Ray Davies

20% OTJ Query

Edited

If a learner completes the whole programme early and therefore enters Gateway 6 months earlier than planned, do they still have to achieve the planned 20% hours of 750 for example or will this be reduced due to the timeframe reduction and therefore only equate to 500?  They would still achieve 20% otj but of the shorter timeframe. Similarly if they go over gateway do they have to evidence 20% OTJ for each week they go over ?

What this boils down to is does the learner have to meet the 20% OTJ as per the plan or as per the actual duration ?

Many thanks

 

Replies

No one has replied to this post.


Martin West

See the following from the funding rules Page 15 on:

P64 At the end of the programme, if the volume of off-the-job training hours delivered is less than the original volume of planned hours (agreed with the employer at the beginning of the programme), you must produce a statement to summarise the following information:

P64.1 The original volume of planned hours (as documented on the original apprenticeship agreement and commitment statement and recorded in the planned hours field of the ILR). This volume must have equated to at least 20% of the apprentice’s working hours over the planned duration of the programme (see paragraph P52) but may have been more than the minimum 20% requirement.

P64.2 The actual hours delivered (as supported by proof of delivery in the evidence pack and recorded in the actual hours field of the ILR).

P64.3 The volume difference between these two figures.

P64.4 The reason for this difference (e.g. prior learning has been identified part way through the apprenticeship or an apprentice has completed the full content over a shorter timescale).

P64.5 Confirmation that the off-the-job training hours actually delivered were at least 20% of the apprentice’s working hours over the actual time on programme.

P64.6 Confirmation that the apprenticeship met the minimum duration threshold (the 12-month practical period).

P65 The employer and apprentice must countersign this statement if they agree with, and are satisfied with, the quantity of training that was delivered, even though this is different to the original volume agreed at the beginning of the apprenticeship.

P65.1 The summary statement must align with changes made in the commitment statement(s). The statement serves only as a summary of these changes and is not a substitute for the commitment statement being updated, where necessary, on an ongoing basis (e.g. as a result of progress reviews) (see paragraph P73.2).

P65.2 Where a signed summary statement is required (see flowchart below), and this is not available in the evidence pack, funds may be at risk of recovery.

P65.3 If the apprentice has spent less than 20% of their actual time on the programme on off-the-job training, then the programme is not a valid apprenticeship and all funding is at risk of recovery.

Flow chart: What to check if the actual duration and off-the-job training delivered is less than the original planned duration and volume of off-the-job training

Steveh

Two separate answers here!

Where they complete early, follow the guidance (and helpful flow chart) P64-P66 in the funding rules (but, basically "yes" as long as they've passed minimum duration)

Where they go past their Planned End Date, the OTJ doesn't increase.

Madalina Berbece

Hi,

Please, I need your guidance, today the flowchart above for some reason confuses me. What actually want to say 2. Does the evidence show that the learner spent at least 20% of their time on programme over the PLANNED DURATION on off-the job training?

Where is the difference between 1 and 2? Why would we ask for a statement if the learner has completed 20% OTJH on programme over the planned duration? Would be the situation where more than 20% OTJH have been agreed at the beginning of the programme and the learner has completed only minimum of 20%? Or is it where the 20% OTJH MUST be completed by PPED?

What I want to understand is if a statement will be required if a learner has completed the number of OTJH agreed at the beginning of the programme in a shorter period.

 

Many thanks,

Madalina

Ben James

Re. the difference between 1 & 2 - I agree with your first suggestion. If the agreed upon number of hours at the start represented 25%, but they ended up completing 22%.. that fails the first question, but passes the second because it's less than the what was 'agreed' but more than the minimum. 

To your last question - no, I see no reason that you'd need a statement in that case. If the minimum number of hours was (for example) 2000, over 24 months.. and they completed all 2000, but over 18 months.. they've met the minimum requirement. The guidance that Steve and Martin have kindly provided covers instances where learners have completed early, and as a result have not been able to fulfil the number of hours which were based on the original planned duration. If the original number was based on 24 months, but they've completed after 18, it would be reasonable to assume that the actual hours would be roughly three quarters of the planned amount.. because the actual duration is only three quarters of what was planned. 

(Edited)

Madalina Berbece

Thank you Ben. I thought so but just wanted to confirm.