Paul Blackshaw
ILR, QAR and funding rules specialist with 13+ years experience. Providing ITPs and colleges with consultancy services to primarily support their Apprenticeship operations and management.
Last activity
Member since
Votes
14
Subscriptions
18
Replies
Paul Blackshaw commented,
Great to read peoples views and interpretations on these important matters. The Funding Rules define Completion Payment as “A payment we make to providers when an apprentice completes all their learning and undertakes the end-point assessment (the apprentice does not need to pass).” The reference to ‘undertake’ is critical here as it means to begin to do something, ie begin the EPA, which I think supports the view that recording 2/8 to trigger the completion payment is acceptable practice, especially as 2/8 does not generate any warnings or errors in the ILR rule violation report. And it also supports recording 2/3 for apprentices who fail without completing all elements of their EPA. I think the policy intentions are relatively clear but the mechanism and associated guidance lacks the clarity we need to be certain when completion payments can be claimed. It would be incredibly useful if someone from the ESFA with absolute understanding of this would contribute.
Great to read peoples views and interpretations on these important matters. The Funding Rules define Completion Payment as “A payment we make to providers when an apprentice completes all their l...
Paul Blackshaw commented,
Steveh No, they can't, they're a withdrawal because they've not completed all elements of the EPA. Interesting. So that's based on whether all the elements of the EPA have been completed. Until recently, that's what I thought. But the PSM says it should be based on whether the learner reaches the end of the end point assessment period, and I can only think it refers to the period rather than the elements/activities because it recognises the period will naturally end when the learner can progress no further by virtue of either completing all elements or being unable to progress any further due to failing part way through. So in the example of an apprentice failing the 2nd element of a three element EPA, I'm currently open to the possibility that this constitutes reaching the end of the EPA period and should be recorded as 2/3 complete but no-achievement.
Steveh No, they can't, they're a withdrawal because they've not completed all elements of the EPA. Interesting. So that's based on whether all the elements of the EPA have been completed. Until r...
Paul Blackshaw commented,
Because of the short period of unemployment, you might need a new ACT entry wef 10/7/23 to match the TNP 3&4 entries of the same date. As to why you received funding for July, August and September, that's a mystery, unless the records in DAS were not updated until October, in which case the records prior to October continued to match your ILR and therefore allowed the claim for funding.
Because of the short period of unemployment, you might need a new ACT entry wef 10/7/23 to match the TNP 3&4 entries of the same date. As to why you received funding for July, August and September,...
Paul Blackshaw commented,
If this relates to the details to be recorded in the Apprenticeship Service, it is referred to as: "the total off-the-job training time for the apprenticeship standard before any reductions, in whole hours". I believe this needs to be the total OTJT hours in the provider's training plan for their delivery of the 'full' programme (to an apprentice without any RPL). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeships-recognition-of-prior-learning/apprenticeships-initial-assessment-to-recognise-prior-learning
If this relates to the details to be recorded in the Apprenticeship Service, it is referred to as: "the total off-the-job training time for the apprenticeship standard before any reductions, in who...
Paul Blackshaw commented,
Ok, so you've determined that 21% of the training hours are not required due to RPL. Funding Rule 29.2. provides a worked example to explain how you must "Reduce the total price by at least 50% of the prior learning percentage, from the funding band maximum (the 50% reduction recognises that there are some fixed costs in the apprenticeship)." Therefore, a price reduction of at least 10.5% is required, so your calculated cost reduction of 54% will be considered compliant. But please do be aware that the funding available for you to claim will be limited to the remaining balance of the funding band maximum less the funding claimed for this programme by the previous provider, so I recommend you discuss and agree with the employer how any potential shortfall will be charged and paid.
Ok, so you've determined that 21% of the training hours are not required due to RPL. Funding Rule 29.2. provides a worked example to explain how you must "Reduce the total price by at least 50% of ...
Paul Blackshaw commented,
Thanks Steve. Sending it to the Service Desk was the procedure a few years back. We asked early in December what to do, but are still without a reply. Like you, I'm hoping ESFA staff will reply.
Thanks Steve. Sending it to the Service Desk was the procedure a few years back. We asked early in December what to do, but are still without a reply. Like you, I'm hoping ESFA staff will reply.
Paul Blackshaw commented,
Hi Claire. Don't enter the original start date, but do include the restart indicator. Original start date is only collected if the learner is restarting the learning aim at the same provider, for example if they are returning from an agreed break in learning. Your assessment of RPL needs to determine the content of training and OTJT hours required to complete the programme. The difference between this and what you would usually deliver to an apprentice without any RPL (and therefore needing your 'full' programme of training) is the RPL hours reduction.
Hi Claire. Don't enter the original start date, but do include the restart indicator. Original start date is only collected if the learner is restarting the learning aim at the same provider, for e...