Replies
No one has replied to this post.
This is such a tricky area. I think a lot of providers do it somewhat like that, but we've been trying to change what we do as it doesn't make sense. They key point is, do the prior KSB result in a reduction in delivery/training? If not, why would we reduce the price/duration? That then can become a loophole because you might say that you're not reducing delivery because the delivery is fixed. So then it's a question of whether they could have skipped some delivery, even if they actually attended after all. The guidance is very confusing, but this stuff I've bolded is important:
28. Where relevant prior learning and experience is identified, the provider must summarise the impact, including whether, and by how much, the apprenticeship content and duration has been reduced.
28.1. Where content is to be omitted from the training plan, this must be shown as a volume of off-the-job training hours. This reduction in hours must translate to a reduction in duration and price
28.2. To calculate the reduction in price the provider must:
28.2.1 Calculate the percentage of prior learning that the individual has, as a percentage of the off-the-job training hours that would be delivered to an individual with no relevant prior learning for the same standard. For example, if the individual’s prior learning accounts for 300 off-the-job training hours and typically, for the same standard, 1,000 off-the-job training hours would be delivered to an individual with no prior learning, this would equate to a 30% prior learning percentage.
To me that clearly says that if the prior KSB doesn't translate to a reduction in content on the training plan, then you don't need to reduce the price or duration. You'd have to justify that though. That's easer when it's come to behaviours especially. Just because someone already thinks they work well in a team, doesn't mean you're going to make any changes to the training plan and price. We also absolutely don't take the apprentices' assessment as final, they sometimes over score their abilities and experience.
We've been doing a similar scoring system to the one you describe, but I think we've been doing ourselves out of funding where that price reduction didn't actually go hand in hand with a training plan content reduction. I've asked auditors about this, and they agreed with what I said above. I strongly recommend you talk to your auditors before making any changes though.
Matthew Rogers
Recognition of prior learning and experience
Created
Hi All. Could I ask how providers assess recognition of prior learning and experience and attribute this to reduced hours/price? We ask the apprentice to complete a scorecard/skills scan which they answer 0-1 depending on if they still need to learn more about a particular KSB. Each KSB have hours assigned and if they score a 1 we reduce the total number of hours and calculate the funding reduction. We recently had a mock audit and the auditor recommended introducing a sliding scale (we did have this before but it opened up more questions than answers for apprentices and they found the scoring too ambiguous).
Do providers ask the apprentice to score themselves out of 10 and then you subsequently reduce the hours by the % scored? So if they score themselves a 9, 90% of the hours are reduced (or equivalent).
Thanks in advance,
Matt