Replies
No one has replied to this post.
Hi Rebecca,
Yes, that's correct. The problem is there is no flag in the ILR to indicate that RPL has taken place, so any OTJ values that appear too low have to be listed in the report (even when this is due to RPL).
For older starts the report uses the Duration to calculate the minimum OTJ, but for starts on or after the 1st August 2025 the report just checks against the new Apprenticeship Standard Minimum OTJ values:
|
Identify learners with ZPROG learning aims WHERE FundModel = 36, |
Thanks,
Richard
I think it's also partly because of a historic change of calculation they did. We have a load that look low on that report but are fine because we used the old calculation (they're max 4 hours out). We changed to the new calculation when it was announced in May 2024.
There will be a lot more records in this report from 25/26, which are actually fine, because of the change to OTJ for this year. If we do start reporting RPL in the ILR eventually, I assume this report will use that info. Until then, you just add a note and make sure you have the evidence to back up the reduction.
The new HRS4 code will capture this from next year! Hopefully our friends from KPMG will update the report...
Steve Hewitt Just re-reading that ILR guidance, and the new value is described as "Planned hours for off the job training due to a reduction in prior learning". Does that means the hours we're not delivering, because it doesn't read like that! It reads like the hours we are delivering resulting from an RPL reduction, but that should be in the existing OTJ hours field.
UPDATE: It's clarified in HRSCode guidance, it's just the hours not delivered. It could be worded a lot better in the HRS page.
Rebecca Gent
PDSAT Report 215 - Planned OTJ Training Hours
Created
I am hoping for some further clarification on PDSAT report number 215. It states the purpose of the report is to: Identify apprenticeship programmes with planned off-the-job training hours that may not meet the minimum requirement.
I have highlighted "may not" as I am wondering if this report is to highlight possible miscalculations and not actual errors. I have been through the report and the difference between column H "Planned OTJ Training Hours" and column I "Standard or Notional Minimum OTJ" is minor for most apprentices.
Sometimes we have learners who demonstrate some very minimal RPL (around 3 hours or less) on their Skills Scan and this is reduced from the OTJ total and TNP1, however it is not removed from the duration on programme.
Am I correct in saying that this report would pick this up as a potential error as the calculation on the report is being made on the duration vs OTJ hours? If we can explain that the apprentice has slightly less OTJ than their calculation due to RPL would this be acceptable?
Thank you for your help.