Apprenticeship Accountability Framework

We aren't, but are you asking because you have reason to suspect yours is incorrect, or just out of curiosity? 

I am just wondering if any other large training providers are showing as requires improvement on those past planned end date as every apprentice will eventually go past their planned end date when entering gateway.

They will, to an extent, and I don't think it's overly recognisant of apprenticeships where the gateway/EPA period is long by design (defined within the assessment plan). If you've got more than 15% of your apprentices who are past their PED by between 6-12 months, and it's for legitimate reasons, you shouldn't need to worry; though perhaps raise it with your ESFA account manager if you're concerned?

Thanks Ben, some of our standards have a gateway period of 9 months which is out of our control.  I was just a bit worried that we were perhaps not recording correctly when they were at gateway, it seems a little unfair that those are one day passed their planned end date are being included in the overall figure.

Apprentices past planned end date

This refers to apprentices who are past their planned end date, or were past it when they completed their apprenticeship.

This includes apprentices where the ILR ‘completion status’ field is recorded as either:

code 1 – the learner is continuing or intending to continue the learning activities leading to the learning aim

code 2 – the learner has completed the learning activities leading to the learning aim

We’ll assess organisations with more than 15% of the total number of apprentices past their planned end date by 365 days or more as ‘at risk’.

We’ll assess organisations as ‘needs improvement’ if they have either:

more than 15% of the total number of apprentices past their planned end date by 180 days or more but less than 365 days

more than 250 apprentices past their planned end date, regardless of the length of time

The above the measures above relate to the planned end date and the actual end date and not the length of the EPA period.

HTH

Large training providers may always have 250 passed their planned end date by even one day.

As Martin has pointed out, the thresholds for 'needs improvement' or 'at risk' are such that if learners were late by a day they'd fall into neither category so you'd be fine. 

The issue here is a combination of 2 factors:

• the planned end date on the ILR accounts only for the training period
• the completion status (ZPROG) stays as 1-continuing until the EPA period has finished, despite the training period being over

This means that despite the learner completing the training, providers are then beholden to the length of the gateway/EPA period as they can't change the completion status until after this, when EPA has been completed

Yes for a typical large provider with say 2000 Apprentices this would represent 12.5% but for even larger providers I expect the ESFA would consider the size of the provider.

HTH

Ben

I do not see it that way as prior to the completion they are counted as 1 in learning and this changes to 2 when completed, nothing to do with length of EPA!

HTH

Completely understand your point, and I don't at all disagree that that's how they're recorded, it just seems slightly unfair for learners to count as being 'in learning' when they're not.

Some EPA plans specify the duration of the 'EPA period' and the activities that must take place during that period, before which an apprentice cannot go to EPA. They also say that an apprentice cannot enter that 'EPA period' until all gateway requirements have been satisfied (i.e., they've finished all learning). How does it then square that, despite the fact they've finished learning (which the ILR planned end date is meant to be a measure of) , that you are then penalised for them being past the planned end date (of learning!) because you've not been able to change them to 2-completed until after EPA?

The ILR counts as per the following:

In Learning: Completion status 1 Outcome NULL

In EPA: completion status 1 Outcome 8

Completed: Completion status 2

The AAF combines in learning and those in EPA using completion status 1 but also has to record those who have completed completion status 2 and reports those who have past their planned end date, but I cannot see how this anyway penalises the Provider.

How else could they do it?

How else could they do it?

Good question! Perhaps if they're committed to the planned end date being a measure of learning and not the overall apprenticeship, then exclude apprentices from the 'past planned end date' calculation where completion status is '1 - continuing', the outcome is '8 - learning activities are complete but the outcome is not yet known', and the learning actual end date is such that they don't fall into either the 'needs improvement' or 'at risk' categories. These learners are not sufficiently past their learning PED to qualify.

Maybe?

Give ne an example of any training or 'activities that must take place during that period, before which an apprentice cannot go to EPA'

I'll qualify "cannot go to EPA" to "cannot complete EPA", but the sentiment remains; namely that these activities are not 'learning', but are mandated as part of the EPA period, and as such will either result in or exacerbate existing time 'on programme' according to the ILR, and may result in learners being included in the calculation despite learning being finished. 

The first element of the Senior Leader assessment plan is a strategic business proposal + presentation

The strategic business proposal starts after the apprentice has gone through the gateway. The duration of the strategic business proposal should be 12 weeks.

The strategic business proposal, plus materials relating to the presentation (see below), must be submitted together 12 weeks after the gateway.

The EPA will be completed within an EPA period lasting typically 5 months, starting when the EPAO has confirmed that all gateway requirements have been met.

These activities are mandated as part of the EPA period, but the AAF is only reporting on the ILR as at the end of Practical period.

Yes the AAF does include learners in the current ILR who have finished (completed) as it is meant to capture all past their planned end date that are in the ILR. I still do not see how this penalises the Provider.

Hope that resolves the issue.

Let's say someone completes the practical period on time, and you set them to '1-continuing'/'8-learning activities complete but outcome now known' and you add the learning actual end date. 6 months then go by because the EPA period is very long. Would they be considered past their planned end date, despite the fact the ILR measures the practical period (which is complete) and you've marked the ILR as such?

The spec is slightly ambiguous

Of apprentices with a completion status of 1 or 2, the number of apprentices where the actual end date for completers or the ILR reference date (e.g., 31/03/2022 for R08) exceeds the planned end date)

Does this mean it will look to the 'learning actual end date' for only those who are '2-completed'? If they're '1-continuing' will it look at the ILR reference date and ignore the 'learning actual end date'?

Now you have got it.

All that ends well.

Sorry I know I started this debate, but I am not sure I get it, if are apprentices are on a 1 and 8 but they cannot achieve their EPA for 9 months (we have a standard whose gateway period is this length of time) will they count in our figures as being over 6 months?

Sorry if I sound a bit dim.

Sorry I know I started this debate, but I am not sure I get it, if are apprentices are on a 1 and 8 but they cannot achieve their EPA for 9 months (we have a standard whose gateway period is this length of time) will they count in our figures as being over 6 months?

Sorry if I sound a bit dim.

Sorry I thought you now understood it, They only use the current period reference date where no actual end date is recorded in the ILR (where the learner is in learning) else they use the actual end date for those that have completed learning.

See the light yet?

Michelle: No as it is measured at the date they completed the Practical period and has nothing to do with any delay in the EPA.

The apprentices I mention with the 9 month EPA will be used when determining if we require improvement or not?

Yes it will be included but its only measured at the actual end date.

HTH