Degree Apprenticeships: UK Workforce Development

The research begins by highlighting the unexpectedly low participation of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and businesses in the UK government's Degree Apprenticeship (DA) program. Despite ambitious public targets set by the government, the actual uptake has fallen significantly short. This shortfall isn't attributed to a lack of awareness or interest, but rather to underlying institutional challenges and dynamics hindering effective implementation. The paper suggests that the issues are rooted in the complexities of integrating the DA model into the existing structures and operations of both HEIs and businesses. The study focuses on early assessment of the extent and scope of this participation in relation to the broader workforce development objectives of the UK government. The aim is to analyze the reasons behind this gap between government expectations and realized outcomes. The introduction of the program in 2015 initiated significant policy changes, aiming to foster collaborative relationships between HEIs and businesses to deliver Degree Apprenticeships. While the aim is to address workforce skills shortages and boost UK economic competitiveness, the reality is that the adoption rate has been much slower than anticipated.

A pivotal aspect of the DA initiative is the introduction of the Training Levy. This levy acts as a significant funding mechanism, incentivizing businesses to invest in apprenticeship training. The research explores how this financial incentive influences the behavior of both businesses and universities. For businesses, the levy presents a strategic opportunity, while for universities, it represents a crucial source of funding for DA programs. The study investigates how this funding mechanism has shaped the dynamics of collaboration between HEIs and businesses. The levy has had a major impact on HEIs' responsiveness to the government initiative. Businesses, in turn, seek reputable university partners to design and deliver these apprenticeships, leading to various collaborations. Some HEIs have actively engaged in approaching businesses, promoting the benefits of investing their Training Levy in DAs for their workforce. The paper also highlights the observation that some businesses are primarily utilizing the apprenticeship funding to upskill or retrain their existing workforce, rather than to recruit new talent – deviating from the original policy intent of expanding opportunities and social mobility.

The paper delves into the practical challenges and dynamics of HEI-business collaboration within the DA framework. It notes that many HEIs had pre-existing relationships and structures for working with businesses, but often these structures are small, narrow in scope, and not well-suited to the demands of more commercially-orientated work. The study highlights the complexities of aligning university systems and processes with the specific needs of businesses. This entails considerations like curriculum flexibility and adaptability, fast-track approvals, and the need to demonstrate a strong faculty base capable of delivering effective work-based learning. The research explores how the time constraints imposed by the Training Levy's two-year spending window create pressure on HEIs to rapidly design and deliver programs, potentially compromising quality or innovation. Furthermore, the paper discusses the lack of a consistent approach to building HEI-employer bridges and the challenges of information dissemination and coordination between government bodies, the Institute of Apprenticeships, and universities and businesses. The need for careful account management to maintain credibility and trust in the university-employer relationship is also stressed.

A significant focus of the research is the impact of the DA initiative on curriculum design and internal systems within HEIs. The study investigates the shift from traditional, campus-based, three-year degree programs to work-based learning curricula. This transition poses significant challenges to established practices and requires universities to choose between adapting existing degree structures or redesigning their programs specifically for work-based learning contexts. The paper emphasizes the importance of aligning DA programs with employers' strategic priorities. The research examines the 'push-pull' dynamics between curriculum and systems changes, noting that curriculum adjustments necessitated by DAs have triggered a demand for consequential systems adjustments within HEIs. It also explores how this adaptation affects established roles and responsibilities within universities, often necessitating the creation of stand-alone units dedicated to managing DA development with companies. The need to enhance flexibility and adaptability in content and delivery style is also emphasized.

This section lays the theoretical groundwork for understanding the responses of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to the government's Degree Apprenticeship (DA) initiative. It introduces institutional theory, explaining how universities operate within a social framework of norms, values, and established practices. The concept of institutionalization is highlighted, emphasizing how organizational structures and processes become enduring and resistant to change. The authors discuss how institutional theorists explain organizational activities as influenced by processes at three levels: individual, organizational, and inter-organizational. At the individual level, established norms and habits drive actions. At the organizational level, organizational culture and political processes influence actions. Finally, at the inter-organizational level, pressures from government, business, and society shape behavior. The research focuses on three isomorphic pressures – coercive, mimetic, and normative – which are crucial in understanding how organizations, including HEIs, respond to external influences and adapt their practices. This theoretical framework is essential for interpreting the HEIs' responses to the government's DA initiative.

The study identifies three key isomorphic pressure domains that influence HEIs’ engagement with the wider workforce development agenda and their participation in Degree Apprenticeships. The first domain focuses on the impact of formal and informal cultural and social pressures on universities, emphasizing how organizations often align with the state (often seen as the main coercive force) to gain resources and social support. The Training Levy, introduced by the UK government in 2017, is cited as a prime example of how government policies can act as either coercion or an invitation to collaborate. The second domain highlights how interaction with external stakeholders can challenge existing practices and necessitate adaptation and change within HEIs. The DA initiative is considered a disruptive force that challenges universities' traditional educational orientation. The third domain examines how organizational responses to uncertainty can lead to mimetic reinforcement, with universities often modeling themselves after others, exhibiting common program formats, approaches, and structures. This section establishes these three domains as the structure for analyzing the responses of HEIs to the government's DA initiative.

This section applies the three isomorphic pressure domains (coercive, mimetic, and normative) to analyze the HEIs’ responses to the Degree Apprenticeship initiative. The authors explain that the government's push for greater collaboration between HEIs and businesses in workforce development, coupled with the Training Levy, represents a significant coercive pressure. This pressure pushes universities to work with businesses. The mimetic pressure is seen in universities' tendency to adopt similar approaches and practices, mirroring those of successful institutions and creating a sense of conformity. Finally, the normative pressure arises from societal expectations for universities to contribute to broader workforce development objectives. This section provides a framework for understanding how these three pressures have influenced the decisions made by universities in designing and implementing Degree Apprenticeships. The researchers use these domains to interpret changes in HEI institutional dynamics triggered by the government's initiative to promote greater collaboration between HEIs and businesses regarding workforce development.

This section analyzes the Training Levy's role in fostering collaboration between Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and businesses in the context of Degree Apprenticeships (DAs). The levy serves as a key funding mechanism, incentivizing businesses to invest in apprenticeship training. The research observes that this financial incentive has significantly impacted the behavior of both businesses and universities, acting as a catalyst for partnerships. Businesses now have a financial incentive to invest in apprenticeships and actively seek trusted university partners to design and deliver these programs. Some HEIs have been proactive, approaching businesses to encourage investment of their levy funds in DAs for their workforces. However, the study notes that a prevalent strategy among businesses is to use the levy primarily for upskilling and retraining existing employees, rather than for recruiting new talent. This approach deviates from the initial policy aims of the DA initiative, highlighting a potential mismatch between the intended purpose and the actual implementation of the program.

The research examines the existing structures and processes within HEIs and how they influence their capacity for collaboration with businesses in delivering DAs. Many universities already have established structures for engagement with businesses; however, these 'commercial units' are often small and limited in scope. The traditional systems and processes within HEIs are largely designed for managing campus-based degrees and are not necessarily well-suited to the more commercially-oriented demands of DAs. The paper examines the challenges of adapting existing systems to accommodate work-based learning, the need for increased flexibility and adaptability in curriculum design and delivery, and the requirement for robust faculty able to deliver high-quality work-based learning. The study highlights how this mismatch in institutional structures and processes between HEIs and the commercial requirements of DAs adds to the challenges of establishing effective partnerships.

This section delves deeper into the complexities of building and maintaining effective HEI-business collaborations for DAs. The study highlights that while the UK government and the Institute for Apprenticeships aim for consistency and quality, their influence isn't always perceived positively. For example, the two-year time window for utilizing the Training Levy imposes time constraints and potentially unrealistic timelines for businesses and universities. The research observes that the nature of collaboration can vary significantly, with some HEIs and businesses exhibiting close, mature relationships while others struggle with communication and mutual understanding. The paper also discusses challenges such as employers' demands for fast-track approvals and bespoke program development, often influenced by the desire to maximize Training Levy funds within the short time frame, putting HEIs under pressure to respond quickly. This section emphasizes the evolving and often complex nature of HEI-business interactions within the DA landscape, highlighting both the challenges and the opportunities present.

This section focuses on the specific demands placed upon HEIs by employers involved in Degree Apprenticeships and the resulting responses from the universities. Employers, particularly those utilizing the Training Levy funds, often express a need for fast-track approvals for DA programs and a high degree of flexibility in content and delivery to align with their specific business needs. They also emphasize the importance of demonstrating a robust and experienced faculty capable of delivering effective work-based learning. The pressure of the two-year Training Levy window compels businesses to invest their funds quickly, leading to demands for faster program development and implementation. This section highlights the tension between employers' desire for quick results and universities' need to maintain quality. It also underscores the inherent push-pull dynamic between HEIs and businesses, often necessitating careful account management and effective communication to sustain trust and credibility. The paper uses this discussion to further examine how the interplay between these two external pressures – the Training Levy and employer demands – influences the development of HEI-business collaboration in workforce development.

This section focuses on the fundamental shift in curriculum design required by the Degree Apprenticeship (DA) initiative. The DA model necessitates a departure from traditional three-year campus-based degree programs, which are typically anchored in specialist academic knowledge. DA standards, on the other hand, emphasize a blend of university study and workplace learning, prioritizing the development of knowledge, skills, and behaviors relevant to specific employment contexts. Universities face a critical choice: adapt existing degree designs to meet the DA standards or adopt a more radical approach and redesign degrees to be more explicitly anchored in work-based learning. The research highlights that work-based learning, while gaining traction in universities, isn't a core element of most HEI missions. The study points out that DAs present a unique opportunity to integrate work-based learning more thoroughly into higher education, leading to the need for a comprehensive review of curriculum design principles and pedagogical approaches. The discussion also notes that the opportunity for curriculum redesign is not solely driven by the government initiative, but also by other factors such as a desire to expand part-time provision and address regional skills gaps.

The research explores the importance of co-creation and collaboration between HEIs and employers in designing effective DA curricula. The paper highlights how aligning DA programs with employers' specific strategic priorities is crucial for success. This often involves integrating employers' strategic plans directly into the curriculum design, allowing for bespoke programs that address the exact skills needs of the participating organization. The authors cite examples where employers actively participate in developing modules, contributing their unique insights into industry needs and practical applications. However, the study also reveals a significant challenge: the lack of clarity and understanding surrounding DAs at the start-up phase. This lack of understanding created difficulties in engagement dynamics between HEIs and employers, particularly concerning funding rules, commitment statements, and the provision of learning support for apprentices. The paper shows that despite these difficulties, effective co-creation of programs can lead to a positive shift in mindsets and a stronger commitment to the success of the initiative. This collaborative approach is highlighted as critical for aligning theoretical learning with practical experience.

This section addresses the systemic changes within HEIs necessary to support the implementation of DA programs and the resulting impact on staffing and resources. The shift to work-based learning curricula creates a demand for corresponding changes in university systems and processes, which are often based on traditional campus-based models. This necessitates adaptations in administrative support, teaching methodologies, and faculty roles. The study observes that the introduction of DAs creates challenges for existing roles and responsibilities within HEIs, often leading to the creation of new dedicated units to manage these initiatives. The research further notes the challenges experienced in allocating sufficient human and physical resources for successful DA delivery. The paper also highlights the difficulties faced by faculty members who are accustomed to traditional teaching and find adapting to work-based learning challenging. Supporting these adaptations involves addressing the roles and responsibilities of professional support staff, to enable the successful implementation and sustainability of Degree Apprenticeship provision.

This section examines the potential for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to differentiate their offerings and foster innovation within the Degree Apprenticeship (DA) market. It observes that the UK HEI sector has a long-standing tendency towards sector-wide conformity, with institutions often adopting similar practices and approaches. However, the DA initiative presents an opportunity for HEIs to break from this pattern and create distinctive offerings that meet the specific workforce development needs of individual businesses. The paper highlights the contrast between traditional three-year campus degrees, where students choose their preferred university, and DAs, where businesses select their preferred university provider. This dynamic creates a clear need for differentiation and innovation in DA provision. The authors suggest that the potential for achieving this differentiation has been limited, in part, by the process of DA standard setting, which hasn't explicitly accounted for organizational-specific workforce development strategies. This has created a tendency for HEIs to adopt similar practices, potentially hindering the emergence of diverse and innovative programs.

This subsection discusses the challenges of integrating workforce development curricula within HEIs and the importance of managing risk associated with DA provision. The research notes a tendency for HEIs to adopt a ‘moderated institutional response’ which prioritizes mapping existing degree structures onto apprenticeship standards rather than developing radically new and innovative programs. This approach, while allowing for quicker market entry, limits opportunities for differentiation and may hinder long-term sustainability. The paper identifies two key dynamics: integrating workforce development curricula and managing risk and innovation. The ‘start-up phase’ of DA implementation is characterized by a lack of comprehensive workforce development strategies from employers, which can limit the potential for curriculum innovation. As the initiative progresses, however, the authors anticipate a ‘second cycle’ phase where more strategic employer engagement will necessitate a more significant shift toward differentiation and innovation. Successfully navigating this necessitates a willingness to engage with risk. This includes the potential reputational damage from program underperformance and the risk of employers withdrawing apprentices without financial obligation, impacting the university's income streams.

The final part focuses on the risks inherent in DA provision and the prevalent 'moderated institutional response' adopted by many HEIs. The 'moderated institutional response' is described as a strategy of mapping existing degree programs onto apprenticeship standards, prioritizing quicker market entry over innovation. This approach minimizes risk by relying on tried and tested methods, but it also limits opportunities for differentiation and competitive advantage. The study highlights the reputational risk involved in working with large employers, emphasizing the potential for significant damage to a university's reputation if things go wrong. This risk is further exacerbated by the possibility of employers withdrawing apprentices, impacting income streams. This contrasts sharply with the stability of funding associated with traditional campus-based degrees. This section emphasizes the need for universities to balance the need for caution with a willingness to embrace innovation in order to successfully navigate the evolving landscape of Degree Apprenticeships. It suggests that a more proactive, strategic approach to program design and employer engagement is essential for long-term success and sustainability. The potential for future growth and responsiveness in the ‘second cycle’ phase will depend greatly on HEIs overcoming this cautious approach and developing unique and effective programs.

This section looks ahead to the future of Degree Apprenticeships (DAs) in the UK, anticipating a ‘second cycle’ phase following the initial ‘start-up’ period. The authors suggest that this next phase will require a more strategic approach from both HEIs and businesses, with a stronger emphasis on aligning DA programs with organizations' overall workforce development strategies. This implies a move beyond the initial, often reactive, approach to DA provision and a shift towards a more proactive and integrated model. To remain competitive and attract employer partners in this new phase, HEIs will need to develop differentiated and innovative offerings that go beyond simply mapping existing curricula onto apprenticeship standards. The research emphasizes that the success of the DA model in achieving social mobility goals hinges on improved partnership working and a greater degree of collaboration between HEIs and businesses.

The authors anticipate a significant evolution in employer expectations regarding Degree Apprenticeships. In the ‘second cycle’ phase, businesses are expected to develop more sophisticated workforce development strategies, with DAs playing a central role. This will necessitate a more strategic alignment between HEI programs and organizational objectives. The research highlights that the recruitment and selection process for apprentices will become increasingly crucial, particularly as businesses shift their focus towards attracting new talent rather than solely upskilling existing staff. Employers are anticipated to become more discerning and aware of the value proposition offered by DAs in terms of both return on investment and ongoing professional development. The study also anticipates that businesses will be more actively involved in integrating work-based learning within their organizations, aligning it with live projects and initiatives. This will provide apprentices with more relevant learning experiences and enhance their potential for career progression within the participating organization.

This section outlines the significant challenges HEIs will face in adapting to the evolving landscape of Degree Apprenticeships and the changes needed to meet the needs of employers and apprentices. The authors emphasize the need for increased diversity and innovation in workforce development curricula, moving beyond standardization to cater to the wide range of employer needs. They contend that many HEIs lack the necessary structures and processes to meet this challenge, necessitating a significant increase in the speed of change and responsiveness within universities. This increased speed of responsiveness will be crucial to meeting the demands of a more strategic approach to DAs, in which HEIs partner with businesses to address specific workforce development strategies. This final section underlines the need for a transformative shift within HEIs if the Degree Apprenticeship model is to truly contribute to social mobility and address the UK's skills gaps. They acknowledge the disruptive implications of this change but emphasize its necessity to ensure the long-term viability and success of the DA initiative.