Replies
No one has replied to this post.
[sucks teeth] Dangerous waters here I feel...
Thing is, I can't see where it would be picked up mechanically. So, wouldn't be in the ILR, wouldn't be in AS and, although this is a guess, I'm *assuming* the EPAO wouldn't know either. Only point (short of them developing a new FRM for it? But we know the cross-provider reports have been flaky at best?) would be at audit when they're checking your initial assessment and if IfATE Just Says No to a given standard after a given T Level then would you just be stuffed at that point? But, also, would there even be an audit test that specific? Or would skills scan just show sufficient gaps for you to have enough to deliver?
Given the very clearly reported issues with the first cohorts on certain T Levels, I'm not massively surprised you're finding this sort of thing, but I might want something in writing from somewhere first before I took them on???
Thanks Steve, I agree with the first paragraph - going ahead would likely only present an issue come audit but that isn't a risk we'd want to take despite us being of the view that this is a barrier to some potential apprentices.
I think we could get evidence from our clients to support the disconnect between the progression routes and reality, I'm just not sure who we'd go to to query/challenge. Would it be IfATE?
Hi both, this must be monitored as our ESFA Contract Manager highlighted a while ago that we had a couple of learners on programme who appeared to be on a standard that was 'not applicable' as a progression route from their previously completed T-level. It was very early days so we hadn't expected any to come through and didn't have relevant checks in place. We didn't challenge with ESFA as the progression profiles do seem fairly cut and dried in respect of not applicable standards but maybe we should have. Our processes would prevent this happening again and I'm not aware we've had any subsequent challenge from applicants/employers who have been prevented from the particular progression route. It's definitely something that is looked at in advance of audit though.
Darren Vidler
T-Levels "not allowed" progression routes
Created
Hi,
We're starting to see more candidates coming through with T-Levels and this is presenting a barrier to us on a particular standard. I understand that where a standard is flagged as "not allowed" in the progression route guidance that this is because there is too much RPL for that standard to be funded however, if the scenario is that employers (and us as the provider) don't feel this is correct due to signficant gaps in knowledge/skills upon completion of a T-Level, is there a route we can go down to challenge?
Welcome any thoughts or prior experience.
Darren