Executive Summary
Apprenticeships are often considered a ladder of social mobility. They can support employability
and enable individuals to gain skills in a non-academic context. They can also upskill and reskill
workers, giving a second chance to those already in employment. But whether the system is
delivering on this potential is another question. Recent reforms to the system, such as the
apprenticeship levy and the introduction of apprenticeship standards, have radically changed
the provision of new apprenticeships to learners in England.
It’s crucial to understand how changes to the system have helped or hindered social mobility.
London Economics undertook an in-depth investigation of the English apprenticeship system
and the impact that recent reforms have had on individuals from disadvantaged socio-economic
backgrounds.
The research mirrored the traditional steps in the apprentice journey: from selection into
apprenticeship training until entry into the labour market. We analysed whether learners from
disadvantaged backgrounds faced specific barriers at each stage.
Our analysis shows a big gap at every stage of the training journey between apprentices,
depending on their socio-economic status. This is a remarkable finding. Such sizeable
‘disadvantage gaps’ indicate an underperforming system lacking the strategic direction to
address social mobility.
We identify disadvantage gaps in terms of employer selection for apprenticeship training; the
quality or ‘value’ of the training received; the likelihood of completing training and of progressing
into higher-level apprenticeships, or further and higher education; as well as levels of pay after
undertaking an apprenticeship.
But our analysis also suggests that learners from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds
benefit more from apprenticeships than those from non-disadvantaged backgrounds. The boost
to their earnings, post-apprenticeship, is greater than their peers’.
Despite the many barriers disadvantaged learners face during their training journey,
apprenticeships can effectively promote social mobility – if they are targeted at the right
learners.
But the system is not delivering. This report should serve as a sobering analysis of a system
that could be – but is not – delivering social mobility in England. It should also serve as a wakeup call for government and employers to take action and close the disadvantage gaps within the
system.