Consultation on possible 2020/21 ILR change – Off the job training actual hours

Home Forums Data issues Consultation on possible 2020/21 ILR change – Off the job training actual hours

This topic contains 50 replies, has 41 voices, and was last updated by  Caspar Verney 2 days, 3 hours ago.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 51 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • SFA STAFF

    Following feedback from ESFA funded training and educational institutions about the complexity of the ILR dataset and the visibility of our decision-making around changes to it, we announced the introduction of new change management governance in Update on 3 April. This drives a more consultative approach, ensuring training and educational institutions are represented in our change planning and decisions.

    We published a list of the key proposals for change received for ILR 2020/21 in Update on 4 September, and are now opening the consultation window.

    We have received a proposal to change the 2020/21 ILR dataset to include actual hours spent on off the job training (OTJT) for apprentices from 1 August 2020.

    The intent would be to gather data to complement the existing planned hours field and provide meaningful data to help the ESFA monitor compliance with the OTJT policy.

    Initial thinking is that a solution could be to introduce a new ‘actual hours’ field at programme aim level.

    In line with the ILR change management governance we are seeking your views on this proposal to help inform our decision on whether to make this change or not. Specifically we would like to hear from you in response to these questions:

    • Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?
    • Do you currently have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?
    • How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?

    Feel free to give us any other feedback on this proposal.

    This post will remain open for around two weeks to collect your views. Your responses will be collated and added to our analysis, and the decision will be confirmed before the end of the year.

     
    #397591

    chrisbradley
    Participant

    Yes we have a mechanism for recording the 20% off the job training hours however this is not linked to automatically populate an ILR field. It is a standalone process developed to enable internal monitoring of this happening and enabling action to be triggered if an apprentice is falling behind their planned off the job hours. It is recorded and monitored monthly.
    If there is an expectation to transfer this data monthly to an ILR field in my opinion it is a massive task. The provider I represent here has on average 400 apprentices in learning at any one time. To go into 400 learner records monthly to add such data would be in my opinion overly bureaucratic and require an additional administration resource. Not only that but a pretty thankless task too, every month!
    It is no problem to record the actual hours in total against the planned hours at the end of the programme.

     
    #397597

    simonl
    Participant

    We record off the job hours through both our Eportfolio and learner reviews which get completed each month. However our eportfolio will not be able to automatically populate the ILR in the system we use for this.
    This means our team will have to then all be given licences to the eportfolio, search learner records then manually input the hours. Increasing the admin time quite a lot.
    Doing this monthly would be almost impossible and the cost to this task substantial. Yearly it could be done but again another process and expense incurred by ourselves.
    If anyone wants to audit the hours they can come in and see our documents and how we store this information. Forcing it in the ILR shows a lack of trust and the bad providers will just enter incorrect information anyway.

     
    #397610

    steveh
    Participant

    I agree entirely with the two posts above. Providers are capturing this, but it’s not linked to their ILR producing system, it’s in their e-portfolio. I’ve visited around 30 providers this year (and spoken to many more) and I can only think of one integrated ILR/e-portfolio software and it’s very much a minor player at the moment.

    I particularly agree that this should be monitored by audit, not by needless bureaucracy, as we do for 16-19 Study Programmes (where only planned hours are returned).

    Furthermore, neither the planned hours field nor this proposed actual hours field guarantees that a learner is receiving 20% OTJ, as the actual contracted hours aren’t returned in the ILR, so the whole thing fails to deliver the reassurance it is meant to bring.

     
    #397638

    jessicar
    Participant

    Agree with all other comments above – this would be a massive burden to providers

     
    #397656

    GaynorLF
    Participant

    I also concur with all the above.

    We already have in place a mechanism to capture the OTJ and ensure the required number of hours are achieved, which has recently been Audited with no problems. Adding this to the monthly ILR submission would indeed be a massive burden to already stretched Providers.

    I fail to see any benefit at all to the FE sector either now or in the future.

    As a small ITP, adding this information to the monthly ILR would be both extremely costly and time consuming. I fail to see how this information could be used to inform future policy in any way.

     
    #397660

    amrikaujla
    Participant

    I agree with all the comments on here.

    I, like Steve, move around the FE sector and have not come across an organisation where their systems will allow the OTJ hours to populate the ILR as OJT is stored in the e-portfolio system. The link between the systems is one way only.

    To ask these providers to key this data into the ILR on a regular basis is inefficient and resource intensive.

    Perhaps future ILR changes to collect new information should be underpinned by extra funding for providers? Could you move to a larger house and not expect the bills to go up.

     
    #397664

    Ruth CJ
    Participant

    • Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?
    No, I don’t think it would benefit any group. At the moment, we are scrutinised on our OTJ hours if and when audited. Audits monitor compliance. We know that, if we have not delivered the appropriate OTJ, that the apprenticeship is not valid or fundable. When we are recording an apprentice as funded and completed, that is our declaration that we believe they have completed 20% OTJ. The ESFA appropriately want to know where providers have been claiming funding and passes for apprentices who did not complete 20% OTJ. My view is that, any provider who is prepared to claim funding and passes for apprentices they know didn’t achieve 20% OTJ, will have no hesitation to also put false values in any new Actual Hours fields. A number in a box is not evidence of OTJ. It’s just an extra field that will take us a great deal of time and effort to fill in, that will only be able to be proved at audit anyway.

    • Do you currently have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?
    Yes. We have a digital system in which we log actual OTJ information. It’s not necessarily in a format where it would be simple to pull out a single, cumulative hours value though. It would always be suitable for audit purposes when interrogated one apprentice at a time.

    • How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?
    If we put in place systems to fill in this field (which would take a great deal of time and money), of course it would be as close to 100% accurate as possible. If we didn’t think it was accurate, we wouldn’t input it.

     
    #397669

    andybank
    Participant

    This isn’t feasible without a significant amount of admin resource being thrown at it. We record OTJ in OneFile, and it’s no particular problem monitoring it and adding the total at the end of the apprenticeship, but to add a running total to the ILR on a monthly basis doesn’t bare thinking about. And as has been rightly pointed out, without knowing the contracted hours the figure is just a figure; 20% of what? (don’t go having ideas, though!!!)

     
    #397712

    Ben.Feighery
    Participant

    Hi,
    I work with a number of ITP’s helping them understand, clean and submit their data.

    • Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?
    No, i can see zero benefit to the learner or ITP in undertaking this activity. Where my customers have a fully functioning E-portfolio system there is the ability for learners and employers to see the OTJ that has been logged by the learner and in some but not all of those systems, the employer is able to sign off and validate the OTJ hours that the learner has submitted. in these cases the ITP is already auditing the learner and employer OTJ hours for evidence which is time that could be better spent teaching learners new skills, imparting knowledge or guiding them to succeed on their apprenticeship.

    • Do you currently have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?

    Some of my customers have this for all learners but it is only a recent development. For these customers there is no ability to export the data to the ILR system and it is unlikely there ever will be unless they invest in the upheaval to another MIS and E-portfolio system so this would involve a > £100000 investment taking in to account new software, staff training, data migration and lost delivery time across all their staff. To have someone manually update the information from their e-portfolio either monthly or annually would be approximately £400 – £1000 in staff time per round of input depending on ITP size.

    For other customers, they have a mixture of learners on and off their E-portfolio and for them the cost would be between £1000 and £2000 per to get this information in to their ILR taking in to account the time spent by the direct assessor, their manager and the MIS team to get the information collated manually for each learner and submitted.

    The above figures were recent estimates with ITP’s and did not include the time invested in quality checking the information before it was added to the ILR which has a significant crossover with existing activity at the ITP and so difficult to quantify how much would have been new expense.

    I hope you will also consider that the number of planned OTJ hours that providers are going to be entering in the ILR this year does not necessarily represent the 20% minimum and some are planning 25, 30% or more OTJ delivery. In those cases if the expectation was that all planned OTJ had to be delivered before a completion payment was paid out, then i would think very hard if that were a fair thing to do, considering some providers over plan this to ensure a quality programme, and that some learners may need 20% but not the 25% actually written in their commitment statement to complete, forcing the extra 5% of OTJ on a learner would not be right.

    • How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?
    I look at problem data all day every day and despite all my customers working incredibly hard day in, day out to try and submit clean data I would be <75% confident in the data if it were being submitted monthly and 75-85% confident for annual or end of programme submission.
    In the most part this is down to the way the data is captured, associated time lags with information begin updated direct from learners and the likelihood that OTJ logs will be inaccurate in the event that a learner leaves programme early due to disciplinary or performance issues. In those withdrawal cases it is less likely the learner has kept strictly up to date with the logging the OTJ and it will inevitably be a high cost to pursue accurate data with no financial incentive for an ITP.
    To add to the above, providers are specifying a wide range of data capture strategies. In one example, the ITP asks the learners to log each hour of OTJ separately so by the end of their apprenticeship, there would be over 500 separate records of OTJ to audit and confirm. Multiply this by hundreds of learners and you would have a hard job justifying more than a small % of these being sampled. This is further complicated by the E-portfolio system they use which duplicated OTJ entries across all the elements of the course they are following making it difficult to extract a clear final figure against each learner programme. even if you are a data expert, E-portfolio systems record their data at learner qualification level and usually have no concept of an apprenticeship programme making it difficult to calculate which hours belong to which programme in the event of a learner transferring qualification/employer or taking a break in learning.

    Kind Regards,
    Ben F.

     
    #397726

    Martin West
    Participant

    1. Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?

    I think this has more to do with a recent National Audit Office (NAO) report that concluded ‘The ESFA has limited assurance that apprentices are spending at least 20% of their time on off-the-job training’ and the conclusion that ‘The ESFA does not yet have an effective way to identify providers that may routinely deliver less training than the apprentice is entitled to. It mandates the hours of learning in apprenticeships and may ask providers to show that learners are on course at particular points. The ESFA’s audits may identify problems, but there is scope for providers to under-deliver for some time without this being picked up. This is an important gap in oversight, because the provider continues to be paid as long as the apprentice remains on the programme’.

    This change would be an additional administrative burden on providers and only addresses the ESFA requirement in the text above.

    2. Do you currently have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?

    While Providers will have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training this would be via workbooks or eportfolio systems that may or may not be connected to MI systems that are used to create ILR returns.

    It is expected that Eportfolio software suppliers already include or are planning to include actual Off the Job percentage achieved to date and recoding of Actual Completed OTJ Hours and include that this data could be exported as a report, commonly as a csv file that could then be imported into an MI system used to create ILR returns.

    For other Providers without these facilities then this would require manual input which would be an unacceptable additional administrative burden.

    3. How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?

    It is doubtful if a Provider could confirm or verify the accuracy of any ‘actual completed OTJ hours’ at any point in time as these hours would be a combination of hours from various sources such as registers, time sheets and unverified OJT hours input by the Apprentice.

    Providers could put in place systems and resources to verify these hours but again this would be an additional administrative burden and you do have to ask are Providers going to proactively report hours where they are less than the 20% minimum required.

    Alternative solutions that could be considered

    While still an additional administrative burden on Providers the actual completed OTJ hours could be collected cumulatively annually and or at the end of learning.

    The ESFA could consider if this is better dealt with though the normal audit and inspection regimes while at the same time emphasising to Providers the funding and enforcement actions that will (not may) be taken for non-compliance.

     
    #397743

    darrenvidler
    Participant

    • Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?
    No – we are currently challenged on planned OTJ hours vs actual OTJ hours in the event of an agency audit which makes sense. The delivery of OTJ hours can be spread throughout a programme or be in bulk so reporting on a monthly basis doesn’t necessarily give the agency any real confidence that the required hours are actually being delivered. The value of this field is, therefore, minimal.
    • Do you currently have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?
    Yes – we have systems in place to log planned and actual OTJ hours but this isn’t easily pulled onto the ILR and would likely require significant manual effort.
    • How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?
    It is as accurate as the individual entering the value allows it to be. There will always be human error as long as the values are collated manually.

     
    #399107

    colinmorfitt
    Participant

    • Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?
    I cannot see any benefit to adding this field to the ILR. The OTJH tracking can be checked at audit on individual files where the validity of the data can be verified. Entering hours on an ILR does not offer any guarantee that the method of recording the hours is fit for purpose.

    • Do you currently have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?
    We have a system in place to gather the hours and we also follow up regularly during classroom sessions and/or workplace reviews/delivery. The recorded hours are then subjected to audit and any queries are sent back to delivery staff to be resolved. We have over 300 active apprentices at any one time so the process is understandably admin-intensive. Adding the task of recording the totals for each learner on the ILR each month would add a significant amount of time to the process and incur significant additional staffing costs in order to meet the deadline for each return.

    • How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?
    The hours recorded may consist of OTJ training in both the workplace and in college and these are cross-referenced with register marks etc. Once the logs have been audited and queries have been resolved the resultant data will be accurate, but any outstanding queries naturally affect the currency of the data at any given point in time.

     
    #399129

    Emma M
    Participant

    • Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?

    No, and I can’t see any logical reason for the change. We outline our planned delivery now, and I could understand reporting on the planned delivery vs actual delivery. But I fail to see the rationale or benefit for a move like this outside of the reasoning that the ESFA have little idea whether off-the-job is actually being delivered. And the only way to check this properly would be at audit.

    • Do you currently have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?

    Yes we do, but the administrative burden of entering and updating this in the ILR each month would be substantial and would divert our attention from the things that really matter as far as data input and capture go.

    • How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?

    It is only ever as accurate as the data that you are entering, and that is being tracked by apprentices. Some are brilliant at remembering to log their hours, others we have to chase and hand hold through the process. This is because although this information is important in the context of the funding rules, it holds little importance to an apprentice. They want to do their programme and submit their work to get their qualifications. But it is of no consequence to them whether this information is kept up to date and accurate month to month.

     
    #399160

    Fionae
    Participant

    Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?
    It would require additional administration resource which is a direct drain on funds to support learning . So I do not see how it will benefit the sector.

    Do you currently have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?

    Yes we capture off the job hours , but not in a format which would allow us to put the figures into the ILR on a monthly basis . I cant imagine where we would get staff who would find this a fulfilling and interesting role to carry out manually every month.

    • How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?

    We sometimes have to chase learners to log their hours , as they do not all always remember to do so. WE also validate OFTJ that through evidence of the work they have uploaded, though review sessions and coaching sessions and discussions with employers. It is not just a matter of tracking logged hours.

     
    #399557

    Martin Gallagher
    Participant

    For context, we are an HE provider who offers degree apprenticeship courses (funding model 36). We offer various courses in different subjects across several schools/colleges (for clarity – schools/colleges refer to internal departments e.g., Medical School, College of Social Sciences etc.)
    Our central records team prepare the ILR, and colleges are responsible for monitoring attendance, academic performance and OTJ hours.

    • Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?
    Given the wording of this question, we would like clarity whether or not this change is only for FE apprenticeships.
    We do not feel that returning this data via the ILR will add any value for us as an institution. We record actual OTJ hours internally and this is managed by individual schools/colleges. Schools and Employers use this data for attendance and progress monitoring and retain this data in case of audit or disputes between an employer and apprentice etc. The ILR is prepared by the central records team (comprising Registry/Planning/Student Administration) and the majority of the data in the ILR is relevant to this team. Actual OTJ hours are not of any interest or relevance to the central records team. Actual OTJ hours are of interest to schools to monitor individual apprentices and we already have internal systems in place to allow schools to monitor and use this data.

    • Do you currently have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?
    Yes. We use ePortfolio software that allows apprentices to log their own OTJ hours (outside of lecture/seminar time). Lecture/seminar time is recorded in our central records system. Whether or not a student attended a lecture or seminar is recorded locally by schools.
    The main burden would be in collecting all this data together on a monthly basis as the systems are not integrated or compatible – this would be a manual exercise. Our central records system (from which we report the ILR data) does not have placeholders for this data, so we would also incur third party developer costs.
    As an HE provider schools/colleges are accustomed to working on an annual basis, so it would require a massive overhaul of administrative business processes to prepare this data on a monthly basis. This would certainly create additional workload for the central records teams and academic staff in colleges.

    • How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?
    If OTJ hours are required monthly then we would not be fully confident in our data for two main reasons. First, we would be relying on learners to keep their OTJ hours up to date on a monthly basis and also to not make any mistakes so it would vary by apprentice. Second, we would also be relying on academics to complete attendance records within a very short timeframe (a few days is the window between end of the month and the ILR due date), we are concerned that there are always going to be delays and lags.

    If OTJ hours were requested at the end of the academic session (i.e., by R14) then we would have a higher level of confidence in the data as we are used to working this way. However not all of our programmes fit into the typical academic year, some are flexible, and it would be a large administrative process to ensure that all learners had completed up to date information by any dissemination point.

    The most accurate record of actual OTJ hours would be at the end of the programme. These could then be benchmarked against the planned OTJ hours recorded at the start of the programme. We suggest that this would be a more appropriate time for providers to return this data as it would be at the highest level of accuracy and directly comparable to the planned OTJ hours (rather than returning these at an arbitrary time of year/monthly, especially given the ebbs and flows within academic calendar, variation in student workload etc.)

    Further comments
    We welcome the ESFA engaging with the sector, and hope that the ESFA continue this discussion and maintain a high level of transparency in their decision making. We sincerely hope that the sector’s views are taken into account. We would prefer for any consultations to be announced with more advance warning, ideally by email and with a clear deadline (SFA’s post from 13th Sept above states a “around a couple of weeks” whereas the 4 September updates states a deadline of 20th Sept). It would have been helpful to coordinate a cross-organisational response to this to better understand the burden that this major change this will place on academic staff.

    We would like further clarity on whether the introduction of this field would result in new quality rules, and if so, what validation checks the ESFA would enforce – we certainly do not want to be in a position where we miss out on funding because a student forgot to enter their OTJ hours for that month, and feel that strict quality rules could encourage providers to “make up” data to pass validation. While we are sympathetic towards ESFA’s need to monitor OTJ hours, we strongly feel that inspection of actual OTJ hours should be dealt with via the ESFA’s normal audit and inspection processes rather than through the ILR.

     
    #399708

    Scott Bays
    Participant

    This change would be a huge monthly burden on data entry as our systems are not linked to automatically provide this for the ILR. It makes much more sense to enter the final hours when recording the ACE and making it part of the new audit regime.

     
    #399895

    Julie James
    Participant

    I agree with the majority of the comments already posted on the thread. As Steve pointed out this has arisen from the NAO comments which the ESFA are now trying to resolve. By putting this onto ITP’s it will not resolve any issues which are there regarding the actual completion of the OTJ training by apprentices.

    It would cause huge administrative burdens to all providers as there is not a system on the market that can successfully transfer this data from an e-portfolio / data system into the ILR therefore making it a full manual task for all ITP’s. The cost for this to be integrated if / when available would be huge and not cost effective either.

    By inputting this information on a monthly basis I see no added value to anyone as the data (as pointed out on various posts) can only be reconciled on audit by viewing the evidence. The suggestion of completing this at the end of a learners journey when training has been completed would be much more practical as this can be monitored against the planned hours which we are now entering from this start of this year. However this can still only be reconciled on a physical audit.

     
    #400068

    paultaylor
    Participant

    I’m basing my answers below on the assumption that this will only be collected at the end of learning – if it’s more frequent than that then it’s even more or a terrible idea.

    • Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?

    Training providers are collecting this anyway in their eportfolio systems. I don’t think tha tthis data provides any benefit other than for the agency who can test actual v planned hours remotely. Even then, it will not prove whether or not the 20% test is being met.

    • Do you currently have mechanisms in place to collect actual hours spent on off the job training? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?

    Yes we have these already. There is not a significant cost in collecting this on the ILR, other than some additional admin or reporting but it could be added into achievement processes simply enough.

    • How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?

    The data will be as accurate as the question being asked; what are the actual OTJ hours. However, as the Agency will not have the actual worked hours then they will not be able to test this.

    Feel free to give us any other feedback on this proposal.

    If the ILR requiremnent is just to add total actual hours at the end, then I don’t think that this is a huge additioanal burden, but is some additional work that providers have to do. I don’t think it will give the Agency what they want and therefore does not deal with the concerns raised in the NAO report. The audit process should be the way of dealing with this and there should eb enough rigour in the system from employers, apprentices, and learners to demand that compliance is being met.

    I can’t help but feel that if this is introduced then it will just as quickly go away once everyone realises that it does not do what is envisaged. Why don’t we save ourselves a bit of time by not introducing this in the first place.

     
    #400074

    pts
    Participant

    I absolutely agree with all the above about the requirements being an untenable burden on us, and the resource required of us is just untenable. Giving the fact that many of our learners are only bringing in £2,000 or £3,000 (L2 childcare framework and L3 Adult Care) we are just not funded enough by government to absorb this additional administrative burden. Once again the lack of trust is incredibly frustrating – we have the evidence in our eportfolios. I would support putting at the end of a learner’s qualification, but once again it is another requirement when we are already creaking under the weight of the existing requirementswhich are increasing year on year.

     
    #400312

    iansaunders
    Participant

    We already have mechanisms in place and to have to report back monthly on the ILR would be a pointless task. The actual OJT hrs should be collected at the end of the programme and then comparisons and judgement made compared to the planned OJT hrs.
    So I agree with the posts on here and would say no.

    I really do not see why OJT hrs has become the most important aspect of the apprenticeship, providers that do it well already accounted for off the job training and its proposed that they now have to provide data because otherwise did not do it. Maybe we should be addressing those that do not do it well (via Ofsted and ESFA audits) rather than data methods, particularly seeing that even Ofsted are moving away from data being the most important aspect – just a thought?

     
    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  iansaunders.
    #400314

    sambern
    Participant

    Like many of the above comments, we’re collecting this information in our e-portfolio system. Reporting this on a monthly basis wouldn’t be possible for us currently and would require substantive development and process change.

    We’d be able to provide this figure at the end of programme when it has been internally audited and confirmed by our quality and admin teams. As a month to month basis I don’t see how this would work without triggering accidental errors or other issues.

     
    #400317

    maria
    Participant

    I agree with everything being said in the above comments. Our systems are a mix of paper-based & e-portfolio systems so would involve a massive amount manual collating. Given we have in excess of 1000 apprentices the thought of trying to collate & record OTJ hours on a regular basis in the ILR fills me with dread. The unfortunate fact of life with apprenticeships now is that we will never have enough admin staff to deal the bureaucracy involved.

     
    #400333

    Jean Howes
    Participant

    I also agree with all the above about the requirements being an considerable burden on us, and the resources required of us is just unachievable, bearing in mind the resources that we have. We are not funded enough to absorb this additional administrative tasks. We have the evidence in our eportfolios. I would support putting at this task in place when the learner goes through the Gateway. I wish that the Government were able to appreciate the workload that this would cause under already challenging times.

     
    #400337

    Merle
    Participant

    I agree with everyone’s comments above. It would be an impossible task to record accurately every month the actual OTJ hours as we use a mix of e-portfolio and paper based records and it is just not practical to collate this on a monthly basis and update manually on the ILR for every Apprentice we have. The ESFA have already introduced a tonne of paperwork for the learner and employer to sign up to at the start of the apprenticeship which has added an extra burden on the TP to get all of this together in a timely manner and has given the employer the power over the funding via the Levy account, as it is the employers job ensure that the OTJ training is delivered perhaps they should be the ones made to record it?

     
    #400350
Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 51 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.