Replies
No one has replied to this post.
You simply record on the Training Plan the hours that you plan to deliver. It must be at least the value in Annex C if there's no RPL. It can be higher than the Annex C value if that's what you plan to deliver. It can be lower if there is RPL (but it doesn't have to be, and it can't be below 187 ever). We would reduce our price if there was content we didn't need to deliver due to RPL, even if we stuck with the usual OTJ hours for any reason.
You don't have to change your duration. You can still deliver that standard in 24 months, and only deliver 487 hours. You might decide to still deliver 557 hours over 24 months, or 487 over 24 months and just spread things out a bit, or you could deliver 487 hours in 19 months if you want to fast track them.
You should record the hours you plan deliver (meeting the minimum) and a duration that you think is realistic based on your plan. That might look very different for two students on the same Standard.
Duration will impact on how many months your funding gets spread over. If you understate durations, you run the risk of apprentices not completing as 'timely'. If you overstate your durations, you can lose money if they withdraw part way through.
Ruth Canham-James Thank you (again!)
I thought it had looked pretty straight forward until I came to doing the funding calculations and then thought I have to use our planned duration as opposed to the minimum OTJ hours, and then felt like I'd opened a can of worms when I started getting a few conflicting answers!
On this note, we have a guy joining the plumbing group and due to prior learning, is permitted to come in at Phase 3, so in effect would be 50% RPL, so using my old calculations this would equate to 24 months and 557 OTJ hours, but para 33.2 states the RPL planned hours have to be more or equal to the minimum (Annex C) requirement for the standard, which in this case is 37 months and 857 OTJ hours?
So, does this mean that I can't take this learner on into Phase 3 (as per the on-programme guidelines for RPL)? Or, is this actually meaning that as we would normally deliver the programme over 48 months, this element of the calculation is meeting the conditions of para 33.2, and the fact the 50% reduction then takes the OTJ below the Annex C minimum, this will be permitted?
I just want to make certain that we aren't going to fall foul of the new changes due to mis-interpretation.
Thanks again.
Plumbing minimum is 857. If there is 50% RPL and you're therefore only delivering 428 (ish) hours, that's fine, as you can go below the minimum if there is RPL, and it's still above the 187 minimum. You can deliver that in whatever duration you see fit, as long as it's at least 8 months. The guidance used to say:
28.1.1 If there is insufficient content remaining (i.e. less than 12 months), the individual will be ineligible for apprenticeship funding.
It now says:
33.1.1 If there is insufficient content remaining (i.e. less than 8 months or 187 hours), the individual will be ineligible for apprenticeship funding.
So there is a level of duration involvement. You can't artificially stretch an apprenticeship to 8 months when the usual duration is 12 months, and there is 50% RPL (or artificially stretch to 187 hours when the usual hours are 300 and there's 50% RPL, even if you really do evidence 187 hours). Plumbing is nowhere near dropping below that though.
Ruth Canham-James, as always, a massive thanks for the confirmation.
I think as I've been trying to do all the ILR returns, at the same time as trying to calculate the new starts dates/Training Plans and then sorting out other stuff on top, just fried my brain a little so started doubting myself on things. So, thank you for helping.
Tracey Richardson I am sure this job was infinitely easier when I started 16 years ago! I'm always doubting myself now.
Tracey Richardson
Funding Rules - Annex C OTJ
Created
Hi All,
Trying to get my head around the new Annex C as I seem to be getting some conflicting messages around this, so wondered if one of you wonderful people can guide me please.
So, the Annex C guidance states the table shows the ‘minimum’ OTJ for each standard, and states that, ‘To be eligible for government funding an apprentice with no relevant prior learning must receive at least the published volume of off-the-job training hours for the standard (or a reduced figure for relevant and evidenced prior learning).
We have removed the delivery link between off-the-job training and time on programme. This means that, in agreement with the employer, a provider will be free to deliver the required off-the-job training hours over whatever timeframe they choose (subject to meeting the minimum duration requirement). If the duration of the programme increases or decreases, there will no longer be an impact on the minimum training requirement.’
So, for example, BSE L2 has a typical duration of 24 months, which equates to 557 hours OTJ under the old funding rules (20%). The Annex C has this standard down as 487 hours (equating to 21 months).
When I spoke to somebody earlier, they said whatever the planned duration a provider runs the course over, the OTJ from the look up table in Annex C is what is recorded on the Training Plan and ILR. (and the figure also used for funding calculations)
So, in my mind, that means there is no real change to what we have already been doing. However, it’s the line where it states about the delivery link between OTJ and time on programme being removed, does this mean that is I could equally just write my Training Plan as the minimum OTJ (and assume I would have to put it down as 21 months) and if I went over and completed it in 24 months as I would have done originally, I won’t get penalised in any way??