Clair Ayling
Last activity
Member since
Votes
8
Subscriptions
42
Replies
Clair Ayling commented,
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate it. Thinking about it I think that having the last day of a month in the period of support makes a difference so that would fit with the scenario you described.
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate it. Thinking about it I think that having the last day of a month in the period of support makes a difference so that would fit with the scenario you described.
Clair Ayling commented,
It is not very clear! And from the RPL guidance it would suggest that the OTJ would not be reduced... There may be circumstances where content of the training programme is not needed, but it is impractical to reduce the overall duration of the apprenticeship, for example because the apprentice is learning alongside other apprentices who stillneed that off-the-job training content. If the overall duration is not reduced the programme must still meet the minimum requirements of the off-the-job-trainingpolicy (for the full apprenticeship programme’s duration) and the minimum duration of the funded apprenticeship. If the employer and apprentice agree that they should not attend the unfunded elements of the programme, the apprentice must remain involved in active learning, as required by the funding rules.
It is not very clear! And from the RPL guidance it would suggest that the OTJ would not be reduced... There may be circumstances where content of the training programme is not needed, but it is imp...
Clair Ayling commented,
Has anyone received any update on this? Surely this is not intentional?
Has anyone received any update on this? Surely this is not intentional?
Clair Ayling commented,
Can I just also mention, after reviewing the AAFD specification, that that if this approach resulted in more that 20 learners being on on FRM 37 then organisations will be considered "at risk" with over 15 at "needs improvement"...
Can I just also mention, after reviewing the AAFD specification, that that if this approach resulted in more that 20 learners being on on FRM 37 then organisations will be considered "at risk" with...
Clair Ayling commented,
I would be interested to know too. My original query was in January an I received the reply in June. I have asked for further clarification.
I would be interested to know too. My original query was in January an I received the reply in June. I have asked for further clarification.
Clair Ayling commented,
And thinking it would be contrary to this rule: 28.1.2 If the provider cannot reduce the duration, they must still meet the minimum requirements of the off-the-job training policy for the full duration of the apprenticeship that has been reported to us in the ILR.
And thinking it would be contrary to this rule: 28.1.2 If the provider cannot reduce the duration, they must still meet the minimum requirements of the off-the-job training policy for the full dura...
Clair Ayling commented,
I can't seem to find it in either set of rules. Surely, this would mean any recognised RPL would trigger FRM37?
I can't seem to find it in either set of rules. Surely, this would mean any recognised RPL would trigger FRM37?
Clair Ayling commented,
I am only seing £0s in 16-19 Funding although it is showing learner count?
I am only seing £0s in 16-19 Funding although it is showing learner count?
Clair Ayling commented,
Thanks Tracey. Sorry you still haven't had a definitive answer. I can't think of any way of resolving and we updated one learner's record following audit advice and now have the same overclaim scenario. Did the ESFA suggest repaying overclaim via EAS or any other mechanism?
Thanks Tracey. Sorry you still haven't had a definitive answer. I can't think of any way of resolving and we updated one learner's record following audit advice and now have the same overclaim scen...