Streamlining of EPA is Welcome, But Not at the Expense of Independence

It was inspiring to see just how many apprentices, providers, end point assessment organisations, government and stakeholders celebrated National Apprenticeship Week. This was done in a variety of ways, but the key message was the same: apprenticeships are great, for individuals, for employers and for the wider economy.  

Government also used the platform to make some significant announcements. It feels like the right time to propose changes to apprenticeships, particularly ones that take stock of delivery since implementation of the Richard Review and look at where streamlining and simplification is possible. The changes to end point assessment have the potential to deliver improvements but mustn’t risk undermining why employers celebrate apprenticeships. 

Our 18 employer-led sector skills body members tell us that for employers, two elements need to remain at the heart of the apprenticeship system to retain their confidence. Apprenticeships must be focussed on developing and delivering competency, and end point assessment of competency needs to remain independent. So do the changes to end point assessment meet these criteria?

On the one hand any streamlining is a big tick in the box for employers who have been frustrated with delays, duplication and assessment plans which run to many pages. The change to a principles-based approach makes sense and there is much in the principles and revised approach that should work well for employers.  

1. Proportionate Assessment: At first glance there’s a not a lot to disagree with here, overly complex and extensive assessments can be burdensome and unnecessary. However, proportionate doesn’t necessarily mean ‘less’ and retaining enough elements in the assessment plans to ensure that competency is tested will be essential, particularly in safety-critical occupations. 
2. On-Programme Assessment: The idea that on-programme assessment should be possible where it makes sense is a practical and logical step. This flexibility allows for a more continuous and integrated approach to evaluating apprentices’ progress, and alongside an independent end point assessment, will form part of a rigorous approach.
3. Removal of duplication in assessing behaviours: Employers already assess behaviours and not requiring end point assessment organisations to do this too will reduce unnecessary duplication.
4. Streamlined Assessment Plans: Length doesn’t necessarily mean clarity, and plans that run to many pages can be unwieldy and difficult to interpret. However enough detail is required to rule out wildly different interpretations and to support consistent delivery. IFATE/Skills England will convene a group of employers together with assessment and delivery experts to develop the improved Assessment Plans. Sector skills bodies have a lot to contribute to this process and should be included. 

The flexibility to allow providers to conduct assessments, however, raises concerns. If they will now be required to register as end point assessment organisations (EPAOs), it will add another stage to the process, therefore more complexity. If not, the quality assurance carried out by EPAOs where providers carry out assessments will need to be rigorous to ensure transparency and avoid accusations of ‘marking their own homework’. Employers need confidence that assessments are fair. 

In conclusion, the government’s efforts to simplify the end point assessment process in apprenticeships have the potential to be a positive step forward. However, in implementing the changes it will be essential to listen to employers and sector skills bodies, and to retain the focus of apprenticeships on delivering competency, and the independence of end point assessment. By maintaining these two principles that are so important for employer confidence in the system, we can look forward to celebrating many successful National Apprenticeship Weeks in years to come.  

By Alison Morris, Head of Policy at Skills Federation