Consultation outcome

Response analysis: Updates to end-point assessment qualification level guidance​

Updated 26 April 2023

Summary

Ofqual sought views on proposed updates to the End-Point Assessment Qualification Level Guidance. The proposed guidance is intended to help awarding organisations (AOs) understand Ofqual’s regulatory framework and how it applies to end-point assessments (EPAs).

The consultation ran from 19 July to 11 October 2022. Twenty-five responses were received to the consultation.

Respondents were broadly supportive of the proposed updates to the guidance, stating that it added clarity and would support a consistent approach across AOs in developing EPAs. There were also calls for Ofqual to be more prescriptive in guidance and to provide more detailed scenarios and examples to aid understanding of Ofqual’s requirements.

The new guidance on compliance with Assessment Plans attracted the most detailed comments. The majority of respondents who provided comments welcomed the new guidance, which aims to support AOs in understanding how Assessment Plans should be used alongside Ofqual’s Conditions. Many of those respondents also expressed views about their experience with Assessment Plans and spoke about challenges around consistent interpretation, particularly where Assessment Plans allowed for flexibility in implementation. It was suggested that there should be greater collaboration between the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) and Ofqual on the development of Assessment Plans.

Background

The EPA Qualification Level Conditions and Guidance have been in place since 2018, and since then, Ofqual has gained more insight into AOs’ understanding of our regulatory framework, identifying areas where AOs would benefit from further support in understanding and complying with Ofqual’s Conditions.

Ofqual is now looking to provide that further support through updated guidance. There was no intention to change the Conditions or what is required of AOs, but instead, to clarify how to meet Ofqual’s requirements.

The proposed updated guidance addressed the main themes identified during Ofqual’s regulatory activity and monitoring of EPA delivery and aims to:

• help AOs understand Ofqual’s Conditions and how to comply with these

• provide some practical examples to demonstrate how the Conditions apply to EPAs
• help AOs understand those areas where they have the flexibility to make design decisions within the requirements of the Assessment Plan, and the factors to consider when making such decisions

This was done either by introducing new sections in the guidance or by making changes to the existing wording in the guidance to provide further clarification. Where updates were not proposed to the guidance currently in place, those parts of the existing guidance would remain in place as they are.

The responses received to the proposals are summarised in this document.

Approach to analysis

The consultation consisted of 15 questions and was published on the Ofqual website with an online form for responses.

Respondents to this consultation were self-selecting, and therefore, the sample of those who chose to participate cannot be considered as representative of any group. In addition to the formal consultation, there was one consultation event which was attended by over 100 representatives from 95 awarding organisations.

The responses to the consultation questions are presented in the order they were asked. Respondents were asked whether they had comments on the proposals and were given the opportunity to provide a comment. Respondents were not required to answer all questions.

In some instances, respondents answered a question with comments that did not relate to that question. Where this was the case, these comments have been reported against the question to which the response relates, rather than the question against which it was provided. Some respondents chose to provide general comments instead of responding to the specific proposals.

Who responded?

There were 25 responses to the consultation. All responses have been considered as part of this analysis.

There were 21 official responses from the following types of organisations:

• 15 awarding organisations or exam boards
• 1 representative group
• 5 other organisational responses

There were 4 personal responses from:

• 4 awarding organisation employees

Detailed analysis

Question 1

Do you have any comments on the proposed amendment to the existing guidance on terminology?

	Number of respondents
Yes	14
No	11

A total of 25 responses were received to this question, with 14 respondents providing comments.

The majority of respondents considered that the proposed amendments to the guidance, which explains the terminology used by Ofqual and how it applies to EPA delivery, added clarity to the document and would aid consistent understanding and application of Ofqual’s regulatory terms. They commented further that the updates would be particularly helpful for organisations that have been newly recognised by Ofqual and would ensure a consistent approach was taken by AOs overall. Other respondents described the guidance as a useful reference document and welcomed the clear links with the terminology used in Ofqual’s General Conditions.

A small number of respondents wanted more specific EPA terminology included in the guidance. They said that applying terms used in other types of qualifications to apprenticeships would not achieve the clarity that Ofqual intended. One respondent suggested a dual reference should be used to address this throughout the guidance and cited ‘Learner/apprentice’ and ‘Qualification/end-point assessment’ as examples that could make the guidance clearer for AOs. They also questioned the use of the term ‘awarding organisation’ in the guidance and suggested that ‘end-point assessment organisation’ should be used consistently and was a better descriptor. One respondent suggested that the term ‘result’ should encompass more than the EPA result as defined in the guidance; they considered the term should instead address the whole apprenticeship.

Question 2

Do you have any comments on the proposed amendment to the existing guidance on Condition C2 (Arrangements with Centres)?

	Number of respondents
Yes	13
No	12

A total of 25 responses were received to this question and 13 respondents provided comments.

Some respondents welcomed the additional detail provided in this section stating that the further clarification on the circumstances in which Condition C2 would or would not apply was particularly helpful. At the same time, they considered that the guidance needed to go further and provide more detailed examples than those currently proposed. Comments included:

• the need for more detailed examples of activities that would constitute delivery on behalf of an AO, and therefore lead to the requirements relating to Centres being applicable. More ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ indicators would make it clearer whether an AO was applying the rules correctly
• a suggestion that the guidance could be overly burdensome, particularly for training providers who might play a small role in the delivery of an EPA, but could be subject to the requirements relating to Centres

• views that the guidance was limited and did not encompass the range of scenarios that AOs encounter in Centre arrangements which could lead to different interpretations of the guidance

• the need for additional guidance on other types of arrangements that AOs might have in place with other bodies that might impact apprentices. This was viewed as especially beneficial for AOs new to Ofqual

There was one comment that did not relate directly to the proposal. Instead, it was a question about financial arrangements between Centres and AOs and whether this activity needed to be subject to Ofqual’s oversight.

Some respondents did not provide comments on the proposed guidance as their organisations did not use Centres to deliver EPAs but commented that the guidance on the Condition was useful.

Question 3

Do you have any comments on the proposed amendment to the existing guidance on Condition E3 (Publication of a qualification specification)?

	Number of respondents
Yes	11
No	14

A total of 25 responses were received to this question and 11 respondents provided comments.

Most of those who commented considered that the proposed update was helpful and made clear what would be expected of AOs in the development and publication of a specification. These respondents referenced the importance of the specification in enabling users to access further information about the EPA. They also welcomed the recognition in the guidance that elements of a specification could be published in such a way as to not make commercially sensitive information public.

Some respondents queried the need to replicate what was already set out in the Apprenticeship Standard and Assessment Plan in a separate document, calling the requirement burdensome. This was echoed by another respondent who considered that the term ‘specification’ was more relevant to general qualifications rather than EPAs. This was because EPAs have a standard and an Assessment Plan, which, in essence, fulfils Ofqual’s specification requirement in a way that is not the case for other qualifications. Other respondents were unclear about the precise layout of the specification and what form it should take.

One respondent suggested it would be useful to provide additional guidance on E3.2(i) on specimen assessment materials, as they were unclear about the meaning.

Question 4

Do you have any comments on the proposed amendment to the existing guidance on Condition H1 (Marking the assessment)?

	Number of respondents
Yes	10
No	15

A total of 25 responses were received to this question and 10 respondents provided comments.

Most of those who commented welcomed the amendment to the guidance stating that the explanation about the different forms that marking could take aligned with their current practices. Some respondents were unaware that other approaches, apart from numerical marks, could constitute marking. They welcomed the clarification that other approaches may be appropriate depending on the assessment method and the knowledge, skills and behaviours in scope. Respondents also expressed the view that the amendment could support a standardised approach across EPAs, which would be beneficial to apprentices, as well as stakeholders and other groups.

One respondent wanted more detailed guidance on marking and considered the wording a repeat of what was stated in the Condition. They also called for more examples that would demonstrate compliance and non-compliance.

The other respondents commented on the existing guidance for H1 and not on the proposed amendment. These comments suggested that there should be more detailed guidance regarding the arrangements AOs should have in place with assessors to standardise and monitor marking and for there to be guidance on Condition H1.2 in relation to Marking options.

Question 5

Do you have any comments on the proposed new guidance on Condition EPA 1 (Compliance with Assessment Plans)?

	Number of respondents
Yes	16
No	9

A total of 25 responses were received to this question and 16 respondents provided comments. This was the area of the proposed updates to the guidance that received the most detailed comments.

The majority of respondents were supportive of the new guidance. They commented that it provided welcome clarity and would aid consistent approaches across all AOs. There was agreement among respondents that the guidance would save time in respect of seeking clarification or permissions from Ofqual and IfATE about their individual approach to designing EPAs, where the approaches they were taking were not prevented by the requirements of the Assessment Plan. One respondent referred to the guidance as a helpful framework for those instances where the Assessment Plan did not provide precise details for AOs to follow.

One respondent welcomed the examples provided in the guidance, stating that they were useful in illustrating how the Assessment Plan should be used alongside Ofqual’s Conditions. There were other comments stating that the guidance would be helpful in addressing any inconsistencies between AOs that were delivering EPAs to the same Assessment Plan.

Many of the respondents who supported the guidance also raised significant concerns about their experience with Assessment Plans and expressed views about the challenges around consistent interpretation by all AOs. They proposed that there should be greater collaboration between IfATE and Ofqual on Assessment Plans. Ofqual was urged to take a role in ensuring that employer groups and others were familiar with the Conditions when developing Assessment Plans. One respondent questioned whether assessment experts were currently used in the development of Assessment Plans and suggested that this would be helpful. Others questioned whether some of the issues with the interpretation of Assessment Plans lay at the development stage of the occupational standard.

In relation to where Assessment Plans allow for flexibility in implementation, respondents suggested that there should be some facility for all AOs delivering the same standard to come together to ensure a level of consistency in approach. This was echoed by several respondents, and it was proposed that Ofqual should facilitate forums of this type. It was also suggested that another option, instead of forums, would be for Ofqual to provide a structure for how AOs could work together to improve consistency. Further, respondents suggested that decisions affecting AOs that were delivering the same standard should be readily accessible and publicly available.

There were concerns that the current differences in approaches could undermine public confidence in EPAs.

One response did not relate directly to the proposed new guidance and referenced specific issues with Gateway requirements.

Question 6

Do you have any comments on the proposed new guidance on transitioning between versions of Assessment Plans?

	Number of respondents
Yes	14
No	11

A total of 25 responses were received to this question and 14 respondents provided comments.

Most respondents provided supportive comments welcoming the new guidance, stating that it added useful clarity to an area that could be complex for many AOs to manage effectively. Some respondents suggested that the guidance should be expanded to provide scenarios setting out the precise actions that an AO would need to take when an Assessment Plan was updated.

Some respondents made general comments about the process for updating Assessment Plans. These comments included:

• views that transfers of apprentices from one version to another should only occur in exceptional circumstances

• more direction is needed about whether a change to an Assessment Plan was significant and required action
• questions about the appropriateness of entrusting AOs with determining at what point to transfer apprentices to an EPA based on an updated Assessment Plan

Some respondents considered that the guidance could only go so far, as the issues with transitioning between Assessment Plans lay with the limited information and short notice provided when Assessment Plans were updated.

Another respondent suggested that AOs should not be responsible for determining whether or not a new EPA should be submitted to the Register in the event of a significant change to an Assessment Plan.

There were additional comments about how the proposed guidance interacted with the Department for Education’s funding rules that apply to apprenticeships as well as how transitioning between plans could impact those funding rules. Respondents considered that the guidance ought to cover this aspect.

Question 7

Do you have any comments on the proposed new guidance on Condition C1 (Arrangements with third parties)?

	Number of respondents
Yes	9
No	15
Not answered	1

A total of 24 responses were received to this question and 9 respondents provided comments. There was one respondent that did not answer this question.

Most respondents provided limited comments on the proposed new guidance. There was broad support from respondents who considered that the guidance made clear AOs’ responsibilities when making arrangements with third parties and considered that this would serve to maintain standards in EPA delivery.

Two respondents called for more detail in the guidance in terms of the type of contractual arrangements that needed to be put in place with third parties and another found the wording around on-programme qualifications difficult to follow. One respondent questioned whether the guidance sufficiently mirrored the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s (ESFA) conditions for being on their Register of End-Point Assessment Organisations.

Some of the respondents asked for individual guidance on specific points relating to their organisation’s arrangements with third parties.

Question 8

Do you have any comments on the proposed new guidance on Condition E10 (Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL))?

	Number of respondents
Yes	13
No	12

A total of 25 responses were received to this question and 13 respondents provided comments.

Several respondents welcomed the proposals, stating that the guidance would support AOs’ decision making on the appropriateness of recognising an apprentice’s prior learning and achievement. They also welcomed the clarification that AOs were not required to recognise prior learning but to have a policy stating whether or not they did.

Other respondents raised various issues with the guidance, stating that they were uncertain about how RPL applied to apprenticeships and views that its use could be problematic. These included:

• views that RPL was more relevant to other types of qualifications that were taken over longer periods of time and where evidence of progress can be more easily mapped. Similarly, it was queried the extent to which knowledge, skills and behaviours were transferable in an EPA context

• a request for more detailed examples that would explain the circumstances an apprentice might seek RPL, including when an AO might grant RPL and when it might not

• views that the guidance as proposed could lead to AOs only recognising prior learning from organisations with which they had an existing relationship. There was concern that this could disadvantage apprentices that made RPL applications from other AOs
• some respondents had interpreted the proposed guidance to mean that they were compelled to recognise prior learning even if they had concerns about the content and validity of that prior learning

There were suggestions that the terminology used in the new guidance was not helpful, and it was proposed that language relating to achievement rather than learning would be more appropriate.

Question 9

Are there any other aspects of the existing EPA Conditions and the General Conditions where guidance on their application would be helpful? Please provide details.

A total of 9 respondents provided comments in response to this question. These comments mainly addressed Ofqual’s approach to regulating EPAs as opposed to other aspects of the EPA Qualification Level Conditions or General Conditions.

Other respondents made the following comments:

• there should be one set of Conditions for EPAs and that adhering to the EPA Conditions and guidance, as well as the General Conditions of Recognition, presented a challenge. It was argued that one set of Conditions would be a simpler system for AOs, who delivered EPAs, to navigate
• there was a lack of consistency across AOs and cited the different assessment approaches taken by AOs to the same apprenticeship standard as a factor. They considered that this level of variation in EPA delivery could undermine public confidence in EPAs

• there was a need for more and clearer guidance to support improved compliance. Ofqual should also provide greater support in answering AOs questions directly about compliance with regulatory requirements. This was considered particularly important for new AOs

• requests for forums to support AOs with Assessment Plans and to promote consistent interpretation and approaches to EPA delivery, particularly where AOs are delivering the same standard
• there should be evidence of closer working between Ofqual, IfATE and ESFA

One comment related to Ofqual’s recognition process for AOs and not the existing Conditions and Guidance. It was suggested that Ofqual’s recognition process was too focused on ‘traditional awarding bodies’ and did not consider that AOs who delivered EPAs, were a different type of organisation.

Equality impact

Ofqual is a public body, which means that it is bound by the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. In Annex B of the consultation, Ofqual set out how this duty interacts with our statutory objectives and other duties.

Within the consultation, the impacts on apprentices (positive and negative) have been considered in relation to the proposals, including on those apprentices who share a particular protected characteristic. Ofqual did not identify any negative impacts on apprentices arising from the proposed changes to the guidance but did identify potentially positive impacts on apprentices with protected characteristics. These are set out below:

New guidance on Condition EPA1 – Compliance with Assessment Plans

In relation to Assessment Plans, the new guidance explains that AOs must interpret an Assessment Plan in accordance with Ofqual’s requirements and have regard to any guidance Ofqual has published. Ofqual considers that this new guidance will have a positive equalities impact. AOs would be required to have particular regard to the General Conditions, which relate to the need to ensure the validity of assessments, in particular, Conditions D1 (fitness for purpose of qualifications), E4 (ensuring an assessment is fit for purpose and can be delivered) and G1 (setting the assessment). Condition E4 states that an awarding organisation must, in designing an assessment, ensure that it permits reasonable adjustments to be made while minimising the need for them.

New guidance on transitioning between versions of Assessment Plans

This new guidance describes how AOs should manage the transition to updated versions of an Assessment Plan taking account of the interests of apprentices. Ofqual considers that this will have a positive equalities impact as the guidance makes clear that it will be necessary for AOs to consider at what point apprentices should transfer from an EPA based on one version of an Assessment Plan to the other while ensuring that as far as is possible, they are not advantaged or disadvantaged as a result. AOs would be expected to take account of the needs of apprentices, including those with protected characteristics, and to take steps to ensure that their assessment arrangements are not biased in favour of or against apprentices with particular protected characteristics.

Ofqual asked for views on any additional impacts that respondents had identified, as well as on how any identified additional impacts might be mitigated. Respondents did not identify additional impacts arising from the consultation proposals.

Regulatory impact

In the consultation, Ofqual considered the regulatory impact of making these updates to the guidance and sought to balance the benefit of any changes against any disruption caused.

Ofqual concluded that although the proposed guidance will increase the overall impact of the requirements because AOs will need to have regard to additional information, the burden of familiarisation with the guidance and regulatory burden would be minimal. This was because the additional information could prove time efficient for AOs as it is intended to help them understand Ofqual’s Conditions and what they need to do to comply with these.

Respondents were asked their views on whether there could be further regulatory impacts arising from the proposal and how best to mitigate those impacts.

Four respondents provided comments indicating that there were additional regulatory impacts that had not been identified, which are set out below:

• one respondent commented on the amendment to Condition C2 (Arrangements with Centres). They considered that the guidance could be burdensome for training providers and lead to new costs for their organisation.
• another respondent considered that the requirement for AOs to follow the General Conditions as well as the EPA Conditions was a regulatory impact
• one respondent considered that regulatory impacts could be reduced further if Ofqual did more to support collaboration between awarding organisations in order to minimise differences in the interpretation of Assessment Plans and approaches to EPA delivery
• one respondent did not specifically address the question of regulatory impacts but suggested that more guidance would be helpful on transitioning between Assessment Plans

Annex A: List of organisational respondents

When completing the consultation questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate whether they were responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. These are the organisations that submitted a non-confidential response:

• Active IQ
• Association of Accounting Technicians
• Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)
• City & Guilds
• EAL
• FutureQuals
• Highfield Qualifications
• Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW)
• International Association of Maritime Institutions
• International Compliance Association
• Intraresilience Limited
• Lift and Escalator Industry Association
• NCFE
• Occupational Awards Limited
• Open Awards
• Pearson Education
• Professional Assessment Ltd
• SIAS
• Training Qualifications UK