stewartsegal

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • stewartsegal
    Participant

    Just a word on prior learning. Just because someone has some prior experience (we all have whatever job we are doing especially when you look at behaviours) does not mean you have to make a reduction in duration and price. That is a professional judgement as to whether the learner has the required’competence’ in the particular skill or behaviour to the required level. They may be able to do a job but need to relearn some skills or they may need to improve those skills to ensure they have a chance of reaching a distinction. If you believe the learner does have skills that would reduce the learning below 12 months then they would not be eligible. However if you believed they didnt need all the learning but needed additional embedding of skills that would take 12 months then they would be eligible. Its all your judgement so keep the evidence. Do not make the assumption that if someone has some prior experience or learning the duration and price need to be automatically reduced but it does require proactive management. Cant wait to hear the response from the service desk……good luck!

     
    in reply to: Apprenticeship Prior Learning #367966

    stewartsegal
    Participant

    Mark
    I am not an expert so I have lost track of that last bit but you seem to be the only one at the ESFA answering. Do you have an answer to what figure you want putting in the OTJ hours. i’m clear its planned hours even though your description says its what delivered (does no one read these things before you issue them to 3000 providers!). Do you want planned hours in the month/year/total or year to date. Considering these are planned hours and OTJ hours are not spread evenly across the programme I would think the total hours would be the only sensible option.

     
    in reply to: New ILR field 19/20 – Planned Hours #367962

    stewartsegal
    Participant

    Martin, working hours are different from paid hours. some would say that working hours include your lunch hour even though its not paid because you are ‘contracted’ from say 9-5pm. the commitment statement and rules still use working hours as a term….you’d have thought that given this error they would have taken the chance to make it all clear….but at least it means we can look forward to some more myth busters!!

     
    in reply to: Changes to 20% OJT requirement #361618

    stewartsegal
    Participant

    Martin, I agree the vast majority of people do not get paid a lunch hour so its not in their paid hours but it might technically be in their contracted or working hours because you are contracted from 9-5pm but just not paid for it all. The rules (and commitment statement) still use working hours.

    Ive seen the ‘apology’ on the newsletter but surely they should put a statement on the website for the on the job page.

    And still no clarification for those who previously used the 30 hours.

     
    in reply to: Changes to 20% OJT requirement #361606

    stewartsegal
    Participant

    I cant believe there is no apology or direct email to all providers. There are some providers who have used 30 hours so when will this change be implemented from?

    Martin, you used the words contracted hours which is different from paid hours and different from working hours which have all been used. The 20% is in paid hours which does include holidays. The rules say that holidays are excluded from the calculation but if an apprentice did work in the holidays then it will be in paid hours but not working hours. I am sure we’ll have a myth buster in 6 months time.

    It now makes no sense to have a standard holiday deduction. It should be whatever holidays the apprentice gets.

    Nick, you seem very understanding. The lack of a proper notification to providers and the lack of an apology says it all to me. I wont hold my breath for an ESFA comment.

    And what is that survey??

    Stewart

     
    in reply to: Changes to 20% OJT requirement #361577

    stewartsegal
    Participant

    And just for good measure they have used different terms over the last couple of years. OTJ must be done in paid hours (which could include holidays) but P58 says apprenticeship must be completed in working hours. That could include lunch hours which are unpaid but technically in your working hours. I am sure the clarification statement will all be very clear…..

     
    in reply to: Changes to 20% OJT requirement #360956

    stewartsegal
    Participant

    Martin, they have asked us not to make any changes but does that mean if you always used 30 hours then is it OK to continue…..

    And the OTJ has always been unfair…..if you do the standard in 1 year you have to do 47X8 (or is it 6) hrs OTJ. If you do the same standard in 18 months you have to do 70×8 hrs….there is no logic to the rule.

    Stewart

     
    in reply to: Changes to 20% OJT requirement #360946

    stewartsegal
    Participant

    That was 2pm…..

    The statement about 30 hours maximum is still on the web site as part of the commitment form and I dont think the guidance was redacted….it was highlighted. Redacted means you cant see it but the rule would still apply…..I feel another series of myth busters coming on…..

     
    in reply to: Changes to 20% OJT requirement #360775

    stewartsegal
    Participant

    Whatever the outcome of these very strange deliberations I think it would wrong for the ESFA to audit and clawback any funding from providers since 2017 unless of course they didnt meet the 30 hours minimum.

    If a provider has always used 30 hours I assume they should continue to do so.

    Lets hope the statement cones soon and is clear!?! Hope they clarify what ‘paid hours’ means. Its not the same as contractual hours. paid hours technically does not include lunch periods unless the contract says it does but are holidays paid hours?

     
    in reply to: Changes to 20% OJT requirement #360724

    stewartsegal
    Participant

    The amount retained for achievement is likely to be 20%. It was set out in the February document but it does say that it will be confirmed by end March. They have not said when the 20% will be paid in Apprenticeships. I am sure there will be some other details confirmed in the next version of the funding simplification policy.

     
    in reply to: DCFT changes for 2013/14 #789

    stewartsegal
    Participant

    There is no longer a specific funding requirement to complete reviews. Every provider needs to establish their own delivery processes and how they record the learning.

     
    in reply to: Apprenticeships #713

    stewartsegal
    Participant

    As far as I know SFA will be issuing an update to the Funding Simplification Document which will hopefully set out details of how the achievement element will be paid and the rates for 16-19 Apprenticeships (including Functional Skills) amongst other funding issues. There are still a number of details not yet been announced so it is diffcult to forecast income at this stage.

     
    in reply to: 20% achievement element for apprenticeships #447
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)