SKOPE Issues Paper 35 - Limits of exploitation - Consideration of the utility of progression pathways for workforce development

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret

SKOPE Issues Paper 35 argues that the policy concept of “progression pathways” risks becoming prolific yet unfocused, despite government efforts to link education and training to skilled occupations. It examines workforce development realities inside organisations, emphasizing that work-ready entry is insufficient without extensive on-the-job practice and continuous upskilling. It further considers employee motivations and constraints, noting varied career intentions, competition, and mobility choices.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages10

Reading Time25 min

AccessFree to download

Framing the issue

What are the realities?

Employee perspective and implications

SKOPE Issues Paper 35 March, 2016 Limits of exploitation? Consideration of the utility of progression pathways for workforce development Gary Morris, CBE SKOPE, University of Oxford Framing the issue The Wolf Report (2011) made clear that the proliferation of low-level vocational qualifications was in need of reform. It was thought that too many of these qualifications lacked substance, had little value in the jobs market and provided a weak platform for further development. Amongst the report’s recommendations, which were largely accepted and subsequently acted upon by the Government , was the need for progression pathways that more explicitly linked education and training opportunities at successively higher levels. This was embraced by Government as part of a wider strategy to get more young people into skilled occupations, to meet the current and anticipated rise in skills shortages in key sectors of the economy (HMT/BIS, 2015) . In its latest push, the Government has established a panel chaired by Lord Sainsbury to recommend clearer routes into work for technical and professional education. It anticipates up to 20 new routes being created for 16 to 19 year olds (GOV. UK, 2015) . Like so many other concepts within the realms of public policy, as “progression pathways” has entered into common usage, there is a danger that its application becomes increasingly prolific yet unfocused. In its policies on the 14 to 19 age group, the Government continues to push for the majority of school and college leavers to enter either higher education or an apprenticeship (Cameron, 2015) and progression pathways clearly have a role to play in supporting this. Beyond these waypoints , there are long standing pathways in higher education and into the professions. However, although the Government recognises that it needs to raise skills levels, the majority of apprenticeships continue to be undertaken at levels 2 and 3 (Delebarre, 2016) . It might therefore be inferred that progression routes are the answer to further upskilling once individuals cross the threshold into employment. However, this paper seeks to consider more closely the extent to which this is both realistic and appropriate within the far more complex and dynamic context of workforce development within organisations. What are the realities? Whilst some employers might assert that what they need from the education and training system is a supply of manpower that is work-ready on entry (Keep, 2015a) , the reality is usually somewhat different. All trades and professions require further experience-based practice to apply acquired knowledge and skills in a work environment. This essential component of skills formation is incorporated formally into both apprenticeship training and routes to post-qualification professional status ina wide range of occupations. In addition, all vocational requirements (and some post-qualification professional schemes) must include a component of off-the-job training (apprenticeships, for example, will in future require a minimum of one day per week to be spent on this) . Employers will always have to train new employees further to operate in their own specific physical and organisational environment and this may often extend far beyond formal “induction training”, which might amount to little more than initial orientation. In some cases , employers must provide additional training where there is a gap between qualifications for entry and the specific requirements of the job. It can be surmised, therefore, that an employer of skilled or professional personnel should expect to play a major part in making them fully competent in the job that they were recruited into and this is surely their highest developmental priority. Beyond new employees, organisations seek to identify and manage their best internal talent to compete for higher positions , although the extent to which organisations prefer to “grow their own” as opposed to “recr

FAQs

Why are progression pathways considered necessary in government policy?

They are intended to more explicitly link education and training at successively higher levels, helping more young people enter skilled occupations and respond to skills shortages.

What does the paper say about the reality of preparing workers for employment?

It argues employers still need extensive training beyond entry-level work readiness, because trades and professions require experience-based practice and often off-the-job components.

How does the paper address the employee perspective on progression?

It notes that not all employees want advancement, some only want it to a point or at certain stages, and many face constraints such as competition or choose alternative employment streams.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret