We are delivering the Financial Services Administrator level 3 Standard and have an employer who will be delivering the technical qualification element themselves (we would normally deliver this).
I’m not sure how to discount this – it’s not prior learning, but we wouldn’t be delivering that part of the apprenticeship so we would need to reduce the cost i assume.
Any ideas please?
Many thanksJanuary 12, 2018 at 9:54 am #227897
I think we would just reduce the total negotiated price to take this in to account
That would work for both Levy and co-investment Apprentices
HTHJanuary 12, 2018 at 10:04 am #227905
Yes, you just negotiate a (reduced) price with the employer for what you are delivering?January 12, 2018 at 10:05 am #227909
Thanks, so there isn’t any guidance as such with regards to how much you would reduce i.e. how many learning outcomes the qualification meets….. it’s more a case of negotiating what you and them employer think is fairJanuary 12, 2018 at 10:11 am #227918
Would this be classed as subcontracting rather than reducing the negotiated price, assuming they are delivering it at the same time you are the standard?
Otherwise, you’d not be able to count the employer delivery as part of your delivery e.g. toward OTJ training etc? Unless you’re planning on reducing the duration/content you deliver in line with it (which isn’t possible for 12 month standards). Then there’s the issues re quality control and so on.
DanielJanuary 12, 2018 at 10:31 am #227920
Simply1: In a sense you should be doing that for *every* apprenticeship anyway!!!
Daniel: It’s not sub-contracting because you’re not paying for it. Also, I don’t see why you can’t count it for OTJ? The apprentice is doing some learning and is not at their desk/till/lathe, why is it not off the job? That’s like saying you can’t count independent study?
January 12, 2018 at 10:42 am #227922
- This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by steveh.
Ok yes makes sense, thank you all for the help.January 12, 2018 at 10:45 am #227925
Should you be paying them as a subcontractor for it, and paying them as per the actual costs? Then carrying out appropriate support and monitoring as their lead provider?
Rule P151 in the Apprenticeship Funding Rules implies employers can be delivery subcontractors, which seems appropriate in this instance?
My concern is for 12 month standards, you cannot reduce the duration (12 month minimum) nor the content (20% OTJ), therefore you’d need to add potentially unnecessary additional delivery into the standard if it wasn’t a subcontracted arrangement. I’d definitely reduce the price for learning that has already occurred though.
Would it be appropriate from a quality perspective to have unknown staff to the provider delivering a qualification and counting that toward the training? How would Ofsted perceive that?
DanielJanuary 12, 2018 at 10:49 am #227929
Wouldn’t this training that the employer in this case delivers, form part of the 20% otj? I thought that anything they do that is relevant to their role and to the apprenticeship, but not them doing their actual day to day work, counts towards this, regardless of who delivers it?January 12, 2018 at 10:54 am #227936
You’re right, they can be delivery subcontractors, but it’s a lot of hassle to move some money around the system where the employer is offering to do it anyway?
I don’t get the content thing, it’s still part of the content, regardless of who delivers it, so I don’t see why it would impact on duration? Why wouldn’t it still be on the plan for the 20% OTJ?
Your quality concerns are valid I admit, but if the employer is happy they, as we’ve been told a million times, “are in the driving seat”…January 12, 2018 at 10:58 am #227938
Agree it’s a lot of hassle. I understand your point of view re the content, it could be considered as part of OTJ on that basis. It does cause me concern re quality no matter which approach a provider takes (it’d be a difficult conversation as a lead telling the employer they aren’t teaching it well enough!).
Thanks for your input.January 12, 2018 at 11:20 am #227948
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.