How to know when your apprentice is ready for the gateway

Chris Cherry provides key insights that will avoid misunderstanding and poor practice

In the world of apprenticeship standards, the gateway is the door between the two core stages of the apprenticeship – the on-programme training and the end-point assessment. The apprentice passes through the gate when they have met minimum requirements and are performing consistently at (or above) the level of competence expected for that occupation.

At the gateway (the end of the training period), the employer in consultation with the training provider, unlatches the gate because they believe the apprentice is competent in the occupation and ready to demonstrate this during the end-point assessment.

But how do you really know when the apprentice is ready?

It’s a question we’ve been asked a lot, from our work with over 5,000 apprenticeship practitioners. So, here’s a few insights to get you thinking.

Let’s start with the mandatory gateway requirements

Mandatory requirements are different in each assessment plan. Here are a few common examples:

• achievement of level 1 English and mathematics and evidence of attempting a level 2 test
• achievement of a required qualification (particularly in regulated occupations)
• completion of a workplace portfolio
• a letter signed by the employer confirming readiness for assessment
• apprentice self-assessment.

It’s important that you are in close contact with the End-Point Assessment Organisation (EPAO) to make the gateway decision. Some training providers have wrongly assumed that the gateway is an opportunity to check with the EPAO whether the apprentice is ready for assessment. This is not the case, and you won’t be able to submit evidence to the EPAO to check in advance. This cuts across independence and opens the door for misunderstanding and poor practice. EPAOs are encouraged to provide guidance on how to manage the gateway.

In some assessment plans, there are tasks that the apprentice needs to complete during training, or during a gateway period, which then feed into final assessment. These could be a project, presentation or portfolio.

It’s worth remembering that the gateway is not the point where the employer feels the apprentice is guaranteed to pass, but where further training would not make the apprentice more assessment-ready. Holding back on readiness could have the reverse effect on performance. There are issues of timing and funding for the training provider that may influence the gateway, but in pure teaching and learning terms, assessment should quickly follow the completion of training when the apprentice is performing at (or above) the required standard of competence.

“OK,” you may say, “but what about the apprentice’s level of competence?”

As you reach the end of training, you will get – using your professional judgement – a sense that the apprentice is ready.

Training providers take different approaches with their employers, but here are four linked questions that many have found useful in discovering whether the apprentice is gateway-ready.

• Is there sufficient evidence that the apprentice is ready?
• Is there a body of work you can reference that shows the apprentice has consistently been working towards the standard and is familiar and comfortable with the assessment methods used at the end-point?
• Does that evidence show achievement of the elements?
• Are you confident there is evidence the apprentice has gained each knowledge, skill and behavioural element that could be assessed at the end-point?
• Is there a certainty that achievement is at the level required?
• Do you and the employer both feel that the apprentice is able to work in that occupation, at the necessary performance level? It’s important that apprentices aren’t just being “trained to the test”.
• Do you consider the apprentice to be competent?

Once you are certain the above criteria have been met, you should feel confident that the apprentice will be able to demonstrate that competency.

It is at this point that the employer will be required to confirm their apprentice is ready. The EPAO will then check the evidence and open the gate to the end-point assessment.

How to be an apprenticeship ‘ultra-negotiator’ and prove it…

Apprenticeship funding rules require that we demonstrate our negotiations. Lucy Ottewell-Key outlines the core principles to consider

The new apprenticeship world can be confusing and unfamiliar to the education sector. Negotiate? How? What does it mean to be in a commercial and competitive market?

What indicators, funding rules, features, benefits and unique selling points support strong negotiation? How do you differentiate from another provider? Why would an employer pay more for your provision than someone else’s? Providers need to dive deep into strategies, training, processes and procedures to support business growth, while manoeuvring within complex funding rules and providing an outstanding service.

Not only do we need to negotiate, we need to prove we have done so.

Apprenticeship funding rules state that providers must collect evidence to prove negotiation to employers, ESFA, Ofsted and internal compliance teams.

Negotiation is an art rather than a science. Core principles to consider:

1. Be knowledgeable and prepare. You must understand and have detailed knowledge of apprenticeships, the funding and technical guidance. What is an apprenticeship? What are the roles and responsibilities of each party? What is your offer, your curriculum plan, how do you deliver it? What can be bespoke? What is standard? Does the employer understand off-the-job and EPA? Are your team prepared to “sell”? Have they had suitable training?

2. Determine your desired outcome before you start. Do your research.

Does your offer and curriculum meet their needs? How can you support the employer to navigate apprenticeships?

3. Build rapport. In many cases people buy from people, not companies, so building a rapport is the first step to sustainable relationships.

4. Understand your worth. You are a quality provider that offers outstanding apprenticeships and amazing customer service. Prove it, live it and shout about it!

5. Listen. You need to understand what that business needs from their apprenticeship programmes. Go for a tour, speak to staff!

6. Complete negotiations feeling it is a good deal for both sides.

Apprenticeships are about supporting individuals to progress into their chosen careers and reducing skills gaps.

Feel sure that you have made a positive impact on a business, which will, in turn, support an individual.

7. If you can’t, stay professional and walk away. If it does not fit with your ethos, maybe that business is not for you.

Why would an employer pay more for your provision than someone else’s?

One way in which apprenticeship negotiation differs from other products and services is that we have an added layer of negotiation: prior learning. The interesting point to note with prior learning adjustments is that until you have completed a recruitment process, you cannot confirm the price.

This process involves stages such as advice and guidance, initial assessments, checking prior qualifications and ensuring the employer and training provider feel the candidate is suitable for the apprenticeship. Providers may have a core pricing plan based on the quality of provision and the fundable elements of the programme, but until you have a potential individual, you are a little stuck.

Funding guidance states that all knowledge, skills and behaviours set out in the standard should be considered when reviewing prior learning.

How can you prove to an auditor or an inspector that you and the employer are confident that public money is not being used to fund knowledge, skills or behaviours that individual already has? Can the apprenticeship meet minimum requirements, such as duration or off-the-job?

In conclusion, apprenticeship price negotiation is a complex, two-stage process. First of all, why pick you when a number of other providers are knocking at the door? And secondly, can you, as a provider, ensure that the candidate is appropriate? The implications for not getting this right are pretty serious.

Good luck and get negotiating!

Creeping complexity has reached critical levels in FE

There is a theme across four stories in FE Week today which combined might suggest there is a critical business problem with funding rules and data requirements – complexity.

Let’s look at the stories in turn.

1. ESFA finds achievement rate data ‘unreliable’. Behind the scenes the ESFA audit teams continue to grapple with providers inflating achievement rates and funding claims by knowingly or unwittingly manipulating their Individualised Learner Record (ILR) data returns. The highly complex algorithm to calculate achievement rates using ‘hybrid ends years’ has required several changes, such as to the treatment of breaks in learning and transfers, in an attempt to close loopholes. But the situation has now got so bad that more than 30 apprenticeship providers have been singled out, and the UK Statistics Authority in looking into whether the headline achievement rates can be trusted.

2. Confusion over how to calculate and record off-the job minimum hours. In an effort to be helpful the ESFA put out guidance, nearly two years after implementation, which said to comply with the funding rules the off the job minimum hours should be based on a 30 hour week for all apprentices. A week later, after claiming this was not a change the rules, the ESFA apologised and withdrew the 30 hour section of the guidance. Trouble is, a quick glance at the dozens of comments on the ESFA message board, FE Connect, shows providers are still grappling with complex issues like the difference between paid and contract hours leaving them unsure if they actually comply with the off-the-job minimum hour calculation rules.

3. Devolution of AEB at risk of falling at first data hurdle. The GLA has revealed in papers going to their board next week that developing a contracting and payments system, to include collection of FE data, is at high risk of creating an overspend. The ESFA already operates a very expensive and complex funding system based on monthly ILR submissions, so we should perhaps not be surprised trying to recreate it from scratch is both difficult and also wasteful duplication.

4. Employer left bemused after Apprenticeship System wipes £300,000 from their account. After five months, the ESFA still could not explain or resolve what appears to be a significant problem with the Apprenticeship System. Within hours of FE Week asking for an explanation the money reappeared, but questions remain over how and why this can happen. And the ESFA has delayed access to the system for small employers indefinitely as it grapples with issues like how to simplify complex functionality as well as ration the funding between established and untested providers.

Performance information needs to be trustworthy, funding rules need to be clear enough to comply with and payment and contracting systems simply need to work.

There are no easy solutions, but if these cannot be achieved then the tougher intervention regimes for colleges and training providers (also featured in the paper this week) are doomed to fail.

How you can help with the post-16 qualifications review

The lowdown on new rules for insolvency, plus level 3 and below changes, explained by Anne Milton

I thought it would be helpful to highlight two important areas that colleges and further education providers should be aware of.

Firstly, I know that every college principal, finance director and governor will already be aware by now that new insolvency legislation came into force on January 31, and also that arrangements for exceptional financial support and the restructuring facility have come to an end.

I will keep banging the drum for the FE sector because you are all doing amazing work helping people of all ages and backgrounds to progress and get the skills they need to get great jobs. I am very aware that finances are challenging, and it is possible that some colleges will find themselves with more serious problems. The earlier we know about a problem, the more likely it is that we can help. Therefore, colleges should talk to their ESFA territorial team contact as soon as possible, to get the support that is needed.

We recognise that the introduction of insolvency is a big change, so we have developed a new “one-stop” policy document – College Oversight: Support and Intervention Policy

This sets out how we will work with colleges to identify issues early on, before they become serious, to make sure colleges are aware of the support available from the ESFA and FE Commissioner, and, where problems persist, outline how we will intervene. In extreme cases it details how the insolvency regime will work in practice. So I urge you all, if you have not already done so, please take a look!

The second thing I want to mention is our review of qualifications at level 3 and below. We have made great progress to improve the quality of technical education and training. We will be starting to roll out new T-levels from September next year and have worked with leading firms to create new high-quality apprenticeships standards.

I will keep banging the drum for the FE sector

Alongside A -levels, T-levels and apprenticeships will be the gold standard choice for students after they complete their GCSEs, but if a student chooses another qualification at level 3 or below, we want to make sure they are equally high-quality.

The current system at level 3 and below is complex and confusing, with over 12,000 courses available, often with multiple qualifications in the same subject areas. At the moment, if a young person wants to study history or geography after GCSEs, they know they can take an A-level, which is understood and trusted by parents, universities and employers.

But if a student wants to study an engineering qualification after GCSEs, there are over 200 options to choose from. It’s very hard for young people to know which will give them the best chance of getting the skills they need and for employers to know which qualifications they should be looking for.

We know that many of these qualifications are well recognised and valued; however, there are also many that we have been told offer little value to students or employers.

To help streamline and boost the quality of education, earlier this month, we launched the first of a two-part consultation reviewing qualifications at level 3 and below – excluding A-levels and GCSEs. The aim of the review is to make sure that every single qualification is high quality, necessary and has a clear purpose.

It’s clear a ‘one size fits all’ approach is not going to work. We want to take the time to get these changes right and listen carefully to everyone’s views. We are consulting in two stages – firstly, we are looking at the principles that should guide the review, before moving to publish detailed proposals for change in the second-stage consultation later this year.

Please take part in the consultation. Your views are really important and will help make sure we get these changes right.

Investigation by statistics watchdog after ESFA lists ‘unreliable’ providers

The country’s national statistics regulator is investigating whether the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s apprenticeship achievement rate data can be trusted.

Last Thursday the national achievement rate tables published for 2017/18 came with a list of more than 30 apprenticeship providers with “unreliable” data that have been included in the headline figures.

The ESFA says the unreliable data is included to “provide a complete view of performance” and acknowledges that by doing so this year’s rate is 1.5 per cent lower than it would be if it was excluded.

“If we had excluded them for apprenticeships, then the national rate would be 68.8 per cent which would be 1.5 per cent higher than the published figure,” its report, published alongside the tables, said.

The providers with unreliable data in 2017/18 (click to enlarge)

After FE Week shared the finding with the UK Statistics Authority, which had previously pressured the DfE into changing the way it presents its achievement data for 2015/16, the authority said it would look at the matter further.

The government’s achievement rate data must comply with the UK Statistic Authority’s “code of practice”, which says official statistics must ensure they are “worthy of trust”.

“The code ensures that the statistics published by government serve the public,” according to the authority’s website.

“When producers of official statistics comply with the code, it gives users of statistics and citizens confidence that published government statistics are of public value, are high quality and are produced by people and organisations that are worthy of trust.”

FE Week analysis of the national achievement rate tables for 2017/18 shows there were 23,940 apprenticeships across 34 providers that have unreliable data, including at two large high-profile colleges.

The total combined cohort for all providers in 2017/18 was 412,190, which means data for 5.8 per cent of the apprenticeships in that year cannot be trusted.

FE Week took a look back at the achievement rate data for 2016/17 and found that the DfE also included the unreliable data in the headline rate in that year. “If we had excluded them for apprenticeships, then the national rate would be 68.6 per cent, which would be 0.9 per cent higher than the published figure,” it said at the time.

In 2016/17 there were 10,610 apprenticeships across 21 providers that were redacted for having unreliable data, which was 2.5 per cent of the 409,020 total cohort.

The largest provider to be excluded for having unreliable data in 2017/18 was the troubled West Nottinghamshire College, which had an apprenticeship cohort of 4,900.

The college ran into financial difficulties last year that has led to substantial government bailouts, a high number of job losses, and, ultimately, the resignation of its longstanding, high-profile principal, Dame Asha Khemka.

Commenting on its unreliable data, a West Notts spokesperson said: “The college discovered some inaccuracies in its apprenticeship data for 2017/18, primarily in relation to directly delivered apprentices, who had been incorrectly rolled-over from the previous year.

“This was identified as part of an internal review of our data and was subsequently reported to the ESFA. We are currently working with the agency to resolve these issues.”

The other high-profile provider to be excluded from the DfE’s official achievement rate data for 2017/18 was grade one Dudley College.

The college discovered some inaccuracies in its apprenticeship data for 2017/18

Its chief executive Lowell Williams last week apologised after FE Week reported how an audit exposed dodgy data with regards to late withdrawals that resulted in more than £500,000 being paid back to the government.

It is understood that the exclusion of some of the providers from the official data this year is a result of the ESFA’s recent mystery audits.

As previously reported by FE Week, this major review of apprenticeship data is expected to result in the sector being officially warned about unacceptable data practices, as was the case nearly a decade ago when the then chief executive of the funding agency published a letter to the sector.

Asked what the sanctions are for providers who are excluded from the official data, the DfE declined to comment.

In July 2017 it came to light that the DfE was pressured into its major U-turn on the publication of hidden achievement rate data.  

The department released 2015/16 national achievement rate tables for individual providers in June 2017, a few months after it closed several “loopholes”, causing significant achievement-rate drops.

However, it refused at first to provide comparable figures for previous years, prompting many in the sector to accuse it of a cover-up.

A letter written by Ed Humpherson, the director-general for regulation at the UK Statistics Authority, later revealed that his team effectively leaned on the DfE, apparently after reading FE Week’s reports on the scandal, before it finally agreed to publish the figures on July 27.

It’s FE Week wot won it: 5 month mystery of missing £300k levy ‘resolved’ by ESFA

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has finally returned £300,000 to a large high-profile employer within hours of FE Week asking for an explanation.

The employer, that did not wish to be named, saw the money mysteriously disappear from their apprenticeship levy pot in November without warning or reason.

After reporting the missing funds to the ESFA, the National Apprenticeship Service replied via email that they “have been able to raise this issue to our technical team”. It added: “I hope this issue is resolved for you soon.”

In future, we hope incidents like this can be resolved far more quickly

The employer then received weekly helpdesk emails – a total of 15 so far – including updates such as: “Thank you for your patience whilst our second line support team investigate this. We are looking into your incident with great detail and will be in touch within five working days to provide another update.”

In February this year, the employer was told: “The technical support team have stated that they are conducting a full analysis to rectify your account, and other employers who have been affected by the same issue.”

When asked to escalate the issue, the agency said this was already being dealt with at the highest levels.

However, the employer had not been given a reason to why the money, which represents nearly all its levy budget for a year, disappeared from its accounts.

The business told FE Week: “Nobody seems able or willing to explain why we’ve lost £300,000 from our levy account, more than four months since it disappeared. It is also clear we are not the only employers that this has happened to. It is incredibly frustrating and we would like it returned as soon as possible.”

The employer received an email in February from the ESFA’s digital service saying that whilst the incident remains unresolved, when the levy runs out in its account it should tell its providers that they will not be chased by the ESFA for collection of the co-investment.

“During the call you have mentioned that some of your training providers have not received payments because of the amount that is missing from your account and I explained that this issue was affecting multiple employer accounts and that a fix is being applied to the affected account since December 2018.

“I have notified the Technical Support Team of the fact that you have been unable to pay for apprenticeships and have asked if they are able to try and prioritise your account when applying the fixes to the affected accounts… I hope you can forward this information to your training providers”, reads the email.

The company said that as well as hoping to see the money back into its accounts soon, it wants to know how its providers will get paid the coinvestment and what impact this will have on the sun-setting policy which kicks in next month.

An ESFA member of staff said in a FE Connect post where FE Week raised the issue: “We are working with affected employers to address the issue on an individual basis.”

FE Week asked for an explanation from the Department for Education, with permission from the employer, and within eight hours the £300,000 had returned to the employers levy account.

A spokesperson for the employer said: “Of course we are pleased that the £300,000 has now been returned to our account following enquires to the DfE from FE Week and look forward to an explanation from the ESFA. In future, we hope incidents like this can be resolved far more quickly.”

A Department for Education spokesperson told FE Week: “We are aware of the issue that impacted the employer and can confirm that this has been fully resolved, and we have confirmed to them no funds have been lost.

“The ESFA has sought to ensure this issue has been resolved and we continue to work with all employers to ensure the service delivers to the highest standards. We apologise for any inconvenience this has caused.”

It remains unclear whether the situation has been resolved for other employers affected.

Overspend: GLA warns of risk to AEB devo project

The Greater London Authority has denied that devolution of the adult education budget is at risk due to spiralling IT costs, despite warning the Mayor that failure to find the extra cash could “jeopardise” the project.

The GLA is due to take control of London’s £306 million adult education budget from the Education and Skills Funding Agency on August 1, 2019.

But according to the papers to be discussed by both the mayor, Sadiq Khan, and deputy mayor, Jules Pipe, at next Wednesday’s AEB board meeting, the risk rating for the programme has moved from green to amber for the first time.

“There is a risk,” the paper reads, “the GLA doesn’t meet the projected overspend costs from other budgets, thus jeopardising the programme”.

A prime culprit for the spiralling costs is the AEB Programme Data and Contract Management Systems being built into the functionality of an existing software system known as the GLA Open Project System (OPS).

The GLA will ask the board at next week’s meeting to endorse the assembly spending a further £441,000 on system development between now and the end of July, with a doubling of the monthly expenditure.

A review in February had already increased the amount of money being put into developing systems for the AEB programme, from an average of £54,000 per month to £105,000 per month, to ensure that the work was done by August.

There is a risk the GLA doesn’t meet projected overspend costs, thus jeopardising the programme

Asked why this work had been left so late, the GLA claimed that critical elements required by the launch date are in the final phase of user testing and that contingency plans were in place which could be implemented if there are any delays with the system.

This means the GLA could still be developing the AEB systems days before it is meant to take control of the whole apparatus for the capital.

The request for additional funding is dependent on agreement by the board, followed by the GLA’s formal decisionmaking process, which the GLA told FE Week was “a formality”. Asked what would happen if it was not approved, the GLA said this was “not a realistic prospect”.

“It is standard practice for risk registers to consider a range of scenarios, however unlikely. The risk that we will not meet the projected increase in costs is not realistic because covering these costs is entirely at the Mayor’s discretion and within our capacity.” said a spokesperson.

In addition to the additional IT costs, the overall cost of management and administration appears to have rocketed 50 per cent to £4.6m.

FE Week reported in May 2018 that Sadiq Khan planned to top-slice £3 million from the AEB to pay for around 70 staff to distribute AEB funding.

However, the agenda for Wednesday’s minutes lists management and administration costs for 2019/20 year as £4.6 million.

The GLA justified the top-slice from the AEB budget on the basis that the DfE has provided no operational funds, but refused to be drawn on why this has already grown to a predicted £4.6 million for the 12 months between August 2019 and July 2020, or the impact on staffing numbers.

Universities and training providers clash on apprenticeship priorities

It is “entirely unacceptable” to expect public sector employers to subsidise low-level apprenticeships for chefs and hairdressers, a university membership organisation has said, calling on government to better support levels 6 and 7 instead.

Adrian Anderson, chief executive of University Vocational Awards Council, the body that represents over 90 universities delivering apprenticeships, said the decline in level 2 apprenticeships was “welcomed” as he believes these are “not what employers are looking for”.

The statement comes as the Association of Employment and Learning Providers called for all levels 6 and 7, including those with integrated degrees, to be removed from the scope of levy funding in order to prioritise low-level funding as pressure on the budget mounts.

In a letter sent to skills minister Anne Milton ahead of spending review decisions, Anderson argues that prioritising lower level apprenticeships would “run counter to the concept of employer leadership” and “entirely undermine” the productivity and social mobility objectives of the apprenticeship system.

He asked her: “From a productivity perspective, is there any justification for the state providing substantial subsidies for low-level business administration, customer service or retail apprenticeships?”

“I doubt our international competitors are focusing their skills budgets on low-level apprenticeships [like these],” he added.

Anderson explained that the public sector is “by far the largest levy payer” and the NHS, police forces and local authorities “must be allowed to spend ‘their’ levy payments on occupations that have the most impact on the delivery of public services, e.g. police officers, registered nurses, social workers”.

He said these bodies could, if non levy-paying employers and lower level apprenticeship provision were prioritised, “see their levy payments transferred to small private sector businesses to train chefs, hairdressers etc.”

UVAC suggested that levy payments made by the public sector should be “ringfenced” and public sector employers should be “able to recover the full cost of using apprenticeships for the occupations (from level 2 to 7) they need to deliver high-quality public sector services”.

Anderson suggested other changes to the current “incredibly generous” funding system, including by significantly increasing employer co-investment for lower level apprenticeships and reducing the state’s contribution to around 75 per cent.

The radically differing proposals from the AELP and UVAC come after the National Audit Office said there is a “clear risk” the apprenticeship programme is not financially sustainable after finding levy-payers are “developing and choosing more expensive standards at higher levels than was expected”.

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

The AELP estimates that up to £573 million has been committed to level 6 and 7 apprenticeship starts since August 2016, and suggested these should be funded by employers, a student loan to the apprentice, and any government grant which is available to full-time HE students.

“What the AELP is saying is that it doesn’t believe that the NHS should be able to recover the levy payments that they need to train registered nurses, or police forces to train police constables, because they think that levy should be prioritised to level 2,” Anderson told FE Week.

“It seems very odd to me. In my perspective, the level 2 area is what the schools system should be concentrating on. The fact that we have a third of young people completing compulsory education after 11 years without a level 2 qualification is appalling.

“Why should employers have to be billed for that when they need to invest and train their staff to deliver the productivity of their companies that would then translate into higher skills standards in the country as a whole?”

A DfE spokesperson said: “Overall the number of people starting on lower level apprenticeships accounts for over 81 per cent of all apprenticeship starts.

We want to make sure all these people have the chance to progress to however far they want to go.

“Our apprenticeship programme was designed specifically to put employers, not the government, in the driving seat, helping apprentices gain the skills that businesses really need. As long as employers are using government approved apprenticeships which meet our high-quality criteria they are free to spend their levy funds on the training programmes that best meet their needs.”

Third of apprentices on standards not ready for planned end-point assessment in 2017/18

One-third of apprentices on standards were not ready for their planned end-point assessment last year, the government has revealed.

The Department for Education released the national achievement rate tables for 2017/18 last week which showed the slower than expected pace at which learners are completing the training part of the new “more rigorous” apprenticeships.

For apprentices on the old-style frameworks, just 10 per cent had to continue and achieve in the year after their anticipated end-year.

It makes it extremely difficult to plan and could result in difficult-to-manage spikes in demand

But for those on standards, a huge 34 per cent who were expected to complete in 2017/18 have continued into 2018/19.

The figure matches information that FE Week has been given recently, that there is a major problem brewing of apprentices on standards not being ready for gateway and end-point assessment.

The gateway is the point at which the training finishes and assessment begins for apprenticeship standards.

Graham Hasting-Evans, group managing director of NOCN, an EPAO for 47 standards, said the government’s analysis “strikes a chord with our own experiences”, adding that his organisation is “currently seeing on average around three- to four-month delays, which means many people moving back a reporting year”.

This has “considerable implications for EPAOs,” he told FE Week.

“It makes it extremely difficult to plan, could result in difficult-to-manage spikes in demand when the apprenticeships start to come through and also add to the finance burden for EPAOs, as payment is moved back. Hopefully, this will settle down after another year.”

Cindy Rampersaud, senior vice president for BTECs and apprenticeships at Pearson, which is the EPAO for 27 standards, said the “non-preparedness of apprentices for gateway and EPA is largely a result of the market still being in transition as the apprenticeships model moves from frameworks to standards”.

“In delivering EPAs, we have experienced instances where the apprentices have not been ready for gateway or EPA and we have pushed back on EPA dates to give sufficient preparation time to the apprentices so as not to disadvantage them,” she added.

Kelle McQuade, head of end-point assessment at Training Qualifications UK, which does the EPAO for 30 standards, echoed Hasting-Evans’ concerns and said her organisation is finding that gateway dates are being delayed “for a variety of reasons”.

Cindy Rampersaud

“Late engagement between EPAOs and training providers/employers has a knock-on effect with knowledge and understanding,” she told FE Week. “It can be difficult because until they approach us to register learners, we don’t always know who they are. Sometimes there is no time between an employer selecting us to be their EPAO and apprentices being ready for assessment.

“With many training providers piloting EPAOs and no set rules about when registrations must happen, providers are often leaving it late giving us little time to prepare.”

She added that there is also an “overall nervousness about putting apprentices forward in this new world as there is a fear of failure”.

End-point assessment is designed to be a more rigorous and costly process than the sign-off in the old apprenticeship frameworks.

Therefore, the aim at the gateway decision point is to put forward only people who are expected to at least pass, demonstrating the appropriate level of knowledge, competencies and behaviours.

The sign-off is a joint one by the training provider and the employer, whereas under the frameworks it was just the training provider.

“As a result of this fundamental change it is our experience that training providers and employers are being more cautious about putting people forward,” Hasting-Evans explained.

“The high cost of EPA and hence the high cost of re-sits is a factor in this.”