Tracy Meller argues that the government’s plan to withdraw funding for Level 7 apprenticeships will dismantle a pathway that works, one that offers a more inclusive, affordable route into architecture at precisely the moment the profession needs it most
In light of the government’s decision to withdraw funding for Level 7 architectural apprenticeships for individuals over 21 from January 2026, we at RSHP, along with students, educators and practitioners, are calling for an immediate reversal of this short-sighted policy. As a practice deeply invested in fostering architectural talent and promoting social mobility, we are alarmed by the ramifications this decision will have for our future workforce and the wider built environment sector.
Level 7 apprenticeships have been a rare success story in the realm of architectural education, a model that makes sense both financially and professionally. The length of the course, which, although under review, currently still requires a minimum of five years’ study and two years in practice, is a huge commitment and financial undertaking, inevitably limiting accessibility to the profession. This apprenticeship pathway, however, allows aspiring architects to earn while they learn, gain crucial hands-on experience, and enter the profession with less debt and more confidence.
At RSHP, we have supported three apprentices. Jai Watts has completed his apprenticeship at Cambridge University and is now a fully qualified architect who continues to work at the practice. Holly Clarke is completing her apprenticeship at Nottingham University, having recently finished her Part 2 graduate year. Ekin Yavuz, a mature student, is at the beginning of his journey, having completed his first year at Nottingham University.
They are three of our highest-performing young architects and rightly represent the future of our industry: bright, driven, and often from backgrounds that would have made a traditional architecture education inaccessible.
Importantly, their choices were not made solely for financial reasons. Some students, such as Holly and Jai, after three years of full-time study, were simply happier to be working, balancing their further studies alongside their emerging career, and did not wish to return to full-time education.
The government’s move disproportionately affects mature students, career changers, and those from non-traditional or disadvantaged backgrounds
In Ekin’s case, as a mature student with family commitments, he needed to be working from a young age and worked full-time throughout his degree, which was incredibly challenging. Since joining RSHP, the apprenticeship pathway has allowed Ekin to balance work, studies and family commitments in a healthier and more sustainable way.
There has been much discussion about the reform of architectural education, looking for ways to reduce the financial burden and reduce the five-year commitment to full-time education, whilst ensuring its relevance to practice. The apprenticeship programme has been an excellent model in achieving these goals, allowing students to develop relevant skills in the workplace that inform their college work, ensuring a depth and relevance to their studies.
Levelling up? Or locking out?
According to data published by the Student Loans Company this year, the average student in the UK completes their degree after three years with £53,000 worth of loans. Architectural students face returning to college for a further two years to add yet more debt to that figure… a huge up-front investment when you consider Part 2 salaries average £35,000* per annum in London .
The Level 7 pathway offered a way to limit an already substantial level of debt, and importantly allows students to start earning sooner. Removing this opportunity will further narrow the potential field of future architects to those with the luxury of the time and money to afford five years in full-time higher education.
>> Also read: Let Level 7 apprenticeship funding die, but take Part 2 with it
>> Also read: Defunding architecture apprenticeships is a costly mistake that undermines the profession’s efforts to widen access
The introduction of a 21-year-old age threshold to qualify for apprenticeship funding feels punitive to the profession. The reality is that architecture requires long training, taking a minimum of four years to complete Part 1 (including the recommended year of work experience), and therefore inevitably most students are over 21 when they reach the stage to consider a Level 7 apprenticeship pathway for Part 2. The new rules will effectively remove that opportunity for aspiring architects.
The government’s move disproportionately affects mature students, career changers, and those from non-traditional or disadvantaged backgrounds (groups that apprenticeships were specifically designed to include). In doing so, this policy undermines the very ethos of inclusivity and social mobility that the government purports to champion, as our apprentices’ experience demonstrates.
What those on Level 7 apprenticeships have to say:
“The Level 7 apprenticeship allowed me to earn, learn, and gain two years of vital experience without taking on more debt. It gave me a head start in my career and a clearer path to qualification. Cutting this funding would shut the door on so many people and be a major step backwards for the profession.”
Holly Clarke, Apprentice at RSHP, currently completing her Part 2 at the University of Nottingham
“The Level 7 apprenticeship gave me the opportunity to qualify as an architect while gaining valuable hands-on experience in practice without the burden of debt. Combining academic and real-world learning accelerated my professional development and enabled me to take on greater responsibility early in my career, supporting my growth into a more confident, capable, and well-rounded professional.”
Jai Watts, Architect at RSHP, completed Level 7 apprenticeship at the University of Cambridge
“During my undergraduate period it meant studying full-time and working the rest of the days of the week, which was extremely challenging. Not something to be considered healthy and almost impossible to accomplish. I am now a Level 7 apprentice and find the route a healthier and more balanced approach, as I was unsure if I would be able to achieve my master’s to the best of my ability considering the increased demand of the course. I believe there are many individuals with similar stories, where they have had to divert away from architecture due to personal and family responsibilities. Cutting the funding will mean that those mature students could potentially never find a way to reach their passion to be an architect.”
Ekin Yavuz, Apprentice at RSHP, currently completing his Part 2 at the University of Nottingham
A financial blow to firms, a talent drain for the industry
Architectural practices are already facing structural and economic pressure in offering apprenticeships. At RSHP, we pay into the Apprenticeship Levy and ensure that our apprentices receive a salary above the London Living Wage alongside competitive terms and conditions. But we are clear: without access to our levy funding, we may not be able to offer Level 7 placements.
The proposed restriction of funding would force many firms (particularly smaller ones) to stop supporting apprentices altogether, resulting in fewer apprenticeships and a more limited pool of potential talent, at a time when we need a diversity of voices and perspectives to effectively tackle the challenges of housing shortages, sustainability goals and building safety reform.
Where Is RIBA? We need stronger representation
The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) must play a more active, visible and forceful role in lobbying the government to overturn this policy. While individual figures within the institution have expressed concern, what is needed now is sustained institutional pressure. We call on RIBA to mobilise its membership, launch a coordinated public campaign and directly challenge this policy through every available legislative and media channel.
We call on ministers, civil servants and professional institutions to reinstate Level 7 apprenticeship funding
RIBA’s mission includes “championing better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and our members.” That mission cannot be realised if the future of the profession is cut off from those who cannot afford to pay their way through it. RIBA must stand with practices, educators and students in defending apprenticeships as a vital route to qualification and equity.
Our call to action
We urge the UK Government to immediately reverse this decision and reinstate full funding for Level 7 apprenticeships for all eligible individuals, regardless of age. Failure to act will undo the first meaningful and successful strategy to widen participation in the industry and risk turning architecture into an increasingly exclusive profession, accessible only to those with financial privilege.
We also call on RIBA and other professional bodies to do more. Raise your voices. Use your platforms. Fight for the profession’s future, not in abstract policy terms, but in the real, human stories of the students affected.
The future of architecture (and the built environment it shapes) depends on the talent, diversity and resilience of the next generation of practitioners.
We call on ministers, civil servants and professional institutions to reinstate Level 7 apprenticeship funding.
Postscript
Tracy Meller is a Senior Director at RSHP.
*Salary figure taken from a d3 Group survey, November 2024.
No comments yet