Replies
No one has replied to this post.
If it's still the same ILR Standard code, it will get treated as the same Standard (such as funding being capped at band max), so I'd say treat it as if it's the same, so combined duration of at least a year is fine. I'd record as Restart, but no Original Start Date.
The new Planned End Date can be whatever you think is realistic. If you think more OTJ is required than just the remainder from the original, that's fine. You won't get any more funding though, you'll only get what's left in the band. In this case, I'd be claiming whatever was left, not an amount based on RPL (which would possibly be higher than you can claim).
If it's a different ILR Standard code, it's a whole new thing and you'd treat it as a brand new start but with RPL.
I think they're wrong 😕 How would this rule make sense if they then had to complete an whole extra year:
267.1. Apprentices already engaged on the earlier version of a standard may transfer to the latest version of the same standard (that is where the ST number remains the same) at any stage within their apprenticeship subject to meeting the rules on end-point assessment.
We've established you're not getting any extra funding, so how could you afford to do extra delivery? Also this rule:
277. The provider must make sure that the combined duration of the apprentice’s time on the legacy version and the new version meets the apprenticeship minimum duration requirements.
Why would that suddenly change just because there was a withdrawal in the middle? That makes no sense. There is no qualifier attached to that rule that says is must be continuous.
Nothing in your ILR will show it's not just the same Standard as before, so who would even know? I'd ignore them and follow rule 277.
Just one more question from our Business Development Team...........why does the max funding band have to be capped at the original price if the version change includes a TNP raise, usually down to there being more learning within the new version? Surely then we are missing out as we have to use the latest version but cannot amend the price?
It's just the rules. "278. Where an existing apprentice moves versions, they will continue the same funding band that they started on". Even if you don't record an Original Start Date, I think the DfE reports tie together the two record with the same ULN and Standard code, and will automatically just cap you based on the original band max of the Standard when they started the original period, though that might be wrong, I haven't tested it. You could try putting in a price that's the new band max minus what you already had, and see what happens! That's how I find out a lot of things that aren't explicitly in the rules.
It's not wrong that it's unfair that you can't get any extra funding when changing version, but that's what the rules say.
Just going back to your original post, where does it say you have to put them on the new version of the Standard? Also, you said you had to switch the break to a withdrawal after 90 days, was that because it was a change of employer related break?
The helpdesk told me that if a standard has been updated while a learner was withdrawn, they would need to return on the latest version, I'm now trying to find this written in the funding guidance...........do you not think it's the case?
Yes, the learner was withdrawn due to an employer gap of more than 90 days
I don't know about that one. I know restarts after a BIL can go back onto the original version, but that might not be physically possible if you don't record the Original Start Date.
It's all so messy when they change employer 🙁 If it were me, I'd find out if we physically can deliver for only what is left. If we could, I'd have a go at recording the higher amount based on new band max, and see what happens! If we got capped, we'd just let the employer know about the lower price and change the TNP, and have to deliver for the lower amount.
We have one learner who was withdrawn due to a bad car accident but has now decided to come back to the same employer after a year, in this instance we did put him back on the newest version for the minimum duration and RPL'd him but against the new TNP of £10000 (which was £4000 more then when he was originally enrolled £6000) which ended up being £7984. He was then flagged in the report showing where we have charged over the max funding band so I think your theory above about them tying the reports together is correct.
We could ask the employer to pay the difference but I don't think they will retrospectively so we would need to amend the TNP to be £6000 as per the original enrolment to remove him from the report
It's all very confusing!
I'd definitely check if there's anything stopping you putting them back on the original version they were on. It's not an ILR funding/issue as we don't report the version. I guess it's an EPAO question? That might be the easiest solution. What could anyone do to stop you if the EPAO approved it? Would an auditor even notice? Like you've said, it doesn't say anywhere in the rules that they can't go back on the original version.
The helpdesk are now adamant that the learner has to return for 365 days! I'm losing the will here :-(
I understand from your email you would like to know if a learner who is returning to a new version will need to complete the minimum duration or if they can do the 2 months that were remaining when they withdrew.
Kate, as the learner will now be a restart they will need to complete the minimum durations of 365 days. Although the price can be reduced in regards to their RPL from their previous learning before they were withdrawn.
Kate Nicholson Did you ever get a different answer on this? It just isn't true that the 365 days has to start again after a version transfer. Did they explain how the guidance I quoted above makes sense in the context of their answer?
Kate Nicholson
Apprentice returning to a different standard version
Created
We have a couple of learners who were initially temp withdrawn but then went past 90 days so were withdrawn. They are now returning to learning but in both cases, the standard version has updated in the meantime. The rules state that they should be put onto the latest version of a standard which is fine but my main question is, should they then be treated as a new start and therefore the minimum duration applies? All correspondence from the helpdesk and funding rules is very conflicting and I'd like to get others perspective as to the correct way to enrol them back to the system.
Thanks
Kate