Select committee inquiry
The apprenticeships programme: progress review inquiry
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“Scope of the inquiry The apprenticeships programme in England seeks to address two key problems: poor UK productivity compared with many international competitors; and a significant fall in employers’ investment in training in recent decades. The programme aims to develop people’s knowledge, skills and behaviours required for their occupation. Public spending on apprenticeships increased from £1.2bn in 2010-11 to £1.6bn in 2017-18. The budget for 2018-19 is £2.2bn. The Committee's 2016 report on apprenticeships concluded that it was unclear how the Department for Education (DfE) would monitor the success of the programme in important areas, such as the programme's ability to meet the needs of employers. The report also raised concerns that a new apprenticeship levy for employers might incentivise some employers to exploit the system. In spring 2017, government introduced the 0.5% levy for employers with a pay bill of more than £3m. Levy-paying employers can use this money, plus a 10% government top-up, to pay for apprenticeship training and assessment. The number of apprenticeship starts, however, fell substantially after the levy was introduced in April 2017; almost a third of learners reach the end but do not achieve their apprenticeship; and the proportion of new apprentices from disadvantaged areas was lower in 2017/18 than in 2015/16. A recent National Audit Office (NAO) report concludes that, despite making changes to the programme, DfE has not enticed employers to use available funds or encouraged enough potential recruits to start an apprenticeship. For example, the number of apprenticeship starts fell substantially after the levy was introduced in April 2017. In addition, the NAO found that, although DfE has improved its performance measures, it is still not clear how it demonstrates the impact of the programme on economic productivity. The ESFA also has limited assurance that apprentices are spending at least 20% of their time on off-the-job training. Members will use this hearing to questions officials from the Department for Education, the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA), and the Institute for Apprenticeships about the value of the apprenticeships programme and effectiveness of its oversight. Moreover, Members may wish to question the future affordability of the apprenticeships programme.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
In the committee's words, from the summary of 98th Report - The apprenticeships programme: progress review ↗
The Department for Education (the Department) has failed to make the progress that it predicted when it reformed the apprenticeships programme in spring 2017. The number of apprenticeship starts fell by 26% after the apprenticeship levy was introduced and, although the level is now recovering, the government will not meet its target of 3 million starts by March 2020. The Department’s focus on higher-level apprenticeships and levy-paying employers increases the risk that minority groups, disadvantaged areas and smaller employers may miss out on the benefits that apprenticeships can bring. We welcome the programme’s greater focus on quality and, after a slow beginning, more than half of apprenticeships are now started on employer-designed standards rather than the old-style frameworks. However, some employers are using apprenticeship funds to pay for professional training or management courses that they would otherwise have paid for themselves. We remain to be convinced that this is the best use of the available funding in terms of adding genuine value to the economy.
Because of the drop in apprenticeship starts, the Department underspent the programme’s budget by 20% in 2017–18. However, employers’ preference for higher-cost apprenticeships means that the programme is expected to come under growing financial pressure in the coming years. Unless funding is increased, the Department will face difficult decisions about which aspects of the programme to prioritise. It is crucial that these decisions are based on sound evidence, and that they pay due regard to the added value that different types of apprenticeship bring.
What the government said
No government response is linked to this report.
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 25 March 2019 to 22 May 2019.
- Oral evidence 25 Mar 2019
- Report 22 May 2019
What it recommended 4 recommendations · 27 conclusions
1The Department has not set out what productivity gains it is expecting from the programme.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Department has not set out what productivity gains it is expecting from the programme. Addressing the United Kingdom’s poor productivity compared with many international competitors is a core purpose of the apprenticeships programme. The Department uses a ‘skills index’ as a proxy measure for the impact of apprenticeships on productivity. The index takes account of the number of apprenticeship starts, apprentices’ progression into jobs, and the subsequent increase in their earnings. The index increased by 3% in the academic year 2016/17 and by a further 2% in 2017/18, as a result of more people achieving higher-level apprenticeships and a small shift towards sectors with higher wage returns. The Department has not set out what improvement in the headline value of the index would constitute success. Recommendation: The Department should publish the level of improvement in the skills index that it is aiming to achieve in the short and long term.
2The way that the programme is evolving risks leaving behind people with lower skills and...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The way that the programme is evolving risks leaving behind people with lower skills and those from disadvantaged communities. The programme is now more heavily weighted towards higher-level apprenticeships. Around 20% of the new standards are available at level 2 (often the level at which learners join the programme). In contrast, more than 40% of the old-style frameworks were previously available at this level. Some employers and training providers are concerned about the lack of suitable level 2 standards, and the challenge of enhancing learners’ English and maths skills while also delivering occupational training. The proportion of apprenticeship starts among people from disadvantaged areas has fallen, partly because of the growth in starts at level 3 and above. In 2017/18, just under 23% of new apprentices were from the most deprived local authority areas, compared with the Department’s target of 25%. The ESFA is carrying out research to understand more about why the programme appears not to be working well for people from disadvantaged areas. Recommendation: The Department should assess whether there are enough level 2 standards to allow school leavers or those with fewer skills to easily access apprenticeships, and report back to us within six months on its assessment and any action it proposes to take to redress the balance.
3The Department’s approach to widening participation among under-represented groups has been inadequate.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department’s approach to widening participation among under-represented groups has been inadequate. One of the programme’s four main objectives is to draw apprentices from a wider range of social and demographic groups. However, the Department’s targets for apprenticeship starts among the black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) population, and among those with a learning difficulty, disability or health problem, are unambitious in that they are below the respective levels of these groups in the working-age population. There are no gender-based targets for the programme—we recommended that the Department should set such targets in our 2018 report on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills but the Department rejected our recommendation. In 2016/17, women made up only 8% of STEM apprenticeship starts. The Department reports that this figure has since risen to 9%, but acknowledges that the position is “hopeless”. It says that 6 The apprenticeships programme: progress review it is seeking to raise awareness of apprenticeships among women and girls, and to provide positive images of women doing STEM-related work, but we consider that it is taking far too long for the Department to get to grips with this issue. Recommendation: The Department should set more stretching diversity targets, covering BAME apprentices and those with a learning difficulty, disability or health problem, for 2020/21 and beyond. In the absence of targets relating to gender, it should evaluate the impact of its efforts to attract more women into STEM apprenticeships and report to us within six months on how it plans to address under-representation.
4The programme is not supporting smaller employers well enough.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The programme is not supporting smaller employers well enough. Money raised by the apprenticeship levy has to pay for all apprenticeships, including those in smaller employers who do not pay the levy. Levy-paying employers have direct access to their funds, to pay for apprenticeship training and assessment. In contrast, smaller employers access apprenticeships via training providers who are funded through contracts with the ESFA. Under current funding arrangements, if levy- payers spend more than around half of their funds, the ESFA will have less money available to fund apprenticeships among smaller employers. While levy-paying employers have spent a relatively small proportion of their funds so far, training providers are already reporting that they do not have enough funding to offer as many apprenticeships to smaller employers as they would like. Levy-payers have up to 24 months to spend their funds—when unspent funds start to expire in May 2019, around £12 million a month may be lost to the programme. Recommendation: The Department should set out how it will ensure that smaller employers can benefit fully from the programme, including considering whether to protect funding for non-levy-paying employers and assessing the feasibility of deploying expired levy funds to support skills development in particular parts of the country.
5Too many apprentices are being trained by sub-standard providers.
Concluded (the committee's words)
Too many apprentices are being trained by sub-standard providers. Around a third of apprentices covered by Ofsted inspections in 2017/18 were being trained in providers rated as ‘inadequate’ or ‘requires improvement’. The poor quality of some providers contributes to a situation where over 30% of apprentices fail to complete their apprenticeship successfully each year. In 2016/17, this equated to more than 132,000 apprentices. Since 2014/15, a growing proportion of training providers have fallen below minimum standards for their apprenticeship achievement rates. The ESFA may issue these providers with additional conditions of funding or extra contractual obligations. Ultimately it can terminate providers’ contracts, but this is extremely rare—it has taken this step with only 11 providers in the past five years. Recommendation: The ESFA should evaluate the impact of its interventions with failing providers that fall short of contract termination, and report its findings to us within six months.
6We do not have confidence in the arrangements for assessing apprentices at the end of...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We do not have confidence in the arrangements for assessing apprentices at the end of their apprenticeship. Under the standards, each apprentice is assessed by an independent third-party at the end of their apprenticeship. However, in late 2018, 19 standards had no end-point assessment organisation in place, and 98 standards had The apprenticeships programme: progress review 7 only one assessment organisation. Training providers and employers have expressed concerns about whether there will be enough assessors to meet the demand for assessments. The ESFA contends that the 220 approved assessment organisations cover over 99% of apprentices, but it also concedes that many of these organisations work in only one area or setting and that there are gaps in coverage. In addition, the arrangements for checking the quality of end-point assessments are muddled, and it is unclear whether the numerous bodies involved provide a consistent level of assurance. Ofqual is one of the quality assurance bodies but, as a regulator, has greater powers than the other bodies. Recommendation: The ESFA and the Institute for Apprenticeships & Technical Education should write to us within six months to: • provide more detail about the coverage and capacity of end-point assessment organisations; specifically, they should set out the coverage by region and how many apprenticeship standards have only one assessment organisation. • set out what they will do to streamline and strengthen quality assurance arrangements in order to give greater confidence that end-point assessments are robust, fair and consistent. 8 The apprenticeships programme: progress review 1 Impact of the apprenticeships programme
7In the 2017–18 financial year, the Department spent £1.6 billion on the apprenticeships programme, out...
Concluded (the committee's words)
In the 2017–18 financial year, the Department spent £1.6 billion on the apprenticeships programme, out of a budget of £2.0 billion.10 However, because employers are developing and choosing a greater proportion of higher-cost apprenticeships than expected, the Department projects that, even if starts remain at current levels, spending on the programme could rise to more than £3 billion by 2020/21.11 The Department told us that, in that event, government would have to make choices to balance supply and demand; for example, one of the options as resources became constrained would be whether to prioritise some sorts of apprenticeship over others.12 Impact on productivity
8Ultimately, the apprenticeships programme is intended to boost economic productivity.
Concluded (the committee's words)
Ultimately, the apprenticeships programme is intended to boost economic productivity. It is difficult to assess the direct impact of any particular qualification on someone’s productivity but an accepted approach is to measure how the qualification is associated with wage changes—in this case, the approach would involve establishing whether successful apprentices tend to earn higher wages than other employees with similar characteristics who did not complete an apprenticeship.13
9Following a similar approach, the Department uses a ‘skills index’ as a proxy measure for...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Following a similar approach, the Department uses a ‘skills index’ as a proxy measure for the impact of apprenticeships on productivity. The index combines three components: the number of people doing apprenticeships, their progression into jobs and the subsequent increase in their earnings.14 The Department told us that it recognised that it would be helpful to publish more information about the workings of the skills index.15 Accordingly, in April 2019, the Department published a document explaining how the index is calculated and how it should be used.16
10The value of the skills index increased by 3% in 2016/17, compared with 2015/16.17 Subsequent...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The value of the skills index increased by 3% in 2016/17, compared with 2015/16.17 Subsequent to our evidence session, the Department published a further progress report on the programme which stated that the skills index had increased by an additional 2% in 2017/18, due to more people achieving higher-level apprenticeships and a small shift towards sectors with higher wage returns.18 However, the Department has not set out what level of improvement in the index would constitute success in the future.19 8 Throughout this report, further education sector academic years are written as, for example, ‘2017/18’ and run from 1 August to 31 July; financial years are written as ‘2017–18’ and run from 1 April to 31 March. 9 C&AG’s Report, para 14 10 C&AG’s Report, paras 11, 1.22 11 C&AG’s Report, paras 1.24, 2.26 12 Qq 101, 111 13 C&AG’s Report; para 3.6 14 Qq 65, 67, 111 15 Q 65 16 Department for Education, Further Education Skills Index: England, April 2019 17 Q 65; C&AG’s Report, para 19, Figure 11 18 Department for Education, Progress report on the Apprenticeships Reform Programme, April 2019 19 C&AG’s Report, para 19 10 The apprenticeships programme: progress review
11The apprenticeships programme now covers a wider range of professions than it traditionally has done.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The apprenticeships programme now covers a wider range of professions than it traditionally has done. For instance, new standards enable apprentices to become qualified accountants and solicitors. And some employers are replacing their professional development programmes and management training with apprenticeships, raising concerns that public money is being used to pay for training that already existed in other forms.20 We asked the Department whether it considered that this was an acceptable use of the programme’s budget, and whether it was concerned about employers using public money to pay for training for senior staff. The Department told us that it saw nothing wrong with an employer improving the quality of its leadership and management through apprenticeships—as long as it followed the rules and as long as there was enough money in the budget to meet demand—and that this could contribute to increased productivity.21 Apprenticeships for people with lower skills
12Apprenticeships are available at a range of levels, from GCSE-equivalent (level 2) to postgraduate degree-equivalent...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Apprenticeships are available at a range of levels, from GCSE-equivalent (level 2) to postgraduate degree-equivalent (level 7). People often join the programme at level 2, which is a pathway into employment or an apprenticeship at a higher level.22 However, the introduction of apprenticeship standards has led to a significant decline in the proportion of apprenticeships that are available at level 2 because employers are choosing to develop standards at higher levels. Around 20% of the approved standards are at level 2; in contrast, more than 40% of the old-style frameworks were previously available at this level.23
13The reduction in availability of level 2 apprenticeships particularly affects the ability of people who...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The reduction in availability of level 2 apprenticeships particularly affects the ability of people who are economically disadvantaged to start an apprenticeship.24 The British Retail Consortium told us in its written evidence that the decline in level 2 starts was a real concern for the industry, given the role that retail plays in providing employment for individuals who experience a high level of economic exclusion and who need flexibility in the hours and location of their work.25 Sunderland College and ACE Training also told us of similar concerns, as did ukactive in its written evidence.26
14Sunderland College also told us that it sometimes had to provide English and maths training...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Sunderland College also told us that it sometimes had to provide English and maths training in addition to specific apprenticeship training, in order to ensure that apprentices had the requisite skills. This could be a challenge for the college as English and maths training did not count as part of the 20% off-the-job training for the apprenticeship, and employers sometimes struggled to release apprentices for the extra time.27
15The Department aims for at least 25% of apprentices to be from disadvantaged areas but...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department aims for at least 25% of apprentices to be from disadvantaged areas but the actual level fell from 25% in 2015/16 to 22.6% in 2017/18. The ESFA said that, historically, a large proportion of level 2 apprentices had come from disadvantaged areas, so the fact that more apprenticeships were now at level 3 and above partly explained the drop in the proportion of apprentices from disadvantaged areas.28 20 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.29–2.30 21 Qq 109, 111 22 Qq 8–9, 44; C&AG’s Report, para 1.7 23 Qq 8, 14, 48, 72–73, 91–92, 108; C&AG’s Report, Figure 9 24 Qq 48, 91–92 25 British Retail Consortium, para 9 (APR0007) 26 Qq 44, 48; ukactive (APR0006) 27 Qq 17–18 28 Qq 45, 91–92; C&AG’s Report, para 2.11 The apprenticeships programme: progress review 11
16The ESFA told us that it was carrying out research to understand what could be...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The ESFA told us that it was carrying out research to understand what could be done to make the programme work better for people from disadvantaged areas. It was focusing on four areas—Portsmouth, Nottingham, South Tyneside and Torbay—to identify what more could be done to improve social mobility. It was seeking to gather data and understand employer behaviour, and expected that it would need another 12 months to understand what meaningful interventions it might be able to make.29 Participation by under-represented groups
17One of the programme’s four main objectives is to draw apprentices from a wider range...
Concluded (the committee's words)
One of the programme’s four main objectives is to draw apprentices from a wider range of social and demographic groups.30 The Department has a target for just 11.9% of apprenticeship starts to be from the black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) population by 2020, despite the fact that this group represents 14.9% of the overall working-age population and 20.7% of pupils at the end of key stage 4, who will potentially join the workforce over the next few years. Similarly, the Department aims, by 2020, for 11.9% of starts to be by people with a learning difficulty, disability or health problem, whereas as many as 19% of working-age adults in the UK report that they have a disability. In 2017/18, each of these two groups represented 11.2% of apprenticeship starts.31 We asked why the targets were not more ambitious. The Department said that the BAME target had been set under the previous government, which had identified that the proportion of BAME apprentices, as well as the proportion of BAME undergraduate students, should increase by 20% by 2020.32
18The programme has no targets relating to gender.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The programme has no targets relating to gender. While 51% of new apprentices in 2017/18 were male and 49% were female, traditional gender imbalances persist at sector and subject level. For example, only around 7% of those starting an apprenticeship in ‘engineering and manufacturing technologies’ are female, compared with 80% in ‘health, public services and care’.33 In our 2018 report on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills, we recommended that the Department should establish specific targets relating to the involvement of girls and women in key STEM learning programmes such as apprenticeships.34 The Department rejected our recommendation, stating that it did not believe that setting specific targets was likely to help it properly tackle the issue of gender participation.35
19The Department told us that the proportion of women starting STEM apprenticeships had gone up...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department told us that the proportion of women starting STEM apprenticeships had gone up from 8% in 2016/17 to 9% in 2017/18, but acknowledged that the position was “hopeless”. It told us that it was working hard to improve the situation, regardless of whether there was a target or not, citing success in increasing the number of women doing STEM subjects at A level and degree level. It said that, as a direct consequence of the fact that there were at least 25% more girls doing STEM subjects at school, there should be a significant increase in the proportion of women doing STEM apprenticeships.36 29 Qq 91–94 30 C&AG’s Report, para 1 31 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.9–2.10 32 Q 83 33 Qq 84–85; C&AG’s Report, paras 2.12–2.13 34 Committee of Public Accounts, Delivering STEM skills for the economy, Session 2017–19, HC 691, 22 June 2018 35 HM Government, Treasury Minutes: Government response to the Committee of Public Accounts on the Forty Third to the Fifty Eighth reports from Session 2017–19, Cm 9702, October 2018 36 Qq 87–88 12 The apprenticeships programme: progress review
20The ESFA said that employers were taking the issue seriously and that it heard more...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The ESFA said that employers were taking the issue seriously and that it heard more and more from employers who said that they were passionate about getting more girls into STEM roles. It referred to the example of a pharmaceutical company which was exceeding its own target for female apprentices by a large margin.37 The ESFA also highlighted its current apprenticeships campaign which portrayed women in STEM subjects positively, and its ‘young apprentice ambassadors network’ who acted as role models to raise awareness of apprenticeships among women and girls.38 Ensuring that all employers benefit from the programme
21Money raised by the apprenticeship levy effectively has to pay for all apprenticeships, including those...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Money raised by the apprenticeship levy effectively has to pay for all apprenticeships, including those in smaller employers who do not pay the levy, and ongoing apprenticeships that started before the levy was introduced. Larger, levy-paying employers have direct access to their funds, via an online service, to pay for apprenticeship training and assessment.39 In contrast, for non-levy-paying employers, the ESFA holds contracts with training providers and allocates funds directly to providers to pay for apprenticeship training and assessment.40
22Under the current funding arrangements, the Department had expected that levy- paying employers would spend...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Under the current funding arrangements, the Department had expected that levy- paying employers would spend around half of their available funds, leaving the rest to be spent mainly on smaller employers. In 2017–18, levy-payers spent only 9% of their available funds but the Department told us that this proportion was growing, which meant that there would be less money left for non-levy paying employers.41 However, two of the training providers who gave evidence told us that their non-levy funds were running out and that their funding allocations were restricting their ability to offer as many apprenticeships to smaller employers as they would like.42
23Levy-paying employers have up to 24 months to spend their funds, after which any unused...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Levy-paying employers have up to 24 months to spend their funds, after which any unused money is returned to HM Treasury.43 The ESFA explained that unspent funds would expire on a monthly basis starting in May 2019, when it expected around £12 million might be lost to the programme.44 ACE Training suggested that there should be a local pooling system, whereby unspent funds could be redistributed to fund apprenticeships, including salary costs, with small businesses, local charities or community groups, for the benefit of the local economy.45 Mr Richard Marsh made a similar suggestion in his written evidence.46 The Department and the ESFA told us that they were looking into ways of enabling a greater degree of local pooling of funds, potentially facilitated via Local Enterprise Partnerships or combined authorities.47 37 Q 90 38 Q 88 39 C&AG’s Report, paras 1.15, 1.19, 1.21 40 Qq 19, 100; C&AG’s Report, para 1.18 41 Qq 133, 137; C&AG’s Report, para 13 42 Qq 19, 26 43 Qq 97–98 44 Qq 103, 136 45 Qq 27, 50 46 Mr Richard Marsh (APR0002) 47 Qq 94–102 The apprenticeships programme: progress review 13 2 Apprenticeship training and assessment Quality of training providers
24Ofsted inspected 113 established training providers in 2017/18 and rated 58% of them as ‘good’...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Ofsted inspected 113 established training providers in 2017/18 and rated 58% of them as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ for their apprenticeship training.48 We note that this compares poorly with schools, 86% of which are rated good or outstanding.49 Because the good and outstanding apprenticeship training providers were generally training larger numbers of apprentices, around a third of apprentices recorded at the time of inspection were being trained in providers rated as ‘inadequate’ or ‘requires improvement’.50 Ofsted prioritises its monitoring and inspection activity to focus on providers that it considers to be higher risk, so its inspection ratings may not be representative of all providers.51
25Over 30% of apprentices fail to complete their apprenticeship successfully each year.
Concluded (the committee's words)
Over 30% of apprentices fail to complete their apprenticeship successfully each year. In 2016/17, this equated to more than 132,000 apprentices.52 Since 2014/15, a growing proportion of training providers have fallen below national minimum standards for their apprenticeship achievement rates. When the ESFA intervenes with providers that are under-performing, it initially issues additional conditions of funding or additional contractual obligations, or both. In most cases, the provider is required to develop and implement an improvement plan in order to avoid more serious sanction. In the most serious cases, the ESFA may terminate providers’ contracts, but it has taken this step with only 11 providers in the past five years. For example, in 2016/17, the ESFA terminated the contracts of five out of 737 providers.53
26The Department acknowledged that it was not satisfied with the overall quality of training providers.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department acknowledged that it was not satisfied with the overall quality of training providers. The ESFA told us that it had taken steps to improve its register of apprenticeship training providers. It had strengthened the criteria that providers had to meet to get onto the register and existing providers had to re-apply. The ESFA also highlighted that, since January 2018, it had been able to remove from the register, with no questions asked, providers that received an Ofsted rating of inadequate. Inadequate providers were therefore no longer able to provide apprenticeship training. The ESFA explained that it also worked closely with Ofsted to share intelligence about providers in real time.54 Assessment arrangements
27As part of an apprenticeship standard, each apprentice is assessed by an independent third-party at...
Concluded (the committee's words)
As part of an apprenticeship standard, each apprentice is assessed by an independent third-party at the end of their apprenticeship, to determine whether they are occupationally competent.55 However, the ESFA’s register of assessment organisations indicates that, in 48 C&AG’s Report, paras 22, 3.24 49 Q 124; The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2017/18, para 29 50 C&AG’s Report, paras 22, 3.24–3.25 51 Q 121; C&AG’s Report, para 3.28 52 Q 34; C&AG’s Report, para 3.5 53 Q 122; C&AG’s Report, Figure 12, para 3.19 54 Qq 121–124 55 C&AG’s Report, para 4 14 The apprenticeships programme: progress review late 2018, there were 19 standards (with a total of 1,600 apprentices on them) that did not have assessment organisations in place, and 98 standards (with a total of 18,300 apprentices) which had only one assessment organisation.56
28The ESFA told us that there were 220 approved assessment organisations, which between them covered...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The ESFA told us that there were 220 approved assessment organisations, which between them covered over 99% of the 140,000 apprentices that it expected would require an end-point assessment in the next 12 months. The ESFA also explained that the availability of bodies to assess apprentices varied between sectors—some sectors had numerous assessment organisations, but 130 of the 220 approved organisations worked only in one particular sector or setting. The ESFA said that it knew where the gaps were and was working to address them. It was confident that all apprentices would be assessed at the end of their apprenticeship.57
29However, Sunderland College told us that, for many of the standards that they were encouraged...
Concluded (the committee's words)
However, Sunderland College told us that, for many of the standards that they were encouraged to deliver, there were no assessment organisations in place. It also referred to an assessment organisation withdrawing from its contract close to the end of an apprenticeship. This may lead to logistical problems for training providers and employers, and unnecessary delays for apprentices.58
30Each apprenticeship standard also has a quality assurance body which is responsible for ensuring that...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Each apprenticeship standard also has a quality assurance body which is responsible for ensuring that the assessment of apprentices is fair, consistent and robust. A range of different bodies are involved in providing quality assurance, but it is not clear whether they all provide a consistent level of assurance. For example, one of the bodies—Ofqual— is a regulator and therefore has greater powers than other quality assurance bodies.59
31The ESFA confirmed that the Institute for Apprenticeships & Technical Education was responsible for the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The ESFA confirmed that the Institute for Apprenticeships & Technical Education was responsible for the quality assurance regime, and that the two organisations were working together to simplify the arrangements. It was also liaising with Ofqual and the Office for Students about the arrangements for higher-level apprenticeships specifically. The Department said that it was working on the most efficient way of assuring the quality of end-point assessments and would report on that in due course.60 56 C&AG’s Report, para 3.30 57 Qq 125–129 58 Q 50; C&AG’s Report, para 3.30 59 C&AG’s Report, para 3.31 60 Q 130 The apprenticeships programme: progress review 15
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 25 Mar 2019No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗