Planned end date

To me (I'm still fairly new, but have read a lot recently!) it would be fair to say if the component aim last planned day in learning was before the last planned day of training for the programme aim, that would be okay?

It just depends on whether there would be more learning for the standard after the end of the component. If the component was mandatory, I wouldn't imagine that there should be extra learning? If it wasn't mandatory then it might be fair to say that there was extra learning that needed to take place for the standard to be 'completed'.

If any of that makes sense!!

Thank for your response Melissa Haase! The Standard in question only has 1 component aim, which is a degree - so the planned end date of this aim is effectively the planned end date of all scheduled learning. If I've understood you correctly, your opinion would therefore be that the PED of the Programme Aim should coincide with the PED of this (the only) component?

Yeah so on the spec here: https://guidance.submit-learner-data.service.gov.uk/ilr/field/learnplanenddate

The planned end date must only include the learning related to the learning aim. If the plan is that all the learning would be completed on the component aim and this then coincides with all the learning being completed to meet the standard (programme aim) at the same time then they would have the same PED.

The only requirement is that there should be a minimum of one component aim within an Apprenticeship programme and it is possible that other activity towards completing the programme (as an example ERRs within frameworks or any activity other than qualifications in a Standard) that are not recorded as component aims would require that the planned end date of the programme aim is later than the component aim/aims.

HTH

Yeah, it's certainly feasible that there *could* be learning that *wasn't* part of the component aim that would happen after the component finished, before the end of the practical period, but it would be a bit unusual?

As I've mentioned several times, the component aims that aren't english and maths are weird vestigial things that kind of just exist because they've always existed, so it sort of doesn't matter?

I'd sort of disagree about the mandatory thing though. Some Standards have tiny quals as mandatory (eg safeguarding or similar) so there's definitely a whole loads of other learning that needs to happen that isn't tied to a mandatory qual...

Related to degree Apprenticeships there are examples where the EPA will deliver some of the credits towards the degree, in that respect the specific aim would not have been completed before the Programme planned end date.

Just a thought.

Thanks all, appreciate the help as always. So if there's a consensus that in practice there may be recourse for learning to take place after the completion of the sole component aim (despite it potentially being a tad unusual) and therefore the Programme PED would be later than the component aim PED to account for it.. would the ESFA question why we're saying on the ILR that there's still learning to be done after the only component aim has finished, but that we're not recording it on the ILR?

EDIT: Just noticed your last comment Martin West, that is worth considering, thank you

But it is not a tad unusual, funding is driven by the Programme aim only and stops at the actual end date with any balance and completion being paid when the Programme has been completed.

I think "no"? I don't think there's any regularity checking on (non-E&M) components?

That's fair enough, and it kind of tallies with my thoughts! I think the confusion is that, at least to some, it's presumed that all learning must be recorded on the ILR in the form of dedicated aims. So if the Standard has a single component aim that's due to finish on 01/08/2023, but you're saying that there's other learning that needs to take place as part of the practical period of the Standard because you're programme aim PED is 01/10/2023, but you're not recording it on the ILR as a discernible aim.. some are concerned that this may get questioned by the agency. 

This would not be questioned by the ESFA as qualification delivery may be front loaded by a provider, this has always been the case.

Completely agree Martin, these are just conversations I've been having with people who are fairly new to the sector and are basing their assumptions purely off the funding rules and associated guidance