Thinking through staff development following the defunding of the academic professional apprenticeship

One of the level 7 apprenticeships affected by the government’s refocusing on lower levels and younger learners is the academic professional apprenticeship (APA). Its defunding from January 2026 has meant that providers of the APA – almost exclusively universities – have had to review their position and approach to staff development available to early career professionals.

Those offering the APA had largely been delivering it as a route of professional development for new higher education teaching and teaching-related staff. With the news of level 7 age restrictions, many providers are now teaching out the APA.

Withdrawing public funding from those already in work may be seen as a sensible solution by some. But this decision is short sighted – it frustrates coherent planning for the higher education teaching workforce and the broader knowledge economy.

Universities relied heavily on the APA to develop pedagogical competence alongside disciplinary expertise. The APA was typically aligned to Advance HE’s Professional Standards Framework (PSF) and delivered as or alongside a qualification, such as the Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (PGCLTHE). Defunding the APA removes this national funded route into accredited teaching for early career higher education professionals, turning what was a reputable institutional pipeline into a discretionary cost.

The importance of teacher training in HE

The defunding of the APA reduces capacity to train higher education teachers. One might think that this won’t make a difference – the argument would be that anyone working in higher education should already be a high-skilled individual – but consider this: there’s no other formal, funded training offered to those responsible for teaching in higher education.

So this decision could have a major impact on teaching quality across the sector, and will potentially impact on career choices, as there will be more people aspiring to work in higher education without any support to develop their teaching. This could lead to a sector dominated yet again by great researchers that can’t teach.

Support into work should not come at the expense of upskilling the existing workforce – Skills England’s own forecasts emphasise the need for more high-level skills, not fewer pathways to obtain them. A better approach would have been to protect apprenticeship routes explicitly tied to public service delivery.

The APA was offered not only to staff at that university but also their partners, usually for those involved in mentoring in the NHS and police. It is unlikely that alternative provision, such as standalone PGCLTHEs, will be offered in the same way, as the cost would be borne directly by the partners rather than claimed through levy funding. So here we will see a loss of upskilling opportunities for those who teach or mentor in roles outside of universities. Where opportunities continue to exist, it is likely that eligibility criteria will be tighter and/or the cost of participation will be moved onto partners, or even the participants.

Furthermore, some universities funded their learning and teaching development staff through the apprenticeship levy, with staff teaching on integrated PGCLTHEs. Providers were able to fulfil their commitment to ongoing learning and teaching development without needing to find sources of income elsewhere. With the APA no longer available, it places those teams reliant on apprenticeship funding at risk (this can already be seen in restructures taking place across the sector). Plus if there is less capacity for learning and teaching development, inevitably there will be an impact on students, and metrics such as the NSS and TEF could be impacted. If teams have to merge, reduce staffing, or are completely axed, universities may even have difficulty complying with Office for Students’ conditions of registration.

The withdrawal of funding for the level 7 APA is not just a policy shift – it is a decision that stifles creativity and threatens to erase years of sector-wide learning in designing and delivering complex, regulated programmes of study. The APA is, or was, more than just a qualification: it was a safe space for innovation, blending apprenticeship standards with academic rigour. All this expertise gained in navigating intricate regulatory frameworks is invaluable, and now risks becoming obsolete.

The APA went beyond theory, embedding applied teaching methods and reflective learning to support innovation and student success. To meet the APA’s occupational standard, universities redesigned their PGCLTHEs to applied practice, inclusive pedagogy, and authentic assessment, with learning outcomes mapped to the PSF. Defunding the APA risks discarding this hard-won expertise, with a direct impact on teaching excellence.

How to respond

The sector needs to prepare for structural changes to account for the fact these courses will no longer qualify for levy funding. The first thing is to capture and disseminate lessons learnt: universities should consider a review of their APA delivery, documenting best practices in curriculum design and development. This could inform published guidance for university and professional recognition bodies to embed in future staff development opportunities.

Higher education needs to recognise the importance of high-quality teaching, and find some way to protect funding for teaching qualifications, whether through targeted grants for staff, cost-sharing or collaborative funding models across universities, or even a ring-fenced national fund to replace the levy and fund pedagogic development in HE.

Above all, there needs to be attention paid to how to protect learning and teaching teams, recognising the value that those teams provide at institutional level and beyond, by providing more equitable ways to support students to achieve better outcomes through good pedagogic practice.