How can we measure apprenticeship success and quality in a meaningful way?Later this month AELP hosts its annual National Conference which gives people from across the skills and employability sector an opportunity to discuss and debate the hot topics affecting learners, employers and providers.At last year’s conference, we saw the then Skills Minister, Alex Burghart, outline his ambition for achievement rates on apprenticeship standards to reach 67% overall by 2025. A year on, it’s time to revisit the topic of qualification achievement rates (QAR) and reopen the conversation about how we can accurately measure quality and success – while not losing sight of the government ambition to see higher completion rates.ARE WE MEASURING THE RIGHT THING?As the existing methodology goes back to historic qualification-based apprenticeship frameworks, before the shift towards an employer-based system, the first question to ask is whether the current success rate methodology which informs the QAR is fit for purpose? Given qualification-based frameworks have, for the most part, now been phased out and replaced by longer apprenticeship standards, that answer is, I’m afraid, a resolute ‘no’.Apprenticeship standards are longer and more technical and are based on knowledge, skills, and behaviours as well as including further external rigour through end point assessment. That alone brings about a need to look again at success rate methodology.In addition to this, we currently face extremely tight labour market conditions which affects the way both learners and employers react. Any updated measure of success needs to acknowledge the reasons for non-completion that are out of the control of the provider, and those non-completions which are actually a positive outcome, for example an apprentice going on to a better paid job with more responsibilities.AELP has consistently outlined its concerns on a renewed focus on QAR while the methodology remained so outdated. Until success is measured properly, focusing on targets which won’t be achieved risks undermining confidence in apprenticeships.That’s why we’ve seen a dubious attempt by some to compare apprenticeship retention and achievement rates with those for A-Levels. They are, of course, in no way comparable at all! One is a full-time academic programme, the other, a job with training. How many students on an A-Level drop out because they get another job, get promoted, get let go or are refused the time they need to train?IMPROVING APPRENTICESHIP ACHIEVEMENT MEASUREMENTSWe need to see a much wider set of measures assessed, including tracking learner progression and earnings following an apprenticeship. Focusing on these types of outcomes, rather than outputs, including for those who don’t complete their apprenticeship, should be a priority. I think we’re beginning to see some acknowledgement from the Department for Education that this is an important factor in determining success and quality within apprenticeships.This time last year we saw some welcome changes to apprenticeship rules and measures. For example, we’ve had an increase to the period of change of employer, which now sits at up to 12 weeks through a break in learning. These haven’t gone far enough though and that means there are still remaining issues with the measures, with the next obvious step to take being to disaggregate achievements. The sheer range of sectors and occupations means there are big variations that need to be recognised and accounted for more easily.As well as this, there are five other changes to the framework which we believe would deliver a more accurate framework for measuring apprenticeship success. These are:1 Removing the QAR Pass Rate measure and replacing it with a pass rate that relates to end point assessment (EPA). End point assessment is a key facet of the reformed system and needs greater transparency and oversight.- Extend data capture via the Individual Learner Record (ILR) to include a range of reaso...

Ver todos los episodios