One in Six: Why Inclusive Apprenticeships Are England’s Next High-Performance Opportunity

The talent hiding behind an ordinary learning barrier

Imagine an apprentice who can explain a project risk with remarkable clarity in a quiet conversation, yet struggles when instructions arrive at speed, across several messages, during a noisy meeting. Their first written submission is late. A tutor sees hesitation; a manager sees an unfinished task. Neither has yet seen the learner work from a clear brief, with a worked example, a chance to ask questions privately and time to organise a response. This is an illustrative situation, not a reported KBC case. It captures the question behind this first edition of The Monday Common Room: how much potential do we miss when we assess the obstacles surrounding learning before we understand the learning itself? High performance requires effort and sound teaching. It also requires an environment in which that effort can become visible.

The scale makes this a mainstream question. Official statistics show that learners declaring a learning difficulty or disability accounted for 16.7% of apprenticeship starts in England in 2024/25—around one in six, up from 10.1% in 2015/16. This is a recorded learning-difficulty/disability category, not an estimate that one in six apprentices is neurodivergent. The overall apprenticeship achievement rate reached 65.4%, an improvement of 4.9 percentage points. That remaining gap cannot be attributed to disability or inadequate adjustments: employment continuity, the mix of programmes and other factors matter. More recent provisional figures show 735,500 learners participating between August 2025 and April 2026. These are substantial opportunities for employers, providers and learners to make progress together.^[1]

Our argument is optimistic and demanding. Inclusive apprenticeship teaching should help people build stronger knowledge, demonstrate occupational competence and develop the confidence to contribute original ideas. Support should never depend on proving that a learning difference confers exceptional talent. Equally, a difficulty with one learning format should not decide the limits of a person’s ambition. The research offers no universal recipe and no honest promise that a single adjustment will transform every result. It does offer a more useful starting point: examine the task, listen to the learner, remove an avoidable barrier and find out whether learning improves.

Why this matters in England this autumn

England’s current quality conversation gives this work particular urgency. Ofsted’s further education and skills operating guide for use from September 2026 considers whether learners and apprentices achieve, belong and thrive, with leadership and inclusion among its evidence-gathering priorities. This connects inclusion with the substance of education: what learners experience and achieve, how barriers are understood, and how leaders respond. A policy statement is a beginning; the more revealing questions concern what happens in a workshop, an online tutorial, a workplace review or an assessment preparation session.^[3]

The Education and Training Foundation’s 2026 report Beyond the label, by Professor Amanda Kirby and Dr Vikki Smith, adds a sector perspective. Drawing on discussions and frontline insight rather than an experimental trial, it highlights anticipatory support, workforce capability and smoother transitions. For an apprenticeship, that transition problem is practical: a learner moves repeatedly between tutor, manager, mentor and assessor. Our interpretation is that inclusion should travel with the learning. A useful arrangement in a tutorial loses much of its value if the workplace brief, timetable or feedback process makes it impossible to use.^[5]

A pause button can be a serious learning tool

Horlin, Hronska and Nordmann’s 2024 study in Higher Education analysed a survey of 310 students, 93% studying at UK universities. Participants described how recordings, replay and changes to playback speed supported access and self-regulation. The study also identified trade-offs: using recordings well takes discipline, and concentrating too heavily on recorded teaching may crowd out other learning. This was a self-selected qualitative survey, largely associated with two Russell Group universities; it did not establish a causal improvement in apprenticeship grades. Its value lies in showing the mechanisms through which learners use control over pace to participate more effectively.^[6]

For apprenticeship practice, we suggest translating that insight into a purposeful learning sequence. Give the apprentice a concise demonstration of a relevant task, an accessible transcript and a clear explanation of what successful performance looks like. Invite them to pause, predict the next step, practise it and explain why it matters. A learner analysing a schedule variance might replay the calculation before applying it to a different example. A marketing apprentice might revisit a campaign evaluation before judging a new set of results. The tutor’s task is then to check understanding and transfer, rather than assume that watching a recording equals learning. Access to material and evidence of mastery are different things; a good lesson deliberately connects them.

The surprising finding: more interaction is not always more inclusion

A recent study by Durgungoz and Durgungoz, published online in 2025 and appearing in a 2026 volume of Higher Education, followed teaching over eight weeks at Mersin University in Türkiye. The analysis included 49 education undergraduates, 28 identified as neurodivergent. After a period of conventional lectures, sessions incorporated Universal Design for Learning approaches. Engagement improved, and learners valued practical tasks and opportunities to contribute anonymously through technology. Yet intensive group discussion could be overwhelming. This before/after design had no randomised control group, excluded 20 participants who missed sessions, and used a broad identification approach; it measured engagement, not occupational competence. Its striking lesson is therefore a design question, not a promised effect size: whose participation does a particular activity make easier?^[7]

A lively room can conceal uneven opportunities to think. In our proposed approach, an apprentice first receives a realistic problem and a short period to develop an answer independently. They can contribute through a written response, an accessible digital question or a prepared explanation before the group examines alternatives. The tutor then invites discussion with a clear purpose and enough time to process it. This retains the challenge of explaining and defending an idea, while reducing the extent to which success depends on speaking fastest. Where teamwork is an occupational requirement, it still needs to be taught and demonstrated. Flexible entry into a learning activity can be the route towards that competence.

Teach collaboration; do not simply allocate a group

Salvatore, White and Podowitz-Thomas interviewed 22 neurodivergent STEM undergraduates for their 2024 paper in the International Journal of STEM Education. Their accounts described how organisation, communication, group dynamics, leadership and classroom culture shaped participation. These are qualitative experiences, not a national prevalence estimate or proof that a particular intervention raises marks. They nevertheless challenge a familiar assumption: placing learners together does not automatically create an inclusive learning opportunity. The structure of the task and the behaviour of the teacher and group matter.^[8]

For a workplace improvement project, we would ask the group to agree its output, the evidence it needs, who owns each contribution and when questions will be resolved. Share the brief in advance. Make decisions visible in a short written record. Give each member an opportunity to explain their reasoning, and assess the quality of that reasoning alongside the required collaborative behaviours. Rotating roles can help learners develop new capabilities without permanently assigning the confident speaker to presentation and the quieter colleague to invisible preparation. These are practical proposals to test locally. Their success should be judged through the work produced and the learner’s experience, not the appearance of a busy meeting.

An adjustment must survive the journey from college to workplace

Butcher and Lane’s 2025 paper in Higher Education examined interviews with 15 autistic and/or ADHD students in Australia. It showed how experiences of inclusion were shaped by interacting features of curricula, assessment, adjustment plans, physical environments, staff and support services. Clear instructions and consistency mattered within that wider system. The small interview study cannot supply an intervention success rate, and its setting differs from an English apprenticeship. It does, however, help explain why a carefully written support plan may fall short when the learner encounters conflicting expectations elsewhere.^[9]

Workplace evidence reinforces the importance of the people around the learner. Koldas and colleagues’ December 2025 systematic review covered 56 studies across 12 countries, including 4,909 neurodivergent employees. Supportive managers, tailored arrangements and assistive technology appeared repeatedly as facilitators; poor understanding appeared as a barrier. The review did not assess the quality of included studies, and much of the underlying evidence concerned white, male, university-educated autistic employees with lower support needs. It cannot justify a headline claiming a fixed productivity uplift. It does provide a reason to include workplace mentors in the improvement conversation, rather than treat support as the tutor’s responsibility alone.^[10]

Our practical suggestion is a short, learner-agreed record that focuses on working arrangements: what the task requires, what creates difficulty, what helps, who will provide it and when it will be reviewed. Share information only with the learner’s agreement and through appropriate arrangements; a manager may need to know how to give an effective brief without receiving an unnecessary personal history. At each transition, check that the adjustment is available in practice. Can the learner access the software on the work device? Is protected learning time actually protected? Does the mentor understand how to give feedback? The quality of the handover is part of the quality of the education.

What a 45% reduction in a learning gap really means

Theobald and colleagues’ 2020 PNAS meta-analysis remains useful broader evidence that teaching design can affect educational equity. It examined examination scores from 15 studies involving 9,238 students and failure rates from 26 studies involving 44,606 students. Active learning was associated with average reductions of 33% in examination-score gaps and 45% in passing-rate gaps for underrepresented students. These are relative reductions in gaps, not percentage-point gains or a claim of 45% more apprenticeship completions. The populations concerned underrepresented racial/ethnic and low-income undergraduate STEM students, not specifically neurodivergent apprentices. The authors emphasised deliberate practice alongside inclusive teaching. That combination is a useful principle to examine in vocational learning, with its effectiveness tested in the actual programme.^[11]

For us, the transferable question is whether every apprentice gets enough purposeful practice and feedback on the knowledge that matters. A low-stakes attempt, a clear explanation of the error and a second attempt can reveal much more than a single high-pressure response. For example, invite a learner to analyse a flawed risk assessment, explain the reasoning behind a correction and then handle a fresh scenario independently. Record what changed between attempts. Maintain the occupational standard while improving the route towards it. An accessible task still needs intellectual substance; a demanding task still needs a fair opportunity to understand its instructions.

Creativity deserves more than a “superpower” slogan

It is tempting to celebrate inclusion by claiming that a particular diagnosis guarantees creativity. The empirical literature is more interesting. Erbeli, Peng and Rice’s 2022 meta-analysis combined 20 studies, with 770 participants with dyslexia and 1,671 controls, and found no overall mean creativity advantage. We consulted the publisher’s abstract for this paper. A separate 2023 meta-analysis by Gutiérrez-Ortega and colleagues also found no significant difference when creativity was treated as an overall construct, while finding advantages in separately measured divergent-thinking categories. Measurement choices and a limited evidence base matter. These findings do not diminish anyone’s talents; they caution against predicting an individual’s abilities from a label.^[12][13]

The positive implication is liberating: an apprentice does not need to be a hidden genius to deserve excellent teaching, and an educator does not need a stereotype to create opportunities for ingenuity. Ask learners to propose several ways of solving a real problem, compare the costs and benefits, test an option and reflect on what they would improve. Give space for drawing, modelling, written analysis or a prepared explanation when these are appropriate to the learning objective. Then evaluate the idea against evidence and the relevant standard. This makes creativity something people can practise, discuss and develop. It also creates room for the unexpected contribution from someone whose strengths have not yet been recognised.

AI can open a door—and make everyone’s ideas look alike

Generative AI adds a topical complication. Doshi and Hauser’s 2024 Science Advances experiment involved 293 UK-based writers and 600 evaluators. Access to up to five AI story ideas increased rated novelty by 8.1% and usefulness by 9.0% relative to the group without AI ideas; the resulting stories also became more similar to one another. This was a preregistered experiment using short fiction, not an apprenticeship learning trial or a study of disability adjustments. The figures cannot be transferred to learner achievement. They make a worthwhile point for inclusive teaching: support that helps an individual get started may also narrow the range of ideas a group produces.^[14]

Our recommendation is to keep the learner’s judgement visible. Ask for an initial idea before using AI, where feasible, then compare alternatives and explain the final choice. An approved tool might help an apprentice break down a brief or generate questions to discuss with a tutor. It should not become a substitute for understanding or a route around assessment requirements. Avoid entering personal learner information, confidential workplace material or assessment content into unapproved services. Check accuracy, accessibility and the programme’s rules. A valuable learning record shows what the apprentice accepted, challenged or rejected and why. The aim is to strengthen independent thought while retaining the individual voice that makes collaboration worthwhile.

From reasonable adjustments to a credible improvement plan

Current DWP guidance for England requires individual assessment and written agreement to support; needs can be identified during the programme, and providers should not rely only on automated assessment. Eligible apprenticeship learning support is £150 per month where adjustments are needed, delivered and evidenced as costing money—not an automatic payment for a declared condition. The guidance specifies a first review one month after implementation and review of continuing need at least every three months. Full apprenticeships and shorter apprenticeship units have different funding arrangements. Employer workplace adjustments are also distinct from provider learning support, so check the applicable rules rather than assume one funding route covers everything.^[2]

Acas offers a complementary workplace principle: people with the same condition can have different strengths and difficulties, and support should be considered with or without a diagnosis. Possible adjustments include clearer organisation, advance notice of changes and an appropriate sensory environment. Formal decisions still need to reflect the individual circumstances. In teaching, distinguish everyday accessible practice from the evidence needed for a funding claim or a formal assessment arrangement. Agree assessment adjustments through the relevant assessment organisation and applicable rules; changing how someone accesses an assessment must preserve what it is intended to assess.^[4]

Here is our proposed first-month approach. Begin with one real task and ask the apprentice where progress becomes difficult. Agree one or two proportionate changes, a named person to deliver them and a date to check the result. Establish a modest baseline: perhaps the accuracy of a calculation, the completeness of a workplace report or the learner’s ability to explain a decision without prompting. After the adjustment has been used, review comparable work and ask the learner what helped, what created a new difficulty and what they would change. Retain, adapt or replace the arrangement on that evidence. This is an improvement method, not a promise of a particular percentage gain.

A provider’s quality team can then look for patterns across consenting, appropriately protected records. Were agreed arrangements actually delivered? Did learners receive timely feedback? Did the same barrier recur at a transition? Are some groups receiving fewer opportunities to practise? Consider programme, stage, employment circumstances and sample size before interpreting differences. Attendance and satisfaction are useful signals, but neither alone establishes learning. Equally, an improved outcome after an adjustment does not prove that adjustment was its only cause. Careful evaluation can remain practical: a small amount of relevant evidence, gathered consistently, is more useful than a long checklist nobody uses.

A Monday invitation: raise the ambition and improve the conditions

Return to the apprentice at the start of this article. We cannot promise that a clearer brief or a quieter setting will resolve every difficulty. We can promise a better question: what would give this person a fairer opportunity to learn the task well and demonstrate the required standard? That question invites action from the tutor, the employer and the learner. It turns inclusion into a shared educational responsibility and makes high expectations more credible. It also keeps creativity open to everyone, including the person whose best idea needs a little more time, a different starting point or a more understandable question.

England’s apprenticeships connect learning with the work that communities and businesses need. Their potential grows when people can contribute with confidence, when standards are explained clearly and when support is evaluated thoughtfully. This week, choose one avoidable barrier and work with a learner to improve it. Share what you learn with a colleague. Our question for the wider KBC community is simple: which small change made the biggest difference to how you learned or worked? There is no need to disclose a diagnosis to join the discussion. A practical example may give another tutor, mentor or apprentice the idea they need. That is a positive place to begin the week—and a worthwhile reason to make room for one another.