Replies
No one has replied to this post.
Yes, zeroing out the hours on the new aim would be acceptable, particularly if we're talking about an individual rather than whole cohorts.
Having said that, it's often easier internally to split the hours (and it would be 12 weeks x possible hours a week, rather than "actual", of course) and record them that way, particularly where it comes out at 540+ either way.
What I would say though, is pick one of them and stick to it, then you can show your consistency to an auditor.
We consistently just don't include the hours from the new programme. Since a student that moves from a FT programme to a PT one, can keep the original FT hours, you have to do it that way in that circumstance, so we keep it simple and do it that way for all. Having said that, if the new programme were a higher hours band than the first, you may be able to claim some of the extra hours from the new programme, then we'd split as Steve suggests, but that's once in a blue moon.
Mike Smith
Planned hours amendment for a 16-18 transfer
Created
I have a 16 year old learner who transferred after 12 weeks onto another aim. My enquiry comes from the Planned Hours perspective, as guidance states this:
For learners who are undertaking a 16-19 funded study programme, the planned learning hours fields are only updated in-year if the planned learning hours for a study programme change within the first 6 weeks.
The guidance suggests that I keep the same hours as originally recorded for the first aim, which would require me to zero out the hours of the new aim (to keep the original planned hours total), or would I need to amend the hours of both aims to match the actual hours taught for each course over the academic year? I have looked through guidance, but nothing there has provided an answer.