Can anyone explain exactly what this means?? ‘And is either’ is poor grammar so the para doesn’t make sense anyway but the actual rules appears conflicting anyway. When will they write the rules in plain English?
What we will not fund
157. We will not fund any learning aim delivered at an employee’s workplace, and is either relevant to their job or their employer’s business, unless 157.1 the learner has an entitlement to full funding for English and/or maths (paragraph 161), and/or a first full level 2 or first full level 3 qualification (paragraph 168), or
157.2 we have confirmed a national level concession that responds to a significant negative economic impact for a specific industry
Please can you advice how we can complete and NVQ out of the workplace as it is an occupational qualification and the standards do not allow simulation.April 17, 2018 at 10:57 am #250252
I’m not sure what the question is.
You can’t do delivery in a workplace if the content is relevant to their job or the business. The exceptions are where it’s a Full Level 2/3, of there’s a national concession.
If you’re not delivering in the workplace, this rule isn’t relevant.April 17, 2018 at 11:30 am #250270
A few NVQ’s do allow delivery in a Realistic Working Environment (RWE) however the reason for the rule is that the ESFA do not fund learning in the workplace and expect employers to fund this directly excepting where this is allowed as in M/E and first level 2/3 entitlement.April 17, 2018 at 11:34 am #250273
Not to be too facetious, but I remember when the Rules *were* signed off by Plain English and I can assure you they were no better!!!
They was a very specific problem with Para 157 where the original version of the 17/18 Rules was phrased in such a way that it looked like *any* courses relevant to a learner’s job would be unfundable but after somewhat of an outcry it was replaced with this grammatically awkward version.April 17, 2018 at 12:04 pm #250286
In relation to this query, I think I’m possibly over complicating things in my head but I keep going round in circles so I’m hoping you can help clarify.
So the ESFA will not fund any learning aim delivered at an employee’s workplace, that is either relevant to their job or their employer’s business (157) unless the learner has an entitlement to full funding for English and/or maths (paragraph 161), and/or a first full level 2 or first full level 3 qualification (paragraph 168).
I’m looking specifically at two qualifications:
60326608 – Diploma in Care L2, is funded for Adult Skills however it isn’t classed as a ‘Full Level 2’ on the ‘Key Details’ page and isn’t on the ‘Legal Entitlement’ list.
60326621 – Diploma in Care L3, doesn’t show any ‘Adult Skills’ funding, it isn’t classed as a ‘Full Level 3’ on the ‘Key Details’ page and isn’t on the ‘Legal Entitlement’ list.
So if I have people in the workplace that are 19-23, I don’t think they would meet the ‘168’ rules but may possibly be co-funded for the L2 Diploma if the learners prior attainment is at least L2?
Then if I have a different employed learner that is 24+, rule 170.2 seems to suggest that we could co-fund the L2 Diploma regardless of their prior attainment?
Does point 157 overrule 170.2? One says we can’t deliver in the workplace but then the other says that we can co-fund it?
Sorry if this sounds confusing, just trying to figure it out…
SteveApril 17, 2018 at 3:08 pm #250340
Yes 157 does override 170.2 and 168.
The qualifications you have quoted are not funded at all for delivery in the workplace.
HTHApril 17, 2018 at 3:31 pm #250348
Thank you for the quick response Martin, that is what I had originally thought but wanted to make sure.
I will let them know that they can either do these qualifications through an Apprenticeship Standard (L2 or L3) or they can do the L3 via the Loan route.
SteveApril 18, 2018 at 8:53 am #250515
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.