away from the challenges faced by
the further education (FE) and higher education (HE) sectors to
what our nation truly needs. The challenge for the FE and HE
sectors is to ensure that they are effectively training and
educating individuals in the specific skills required in the UK.
This approach is essential to provide opportunities for
high-quality, well-paying jobs, enhance our nation’s productivity,
and promote social mobility by enabling individuals to embark on
long-term careers without being burdened by unnecessary debt for
extended periods.

Jonathan Gullis: I’d like to see increased
attention on digital skills across higher and further education.
The nature of work is changing as technology evolves. Work
patterns have shifted in my lifetime and have accelerated in the
last five to ten years. I think a key challenge we face is
navigating the digital landscape and understanding the impact new
technology has on job creation – and ensuring that our education
landscape prepares us for that. That’s why one of our proposals
focuses on the importance of introducing short training modules
that enable the upskilling of workforces in new skills,
particularly digital skills.

Would funnelling less academically capable students down
vocational pathways undermine the positive progress that has
been achieved in improving parity of esteem?

Lia Nici: No, the intention is not to limit
academically capable students from pursuing degrees. Rather, our
goal is to encourage more vocationally capable students to
consider courses that are directly relevant to their chosen
careers. Our proposals are about ensuring that those who are
well-suited for academically rigorous higher education courses
pursue them. For most active learners who thrive through hands-on
experience and are better suited to vocational learning, we aim to
provide rigorous vocational opportunities.

It’s essential to shift away from a defensive stance influenced by
strong university lobbying. Instead, we want to guide individuals
towards courses that are suitable for them, courses they will
enjoy and benefit from in terms of career prospects. What we want
to avoid is students enrolling in university courses that aren’t
the right fit, resulting in both dissatisfaction and the burden of
at least £30,000 in debt. This is the essence of our policy.

Jonathan Gullis: On the contrary, I believe
emphasising the value of vocational pathways are encouraging more
people to pursue them will serve to enhance the positive
perception of vocational routes. What we’re saying is that
vocational routes are incredibly important and can lead to
exceptional outcomes for people from a variety of backgrounds, and
that it is outdated and wrong to believe university is the only
path to success.

Does transforming underperforming universities into Institutes for
Technology not risk being a regressive policy that will see us
return to the polytechnic model?

Lia Nici: I’ve had numerous discussions with
colleagues in the New Conservatives about this, as some were
advocating for letting institutions revert to being called
polytechnics. To me, it seems like a matter of semantics. If an
ex-polytechnic excels in providing vocational undergraduate or
graduate courses without altering their offerings, they can call
themselves whatever they please without changing what they
deliver. However, some institutes may benefit from becoming
institutes of technology to set themselves apart from similar
universities. It could be advantageous for some organisations,
while for others, it may not hold much value. Allowing
institutions to make that name change if they wish seems like a
sensible approach.

Jonathan Gullis: I think it’s important to
consider the end result we’re hoping for. Institutes of Technology
should not be seen as knock-off universities, but worthwhile
places of learning in their own right that cater to specialist
knowledge. It’s true that we’ve lost the distinctive role of
technical and vocational higher education since the polytechnic
reforms, but new technical and vocational offerings need to cater
to the needs of today, not the early 90s. If more places were able
to offer shorter and more flexible courses, I think that would be
a progressive step forwards, not a regressive step back.

How would you ensure that support for apprenticeship offered by
SMEs, regardless of Levy usage, is sustainable in the long term,
given the potential influx of SMEs participating in
apprenticeship programmes?

Lia Nici: The basis of the report was to scrutinise our
investment, amounting to hundreds of billions, in student loans
for undergraduate courses. Many of these courses fail to yield the
desired outcomes for both students and employers. By redirecting a
significant portion of this investment, roughly £400 billion, we
can address the current outstanding student loan debt of
approximately £209 billion. By allocating even half of this
towards bolstering vocational programmes and apprenticeships, we
could increase support tenfold compared to what we currently
offer.

SMEs, due to their size, typically require only a limited number
of apprentices at any given time this approach appears to be a
practical and feasible way to reallocate funds away from the 50
per cent of individuals pursuing traditional university education
and towards a smaller, more targeted group where we can maximise
the value of apprenticeship programmes. This shift aims to ensure
that our investments generate a more significant impact on skills
development and workforce readiness.

Jonathan Gullis: The New Conservatives think this would be
sustainable under our proposed framework if up to a fifth of young
people opted for apprenticeships and we saw an approximate 15 per
cent reduction in the number of people attending university. To be
realistic, it will take time before more than 20 per cent of
school leavers opt for an apprenticeship, and it will take time
before we have more apprenticeships offered than what we can fund.
University funding currently matches demand – that should be the
same for apprenticeships.

How do you allay concerns that your proposals for fixed
repayments after graduation will discourage those from
low-income backgrounds from attending university?

Lia Nici: This policy doesn’t discourage
individuals from lower-income backgrounds from pursuing higher
education because it’s not about one’s socioeconomic background
but their academic ability. If someone has the appropriate
academic qualifications, they can attend university regardless.
Another aspect of our policy involves incentivising students to
choose degrees to crucial sectors like the NHS or engineering,
designated them as approved courses with a national demand.

Under this approach, if a student decides to study a degree that
the country urgently needs, they wouldn’t have to repay their
student loan; the government would fund it because it’s in the
national interest. So, we should be cautious about assuming that
those we want to achieve social mobility are not academically
capable. We have many highly gifted individuals who can excel in
rigorous academic programmes. The link between social mobility and
academic ability is somewhat of a misconception.

Jonathan Gullis: Those from low-income
backgrounds should have nothing to worry about. Fixed repayments
after graduation, after allowing for a few years to find your
feet, will discourage students from studying a degree for the sake
of it. If you’re bright and get good grades, then you shouldn’t
have any concerns about being able to afford loan repayments as
your degree should lead to a graduate-level job.

Widening access to higher education has been a key focus of the
Conservative Party for many years now. We are committed to that.
If you think that your degree won’t lead to a graduate salary,
then that’s telling you something about the course – not about you
or your background.