Replies
No one has replied to this post.
They've still got to be employed; it's just that their new employer/job role doesn't necessarily have to be directly invested/related to the apprenticeship itself. If there's no employer at all, it wouldn't be allowed, per the below
104. The apprentice must be employed until the end-point assessment is completed. Consideration must be given to the potential time needed for any re-sit and / or re-training prior to re-taking the end-point assessment so the apprentice remains employed during this time.
104.1. The only exception is where the apprentice has been made redundant and we are funding the apprenticeship to completion. In this case, any new main provider responsible for the completion of the training (if the apprentice transfers) can act as a proxy employer for the purposes of providing any required employer competency statement. This does not mean the main provider records themselves as the employer in the ILR (see paragraph 104).
I think it's a clarification in the sense that it's always been assumed that someone can change employer's whilst in gateway, without the exact mechanisms for doing this being explicitly stated/explained in the rules. They still aren't, I might add, but they're going to be.. or so they're telling us. Hopefully they also say who specifically this applies to (i.e., those still on programme as well as new starts).
That does make sense, but I've often seen new rules added and statements like this that perhaps now don't fit, aren't updated, so I don't assume anything. If the new employer is having nothing to do with the EPA, how is it even relevant? The 22/23 rules said we have to have evidence they were still employed up until the end of the EPA. How do you do that if the new employer won't engage?
Changing employer post gateway we can manage, as long as the new employer signs up, as they become liable for the completion payment (from their DAS or the 5% assuming they're not small and the apprentice 16-18). It's never been allowable that the new employer could disengage and not fill in all the paperwork, and not pay, and not pick up the relationship with the EPAO etc. The new rule implies that there's now going to be a workaround where the new employer can do just that? That's brand new.
I think they've made the allowance (re. it not 'mattering' if the second employer wants to be involved) because we've collectively painted the picture for a while now (rightfully) that it's unfair to penalise the training provider and the apprentice if the programme is all-but-finished, but circumstances result in them finding themselves unemployed.
I agree that the technical details are still very foggy, particularly around the financial responsibility. I'm assuming there'll either be some sort of new indicator on the ILR, or it'll derive the information it needs in order to pay us completion based on a combination of existing fields. Or maybe they'll ask us to use ACT2 again! Hopefully it'll all be explained in the soon-to-be-released technical guidance? We currently ask the employer to confirm the apprentice was employed at the point of EPA as part of our exit review/interview; I've no reason to suspect that wouldn't be acceptable still.
Thanks for the reply!
If the new employer won't engage or sign anything, we won't be able to get confirmation they were employed until the end of the EPA in the same way we currently do at exit. Maybe the EPAO sign off will be enough. None of this can be utilised until you've agreed it with the EPAO anyway, and who knows what they'll want. NCFE have said we'd need to submit a Special Consideration.
I had some responses from ESFA. They've said rule 105 only applies to starts after 01/08/2023, because it doesn't state otherwise. I have challenged how that is the case when apparently they just "clarified" the rules, suggesting it's actually been ok for a while. They just repeated the same thing. It's either applicable to apprentices pre 01/08/2023, or it's not a clarification, it can't be both.
No news on when the technical details will be out.
I'm inclined to agree; it's not really a clarification if it doesn't refer to an existing rule. It also just seems plain odd that it wouldn't apply to those still on programme as of 31/7/23. Surely if they're accepting of the fact that it's causing issues, to the point that they're adding (sorry, clarifying) a rule, it's important enough to make applicable to everyone. I presume revision as OTJ only applies from 1/8/23 onward then, as it doesn't explicitly say otherwise.
Exactly! It's great that they're recognising the issue, I do appreciate that, but it needs to make sense. I can appreciate that it might not apply to someone who got to gateway before 23/24. The people answering my questions are just support staff, they didn't make the rules or understand the purpose, but even when I specifically ask them to ask the teams who made the policy, they never do, they just parrot back the same things. I'm pushing hard on getting them to admit that it was either a policy change, or can be applied retrospectively.
Until we get the technical guidance, we may just have to be business as usual.
Well, they've escalated it to the Apprenticeship Service Technical Team. They're probably cursing me for being difficult. I just want what's best for the students without getting in trouble, I feel like that's reasonable.
Why are they referring all apprenticeship enquiries to a team called "Apprenticeship Service" support? This is nothing to do with the Apprenticeship Service (which I understood to just be the online tool we refer to as the DAS).
Ruth Canham-James
EPA Whilst Not Employed
Created
Hello,
We've always told our Apps team that an apprentices cannot sit EPA with no employer. Then there's this new rule in 23/24;
Firstly, "clarify"? That's not a clarification, it's a brand new rule. But it's a good thing, so I won't complain.
A few questions. Can this be applied to someone who started in 22/23 or earlier, but will only sit their EPA in 23/24 (if allowed)? There's no statement about whether it applies retrospectively. What if they finished delivery in late 22/23? What if there is no new employer? If the new employer will be having nothing to do with the apprenticeship, how is that different from just being unemployed? Has anyone seen the technical details they mention? I can't find any.
We've got an apprentice in this position, finished delivery and left employer in July 22/23, hasn't yet sat EPA, doesn't have a new employer that I'm aware of (but might have one soon). They've been sat at 1/8 since before they left the employer. Despite our best guidance, our apprentices just do leave their employers sometimes with no notice. In this case, the apprentice handed in their notice a few days after a meeting with their assessor, and hadn't mentioned a thing.