Forum Replies Created
At our 1718 audit GCSE Maths/English was ok as long as wasn’t also doing a Maths/English HE course.
Key thing they were looking at was crossover in content between the two funding models. So someone doing a HE course in sport, shouldn’t really be funded to do an AEB course in fitness instructing unless you could prove wasn’t being covered by the HE course.
Most of our HE students who were doing AEB also tended to be doing Maths/English/ICT courses, so we had no issues with duplication of content.
How would you meet P45? Ask the employer for a copy of the previous commitment statement perhaps.
Also what about OTJ? Will the employer/apprentice have the evidence that they have completed 20%. If not and its held by the previous provider, i suppose it gets a bit tricky.
Anyone know how auditors view transfers in? Do they look at everything in great detail, or give a bit of leeway knowing that trying to confirm details with another provider, who has potentially gone out of business, can be difficult?
@Kevin_Bunn The rules do apply for them. Just because the employer is pushing you as the training provider to take them on as an apprentice because they have targets to meet, doesn’t mean you as the training provider should be taking them on as one.
If they have no new skills to learn, how are they getting through the prior learning assessment to ensure they will be learning new skills as part of the apprenticeship?
If an auditor knocks on your door, be prepared to hand all your funding back, this will be like red rag to a bull if they find out they had 20 years prior knowledge and experience.
Surely they won’t be able to meet this funding rule:
P58 Funds must not be used to pay for training for skills, knowledge and behaviours
already attained by the apprentice. We may take action to recover apprenticeship
funding where this happens.
Tagged this as DAS rather than EDS so will come up in relevant searches
Not fully digested it, but haven’t the ESFA said to action your BIL after R08 ie for R09, to ensure you get march’s money?
Think EDS numbers starting with 100… are really old and have been imported into their system from yellow pages (rather than someone adding it manually). Might have been replaced with something starting with 9
Its the start date of the functional skill, not the start date of the apprenticeship thats important here.
If they hadn’t started Functional sSkills by 01/09/19, then they should be studying towards the new learning aims. The start date of the apprenticeship is irrelevant.
From what we’ve learnt over the years “leave to Remain’ is awarded to the spouse, child etc of someone with refugee status or if the person in question has arrived off the back of their family’s immigration status.
We don’t often see discretionary/exception leave to enter or remain.
Indefinite leave to remain appears to be awarded to refugees who have applied to stay in the country after their refugee status has expired. Indefinite leave to remain gives them another 5 years in the county i think after which they can apply for permanent residency.
This is only our own research though, not 100% it is correct and its definitely not written down clearly in any guidance.
- This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by jessicar.
You can use SLD virtually all the time now to get the rule violations report. This changed recently, so even though you can’t upload an ILR every week of the month, you can still get to the stage 1 part of finding out your errors.
We only use FIS for a db file, SLD is a lot quicker
Can’t imagine the ESFA would penalise anyone for putting learners on short term breaks in learning, this is an exceptional situation.
Obviously the nations health and financial health is the main priority at the moment, so imagine this issue will be on the list to look into.
As a College we are paid differently to Training Providers, so maybe they will switch you onto our model of payments?
It should be today at some point…but who knows may be delayed if the ESFA are having any staffing issues at present.
Don’t think this isn’t a government priority at the minute.
Existing rules will remain, and don’t think the ESFA will address any changes to policy until this whole situation calms down.
Where all learning activities (excluding EPA) were not completed prior to 01/08/19, your Actual End Date should represent the last evidenced date of learning.
Your Achievement date should represent the day the EPA was sat.
Once Achievement date is populated and completion status = 2, you will receive your completion payment.
Think there is a general assumption that once learning has finished, your EPA period should be at least 7 days, so your achievement date should be at least 7 days after your Actual End Date
DLOCK 07’s can be sometimes caused when you over type any TNP values that were initially reported in 18/19.
Check your xml file from 18/19 R14 and compare to what you are reporting now.
Oh yes no PDF for 20/21!
And i meant read sections 1 to 4 of the provider support manual for all the ILR info.
LSECT is the only one i m aware of, but the data conference is more a summing up of things that are happening/up and coming in the sector and best practice.
Just keep up to date with the following publications:
Inform (monthly newsletter from ESFA) – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sfa-inform
ESFA update (weekly newsletter from ESFA) – https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/esfa-update
And also keep your eye out for the 20/21 ILR specification and Provider Support manual for any changes up and coming.
If you subscribe to gov.uk emails all these notifications will come through to you.
If you haven’t already, read (at least) sections 1 to 4 – it tells you all you need to know about the ILR.
I’m not sure where you are getting this idea from:
But, the completion payment that is withheld by the ‘system’ comprises of 20% of both – this isn’t ‘visible’ as such – but that’s the theoretical mechanics
The completion payment is the 20% thats left from the total price, so £2000 completion payment if your price was £10000. Depending on the cost of your EPA, this £2000 could comprise of various ratios of training to assessment.
e.g Total Price = £10000
Assessment price, Training remaining, Assessment % of £2000 completion payment
£500, £1500, 25%
£1000, £1000, 50%
£1500, £500, 75%
Why are you apportioning your monthly on programme payments into 80% training and 20% assessment?
When you have arrived at the figure of £1,936 for employer 2, this should be based on the original price of £2,640 minus the price of any training the apprentice has already received.
Employer 1 should not have been paying for the assessment until the training actually finished (which it did not), therefore the assessment price should continue to be recorded as £450 as the apprentice hadn’t received any assessment (i.e EPA) prior to moving to employer 2 (Remember the assessment price does not include continuous assessment or progress reviews – the cost of this should be in your training costs).
Employer 1 has in effect paid for £704 of training not assessment.
Price is £10000
Training cost £9000
Assessment cost £1000
The £10000 is spread out into 80% On programme and 20% completion.
The 20% would represent the £1000 remaining of on programme payments, and £1000 for end point assessment.
As the TNP02/TNP04 should represent the EPA price only as per ILR Spec, the completion payment will in theory pay for your EPA (but only after you ve paid out for it in the first place).
In you are apportioning part of the 80% on programme each month to pay for your EPAs each month, that would be up to you, but you wouldn’t reflect this in your TNP 03 and TNP 04 entries.
Using your example:
Total price – £1,936
Assessment price – £450
Training – £1,486
Your completion payment would then be 20% of £1,936, so £387.20, so you will have received part of the assessment price as part of your on programme payments (£62.80) prior to the EPA happening.
TNP 02 should be a fixed cost and represent the price of your EPA (i.e the price charged by the EPAO). It should not include any costs associated with ongoing assessment.
Transfer them back to the start date so they look like they have always been on the 90 credit?
Totally goes against any ILR principles though!
We had conversations about the transfer process, but now we’ve just realised that we didn’t actually go into specific details. Something we need to think about also.
- This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by jessicar.
Just throwing something in there that isn’t accounted for anywhere in the rules, and as they stand now, you couldn’t do it but…. you’d think that this would be an acceptable scenario to extend the planned end date on the ILR, either making the change in year or transferring the apprentice to correct it.
When they start to monitor timely achievements for standards, its unlikely you ll be able to report a learner whose working hours have changed as timely as in theory it will take them longer to complete their OTJ over their new extended duration.March 12, 2020 at 4:39 pm in reply to: Off the job hours when a learner changes working pattern from FT to PT term time #433517
Do you mean your using Comp Status=1 and outcome=8 after learning has finished, and then once the learner has sat the EPA updating it to Comp Status=2 and outcome=1?
Like Ruth says are you recording Achievement Date? – completion monies are only earned when comp status= 2 and achievement date is not null.
Ok, so my point is if the apprentice worked more than 30 hours initially, the original and new OTJ figures won’t match as the duration calculation uses a standard 30 hours and OTJ uses the actual working hours:
Based on a 37 hour week moving to a 15 hour week
Original OTJ based on 37 hours for 52 weeks = 343.36
16 weeks at 37h/w= 105.65 OTJ
balance of the 52 weeks :36 extended by 30/15 =72
72 weeks at 15h/w= 192.74 OTJ h
New Total = 105.65 + 192.74 = 298.39
If this is correct, do you have to amend the OTJ figure recorded in the ILR?
balance of the 52 weeks :36 extended by 30/15 =72
So using your example, if they worked 37 hours (and not 30) would the above formula be:
balance of the 52 weeks :36 extended by 37/15
balance of the 52 weeks :36 extended by 30/15
i.e does the formula always use 30, or does this represent the original full time working hours?
Still can’t get my head around this…
Martin how have you arrived at 96 OTJ hours for the first 4 months?
Edit can see you have used 30 working hours, but will the new total always be the same even if the apprentice originally worked 37 hours?
The OTJ calc uses working hours, but the part time duration calc in funding rules uses a set 30 hours for anything full time.
Are you saying replace 30 with 37 in your calculation to extend the duration?
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by jessicar.