Laserfiche WebLink
Comment#101—Regarding the requirements for Local Board policy listed at the bottom of <br /> page 5, isn't this already covered by BPPE Approval/Exemption or WASC accreditation? <br /> Resolution—This requirement is for providers who are deemed exempt per CEC 94874, and <br /> are not regionally accredited by an accrediting institution. <br /> Comment#102—Current local policy is to have individuals research and visit 3 schools that <br /> provide the training that the individual is interested in, before they select which school they <br /> wish to attend. Does this supersede the requirements described in Section E, page 5, and we <br /> should no longer have the individuals go to 3 schools first? <br /> Resolution— Local Boards can continue with this type of procedure, as described in their local <br /> policy. <br /> Local vs CA ETPL <br /> Comment#103—Without clear guidelines, Local Boards cannot expect the participants to <br /> understand why certain local programs are available in the state, but not in our Local Area. It <br /> also makes it confusing for the participant when they are reverse referred from that training <br /> provider and we will not approve the training locally, but it can be added to the CA ETPL. <br /> Resolution—The state is working with the vendor to display CA and local ETPL programs <br /> differently. This distinction in the system should help clarify what programs are available to <br /> participants, depending on where they are located. TEGL 8-19 allows for Local Boards to <br /> continue deciding what programs are allowed on their local ETPL. <br /> Comment#104— If a Local Board utilizes the CA ETPL, CaIJOBS serves as the "local list of <br /> training providers and programs," correct? Is it possible for the Local Board to make <br /> incumbent worker training provider information available when this is by definition only for a <br /> specific employer and a specific group of employed individuals? <br /> Resolution—The list available to the public includes training providers and programs that are <br /> on the ETPL. Any additional training providers that are not on the ETPL(non-ITA) can be <br /> entered as a local provider in CaIJOBS and only viewed by staff. The IWT may be eligible for, <br /> but not required to be on, the ETPL. <br /> Comment#105—Can state and local eligibility be conducted simultaneously? <br /> Resolution—Local Boards can review the provider and program at the same time for both CA <br /> and local ETPL eligibility, but they need to review the provider for the appropriate <br /> requirements (i.e. local ETPL has additional requirements to eligibility that do not effect <br /> eligibility for the CA ETPL). Also, CA ETPL eligibility review must happen first, because if they <br /> are no longer eligible per CA ETPL requirements, then they cannot be on the local ETPL. <br /> Comment#106—For the purpose of review for continued eligibility, does local ETPL refer to <br /> the geographic boundaries of the Local Board or the training providers that are under contract <br /> to the Local Board for payment of ITAs? <br /> Resolution—The local ETPL includes all providers that are on the CA ETPL, and meet that Local <br /> Board's local ETPL requirements. <br /> Page 20 of 25 <br />