Apprenticeship SkillsScan/RPL/OTJ

Well, this is where it becomes doctrinal, really...

I'm worried about what you mean by "skills scan averages"? You don't need to reduce *anything* if the learner is not already competent in the thing you are measuring as they will have to attend the classes to learn things to become competent. Assuming a 10 point scale on the skills scan, someone scoring 5 or 6 is no more competent than someone scoring 1, therefore will still need the same amount of learning.

It's all about (per P39 in 26/27 v3) content that will be omitted from the Training Plan, and if that content covers several KSBs at once (which is perfectly usual and normal), if the learner has to attend to meet one of those KSBs you wouldn't omit it from the training plan.

If you're not reducing hours because the learner needs to go to all the classes, you shouldn't reduce the price (and if the leaner doesn't need to go to the class then they're not valid OTJ anyway, whether they attend or not). The whole sector has tied itself in knots about this due to what I'd charitably describe as over zealous readings of the Rules four or five years ago. We are throwing money away when we do not need to.

Have to agree with Steve.

I think providers, in nothing but good faith, want skills scans and subsequent RPL reductions to 'account' for the fact that someone may already be suitably proficient in K12, K30, S4 (for instance), even if for no other reason than to be 'bulletproof' in the face of an auditor asking them to justify every penny they're receiving, and there's a worry that if an hour in the classroom includes those KSBs that it should somehow be discounted.. but ultimately, if the hour is justified because they need to be there for anything else, then a reduction isn't necessary. If the hour isn't necessary because it only covers KSBs someone is wholly proficient in, probably a different story

Whereas what is likely to happen (particularly on an *internal* audit!) is you'll get a Management Letter Point for NOT CLAIMING ENOUGH MONEY!!!

Joking aside, if your reductions don't match the training plan then they're just not correct. Audit should be about making sure you're claiming what you can evidence, it being more or less than what you're currently claiming is not the important thing.

Hi Both

Thank you very much for replying....

When the skillscan is completed an average is produce one for knowledge, skills and behaviour - this is the average I want to use. My rational is that I want to acknowledge the prior learning by reducing the funding but due to the programme builds and structures of learning most learners will complete all of the hours.

The feedback from *internal* help is that as I am not using the hours to calculate the reductions then I am not compliant

Well, yes, they're not wrong, BUT you need to know AT THE BEGINNING which hours they don't NEED, not which hours they're not going to go to (so they're partially wrong as well).

Averaging the Skills Scan is not appropriate, each separate answer SHOULD be tied to a specific bunch of delivery and if they are competent in all the areas that are delivered in that delivery then those hours should be removed from the Training Plan.

In reply to Steve Hewitt · View original comment

Sorry Steve I should have said each KSB has its own score and then these scores are averaged up, to the to allow us to reduce funding. Should someone score and average over of 6 these are fully reviewed with trainers or enrolment team and activities, hours reduced. 

So I am using an average but it is against each KSB and is fully reviewed to ensure any higher scores are challenged by either enrolment team or trainer