Forum Replies Created
Thanks Martin – That was what I thought, but the niggles made me wonder if I’d missed something!
Fab, thank you, we’ll give it a go :0)
Found the answer in the Learning Aims Class Codes document.
Adult Education Budget Funded Provision
9. As part of local flexibility, you can use non-regulated learning aims in 2019 to 2020 as set out in the Adult education budget funding rules 2019 to 2020 and the Qualifications eligible for public funding guidance.
I’ve had a little play with this scenario and I can’t get a Traineeship to validate at all without the work placement – you might find that it will generate the funding once that mandatory element is added even though the rules allow for a four week window.
Good luck! :0)
We have been looking at this as well with our Traineeships, one of our sub-contractors want to get around the issue by delivering non-regulated provision at level 1 – I can’t see anywhere in the rules to confirm that this can be fully funded (or not). Although it is level 1, it is not categorised as local flexibility and the student will not be getting a Level 1 qualification so……?
Do you have a work placement ERN added against the Work Placement aim?
Thank you – this is really useful information.
We have done this, specifically with our Traineeship learners who finish tail end of the academic year but have to be in work/education for 8 weeks before we can claim the outcome – which can be reported up to 6 months after their actual end date.
What I can’t tell you is how! (unless you use Unit-E) as I cannot see from my ILR file what fields it is using to pull the data in.
Looking at the Occ Report, it is not clear if the achievement payment is generated though. The earned cash values are null but the column ‘Achievement element (potential or actual earned cash)’ does have a value. In my head, the rules and logic say it should generate the achievement element – certainly for the Traineeships anyway.
I have been assured that it will definitely feed through to the QAR though.
Sorry to be so vague, but this is the first time I have really done this too so it’s a bit trial and error.
Fab – thank you for your responses and clearing my brain fog!
Thanks for your ever prompt response Martin.
Yes, I did mean 10% – the student started Nov 2018 (1st day back after nearly 4 weeks AL!)
I have fed the inability to change the contribution values back to the relevant Director here and await his response – I am glad you have come back saying the same thing, much appreciated :0)
Thank you – I hadn’t thought about the TNP1 amount – we have currently set this to £9k and left the funding adjustment alone. Will this pass audit, or should the full funding band be set accurately to match the LARS values?
Many thanks – now to work out the values! :0/
Thanks Martin, so this is regardless of Levy or Non-Levy then?
They ‘expected’ to release it today – rumour was ‘sometime after noon’
I have just installed the new version and get the same error, so if you get a response from KPMG………….. :0)
I have found numerous inconsistencies between what the LARA shows and what is in the actual MDB file issued in the MISC Downloads. I have been reporting each and every one to the Data Service! Sadly I am not really getting any sensible responses.
The only data I have managed to get them to agree to correct so far is where a Technical Certificate element has been classified as a Competency Element instead of a Knowledge Element, but this won’t be done in time to include it in the R08 submission due tomorrow!