Ruth Canham-James

Apprenticeship Actual End Date - English and Maths

Edited

Bit of a hypothetical but we might have this scenario.

Apps funding rules glossary:

Learning actual end date

The date when learning towards the apprenticeship is complete. This can include off-the-job training and English and maths. There must be evidence of learning on this day.

However, this year the guidance also clearly distinguishes between "OTJT active learning" and "English and maths active learning"

87-90 Clarification: In this section, active learning has been renamed as OTJT active learning, to distinguish it from the new English and maths active learning requirement. Providers must comply with both active learning rules separately where English and / or maths funding is being accessed.  

Where there is no OTJT active learning for two clear months, we have to record a break:

89.2. If planned off-the-job training is unable to take place as scheduled in any calendar month, a retrospective break in learning is not required as long as there is OTJT active learning in the following calendar month. Where there is no OTJT active learning for 2 consecutive calendar months, a retrospective break in learning must be used. The provider must ensure that all missed activity is re-planned and delivered, so that the full content of the training plan can still be delivered.  

What is a student finishes OTJT active learning, but continues with required English/maths for several months? According to the above, we have to apply a break if there's no OTJT for two months, even if English continues. However, when they finish English, according to the above, the Actual End Date should include the English. We couldn't record a restart as there's no further OTJT delivery. It doesn't seem right to reinstate the break and change the AED. Do you think they've just forgotten to update the glossary, and AED actually shouldn't include E&M? It can't include E&M when it comes to a break, according to the rules above.

I know you wouldn't plan it this way, but a student might really be struggling with the English/maths they need to pass the apprenticeship, and it overruns but there's no further OTJ to do.

Replies

No one has replied to this post.


Steve Hewitt

Hmmm, I had a sassy comment about "can" rather than "must" but then thought about the specifics here. Yeah, if you had someone who *couldn't* go to Gateway because their M&E was *mandatory* and that was all they had left to do, Rules As Written are somewhat unclear.

But, looking at it the other way, the chance of this happening before Planned End Date is pretty slim, right? So (and I know this isn't really what the rules say any more) there's no further CASH being generated, so what would a BIL in these circumstances achieve? Relatively surprised that you can BIL a ZPROG and leave the E&M aims open anyway but, as far as I can tell, R89 and R90 only look at ActEndDate not CompStatus so would treat a BIL the same as any other Completion...

Steve Hewitt

But also but but:

 The provider must ensure that all missed activity is re-planned and delivered, so that the full content of the training plan can still be delivered.  

But if there's *nothing else to be delivered* I wouldn't BIL them. Having said that, I'd totally use the LDIL from the "real" delivery once they *finally* got to Gateway, not an E or M aim, but that's taste rather than anything else...

Ruth Canham-James

Steve Hewitt But assuming they're already at PED and have done all original planned OTJ, and it's just that English is continuing way longer than planned.

I might have to run this one past the Apprenticeship Service. I'm with you, I think AED should always be last proper OTJ, ignoring E&M even when it was required, but that's not what the glossary says. There's also issues with that if they finish OTJ in July, pootle about on English until November, then you're first reporting an AED in a closed year (if E&M isn't informing AED). That's fine if you were already past PED, but if they completed OTJ early and then don't sit EPA, that turns into an overclaim 🙄 That would be vanishingly rare, but theoretically possible.