Steven Edmondson
Information System Coordinator
Last activity
Member since
Votes
6
Subscriptions
60
Replies
Steven Edmondson commented,
I agree with your logic and wouldn't amend the training plan in such a case, only for substantial adjustments.
I agree with your logic and wouldn't amend the training plan in such a case, only for substantial adjustments.
Steven Edmondson commented,
Hi, The section the springs to mind to me are the rules around under delivery for OTJ, from the apprenticeship OTJ guidance document- "There is no proforma for the statement, but the apprenticeship funding rules outline the information that the statement must include. The employer and apprentice must countersign the statement, if they are satisfied with the quantity of training delivered, even though it is less than the original volume agreed at the beginning of the apprenticeship. " This is the only time a signed statement is mentioned in the evidence list as below 4. What kind of evidence (e.g. level of detail) is required to support the policy? We set out clearly in the apprenticeship funding rules the quantitative and qualitative evidence required. This includes: (a) how the volume of planned off-the-job training was calculated; (b) that this planned figure was documented in the correct places; (c) that there is evidence to support the delivery of off-the-job training; (d) that all the evidence meets the definition of off-the-job training; (e) that the actual hours delivered is documented on the ILR (and corresponds with the proof of delivery); and (f) that where the actual hours delivered is less than the original volume agreed, there is a signed statement on file to explain the difference So in closing I don't think you need to be concerned, the function you have allows assessors to apply a regular level of scrutiny.
Hi, The section the springs to mind to me are the rules around under delivery for OTJ, from the apprenticeship OTJ guidance document-"There is no proforma for the statement, but the apprenticesh...
Steven Edmondson commented,
Sorry to resurrect the topic but thought I'd post the service desk reply as I had the same run around and could only find unanswered posts! Thank you for contacting us regarding FRM65 – T Level industry placements below the minimum hours for the specialism . The 'Hours' field located within the 'Work placement' option of a learner's ILR data, should be recorded with the planned hours for the work placement. The planned hours should meet the minimum requirement as per the above link. This field needs to be completed against the ZWRKX003 only. The actual hours delivered are held on the learner's file. Kind regards John
Sorry to resurrect the topic but thought I'd post the service desk reply as I had the same run around and could only find unanswered posts! Thank you for contacting us regarding FRM65 – T Level ind...
Steven Edmondson commented,
Thanks both it seemed absolutely incorrect to me, I will have to have some interesting conversations with the relevant providers as a result!
Thanks both it seemed absolutely incorrect to me, I will have to have some interesting conversations with the relevant providers as a result!
Steven Edmondson commented,
Thanks Luke, I wasn't sure why it hadn't come up but after making the change it does seem to have resolved. The one day only box does always come up in issues like this so a good reminder to have.
Thanks Luke, I wasn't sure why it hadn't come up but after making the change it does seem to have resolved. The one day only box does always come up in issues like this so a good reminder to have.
Steven Edmondson commented,
Unusual, perhaps the numerical string is contained in the data somewhere and is pulled through as well. Worth checking the tables for ID numbers perhaps?
Unusual, perhaps the numerical string is contained in the data somewhere and is pulled through as well. Worth checking the tables for ID numbers perhaps?
Steven Edmondson commented,
Is the relevant record coming from an awarding body or a providers ILR return?
Is the relevant record coming from an awarding body or a providers ILR return?
Steven Edmondson commented,
Excellent reply Ruth, thank you very much for taking the time. It continues to amaze me how often the different sections have no idea why data is being done a certain way!
Excellent reply Ruth, thank you very much for taking the time. It continues to amaze me how often the different sections have no idea why data is being done a certain way!
Steven Edmondson commented,
Steven Edmondson commented,
Thank you for your reply Steve, if there a specific part of the guidance that confirms this or should it just be self evident? I wonder in particular as surely the SFA already know from their records how much has been paid out but as this is component based I could understand it being hard enough to track we need the adjustment ourselves?
Thank you for your reply Steve, if there a specific part of the guidance that confirms this or should it just be self evident? I wonder in particular as surely the SFA already know from their recor...