Forum Replies Created
That’s a fair point Steve! I think I’m getting hung up on the wording of the statement (which I did offer as feedback as I feel it’s not completely clear). I’ll get the ball rolling for any redundant apprentices and then see what the senior management want to do about everyone else. Thank you :).
We’ve had a problem with mismatches – 2 learners stopped back in 2018/19 that all of a sudden triggered ILR data mismatch in the DAS (one in October, one in December). Incident has been open since October and it still isn’t fixed. All of a sudden I’ve started getting e-mails every day reminding me that it’s there!
I’m not sure if it’s the same thing (or similar), but they aren’t on our data lock reporting just in the DAS.
Have we established whether this is a “need” to do yet? I was going to post a question asking and then saw this thread, but I’ve assumed that this is an expectation. As an EP it’s a little easier for us and I have a list, but I’m not going to get it all done by the R10 deadline. I also don’t want to create a lot of admin work for myself if I don’t have to! It feels like that end part was just dropped into the conversation and I feel like it should have been communicated out by an Account Manager if it’s a requirement…
Thanks Steveh – I figured that would be the case. There’s nothing explicit in the guidance they’ve released but it does say the ESFA will recover payments where training did not take place and the apprentice subsequently leaves, so I assume this is what they’re after despite them not actually saying it!
We had 2 of these pop up a while ago. They weren’t on the data match reporting but came up with mismatches – both were stopped learners and had been stopped in the 1718 funding year. Message came up in the 1920 funding year. I raised it with the AS but as yet it’s still unresolved – originally raised in October last year. I’d suggest you raise it with the AS – although all I’ve had from them when I’ve chased because of the time elapsed is that they know there’s an issue and they’re working on it. It might be worth checking if they are active learners that you’ve received payment for them on your monthly reporting?
We use the EP funding rules, but it states very clearly that electronic signatures are acceptable dependent on the controls you have in place (EP 287 – 289).
PICS do a Form Capture module that takes electronic signatures which I have seen demo-ed and is very good. We’re lucky as a business that we have digital processes in place that enable our apprentices to sign documents on tablets. Where they can’t do that, we accept wet signatures.
We haven’t been through an audit yet, but spoke to our account manager about wet signatures and she said that it’s all about the wider process and the controls that are in place. We feel that we can demonstrate this. It seems counter intuitive when everything is moving towards “paper free” to get learners to print off documents just to sign them.
I know the provisional QAR’s are correct as they stand for the data submitted – I have not been able to submit some data due to a data lock issue and was advised by the Apprenticeship Service to not complete portfolio’s in this academic year until the technical issue is resolved. So I’m not disputing the data that is there – I want to know how to work in the completions that I know happened but couldn’t submit so I can try and give our board more reflective data – in short I’m trying to figure out which completions I can add to the data and which ones I should exclude.
The transparency tables make sense, but can’t work in our context as I haven’t been able to submit the data in order to take advantage of them.
This is possibly a more complicated question that I anticipated, so I’ll have a chat with our account manager about it as well. Thanks for the responses though!
Thanks for that.
I’ve already read the technical guidance, but it doesn’t really answer my question very succinctly. I was hoping that someone might be able to explain it a bit more contextually so it’s easier to understand?
Please can someone provide additional guidance on transfers?
We have 5 transferred apprentices appearing in our QAR data, all with duplicate records. 3 of the 5 have 1 included record and 1 excluded record each. 2 of them have both their new aim and their old aim included. Why is this?
EmmaJanuary 9, 2020 at 4:11 pm in reply to: [CLOSED] Question & Answer session on Qualification Achievement Rates (QAR) 2018 to 2019 with the ESFA #419505
Thanks for responding. It just seems crazy to me that your couldn’t do both at once when you actually can’t do the Apprenticeship without achieving the minimum standard in maths anyway – it would have to be funded one way or another whether it was through us or a college/subcontractor!
I have this in my R04 upload. It happened last time but they weren’t on the period end data match reporting, just on the upload reporting. Has anyone heard back from the service desk yet?
Sorry – me not looking properly – they’ve changed the name and I apparently can’t read. Just ignore.
Sue’s right – you just need to double check they are showing as live. We were part of a group that last month did get DLOCK_02’s for all new learners. There was a problem in the AS which meant the system wasn’t matching them even though the commitment’s were confirmed in the Employer and Provider part. So if they have been confirmed it’s worth raising with the AS.
I have spoken to our Account Manager about this, because I’ve said it is completely unclear and the knowledge is being passed down rather than able to be gleaned from the funding rules. She’s asking some questions for us to get absolute clarity, but it’s not helpful when the rules don’t really give you the guidance you need.
I’m glad that my inability to “see” this is because in reality it isn’t actually there…..!
This may be another obvious question – but how do we know that then? That’s the assumption I’ve operated under, but how do we know that if it isn’t documented anywhere?
I want to help the non funding staff understand it – hence all the questions!
I think that’s what they can’t understand – why a UK citizen isn’t automatically eligible for funding.
Is there anything anywhere that says this Steveh:
The thing is nowhere does it say “UK Citizens are automatically eligible” (because they’re not), all of the rules are predicated on the phrase “EU/EEA Citizens” being understood to include the UK.
Because I can’t see it in the funding rules and I can’t seem to prove it to them!
I know it is! (and the asterisk was a nice touch :o)!).
This list in the funding rules. The EEA section asks you to reference P337. HR’s point is that the UK isn’t on that, therefore there must be different arrangements for UK citizens who have lived and worked abroad.
The paragraph reference (311) references EEA citizens. So are we for the purposes of apprenticeship eligibility treating that paragraph as a cover all for everyone including British citizens?
I’m sorry if it sounds like I’m being dense, but I’m getting a lot of questions thrown at me about this and I’m trying to make absolutely clear that I’m refusing correctly, as they are saying I’m wrong and that this learner should be eligible for funding as she is a British Citizen, not an EEA Citizen.
So the pushback I’m getting is that they are a British Citizen. And HR are reading the eligibility rules and saying that they can’t see where it says a British Citizen can’t claim funding – only situations where EEA and EU residents can or can’t claim it.
We’re an Employer Provider, so I’ve checked paragraph 311 in the Provider rules and that section is about EEA Citizens. The paragraph says to check the list of EEA countries (which I assume are the ones relevant to this rule) and the UK isn’t in that list.
I hope I’m making sense!
I’m utterly confused by our financial reporting – the amount that our payment reporting says we should have from the R02 and R03 payments doesn’t match what we’ve been paid. Is anyone else noticing those kind of discrepancies?
Appreciate the comments. I have no problem with adding the information to our agreement, but the subcontractor don’t think it’s relevant; which is the blocker I now face. I’m always happy to comply if that’s whats needed, but I’m struggling to find any guidance or rules that I can use to go back to the subcontractor.
Thank you for contacting the National Apprenticeship Service, my name is Jessica. I understand from your email that you are attempting to amend the planned end date for 2 learners and receiving an error message stating “The end date must be in the future”.
This error occurs because after a successful data match with the provider, you can only amend the planned end date once in the following manner:
a. The planned end date can only be amended backwards (i.e. into the past)
b. You can only amend the planned end date once it is passed (i.e. you will only now be able to amend the planned end date once Aug 2020 has passed).
I can advise that the original records may have been able to be amended because it was before a successful data match with the provider (a data match happens once the provider submits data for the learner on their system, after this point most of the record details are locked in and cannot be amended).
I can advise that even if the planned end date it wrong, as it is only wrong by a few months this will not cause an issue so can be left as August 2020. Planned end dates are an estimated time of completion and don’t have to be definitive; an apprentice can complete before or after their planned end date without an issue being caused concerning, for example, payments being released.
I hope you have found this information useful, Emma.
I had this problem too – all 16 new records are in the AS but aren’t showing when the ILR is uploaded. I raised it with the service desk and it’s gone to their technical team – I don’t know of any way of fixing it if all ULN’s are successfully in both parts of the AS.
Thanks everyone. I’m going through updating the dates now – I got the first 5 done and all of a sudden I’m getting an error when I try and change the finish date saying “The end date must not be in the future”. Has anyone seen this before and know what it means?
Thank you! So would it be a good idea to go through the DAS and adjust these dates to include the expected EPA period?
I took some advice from the service desk about this ages ago, and was told that for all starts after 1st August 2019 that the planned end date in the AS must match the planned end date in the ILR, so I have to admit that’s what I’ve been doing what they said and putting in matching durations in each. I have to admit, the advice sounded legitimate as you’d assume if the dates were different you’d get a data lock?
Martin – has your comment above from the ESFA come from them directly recently? I can’t find anything in the guidance to say that the AS and ILR need different dates in them and I’m worried I’ve done it wrong now!