Apprenticeship end-point assessment organisations are to be graded by quality assurance providers and given a “risk rating” – but the results won’t be published or made available to them.

The move was revealed in the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s new framework published today that “sets the standard” for external quality assurance (EQA).

While the framework, which is mandatory and must be adhered to by all EQA providers, has been mostly welcomed by the likes of the Federation of Awarding Bodies and the Association of Employment and Learning Providers for providing greater “consistency and coherence”, questions have been asked as to why EPAO ratings will be kept secret.

It is disappointing the IfA wants to make the risk assessment process less transparent, more secretive

Supporting documents for the framework state that EQA “should, in part, be targeted and focused on the aspects of EPA which pose the greatest risk: we expect ‘riskier’ EPA to be subject to greater scrutiny and more frequent monitoring than lower-risk EPA”.

It adds: “Risk ratings will not be published or made available to EPAOs, but will be stored on the institute’s digital system.”

The risk ratings will be 1 (low), 2 (medium) and 3 (high).

FE Week spoke to one managing director of an end point assessment organisation that is overseen by several different EQA providers.

They claimed to have successfully overturned previous EQA risk assessments and were therefore very concerned that in future these grades would be secret.

“I have no problem being graded, but like our apprentices, surely we should know what grade we’ve been given and for there then to be a process to challenge the grade if we believe it is incorrect?” they said.

“It is disappointing that the IfA wants to make the risk assessment process less transparent, more secretive.”

The risk rating of the EPAO will be determined by various factors, including data on their performance by apprentices and feedback (including complaints) from apprentices, employers and training providers.

Established EPAOs will also be graded on a four-point scale – 1 (outstanding), 2 (good), 3 (requires improvement), and 4 (inadequate) – similar to Ofsted.

Grades 1 to 3 will feed into the calculation of overall risk but any EPAO graded as ‘inadequate’ will “automatically be assumed to be high-risk”.

The decision to not publish or make the risk ratings available comes off the back of the IfATE promising to become more transparent in its processes with its customers.

Mark Dawe, chief execuitve of the AELP, said: “Given the costs involved in the whole EPA/EQA process, employers and providers have a right to know whether they are placing their custom with the right EPAO.

“Many EPAOs have made serious investments in minimising the risk of capacity and consistency issues that could undermine the hard work that an apprentice has done to complete an apprenticeship.

“But for those that haven’t, an ‘inadequate’ outcome should definitely lead to action being taken and if improvements are not evidenced quickly, then the outcome should be published.”

A spokesperson for the IfATE pointed out that the framework says that the institute “can share the outcomes of reviews with relevant bodies and plans to publish reports or elements of them at some point in the future”.

Employer groups who develop each apprenticeship standard select an appropriate EQA provider, to monitor the work of EPAOs.

The new framework sets out five principles that underpin “EQA functions”: relevant, reliable, efficient, positive and learning.

Commenting on its launch, Nikki Christie, the institute’s deputy director for apprenticeship assessment and quality, said: “This new framework will ensure that rigorous standards are maintained with EQA for years to come.

“EPA is one of the key aspects of today’s apprenticeships – as it provides a robust and independent test that an apprentice who completes their apprenticeship can do their job to the high standards required. It is therefore vitally important that quality assurance around EPA is consistent and highly effective.”

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education will start charging £40 for every apprenticeship external quality assurance check it does from September.

Robert Nitsch, the quangos chief operating officer, told the Association of Employment and Learning Provider’s conference this afternoon that charging for their work, which is currently free, is the “right thing to do”.

In the same session, Ofqual’s director for vocational and technical qualifications Phil Beach, confirmed his organisation would continue not charging for the service and called for an extension of its duties in this space.

There are currently 18 approved external quality assurance (EQA) bodies that monitor end-point assessment organisations, to ensure the process is “fair, consistent and robust”.

The EQA bodies are allowed to apply a charge as long as it is on a “cost-recovery basis” – the amount of which is taken directly from the government funding given to training providers to deliver the apprenticeship.

FE Week revealed the “ridiculous variability” in these charges in February, which were criticised by sector leaders for ranging from a free service to £179 per apprentice.

The IfA recently re-tendered for an organisation to conduct EQA on its behalf, which was once again won by Open Awards.

Tender documents for the new contract, seen by FE Week, stated that “legislation allows the institute to charge end point assessment organisations (EPAOs) a fee per apprentice that undertakes an end-point assessment and it is these fees that will pay for the EQA service”.

They added: “The institute’s budget is limited and we are seeking to work with a supplier who will deliver a high-quality service at a price that offers strong value for money.”

The IfA is currently the EQA provider for over 200 apprenticeship standards.

Addressing delegates today, Nitsch said: “The institute has been introducing a charging mechanism for end-point quality assurance where the institute has been nominated as the EQA provider.

“We currently aim and expect that charging will commence for EPAs from the 1 September this year at the agreed rate of £40 per EQA.”

AELP chief executive Mark Dawe challenged Nitsch on this decision, and insisted it seemed “unfair” especially where an apprentice has already started their training.

Nitsch replied: “There is a real challenge when you start charging – what time do you turn it on remembering that some standards take some time to deliver? But we think it’s the right thing to do is to move into this paradigm.

“I will also say that we always said we were going to charge, it’s not a new phenomenon, it has always been there. but it has taken us more time to get to this stage because we needed to assure ourselves the data accuracy was there.”

Beach used his speech to call for Ofqual to have bigger role in EQA.

The exams regulator is currently the external quality assurance provider for over 65 approved apprenticeship standards. Many in the FE sector have called for Ofqual to be the only EQA provider.

When he came off stage Dawe asked: “Are you charging £40 for EQA from September?”

Beach said: “Ofqual does not charge for EQA. If we needed to we would take that from our current budget and we would go back to the DfE to secure additional funding extra.”

Dawe added: “So if you extended your role and became all EQA provider from 1 September we wouldn’t have to pay this fee?” to which Beach simply replied: “No.”

One of most “palatable” decisions the government could make to constrain the apprenticeship budget is introducing a pre-apprenticeship salary cap, the skills minister has said.

Anne Milton was quizzed on the future affordability of the programme after what is likely to be her last speech in post, at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers conference today.

Asked if the Treasury does not invest more money into the apprenticeships system, what “hard choices” the Department for Education could make to ensure the budget doesn’t go bust, she said there are “lots of things government could do”.

But a “pre-apprenticeship salary limit” was “one of the most palatable”.

She said she was “very uncomfortable” with the idea of “limiting by age because I meet an awful lot of people in their 40s and 50s who are returning to work and training up and changing careers – I would find that extremely difficult”.

“As I say, pre-apprenticeship pay is probably one of the most palatable things that I’ve seen,” Milton added, “but ask Keith Smith, I don’t like any of them”.

It comes after the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education estimated that the budget could be overspent by £0.5 billion this year, rising to £1.5 billion during 2021/22.

Following a National Audit Office report that said “something is going to have to give” in the upcoming spending review, the DfE’s permanent secretary Jonathan Slater told the education select committee that “hard choices” may need to be made.

It led to the AELP making the radical proposal that all level 6 and 7 apprenticeships, including those with integrated degrees, should be removed from the scope of levy funding to relieve mounting pressure on the budget.

A funding rule that is preventing large employers from transferring levy funds to smaller employers to train 16 to 18-year-old apprentices is being reviewed by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

Keith Smith, the agency’s director of apprenticeships, revealed this was an area he hopes to address “quite soon”, during today’s Association of Employment and Learning Providers conference.

Under apprenticeship funding rule E189, it states that a “transfer of funds will not take place where the receiving employer is eligible for full government funding, because they have fewer than 50 employees and the apprentice is: 16 to18 years old; or an eligible 19 to 24 year old”.

We would be delighted to see it out there in the market from the beginning of April

One provider that has been lobbying to get this changed is the London Hairdressing Apprenticeship Academy.

Its co-founder and director, Trevor Luker, told FE Week: “In the levy transfer system, giving employers can’t pass their funding over to receiving employers if the receiving employer has less than 50 employees and intends to employ a 16 to 18, or a 19 to 24 supported EHCP apprentice because the funding rules don’t permit that transfer.

“In essence we’ve been trying to lobby to get that rule changed because we work in a particular sector where there is a large levy paying employer who wants to benefit and give their levy money to supply chain partners, but can’t do if that partner is a micro employer.

“Their only recourse to having funding for 16 to 18 and 19 to 24 apprentices will be to go to a training provider with a non-levy contract and fund it in that way.”

He added that there was “clearly there is an issue in the market with non-levy funding contract values at the moment”.

When asked why this was the case and whether it could be changed by AELP chief executive Mark Dawe, Smith said: “I was talking to a colleague someone in the audience about this earlier today and they asked the same question, and on that I think that is absolutely fair, I think we need to look at that.

“What we was trying to do before was to, and what policy was trying to say was ‘look these people get no monetary gain, so why put it into the system’. And actually looking at the wider view it makes the system work better and it creates more younger apprentices, so why not.

“So I think we’re looking at it, it is one of those things again which I’m hoping quite soon we’ll come out with something.”

Luker said he was “delighted” to hear this.

“They are looking at that possibly because the rule sets about that dichotomy between levy contribution and the employer making the contribution, and small employers not having to make it,” he told FE Week.

“I think it was an unintended consequence that led about in essence a clash in real rule terms.

“They’re making a change, or going to look at it, and we would be delighted to see it out there in the market from the beginning of April because we have got large levy paying employers that want to help supply chain partners.”

A college that is dependent on government bailouts to survive has been hit with a fourth consecutive grade three rating from Ofsted.

Lambeth College finally merged with London South Bank University in February after a two-year delay and leaders were praised by the inspectorate for working “hard” since then to “change the culture of the college to one that supports learners and staff to achieve”.

There has been other “significant change since the previous inspection when all aspects of the provision were judged as requiring improvement”, including the appointment of a new permanent executive principal in late 2018 and a new senior leadership and middle management team.

We recognise that there are still areas for development

The education watchdog was impressed with improvements in adult education courses, high needs learning, and personal development, behaviour and welfare, with all three areas individually receiving ‘good’ ratings.

However, the impact of the college’s work in addressing areas of weakness identified at the previous inspection “is not yet consistent across all aspects of provision”.

Ofsted found that “too few” study programme learners, of which there are around 1,200 aged 16 to 18, achieve their qualification.

The proportion of apprentices who achieve their qualification within the agreed timeframe is also “too low”.

Teachers “do not routinely support learners well enough to develop their English and mathematical skills in their vocational subjects”, and they “do not use the information they have about learners’ prior educational experience or achievements consistently or effectively enough to plan and teach lessons”.

Overall it trains just over 9,000 learners every year.

Fiona Morey, executive principal of Lambeth College, said: “We are delighted that the hard work and dedication of staff at Lambeth College, and the high aspirations we hold for all our students, have been recognised.

“It is extremely pleasing that the inspectors could see that ‘the college’s mission to ensure access to learning that raises the aspirations and skills of residents in South London’ is central to all that we do.”

Until recently, three or more consecutive grade three Ofsted reports would automatically have qualified the college for a grade four.

Ofsted’s chief inspector Amanda Spielman told FE Week in November that she had changed this rule when she took on the top job at the inspectorate in January 2017 “because I thought it was flawed in conception”.

Morey said Lambeth “recognises that there are still areas for development, and we are working hard to address these”.

Lambeth College was previously rated ‘inadequate’ until it improved to a grade three in 2013.

It has been in big financial trouble since 2016, when a “significant deterioration” in its cashflow prompted an intervention by the former FE commissioner Sir David Collins.

We are delighted that the hard work and dedication of staff at Lambeth College has been recognised

His report, based on a visit that September, found problems with the college’s finances that were so severe it was “no longer sustainable” unless it merged.

Since then, the college has been in need of bailouts from the Department for Education.

According to its 2017/18 accounts, it owes almost £15.5 million in exceptional financial support, and has agreed a support package from the restructuring facility worth £15.8 million.

“The college made a further large loss in 2017/18, it remains dependent on exceptional financial support from the government and its financial position is accurately described as ‘inadequate’”, the financial statements said.

Staff have been on strike at the college for a total of 10 days since November in a row over pay.

But the latest walkouts planned for June were called off after union members managed to negotiate a 3 per cent pay rise, additional leave and a reduction in teaching hours.

T-levels policy is the latest example of “institutional bias” from the Department for Education that “ignores all evidence”, the chair of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers has said.

Martin Dunford (pictured) delivered one of the opening speeches at the association’s annual conference this morning, in which he elaborated on its 10-point sustainable investment plan that has been put forward to the Treasury ahead of the government’s spending review.

He told delegates there has been “nine years of austerity” and yet the “story for our sector has been punctuated with reports of endless FE College bailouts, programme underspends, duplicating initiatives and failed policies resulting from dogmatic beliefs that were far from evidence-based”.

“There have been a couple of high profile failures on the independent side although public money still flowed to those organisations even when the warning signs would have been there,” he said, adding that is “why we fully encouraged and supported the proposals for a more robust account management system that will help both the government and good robust providers, sitting in this room, equally”.

He said a “key competitive advantage for any organisation, in this case the ESFA, is fully understanding its suppliers” and the “lesson is that the DfE and its agencies must be deadly serious about delivering value for money from the limited funding that the Treasury does make available for FE and skills and the outlook for 2020 accentuates this need”.

Dunford continued: “We would argue that such serious intent has not been demonstrated in recent years and too often policymakers have fallen back in reaching for institutionalised solutions rather than searching for what works best for the employer and/or the learner.

“Sadly despite the silver linings you might hear about tomorrow afternoon, T-levels are just the latest example of this institutional bias, bias that ignores all the evidence.”

The AELP’s “shopping list” for the spending review covers apprenticeships, traineeships, adult education, the national retraining scheme and replacing the European Social Fund, but makes no mention of the new post-16 technical education qualifications set to be rolled out from 2020.

“In putting forward its policy proposals, AELP wants to make sure that programmes are available to the maximum number of employers and learners who want them, irrespective of who is delivering them, providing that the quality of delivery is good and recognising that budgets are finite,” Dunford said.

“If all these components are being considered properly at the same time, then the odds on delivering value for money must be high.”

He continued: “Volumes are important, especially when there are still nearly half a million young people unemployed and automation poses real challenges for those already in work. But measuring positive outcomes is more than just counting numbers.

“AELP agrees with those that say that skills programmes must be about supporting social mobility and progression whilst having a demonstrable positive impact on productivity.”

Dunford told delegates the timetable for the upcoming spending review has “slipped again” and is likely to now be “beyond the autumn”, adding: “I’m told at the moment we’re more likely to get a one-year carry-over rather than a three-year settlement.”

The government’s apprenticeship quango needs to start viewing training providers as their “clients” and become “far more responsive” to their needs, the skills minister has said.

Speaking to FE Week ahead of today’s Association of Employment and Learning Providers conference, Anne Milton called for a more “collaborative relationship” from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.

FE Week also understands that providers will soon be invited onto review groups to work closer with the institute on areas such as deciding funding rates for apprenticeship standards.

Milton, who has just reached her two-year anniversary as skills minister, explained how apprenticeships “was quite hard work” when she first came into post as she had to deal with businesses who were “still very grumpy about the levy” and a “quite clunky” IfA.

“So it was quite difficult in that first year, making clear to business that the levy wasn’t going to change, that this is it, and working with the institute to make sure they got up and running,” she said.

“And I think in two years it got into quite a good place. I can’t remember how many standards we had two years ago and now there are over 400 and employers are much happier.”

Milton added that the institute has now got to the “next phase of work”, which is about “making themselves far more responsive to training and provider needs”.

“In the beginning they were a regulator” and while “maintaining the regulating role, they have got to become a facilitator”.

“I think it’s seeing training providers and employers as their clients,” she said.

“That’s not to say they have to do everything it’s asked of them. But has to become much more: how can we help you?”

Asked what the IfA can do to help training providers more, Milton said: “I think starting working closer, understanding their market is the start of it.

“It’s a terribly diverse market. They’ve got to be receptive. They have been quite defensive. Now it has got to be: well this is our decision, we will review it, and we will look at it. A much more collaborative relationship.”

The institute has come under a lot of fire from providers and employers for being secretive in its decision making, especially in their reviews of apprenticeship standard funding bands.

The institute has since pledged to become more transparent.

Milton will be delivering a keynote speech on day two of the AELP’s annual conference tomorrow. FE Week is media partner, follow us on Twitter for live updates, using the hashtag #AELPAnnual19.