Apprenticeship providers will come under scrutiny from the Department for Education if they score the bottom two ratings in Ofsted’s revamped inspection reports, refreshed rules have revealed.
Changes made to the apprenticeship accountability framework (AAF) this morning also show that three “supplementary indicators” – breaks in learning, end-point assessment organisation data, off-the-job training – have been suspended.
Experts have warned providers should be cautious of the move, which will come into effect at the end of this month, as apprentices who lapse their planned end date will also now contribute to a new threshold that could put providers “at risk” of intervention.
Ofsted thresholds
In November, the DfE said it would initially take a “proportionate” approach and not use specific Ofsted grades in its decision to intervene in apprenticeship providers.
Ofsted’s new grading scale ranges from ‘exceptional’, ‘strong standard’ and ‘expected standard’ to ’needs attention’ and ‘urgent improvement’.
The DfE has now revised its approach. Today’s AAF update said the department will consider apprenticeship providers to be ‘at risk’ if they receive an ‘urgent improvement’ judgment for leadership and governance or inclusion at whole provider level.
Providers will also be scope for an ‘at risk’ classification if they fail safeguarding inspection procedures or receive an ‘urgent improvement’ judgment for any provision-type level evaluation areas for apprenticeships.
Apprenticeship providers that are classified as ‘at risk’ under the AAF normally trigger a performance review and management conversation, which can lead to extreme decisions such as contract termination.
Meanwhile, DfE will consider apprenticeship providers as ‘needs improvement’ if Ofsted issues a ‘needs attention’ judgment for the following evaluation areas: leadership and governance or inclusion, any provision-type level evaluation area for apprenticeships, or if a training company is found to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in a new provider monitoring inspection.
Providers that are classified as ‘needs improvement’ under the AAF can expect management conversation with the DfE to understand the reasons for “underperformance”.
‘Needs improvement’ providers could also be asked to create improvement plans and may face “proportionate contractual controls” or more stringent intervention if no improvement is found.
DfE added that it will not take Ofsted’s contribution to meeting skills needs into account in its evaluations.
Simon Ashworth, director of policy and deputy chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), welcomed a “pragmatic link” between inspection outcomes and intervention during transition to the new system.
“‘Needs attention’ should trigger dialogue and support, not automatic punitive action,” he said.
“The sector’s quality profile is improving, and accountability must reinforce that progress while avoiding destabilising established and high-quality providers.”
He added that the changes to the AAF were an “understandable evolutionary step”.
Caution around apprentices past planned end date
Ofsted inspections are just one of several measures in the AAF, which have also been subject to revisions this morning.
DfE has suspended three “supplementary” quality indicators and refined another on the grounds that they no longer provide “sufficient value” in assessing provider risk or underperformance.
The DfE has refined the apprentice past planned end date (APPED) indicator to focus “solely” on apprentices who are on their programme and surpass their end date.
It has removed the 90 and 180-day parameters meaning learners who are past their planned end date from day one will count towards a threshold that could put a provider ‘at risk’ of intervention.
Officials can also now categorise providers as ‘at risk’ if they have 15 per cent or more APPEDs in their organisation.
Those who have between 10 and 15 per cent APPEDs will be classed ‘needs improvement’.
“Prolonged extension of training can indicate barriers to timely completion, reduced momentum and an increased risk of non‑completion,” the guidance said.
Ashworth warned that managing apprentices past their planned end date will “remain as important as ever”.
“It’s positive to see that the DfE has decided to finally disaggregate the measure on apprentices past their end dates that always convoluted measuring timely completion and apprentices on-programme and no longer attracting funding,” he said.
He added: “This refined measure does though mean providers will need to continue to carefully focus their efforts to ensure timely planning and subsequent delivery of the programme.”
Tony Allen, apprenticeships consultant and former contracts manager at the Education and Skills Funding Agency, said the changes were bad news for large organisations.
“If you’re a provider with 500 apprentices, and you’ve got 30 or 40 cohorts and they all finish a couple of weeks, three weeks late, they will appear on your dashboard.”
DfE’s guidance confirmed as such.
“Providers with a large number of apprentices should expect closer monitoring and performance management to support continuous improvement,” it said.
Allen added that the changes were “ill-thought through” as “smart” providers would put learners on a break in learning for one day to change the planned end date to avoid being at risk.
“I think the sector needs to be on their guard around some of these changes,” he added.
Three indicators suspended… for now
The AAF will no longer include breaks in learning, end-point assessment organisation data and off-the-job training as individual indicators through the framework, but DfE said it will keep its approach “under review”.
Ashworth said breaks in learning were a “significant” post-pandemic issue but are less so now through providers re-engaging learners.
“Last years’ policy change on off-the-job training now already states minimum hours for each standard, and assessment reform means these indicators are now no longer relevant,” he added.
Last May, the government introduced minimum off-the-job training (OTJ) hours for each apprenticeship standard, meaning providers no longer had to calculate how much OTJ training each apprentice requires depending on the length of their apprenticeship.
Your thoughts