Non-mandatory qualifications

1. funded on the basis that it maps to the knowledge, skills and behaviour requirements of the standard and is the basis for delivering the standard.
2. If practicable be left on programme so they can still acquire the KSBs and pass EPA using class code aim Z0009118.

Cheers Martin, completely didn't think about the non-reg option. Would we be required (do you imagine) to retain any supplementary evidence as to why we're using the non-reg code? Would it be safe to assume the training plan be sufficient to evidence how we're planning to ensure the learner remains in active learning throughout, despite not being on a regulated qual?

The training plan would be sufficient evidence, but I always question why providers add non mandatory qualifications when they are not required by the standard and not completely funded.

Ineligible costs

94.2.9 Any fees to awarding bodies for non-mandatory qualifications (qualifications that are not specifically listed in the standard). This includes registration, examination, certification and re-sit costs.

94.2.10 Additional learning required to re-sit an exam linked to a non-mandatory qualification.

Tend to agree, though providing it's made clear in the training services agreement with the employer that they're not paying for those things, there shouldn't be any harm considering that's the aim that's actually being delivered? Or do you think the ESFA would prefer providers return the non-regulated learning aim class code in all instances? 

1. Broadly agree with Martin. However, if the student needs to continue with the non-mandatory qual after gateway, it will error if coded as a component, and it's a faff to resolve. Whilst that shouldn't happen if the qual is fully mapped to the Standard, and therefore can count as OTJ, there are all sorts of reasons that might occasionally happen. For that reason, we code non-mandatory aims as not a component, it's just to save admin, and has no practical impact.
2. We use the non-reg aims for everyone with no mandatory qual as well as the non-mandatory qual aim, partly because of our response to point 1, partly just for consistency. The Z00 code doesn't represent delivery on apprenticeships (that's on the programme aim), it's just an admin fudge to get around that fact that the validation won't accept a programme aim with no components (which was a Framework rule, but has been applied to Standards for reasons I don't understand). You don't need to evidence anything for an admin fudge.

Another thing to think about, is whether you do even need to report the non-mandatory aim in your ILR. If you're a college, you have to report all delivery you do. However, if all the content on the non-reg qual would have been delivered anyway as part of the Standard, and you're just doing the assessments because employers want that piece of paper, there's not really anything to report. You'd just be accrediting stuff they'd already done? 

It is complicated including non-mandatory aims, I'm slightly worried sometimes that they're reporting OTJ for qual content that isn't mapped to the Standard, but it's really hard to check either way! We do them because employers insist on it. It's like they don't trust that the Standard is really a thing, and they want an old-fashioned qualification to make it look proper.

Interestingly this came up in discussion today. My view is very much in keeping with Ruth's.

Our current approach to to report the non-mandatory aims as we're delivering them at request of the employer. They're not included in the costings and are delivered as a value add because they want a qualification they recognise, despite it not being a funded element of the apprenticeship.

Also agree with the point about potential OTJ conflicts and the challenge in identifying those instances.

Reviving this as we're going to be delivering a new apprenticeship with no mandatory qualification and my brain has fallen out..

Ruth Canham-James are you saying you'd record someone on this^ kind of programme with the following aims:

• Aim 1 = ZPROG
• Aim 2 = Non-reg Z00 code for the Standard (coded as FM36 and as 3-Component learning aim within a programme)
• Aim 3 = Non-mandatory qualification (coded as FM99 and 4-Learning aim that is not part of a programme)

Ben James Yes, that's what we do 😊 You could code the non-mandatory as 36 and 3, but it makes no difference to anything. It will cause you a headache if they continue with the non-mandatory aim past the end of the Standard though, which is why we just code it as 99 and 4 in case that happens. Also, coding the non-mandatory as 99 just makes it that bit clearer that delivery on there isn't OTJ unless it can be mapped to the Standard.

Wunderbar, thank you! Lastly.. when you say that coding it as 99 "makes it a bit clearer that delivery on there isn't OTJ unless it can be mapped", this isn't to say that none of the delivery of that aim is OTJ, correct? In this case the opposite is in fact true; the overwhelming majority of the qualification has been mapped to the KSBs (in theory, at least), so would be OTJ. 

Ben James Yes, it'll very likely map in part, if not entirely, but the point is they need to check, and not assume that all the delivery they do on the non-mandatory aim can be counted as OTJ. I couldn't possibly check up on the detail, I just make sure I've told the delivery team, and I leave it to them to evidence.