A few years ago, I read a short but incisive opinion piece in this publication by Jill Whittaker (executive chair of HIT Training) that left me asking: Why does our sector still accept achievement rate over pass rate as the norm?
Every year, the Department for Education (DfE) releases its apprenticeship achievement rate tables, and the sector reacts like it is results day for grown‑ups. The “winners” get applause, the “losers” get a little cosier with their quality team, and Ofsted sharpens its inspection pencil.
But here is the awkward truth: achievement rate is not the flawless measure of quality that we pretend it is.
For years, this single composite figure has been treated as our gold standard. It appears in performance tables, drives inspection narratives and shapes public perception. Governors scrutinise it, providers defend it, and Ofsted uses it as a primary judgment tool (whatever they say!).
It fails, however, to isolate the question that matters most to parents, learners, and employers alike: How good is the teaching, training and assessment the apprentice receives?
Flaw in the metric
Achievement rate blends two things – retention and pass rate – into one number. That means it is influenced not only by the quality of delivery, but also by whether apprentices remain on the programme until the end.
Retention is shaped by a host of factors outside a provider’s control, including redundancy, relocation, caring responsibilities, ill health, or shifts in business priorities.
A provider can deliver outstanding training and offer excellent pastoral support, then still see its achievement rate dragged down by circumstances entirely beyond its control and unrelated to quality.
Why pass rate is fairer
Pass rate – the proportion of apprentices who reach their end-point assessment and pass – is a far clearer and fairer indicator of quality. It focuses on what happens when apprentices are themselves engaged, supported and given the opportunity to demonstrate their competence.
A high pass rate points to:
- Effective curriculum planning
- Skilled teachers, trainers and assessors
- Robust preparation for end-point assessment
- Strong employer engagement
It reflects what providers can directly influence, which is the learning experience and the outcomes it produces.
Retention still matters, but it is not the headline
Of course, we want apprentices to stay the course. But retention is a multi-stakeholder challenge, shaped as much by employer commitment, job security and challenging and escalating economic conditions as by training quality. Folding it into the headline measure risks penalising providers who take on the most challenging and often the most rewarding work.
The unintended consequence is that providers may feel pressured to protect the metric rather than the mission. That can mean avoiding high-risk sectors, steering employers away from demanding standards, or recruiting only “safe-bet” apprentices.
None of this serves the wider purpose of apprenticeships, which is to open doors and develop skills across the local and national economies.
A better signal to the sector
Making pass rate the primary measure would send a clear message that what matters most is the quality of training, learning and assessment for those who complete. Achievement rate, retention, progression and destinations should obviously still be tracked, but we must stop pretending that a single composite number can capture the full story of apprenticeship quality.
Apprenticeships are about opportunity, transformation and the belief that skills training can change lives and strengthen industries. If we continue to judge providers primarily on achievement rate, we risk punishing those who serve the apprentices and employers who need us most.
Pass rate is not perfect, but it is the clearest, fairest and most direct measure of what apprenticeship providers do best, which is enabling apprentices to succeed when given the chance. We know what great delivery looks like; now let’s make sure the measure matches the mission.
It is time to put quality front and centre, and for Ofsted to lead that change.
Your thoughts