"Published Typical Durations"

I'll preface this with apprenticeships aren't really my forte and that this doesn't really answer your question but I did see that IfATE uses "Minimum duration to gateway" in the key information of some apprenticeships and "Typical duration to gateway" for others.

Hospitality accommodation team member / Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education

Team leader / Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education

Yes, that's one of the possible options I suggested, but we shouldn't be left guessing/assuming that this is the thing they call "published typical durations", when something so significant is riding on it! Based on what the rules say, they will be automatically making payments at 242 days only when the typical duration is under 12 months, so they will have a lookup they use. I'm going to guess it's the LARS value (which I think probably matches that IfATE value).

Since the additional payments are mostly for 16-18, and we're not expected to RPL those most of the time, it shouldn't be very often that we'd lose the second payment for anyone with a reduced duration due to RPL.

I've just found one that suggests that neither IfATE or LARS data is showing us the "published typical duration". Customer Service Practitioner shows 12 months in LARS and IfATE, yet it has been given a minimum OTJ of 300. That doesn't add up. A 12 month apprentice should be 278 (as is the case with Accounts of Finance Assistant). 300 would suggest a 13 month typical duration. So where did it come from that the Customer Service Practitioner Standard is typically 13 months? Where is that published?

Hi Ruth

Looking at the new Annex C, there's an explanation as to how they've arrived at the minimum OTJ hours which may help to answer your query re the Customer Service Practitioner standard:

This specifically mentions IFATE (obviously now Skills England) so maybe this will be the source they will use for 'Published Typical Durations?'

Yes, I read that, but they specifically say that the typical durations were set based on a range of info including IfATE minimums and actual time on programme from the ILR, so they definitely aren't just the straight IfATE minimums. They just haven't published these set typical durations yet as far as I can see, despite referencing them many times in the new guidance 🙄 

It's all academic right now, but once we've got apprenticeship with a typical duration of less than 12 months, we're going to need to know what those typical durations are for checking additional payment dates. I know we can reverse engineer it by looking at column B on the lookups tab of Annex C, but that's a very poor way to "publish" typical durations.

Yep, totally agree with everything you've said. There's an Apprenticeship Service webinar next week isn't there so I'm going to raise the question about the 'published' typical duration.

I still can't get my head around the witholding of the final instalment of the additional payment if a learner completes earlier than 12 months on a standard that has a 'published' typical duration of 12 months or more. So, if a learner completes in month 11 (which they can now do under the new min duration rules) we and the employer will not be entitled to the final £500 - that's right isn't it? We now have to ensure our Contract for Services reflects this new rule but I'm just bracing myself for the complaints from employers when they don't get their money! 

Yes, that's what I understand, and exactly the problem 😕 We need to make sure that anywhere we currently explain additional payments, is adjusted to take this into consideration, so employers don't get cross with us when they don't get the second payment. It's even more critical with the care leaver bursary. We need to make it crystal clear up front whether they will get £1,000 or £500.

Most additional payments are 16-18, and most 16-18 won't have RPL, so hopefully a limited problem.

I have asked the Apprenticeship Service, and they've escalated it. I find that, if it's at all apprenticeship related, that's better than asking the DfE service desk.

Which webinar is that? I think I've missed that one. Have you got a link?

Yes, hopefully we won't get too many instances of this but, as you say, we need to ensure all of our paperwork covers this so we're not caught out.

The webinar link is below but looks like it's now sold out 🫤

Apprenticeship Service | GoToStage.com

Todays Apprenticeship Service webinar states they used the IFATE duration

Maria Dixon That's only where they had no completers to provide supplementary data. For every other Standard they clearly state that they didn't just use the IfATE minimum duration to determine typical duration, and I've got evidence that they didn't. Customer Service Practitioner and Accounts or Finance Assistant are the same IfATE duration but different minimum OTJ, which we are told is based on "typical duration". I would just like the "published typical durations" to be actually published. All they need to do is add an extra column on the Annex C spreadsheet alongside the minimum OTJ hours. It can be assumed, but it needs to be explicit.

If you download the full list of apprenticeship standards from Skills England, there are no Apprenticeship Standards with a typical duration of less than 12 months. So do we await updates to this list, to the funding rules, or an "Official" list of published typical durations. Quite frankly, I do not understand why Annex C did not include a column for published typical duration alongside the OTJT minimum requirement hours.

Martin Outlaw But that's not the new "published typical duration" they're talking about in the rules, it's the old minimum duration (despite it being labelled "typical" in that download, it's still called minimum on the actual page for each Standard). I downloaded the data, and both Customer Service Practitioner and Accounts or Finance Assistant are the same duration of 12 months. They have been assigned different minimum OTJ, which we are told was based off "published typical durations", so those "typical" durations in that download cannot be what they're talking about in the rules.

Ruth, 

Have we been told that the hours were based off the "published typical durations", Annex C states "In setting the minimum requirement for each apprenticeship standard we considered a range of information, including current durations (both the IfATE typical duration and actual time on programme) and the volume of planned and actual hours being reported in the Individual Learner Record by providers. "

If it were simply based on the "published typical durations", then there would be no reason for that typical duration not to have been included alongside the hours. There is definitely a lack of clarity.

You are bothered that two specific standards have the same duration, but different minimum hours; yet it clearly states throughout the funding rules that there is no link. Specifically in the glossary for "Published typical duration" is says "From 1 August 2025 this duration is no longer linked to the number of off-the-job hours that need to be delivered to be eligible for funding. Providers should refer to Annex C which documents the number of required off-the-job hours for each standard in order to comply with the off-the-job training policy."

It would appear that rapid changes in policy have caught a number of organisations off guard, and as a consequence they have failed to provide the appropriate level of information and guidance to the network.

The question is, which duration are they referring to in the Funding Rules as the "Published Typical Duration"? The IfATE/Skills England value, or the value they used to determine the minimum OTJ? If it's the former, it's no problem 😊 If it's the latter, it could become a problem once the shorter standards come out. That statement about OTJ no longer being linked to duration is related to our own delivery, it can't be assumed that this also includes the "published typical durations", especially when durations absolutely were used to determine the new OTJ minimums.

The Skills England web pages are not consistent with their naming, which is the problem. The download just calls it "Typical Duration", but individual web pages sometimes call it "Typical duration to gateway", and often call it "Minimum duration to gateway". That needs sorting out for clarity. I hadn't spotted that some said typical until today, all the ones I looked at said minimum, which is not "typical". Precise and consistent terminology is so important. We can make assumptions, but it should be explicit. They should add to the Glossary entry for "Published Typical Duration" that's it's the duration shown on the Skills England site if that's what they mean, and then replace all mentions of "minimum" on there.

I think that the Skills England website lists everything with 12 months as "Minimum duration to gateway", and everything with 13 or more as "typical duration to gateway". I don't see it as anything other than the current (Pre 01/08/25) minimum. I would hope that they will be updated, with an official "typical duration to gateway", that we all can use, regardless of whether it is 8, 12, or 72 months.

The new Foundation Apprenticeships, all say "Typical".

That's good to know about all the new ones! It doesn't need to be this unclear, it's very easy to make it obvious.