Tagged: traineeships; rates
Can anyone give me some advice on Traineeships, please?
A College that I work with has an SFA Contract (for Apprenticeships) and they have been given permission to start a class of 16 Traineeships in 2013-14, starting 1st August. This will be funded by the SFA, although under EFA Rules (which they have not had to consider before).
I have seen the SFA “Funding Rules 2013/2014 – Traineeships delivered by 16-18 Apprenticeship providers” (as at http://readingroom.skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/sfa/Funding_Rules_-_Traineeships_16-18___May_2013.pdf) and the EFA Funding guidance for young people 2013/14 – Rates and formula” (as at http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/f/funding%20rates%20and%20formula%202013-14-version%201%2001.pdf).
What I am struggling with is to be sure just what Learning Aim is to be used for the core aim and then exactly what funding that will allow the College to draw down for each student. Does anyone out there understand this better, please?
CasparJuly 15, 2013 at 11:54 am #1689
Will you have a core aim in a traineeship above weighting 1?
For further info see: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-young-people-to-develop-the-skills-for-apprenticeships-and-sustainable-employment-framework-for-deliveryJuly 15, 2013 at 12:46 pm #1691
The work placement aim would be your core aim, you can find them in the latest release of Annex H under category I. They vary depending on the number of hours, with codes ranging from Z0002341-2346. The hours would fall into EFA funding bands, but I don’t know about those under an apprenticeship contract, whether you still use the EFA Bands, or you use the expected hours / 450 to generate a SLN equivalent.
MartinJuly 15, 2013 at 12:52 pm #1692
Surly if under an Apprenticeship contract they are not a Traineeship.
MartinJuly 15, 2013 at 12:58 pm #1693
Martin & Marton,
Thank you very much for posting your comments.
In this instance Traineeships will be delivered under an SFA Apprenticeship Contract – they will still be Traineeships, it is just that the College concerned has no EFA Contract, only an SFA one. I think that the SFA will get the money back from the EFA, but I am only assuming that.
So those codes in Appendix H are different depending on the number of hours – is that the number of hours in College or the number of hours in work placement or both? And is that the total number of hours planned throughout the Traineeship? In which case, does that mean that the Core Aim code has to be changed if the student completes the Traineeship early?
How do I know if these codes have a weighting of more than 1 and what will that mean, please?
Now how do you translate from those learning aim codes into the amount of money that the College may draw down?
Many thanks for your help,
CasparJuly 15, 2013 at 2:17 pm #1695
It is irrespective of which contract you deliver traineeships; all are funded using the EFA methodology. I n practice you are not funded for individual aims but the whole study program the learner undertakes based on the total planned delivery hours recorded on the ILR.
The funding is banded in 5 bands, one for full time and the remainder for part time provision as per the EFA funding guidance.
Hope this all makes sense.
RegardsJuly 15, 2013 at 3:05 pm #1696
Many thanks for your help. The mists are gradually parting.
So the full time and part bands decide the funding, but how do you know how much the funding is?
Given that the traineeship is only of short duration, are the hours pro-rata to get an annual equivalent, or is just literally how many hours are planned within the time available for the traineeship?
The codes in Annex H appear to be banded according to the time in work experience/placement, rather than the time in College and so I am not sure just which is the driver here.
However if I add up the Planned Guided Learning Hours to be delivered in College from the ILR then does that somehow convert into what it is worth and if so, how?
Doubtless I will have more questions as things make better sense in my head!
CasparJuly 15, 2013 at 4:27 pm #1697
Have you seen this?
SFA Funding Rules for Traineeships delivered by 16-18 Apprenticeship Providers
This may helpJuly 15, 2013 at 5:13 pm #1698
Thanks Martin. Yes I have seen it (it’s in my original post).
CasparJuly 15, 2013 at 5:38 pm #1699
A Traineeship would typically comprise of time studying Maths & English, work placement, and any other training or aim that may assist the learner to gain employment.
You will need aims for the work placement, Maths and English and any other training or aim the total of these hours are the hours that go towards funding as indicated on the learner not aim record/s.
It is not expected that a traineeship will attract the full time band of 600(540) hours as the maximum duration is less than 6 months so depending on the hours they would fall into one of the following:
Band 4 450 to 539 hours £4,000 at base wgt
Band 3 360 to 449 hours £2,700 at base wgt
Band 2 280 to 359 hours £2,133 at base wgt
Band 1 up to 279 hours £4000 * (Hours/600) at base
Learners who are unsuccessful at obtaining employment could have another period of training but not another traineeship (I think I am right) but the age band 16-18, 19-24 will determine if this is EFA or SFA funded.
Hope the fog is clearing.
RegardsJuly 15, 2013 at 6:18 pm #1700
Thank you for shining the lights into the fog!
So will the Work Experience Core Aim count towards the Learning Hours? And are the hours against this Aim just the Work Experience time or is there teaching time in there as well?
Being accustomed to Apprenticeships with a Program Aim (ZPROG001), will there be such an Aim for a Traineeship? If not, how do you know what Aims belong together?
Do the Core Aims for Work Experience have Framework Codes and Pathways which then have to be shown against all of the ancillary Aims taken within the Traineeship? How do we find out what they are? And so is that the answer to my above question about how you tell which Aims make up the Traineeship together?
Then how do you get from the base weighting values from the above-mentioned bands to the actual amounts that the College can draw down for each student?
The formula that I have seen (from the EFA “Funding Guidance for young people 2013/14 – Rates and formula”) says:
(Student Numbers x National Funding Rate per Student x Retention Factor x Programme Cost Weighting + Disadvantage Funding) x Area Cost Uplift
Is this the right one to use?
So are the Student Numbers just the total number taking the Traineeship, or is the total number of students at the College (including all the Apprenticeships)? Given that there were no students doing Traineeships last year (which the notes suggest is what is used) then what will be used? Is it again just the total number of students attending the College? And if so, is that number of starters or number of finishers or what?
How do we know what the Programme Cost Weighting is? I suppose the answer may be in LARS, but as that isn’t available yet, how can I find out what is appropriate? I suppose it would be safest to assume Base Weighting, but I would rather know for sure.
How do you know what Retention Factor to use? I can see that it is defined as:
50% x Retention Rate / 2
Does that mean that you start with an assumed Retention Rate of 100% and then it only goes down if a student leaves without completing? Or is it fixed at the start of the whole Traineeship program and if so how?
Then there are Disadvantage Funding & Area Cost Uplift. The latter seems straightforward, but the former appears to have some more fog around it and so any further wisdom will be much appreciated.
CasparJuly 16, 2013 at 8:33 am #1704
Yes all hours planned or delivered count towards the total hours claimed. There is no need for a program aim as the annual hours are recorded against the learner record.
The weighting rates are 1.0 (the norm for traineeships), 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6 for specialist providers, for vocational programmes, the weighting is determined by the sector subject area (SSA) tier 2 classification of the core aim. The weighting is applied to the student’s whole programme.
The formula is used to calculate for colleges what next year’s factor will be but not sure about training providers as the formula may apply as the indication is for none EFA contract holders that they will access funding for traineeships through their funding per student methodology. This will mean that trainees are funded as part-time students (reflecting the fact that they will be full-time for part of the year) according to the number of hours the provider includes in their learning plan.
The student numbers for colleges are from their EFA allocation but I think that for training providers each learners funding even though funded via the SFA will be calculated from the EFA formula.
The program weighting/toc table is in Annex A: EFA Funding guidance for young people 2013/14.
If a learner is retained this attracts 100% funding if not only 50% irrespective of how long on program but in the event they leave early with a appositive outcome 100% funding is retained.
Disadvantage funding is a little more difficult if you are paid on actuals as the ILR will not contain GCSE Maths & English levels so I would advise you collect this information so that you are able to calculate and confirm funding yourself.
As a final point I am doubtful that qualification delivery is applicable to traineeships and I do not think that this will be an easy program to deliver as the only outcome is real jobs which at the best must be more difficult when in a recession.
Do not know what more I can add but good luck as we have only a couple of weeks to the start of 2013/14 but with no LARS or FIS to work with.July 16, 2013 at 9:55 am #1705
The sun is shining outside my window, but the fog in here is still lurking. But thank you very much indeed for all of your wisdom that is helping to pierce it.
I agree that the absence of LARS & FIS is making everything difficult – shades of “Houston, we have a problem” !
So if the full planned hours in the Traineeship are recorded against the Learner then do there have to be sufficient Learning Aims within the Traineeship to add up to that total, or can you claim for 500 hours, say, against the Learner using just a Core Aim of Z0002344 (168-152 hours)?
Would it be acceptable to deliver Level 1 Functional Skills under a Traineeship?
Are there any Framework Codes or Pathway Codes for a Traineeship?
If the College puts together a non-accredited Learning Plan for a student then does that have to have a Learning Aim Reference? And in which case how is that found? Or does that not appear on the ILR Return, apart from being within the Planned Hours against the student?
I looked up Z0002345, for instance, in LARA and there is nothing against SSA Tier 2, so how do you know what Programme Cost Weighting to use?
With regard to the outcome, as I understand it progression to an Apprenticeship would qualify and that is the basis under which the College is planning to deliver this.
CasparJuly 16, 2013 at 11:50 am #1708
As individual aim records will no longer contain delivery GLH the ILR will not record how long you have agreed (as in the learning agreement) and planned to deliver a specific aim. I would advise that if an aim or class codes exists then use it but it is what is recorded in the learning agreement that should match the total hours claimed.
I would have thought that functional skills would achieve the Maths and English requirement where they are applicable to the learner.
There are no framework or pathway codes for traineeships although there is a monitoring code at aim level for traineeships.
Any none accredited learning should use the appropriate class code.
Z0002345 is for work experience but only define the hours and not the sector as it is not relative.
You are correct that progression to an Apprenticeship is an outcome but care will be needed as traineeships should not be used as a route to an apprenticeship for those who are ready for work.
Just an update on the open source reporting project , going as well as can be expected with no LARS or SIF but have completed routine for importing 12/13 data from LIS and 13/14 from XML. Have also completed basic reporting for 12/13 including funding calculations but did notice that disadvantage uplift is not currently being applied for ER WPL in the LIS also checked PFR and even though it is shown against the learner it is not included in the calculation (have reported it so will have to wait and see if correct). I am currently working on migration to 13/14 a bit problematic as it requires manual intervention, EFA and SFA funding calculations and reporting for next year.
Apprenticeships still look ok but have you identified a recent problem with disadvantage uplift for WP delivery?
RegardsJuly 16, 2013 at 12:33 pm #1709
Just an after thought on the funding for traineeships, for 16-18 year olds it has been stated that funding will be in line with the EFA study program methodology. What are the chances that the SFA will fund traineeships for 19-24 year olds in the same way? the answer has to be nil to none so for this cohort they would have to utilise funding of individual aims and create class codes for work placement hours different to that used by the EFA.
You would have expected that in the same way that a common approach is used in funding for apprenticeships that the same would be applied to traineeships but it does not look like this will be the case as the intention seems to be to use different methodologies based on the age of the learner for traineeships.
Why do they make simplification so complicated?
RegardsJuly 17, 2013 at 7:48 am #1711
email in from the Data Service today says new SFA Update due out tomorrow (31/7/13) which will cancel/terminate all of the course codes mentioned earlier in this discussion (Z0002341, Z0002342, Z0002343, Z0002344, Z0002345 & Z0002346) and (hopefully) suggest alternative codes to be used. The Update will include new revised Funding Rules.
Under the (current) EFA Funding Rules it now appears that if you enter a Planned Delivery Hours of 500, say, then you will get paid £4,000 if the “Student leaves before planned end date and [is] recorded as completed” (as per the Traineeships Funding Rules). So, apparently, if 1 hour of Training is delivered and if they the student become employed or progresses to an Apprenticeship then the full funding will be paid – quite staggering and unbelievable!!! The Data Service agreed today that this is a valid interpretation (as only Planned Hours are recorded and not Actual Delivered Hours), but that it might not pass Audit – does this mean that the Auditors use some further rules that are not publicly published, or am I missing a trick here?
My tongue is definitely in my cheek in this suggestion, but what if progression is achieved after 400 hours, say? In theory that would still be worth £4,000 (as per the Rule quoted above) and yet if the originally Planned Hours were 400 then it would only be worth £2,700. So does that mean that the Core Aim for a Traineeship should be changed if it is completed early?
Only 2 days to go before the new academic year and I still remain very confused and frustrated and would very much appreciate some clarity, please.July 30, 2013 at 2:25 pm #1813
I am registered for web alerts from the Data Service but have not received any notification of this, do you have your own contacts or do you think there is a problem with the web alerts?
Mushrooms also thrive in the dark.
RegardsJuly 30, 2013 at 3:14 pm #1815
This mushroom received the email from the Data Service today in response to an outstanding help request lodged concerning Traineeships in which they said:
“This will be communicated to all providers in update this week when we release the funding rules for 19-24 year olds.”
I subsequently spoke to someone on the Helpdesk who illuminated further that tomorrow’s SFA Update will contain said nuggets.
I hoped that others might appreciate the early warning!
CasparJuly 30, 2013 at 4:18 pm #1816
Surly it must be more efficient to update us all with news rather than leaving up to the service desk to only tell a few one at a time, the recent example with the Traineeship webinar where feweek published the webinar slides before they had been made available by the Data Service indicates that their communications policy relies on providing information to a chosen few and hoping that they in turn will update the sector.
One day to go before the 1st August so there is still time to get the SIF beta out 3 months late but before the first learner starts in 2013/14, anyone taking odds on this happening before then?
I keep checking SIF Alpha for application updates but all I get is no internet connection to them.
So will keep twiddling thumbs until something does get released.July 30, 2013 at 5:54 pm #1817
Ironically this mushroom also had an email from Paul Kelman at the IA last week (24/7/13 – “To members of the software writer groups”) that says:
The DCFT project team are targeting next week for the beta release. Test reference data will be available to download from the “Check for Updates” function within FIS. I will let you know as soon as the beta is available.”
Have you seen this? So maybe thumb twiddling must be continued until Friday night? Maybe, perhaps, possibly…July 30, 2013 at 6:02 pm #1818
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.