UCEM Vice Chancellor calls for targeted changes to support degree apprenticeships
Posted on: 2 May, 2025
UCEM Vice Chancellor Ashley Wheaton was invited to speak at the recent Westminster Higher Education Forum ‘Next Steps for Degree Apprenticeships’ virtual conference. In his talk, he highlighted funding shortfalls, regulatory burdens and the need for flexibility, while stressing the crucial role of degree apprenticeships in tackling skills gaps and driving economic growth in the built environment.
Funding challenges and viability
Ashley opened by underscoring the funding gap threatening the viability of degree apprenticeships. He noted that rising university tuition fees have widened the gap between the cost of delivering a degree and the fixed apprenticeship funding bands. Providers are expected to provide a degree programme for about £21,600 per apprentice (once the EPA fees are removed) – a level Ashley insisted is “absolutely not viable”. This strain is worsened by the policy of withholding 20% of funding and payment until an apprentice completes, which he criticised as punitive if learners drop out, especially as this is normally not the fault of the degree apprenticeship provider.
Ashley urged the government to raise funding bands to keep apprenticeships viable. He recommended increasing the maximum funding band to better reflect real university costs (around £28,605 per degree) with adequate funding for the non-degree components, so that providers can cover their expenses. He also suggested differential funding – higher funding limits for programmes that drive economic growth or address acute skill shortages. Such adjustments would help close the funding gap and ensure providers can continue offering degree apprenticeships without incurring losses.
Streamlining regulatory burdens
Another issue Ashley addressed was the excessive, overlapping regulation of degree apprenticeships. Providers must answer to multiple bodies, such as the Office for Students (OfS) and Ofsted, which creates an onerous compliance burden. As universities are already regulated by the OfS, he argued it makes little sense to also have Ofsted inspect their apprenticeship provision. Ashley urged policymakers to consolidate this oversight into a single, streamlined framework that maintains standards while cutting red tape. Simplifying the regulatory regime is critical if universities are to expand their apprenticeship offerings. Reducing such duplication would free providers to focus on delivery and enable them to take on more apprentices.
Greater funding flexibility
Ashley also advocated for much greater flexibility in how apprenticeship funding can be used. The current Apprenticeship Levy rules are too rigid – essentially a use-it-or-lose-it system that often leaves training funds unused. He stressed that levy money is “employer funds, not public funds”, and firms should have more control over how it’s spent. For example, he proposed allowing organisations to “mix and match” funding sources by blending levy funds with support from the Student Loans Company or additional contributions to cover costs above current funding limits. In addition, he suggested letting levy funds pay for modular, professionally accredited training even outside of full apprenticeship programmes, ensuring no training budget goes to waste. By liberalising these rules, he believes, the system could train far more apprentices with the same overall funding simply by deploying resources more creatively.
Degree apprenticeships and economic growth
Ashley emphasised that degree apprenticeships – especially at higher levels (Level 7, equivalent to a postgraduate degree) – are vital to economic growth. He cautioned against reforms that might limit Level 7 programmes, noting that some critical professions (e.g. Chartered Town Planner and Chartered Architect) require a Level 7 qualification. Removing the apprenticeship pathway into such roles would be highly counterproductive when professionals such as planners, engineers and surveyors are in high demand, especially if we are to achieve UK government targets of building 1.5 million homes.
A pragmatic path forward
Ashley’s overall message was pragmatic: “Instead of overhauling the system in the name of cutting supposedly wasteful and non-productive ‘white collar’ degree apprenticeships, we instead need targeted adjustments to make the system work better for employers, apprentices and training providers. We must avoid drastic changes, such as a blanket cut to all Level 7 funding under the proposed Growth & Skills Levy, that might inadvertently discard what has worked very well for many sectors.
The changes I have suggested, adjusting funding, increasing levy flexibility and streamlining oversight, are modest steps that would yield significant benefits. By removing these unnecessary barriers, degree apprenticeships can better serve apprentices, employers and the wider economy, all without requiring a major increase in public funding.”
