Assessing Apprenticeships One Year On: A Stocktake From The AAO Perspective
It is a year since the Government announced its Apprenticeship Assessment Principles, marking the most significant shift in assessment policy since the introduction of End‑Point Assessment in 2017. The ambition behind the reforms was clear: to streamline the process, reduce duplication, and allow assessment to take place throughout the apprenticeship rather than solely at the end. Skills England has begun publishing the first revised plans. While delivery of the first reformed assessments has yet to happen, the first plans and emerging picture raise important questions about the likely outcome when we get there.
A Changing Landscape of Assessment Plans
The new assessment plan format has now been confirmed, and Skills England is developing plans on a standard‑by‑standard basis. In theory, Apprenticeship Assessment Organisations (AAOs – previously EPAOs) have been given greater freedom to innovate and the scope to reduce unnecessary assessment methods, incorporate more technology, and design processes that better reflect occupational practice. These are innovations that AAOs have been calling for.
However, the revised system is unclear and implementation is inconsistent. The structures replacing the former Trailblazer Groups remain ill‑defined, and the role of employers, providers and AAOs, in some instances, has become uncertain and confused. Compressed timelines add to the confusion and sense of disregard for all stakeholders – generally, there is insufficient time for proper consideration and implementation timelines are being over-pressured; experience tells us that less than six months risks rushed, uneven adoption.
The commitment to independent assessment continues, other than for behaviours, is positive and right, but the broader set of rules governing assessment plan design is proving overly restrictive for some employers. AAOs report that the high‑level parameters being applied are sometimes inconsistent and, in important sectors, excessively tight. This creates challenges for occupations with distinctive needs, particularly those that are safety‑critical or regulated, such as construction, engineering, food production, life sciences and nuclear. The rushed implementation is contributing to the sense of unease and undermining efforts by employers to put things right.
Emerging Unknowns and Areas of Concern
One significant change is the transfer of responsibility for confirming behaviours from AAOs to employers. Stakeholders, including apprentices and employers, value behaviours as one of the most enduring benefits of the apprenticeship model and one that sets apprentices apart. Yet there is little clarity on how behaviours will be benchmarked or how national standards will be maintained, if at all. Without a shared framework, organisations will interpret what they see as acceptable behaviour standards and diverge.
Also to be fully tested is the extent to which training providers will take on elements of assessment. The concept enjoys interest and is supported in some instances, but there is widespread caution about assuming provider‑delivered assessment will reduce either cost or complexity. Meanwhile questions remain around what revised approaches will mean for degree apprenticeships and for the adoption of mandatory qualification assessments as valid assessments of occupational competence. These issues require more detailed analysis before it is too late, if we are to ensure they enhance, rather than dilute, the apprenticeship model.
Opportunities for Improvement
Few dispute that reform was overdue. The principles announced in February 2025 have the potential to deliver clearer, more proportionate and more efficient assessment. But to realise that potential, several targeted interventions are needed now:
- Greater Transparency from Skills England
Publishing a clear process for how assessment plans are developed — including who will be consulted, when, and to what depth. This would support consistency and allow stakeholders to contribute constructively. - Prioritising Occupational Need Over Speed
Quality should be prioritised over pace. Rushed timelines risk weakening assessment design where it most matters. There should also be a more nuanced and agile approach to the parameters that are being imposed on assessment design, notably for safety‑critical and licence to practice occupations. - Clarifying the Role of Mandatory Qualifications and Degree Apprenticeships
Further guidance is needed to ensure that qualification assessments are appropriate where they are being adopted, and the arrangements for degree apprenticeships needs attention. - Creating a National Framework for Behaviour Assessment
Without defined expectations, behaviours risk inconsistent interpretation across employers and marginalisation. - Balancing Innovation with Consistency
Flexibility and optionality are welcome, but there needs to be consideration of the impact on comparability of outcomes.
It is difficult to see how the aims of the reforms can be achieved if these issues are not resolved.
By Rob Nitsch, Chief Executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies
Responses