With the 2025/26 apprenticeship funding rules now live, we’re excited to introduce the latest changes we’ve made in Bud that will help you stay compliant.
In this exclusive webinar, Senior Product Owner Matt Wood and Head of Product Fiona Cliffe provided a demo of the new functionality and how you can:
- Select the new academic year in apprenticeship applications
- Implement an 8-month minimum duration for 2025-26 applications
- Add new minimum OTJT values across each standard
- Capture the details and outcomes for 19+ learners opting in or out of Functional Skills
- Display English and Maths activities on the training plan document
- Include foundation apprenticeships in the programme build
Here is the full recording of the webinar:
Questions & Answers
An overview of the questions asked during the webinar that were not answered live:
Question: Funding rules require an updated ILP for any learner having a break in learning. The Bud process easily allows for a learner to return from a break, updating the practical and planned end dates and creating new ILP's, but it doesn't seem to require new signatures which the funding rules do? How do we request new signatures or is it simply edit enrolment docs.
Answer: You are able to generate new documents and signatures via the enrolment edit flow. We recommend you do this when processing a return from break.
Question: I assume that if you make programme length 12 months but the apprentice manages to complete all OJH and is ready for EPA earlier (between 8-11 months) they can still go into EPA without having to wait until 12 months?
Answer: Yes, for 25/26 learners the validation on the EPA process is for an 8-month minimum duration.
Question: If the programme duration is reduced down to 8 months due to RPL, can the planned activity dates for those not exempt be amended to bring them forward from the set build so they are not showing with a date after the planned practical period end date when the training plan document is created for signing?
Answer: This has been resolved in our release on 6th August. Activities planned for after month 8 in the programme build will all be condensed into the final month of the practical period to ensure that no activities will be going beyond the planned practical end date.
Question: Why was the reduction of OTJH for an activity removed from the totals at the bottom of the page? It was really useful to be able to check these figures where OTJH was being reduced for RPL where this doesn’t involve the exemption of the entire activity
Answer: This was in response to a bug we had on that page, but we recognise that partial OTJH reductions are also an important factor of this process and we plan to update the logic and information on this page soon. Please keep an eye out on future release notes for details.
Question: The minimum hours that are now in following the recent deployment, I assume these are the transition hours, and they will be changed again in Jan?
Answer: Yes, we have added the hours applicable from 1st August and the values applicable from 1st January. We'll continue to monitor the DfE updates on this and update Bud's values if the DfE's values change again.
Question: Does this mean we can now include SCORM learning packages in an English or Maths type activity and it won’t automatically log any OTJ hours if the learner spends more than 30 mins in the SCORM? (this has previously prevented us using SCORM for English/math due to risk of ‘illegal’ OTJ being auto-logged).
Answer: English and Maths activities will not record any OTJH, so SCORM packages should not return any hours for those activity types.
Question: With the functional skills activities - is there a way where we can automatically exempt all FS activities if they are exempt / opt out or will we have to exempt each activity individually still?
Answer: At the moment, no. The reason for this is that some provider's activities include learning towards other aspects of the Apprenticeship, not just the Functional Skills, and so it would be difficult for us to automate the exemption of all Functional Skills activities based on the exemption of a qualification. That said, our new English and Maths activity types may make this possible in the future and this is something we will consider.
Question: Are there any plans to further improve the flow and logic for English and maths for 19+ apprentices? It feels very disjointed currently, as you would need to exempt the aims first, then have and record the discussion, and then separately exempt the English and maths aims - which is out of order, it would make sense to have the IA discussion first, and if answered no, then automatically remove/opt-out the relevant English/maths aim and activities from the training plan, etc.
Answer: We will review the order of the application flow to see if any improvements can be made to make this more logical.
Question: How do we pull the report to measure active engagement for maths and English? Previously, we logged all maths and English engagement in the off the job hours tab (but stated it wasn't off the job). We've noticed the maths and English activities don't have the OTJH tab now, which makes sense if we can pull the reporting in a different way, but please can you clarify how we can do so?
Answer: We intend to introduce a new method of logging active learning for English and Maths activities in the near future. Please keep an eye out on future release notes for details.
Question: Is the Maths and English built into the main training plan not a separate one?
Answer: Yes, they will continue to be on the same Training Plan document. We have added a new Appendix specifically for the English and Maths activities on the Training Plan.
Question: Appendix C is incorrect – is this being removed?
Answer: Yes, we will remove the Appendix with the old OTJH calculation from the Training Plan soon. Please keep an eye out on future release notes for details.
Question: If the OTJH are reduced due to RPL, below the Government minimum value, does it automatically calculate the funding reduction required for this?
Answer: We do not automate any behaviour between the reduction of hours and the reduction of finances.
Question: Will changes be applied to the activities so that the target dates for part time workers will be removed?
Answer: We will continue to use the dates set during programme builds based on the learner's working hours. If you wish to make these the same for learners working all hours, then you will need to update your programme builds.
Question: We don’t seem to have the ‘learner insights’ section? Is this another enterprise paid function?
Answer: This is an Enterprise feature.
Question: In case you're not aware, there is a 'Oops. You're not authorised to access this page' when you click on the link to view the article on the academic year selection in the stub record. Not sure if it's just me?
Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. We have resolved this and hopefully you can see it now.
Question: Can you keep us up to date on what dates these future developments will be in the system please?
Answer: For information relating to any future developments, please keep an eye out on future release notes for details. You can also follow our What's Coming Up page for information on some new developments.