Let Level 7 apprenticeship funding die, but take Part 2 with it

The government is planning to cut funding for Level 7 apprenticeships.

And I think they have a point… hear me out.

This is part of a wider move to focus apprenticeship funding towards younger individuals and lower-level qualifications, where the government believes the impact of this spending is greatest.

Level 7 apprenticeships have been hailed as a great success, an earn-while-you-learn, part-time course that typically covers Part 2 and Part 3 over a four to five year period, which the student does not have to pay anything towards, as the government covers the £21,000 university fees.

Yes, you read that right. Four to five years. And that’s after you have already done your three-year undergraduate degree.

Surely this is the time to question why we need Part 2 to exist at all.

More than ever, we need our graduate architects to be highly competent in what is an increasingly technical industry, but the emphasis should surely change away from academic learning towards practical competency testing, moderated by the ARB as our regulator and provided by them online, rather than by an institution that requires £21,000.

I watched as my non-architect friends got proper jobs… whilst I sat in a draughty student HMO reading about Guy Debord and the Situationists

I did a full-time two-year Part 2, and watched as my non-architect friends around me got proper jobs, got promoted, began saving to buy houses, had disposable income, etc., whilst I sat in a draughty student HMO reading about Guy Debord and the Situationists.

And this is a flippant but important point. If we want to make the profession more inclusive, and attract those from outside the stubbornly undiverse typical pool, we need to get people earning proper salaries sooner.

My other frustration with Part 2 is that it doesn’t seem to increase the usable skills that I will actually value as an employer. If you are going to spend two years in full-time education, surely someone could teach detailing, development appraisals, building regulations or planning law… in short, something that I could charge one of my clients for.

About five years ago, we decided to set up the Ackroyd Lowrie Academy to bring young people from East London into the architectural industry. What we found is that Level 7 is not really where you have to start if you want to increase diversity in the industry - you have to start before Level 1 (GCSE). And this is why I think that the government do have a point about reallocation of funds if more inclusivity is the aim.

Let’s have the courage to admit the system is broken and reimagine a leaner, fairer and more effective route to qualification

We partner with New City College to go into their schools and raise awareness of architecture as a possible career path, and then, when they reach Level 3 (T Level, which is equivalent to A-levels), we provide placements for them to fulfil the vocational requirements of the course.

We then offer apprenticeship placements for Part 1 (Level 6) in partnership with LSBU. And this is where I would argue the industry needs to put more focus, and the government more funding, if we want to get greater diversity into our industry. Only two universities offer Part 1 apprenticeship places, LSBU and the University of Portsmouth.

Ironically, our ‘activist regulator’, the ARB, seems to recognise that the antiquated Part 1, 2 and 3 system is not fit for purpose, but rather than looking at a fundamental rethink of its bloated timeframe, they are setting out new ways to navigate it.

As part of the partnership with NCC, we get access to the academy’s construction training facilities, so all of our team have been able to get taught bricklaying and carpentry. And maybe this is one of the problems with the architectural industry - we design brick buildings without knowing how to lay bricks. We get taught to build buildings by people who don’t know how to build them.

So, if we are going to focus on changing the education system, let’s push funding towards the early years to get proper apprenticeship schemes going, but let’s run them as a more vocational system along with other trades - collaboration rather than isolation.

Let’s have the courage to admit the system is broken and reimagine a leaner, fairer and more effective route to qualification that puts competency above academia.