Replies
No one has replied to this post.
Yes, but would they need to attempt level 2? Martin seems to think they would, which was my opinion previously, but I'm looking for chapter & verse where it's stated it's required & not finding it, even though it FEELS right.
*Seeking clarification on Martin's meaning. He didn't state that.
I personally think that they must at least "work toward". I've previously insisted on an attempt at level 2 assessments, but am not sure now. What do you think?
When you say "undertake", do you mean learning, or the full attempt? And which rule/rules are you applying in order to come to that conclusion?
The ESFA and Ofsted would expect such a learner to undertake L2.
P135 As part of our ambition for a world-class technical education system and in line with recommendations from independent experts, progression towards and attainment of approved level 2 English and maths qualifications is an important part of the apprenticeship programme. For those undertaking a level 3 or higher apprenticeship, it is a requirement that they hold or achieve an approved level 2 in both subjects before they can successfully complete the apprenticeship.
P136 For apprentices undertaking a level 2 apprenticeship:
P136.1 We want as many apprentices as possible to achieve level 2 English and maths. We require all apprentices to achieve level 1 (where they have not already) as a minimum and where appropriate, work towards level 2 English and maths. Not all level 2 apprentices will be required to take the assessments at level 2. Level 2 English/maths must be achieved if specified within the apprenticeship standard.
Thank you.
I'm currently at the position of them definitely needing to work toward level 2 as a minimum. Would you say they also need to take the assessments?
Becky O'Brien
FS requirements on L2 App, where IA is high, but no L1 cert
Created
I'm wondering how much I have misinterpreted the apprenticeship rules around this situation:
Apprenticeship is level 2. Learner does not have evidence of achieving level 1, but their IA is high, so that level 1 would not be fundable as per P141.
In this case, I had interpreted the rules to indicate that the learner must attempt level 2, and then, if failed, go on to do level 1 unfunded. (Don't ask me where I got the idea it had to be done in that order. I can't find any mention of it, although I had been sure there was something that stated it.)
I'm now wondering if the following would be acceptable according to the rules?
Apprentice takes level 1 unfunded at the beginning.
If there is enough time left once they have achieved level 1, level 2 is worked toward.
If there is not enough time left once they have achieved level 1, level 2 is not worked toward.
In neither case is there a requirement to attempt Level 2 assessments unless we deem them ready.
It just sits so strangely with me because of the high IA level. I also think I thought that because the funding wasn't available for the level 1, we couldn't follow the "make sure they they get level 1 first, & doing level 2 depends on timing" approach. But those aren't the same thing, right?
Or should it be a middle-ground? Secure level 1 (unfunded), but also attempt level 2?