The first three apprenticeship assessment plans under Skills England’s controversial reform programme have been published, but the pilot continues to face delays and unease from employers.
New-style apprenticeship assessment plans (AAPs) for the level 3 assistant accountant, data technician and early years educator standards were published by Skills England last night as “illustrative examples”.
No implementation date was published, and revised AAPs for the remaining two standards in the reform pilot, carpentry and joinery and adult care worker, have been held up amid concerns from employers in those sectors, as reported by FE Week on Friday.
A Skills England spokesperson told FE Week they have now paused a pilot that was testing the changes to the carpentry and joinery apprenticeship “subject to further consultation”.
Reformed AAPs can allow training providers to take on a greater share of assessment during the course of the apprenticeship, rather than waiting for an end-point assessment.
The new assistant accountant AAP confirms that completion of the AAT advanced diploma will replace the end-point assessment entirely. The early years plan requires at least one observed assessment in the workplace, but replaces the previous three-tier grading system with a two-tier ‘pass’ or ‘distinction’.
Rob Nitsch, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, said the first batch of plans had “clearly challenged” Skills England.
“We await the accompanying documents that will provide more details on the formulation of apprenticeship assessment plans going forward, but it is evident that the development of the first five plans has challenged Skills England.
“This points to the importance of engaging stakeholders, including awarding organisations and employers, in the formative stages of change programmes that impact complex systems such as the apprenticeships.
“Beyond reviewing the plans themselves and how we can speed up progress, there are clearly lessons for the technical qualifications change programme announced in the post-16 white paper and the intersection of both programmes.”
Employers have also expressed concerns that a sampling approach to assessment could lead to a “race to the bottom” on standards, and removing the requirment for independent assessors could weaken confidence among employers.
Rachel Staples, product director (awarding organisation) at AAT said: “We support the government’s aim to simplify the current system, but any reforms must keep assessment rigorous, consistent and closely tied to industry needs.
“Removing the independent assessment of behaviours and in some cases relying solely on a mandated qualification limits learners’ ability to show they are work ready. This is the very quality that makes apprenticeships such a strong alternative to traditional academic routes.
“Without robust assessment, apprenticeships’ hard-won credibility and parity of esteem could be eroded. Combined with a lack of alignment between government policy and regulation, these changes risk seriously weakening employer confidence.
“That’s why we’re urging government to work with industry to ensure reforms strengthen, not weaken, the value of apprenticeships for learners and employers alike.’’
The changes were trumpeted by the Skills Minister as having been demanded by Employers.
Clearly not!
This is just how framework apprenticeships worked and how they currently work in Wales maybe even Scotland. Use IV’s and EV’s to ensure independence of assessment and we’re back to where it all began, which in my opinion is not a bad thing… Just funny how its took nearly ten years to realise…. Also no problem with a mandatory qualification which is independent anyway and re-enforce during the assessments. Most learners want a qual they know anyway. This is exactly how I did Level 2 , 3 and 4 from 1995 to 2003… Never understood IfATE and whether there was true engagement over the Richard’s Review of Apprenticeships which started all this….
I’m really confused about the Knowledge and Skills in the plans which are not highlighted in bold. Does this mean they don’t need to be assessed? How will we ensure they have been met?