16-18 apprentice

I mean, if he's under 18 then, strictly speaking, no Skills Scan is required. The fact that he's learning a lot quicker than expected is basically fine?

It's certainly acceptable to put learners through early and still get all the money, this happens all the time, although usually only a month or two early but, provided he's met the statutory minimum length and his employer is happy that he is competent at all of the KSBs, they they can sign him off.

Just make sure you get it signed off, and that he met the 6 hours a week OTJ for actual duration, as per paragraph 92-94 of the guidance.

Well this is interesting, isn't it?

92.4. Confirmation that the volume of hours delivered met the off-the-job training 
minimum requirement for the apprenticeship standard.  
92.4.1 
If RPL applies, this can be factored into the above statement 
(see example in paragraph 81.1). 

But there is no "six hours a week" for 25/26 starters, there's only the value on the spreadsheet and, in this example, there's no RPL...

Sorry, I didn't spot Frances said Oct 2025 start. That does make things more challenging, as they do now have to hit the Standard minimum if there was no RPL. For 24/25 starts who finished early, it was fine to just meet the 6 hours a week for a year minimum (just 187), RPL didn't really matter. We now can't go below the minimum OTJ without RPL 😕

This seems... unsatisfactory... To the point where I may raise a query about it (quite surprising it's taken this long to come up!).

Steve (or indeed anyone) can you point to a rule on this "if he's under 18 then, strictly speaking, no Skills Scan is required" I thought Scans were compulsory for all apprentices ? 

Assessment of prior learning and experience (16–18-year-olds) 
31. 
Prior learning is unlikely to exist for apprentices aged 16-18 unless they have: 
31.1. Previously enrolled in an apprenticeship; or other training that is aligned to  
Skills England’s occupational standards in the same sector (see 
paragraphs 33.3 to 33.4); or  
31.2. They have relevant prior work experience (see paragraph 30.1.2).  
32. 
To establish this, the provider must check the individual’s personal learning record, 
if they have one, and have a discussion with the learner about the likelihood of 
relevant prior learning against the proposed apprenticeship standard.  
32.1. Where relevant prior learning and experience is not identified, this should 
be documented and agreed with the employer. No further actions are 
required, including any price reduction.

I mean, you totally *should* do a skills scan because it's an important way to personalise the programme for a learner and understand their motivations for becoming an apprentice BUT it's not mandatory for 16-18s

Just looking at the Guidance:

Recognition of prior learning requirements for apprentices aged 16 to 18

Relevant prior learning or experience is unlikely to exist for apprentices aged 16 to 18, unless they have:

• previously started or completed an apprenticeship
• done other training aligned to an occupational standard, for example, a T-level
• been in post-16 employment relevant to their apprenticeship

You need to:

• check the apprentice’s personal learning record (if it exists)
• have a discussion with the learner to check if they have any relevant prior learning or experience
  
  
  It sounds like this apprentice might nor have prior learning, but does have prior experience because of being shown carpentry skills or practising it with his father at home?

Thanks Steve, I see your point, the Skill Scan is not required IF there are no indications (quals / experience) that it is required. But then that points to motivation to complete.

But it doesn't have to be a full skills scan mapped against every KSB, unlike for 19+.

Response from Apps Helpdesk:

You asked whether the 25/26 Apprenticeship Funding Rules require apprentices starting on or after 1 August 2025, with no recognised prior learning (RPL), to meet the minimum OTJ hours published in Annex C/the OTJ minimum hours dataset even if they complete early. You also inquired if this represents a genuine policy change or a misinterpretation due to ambiguous wording, whether quick learners can complete with an appropriate volume of OTJ rather than a fixed number of hours, and the rationale behind any policy change regarding early completion and OTJ hours.
 
For apprentices starting on or after 1 August 2025, the 25/26 Apprenticeship Funding Rules introduce minimum off-the-job training hours by standard, as published in Annex C/the OTJ minimum hours dataset. Where there is no recognised prior learning (RPL), an apprentice must receive at least the published minimum OTJ hours, even if they complete earlier than the typical or planned duration. The previous approach of evidencing an average (for example, 6 hours per week) no longer applies to new starts.
 
This is a genuine policy change. The Department for Education (DfE) has removed the link between OTJ hours and time on programme, replacing the 20% working-hours calculation with fixed minimum hours per standard.
 
Quick learners may still complete early, provided that the minimum OTJ hours in Annex C are delivered and evidenced, and the minimum programme duration (normally 8 months) is met. OTJ can be delivered over any timeframe agreed with the employer; it is no longer tied to a fixed weekly volume, but the total minimum hours must still be achieved.
 
I hope you find this information helpful, Steve. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions.

Note the lack of rationale, but you can't have everything...

(my emphasis on the above, just to be clear)

I don't think we ever had many early completers, but this is really significant and I'm making sure our delivery team know. Something I've said to them is:

"Even when there is RPL, we can only reduce the hours based on the Skills Scan. Once assessed at the start, the Planned OTJ functionally becomes that apprentice’s minimum, and we can’t go below that unless we can evidence that the Skills Scan was inaccurate". 

Second reply (in ONE DAY! Clearly our friends at the AS helpdesk are working better than those at the main DfE one...)

I understand your concerns about the change regarding the previous understanding that some learners, without Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), could complete their apprenticeship more quickly and therefore require fewer OTJ hours, as mentioned in paragraphs 97 and 98 of the 2024/25 Rules. I appreciate you reaching out to ask why the rules now require that early completers still complete the same minimum number of OTJ hours, and I'm here to help clarify this for you.
 
To clarify, the principle behind OTJ has changed. It is no longer framed as "what is needed to reach competence" but rather as a minimum condition for funding eligibility. This means that to be eligible for government funding, an apprentice without relevant prior learning must complete at least the published volume of OTJ hours for their standard.
 
OTJ is now treated as an input specification rather than an outcome dependent on learner speed. A minimum publicly funded training entitlement attached to the standard, not a variable expression of individual learning speed. These changes aim to reduce bureaucracy around OTJ calculations and provide greater flexibility in delivering off-the-job training.

My emphasis again, although how they can describe this as "greater flexibility" is beyond me...

I've been thinking about this too much but... does this response read like GenAI to anyone else? I omitted the response that completely ignored my question and talked about shorter durations which I replied to saying it wasn't answering my question and then I got this about an hour later which is, y'know, kind of unprecedented... I'm not sure how I feel about this...

Thanks you everyone, this went further than I imagined.  If I understand this correctly, I can't see how my particular apprentice can finish that much earlier, he is doing Carpentry and Joinery, with a minimum OTJ 557?

Hi Frances

Yup, that seems to be the top and bottom of it, unless you can double the number of hours he does a week... Aren't you glad it's so flexible though?

Richard Phipps how odd, your post has just come through! Look at those first three bullets again though. None of them say "has been mucking around with his dad in the workshop", they **specifically** worded it like this so that 16-18s would not need to be RPLed. If it's not an actual job or actual qualifications, it shouldn't be taken into account.