Forum Replies Created
As there is already a £1000 incentive for employers and providers for taking on a 16-18 year old, they do not receive anything in addition for care leavers (as far as i know!)
I could be wrong though!
As Mark and Martin said, we base the hours on the funding rule requirements on the learners start date and do not retrospectively change them unless the funding rules were updated mid year.
In the case of OTJ, they were not and it was just for new starts from August 18 that the annual leave reduction was introduced.
Frustrating as always!
Hi all, what are your thoughts on main providers using delivery subcontractors when learners are funded via this interim period?
Is it allowed?
KateJanuary 9, 2020 at 3:43 pm in reply to: New SME Funding – Main Provider deliver their own? #419489
I think so, but i am going to have another double check now!
Thank you for coming back so quickly!
You don’t need achievement dates for frameworks – only standards 🙂
The most recent apprenticeship funding rules state that they expect progress reviews to be agreed upon and documented in the commitment statement:
P65.8 Details of tripartite progress reviews (main provider, employer, apprentice), including the frequency and format, to discuss progress to date against the commitment statement and the immediate next steps required.
So I think the fact that they want the details of agreed reviews to be in the commitment statement means they are expecting to see them taking place.
I’ve been given the below information from the data service this morning (in reference to a learner who failed in 18/19 and will be re-sitting in 19/20):
‘I have confirmed with the ILR team that you only record the first attempt on the ILR and do not change it – regardless if the resit is in the same academic year or not.
If a learners needs additional learning in order to pass the assessment, then a new learning aim should be recorded as a restart with a Funding adjustment for prior learning to account for the new learning required to pass the resit.’
Hope this helps!
Did you get a response? I have the exact same issue.
The provider support manual states:
7.4 Work preparation
755. Work preparation can consist of either a regulated qualification or a non-regulated
756. For non-regulated work preparation aims, the learning aim you record depends on
whether the traineeship is 16-19 funded or Adult skills funded:
16 to 18 traineeships (16-19 funded) should record one of the nonregulated work preparation aims from category E of Appendix H
19 to 24 traineeships (Adult skills funded) should record one of the nonregulated work preparation aims from category A of Appendix H
I don’t know if this will help 🙂
Did you get any clarity on this?
Thank you both!
In my blind panic i didn’t even think to look for another forum thread – I feel much better now!
I asked this of the data service last week:
‘Please could you advise on the below situation:
Learner is planned to be on programme for 14 months but is ready to complete in 12 (assuming this is acceptable as per funding rules and framework)
Would the learner only be required to complete the off the job based on 12 months of being on programme, or would they need to evidence off the job for the planned 14 months as per the original off the job plan?’
The response was as follows:
‘They would need to evidence the off the job training for the original planned 14 month job plan.’
So whatever is planned, must be evidenced, even if the learner completes early.
Where learners are 19-23, their first L2 qualification must come from the legal entitlements list.
They can complete L1 quals but can not complete L2 local flex quals until they hold a legal entitlement qualification.March 6, 2019 at 12:05 pm in reply to: The Prior attainment is not valid for this learning aim #353083
We had this message this morning too!
The issue we found was a learner who was completing functional skills (legal entitlement) had been coded as low wage.
The low wage code wasn’t required as this learner would receive full funding regardless due to the qualifications being a legal entitlement.
I hope this helps!
It looks at first glance that they are all there on the summary (even the ones with no queries) however I’m missing 3 of them!
Ill see if they are still missing last month.
I’ve downloaded mine and some of the reports are missing from the summery – is this an indication that they are still a work in progress?
Thank you for this.
The reason I ask is because I am struggling to explain this to our assessors.
We work with learners with the intention of them sitting the exams however i just wanted to check if it was or wasn’t a requirement that they passed.
That would be great!
Thank you so much for your help 🙂
We use OneFile to record which seems to work well.
This always confuses me but I think yes!
Its 19-23 year olds which need a full (legal entitlement) level 2 prior to being able to complete anything from local flexibility.
Obviously, as they are employed they would only be eligible for co-funding (unless they meet the low wage criteria) and the training couldn’t be delivered at the workplace.
I’ve been asked the same question today – but in relation to the new AEB low wage criteria being applied next year.
Any thoughts anyone?
As far as i’m aware, if the learner already holds a L2/L3 legal entitlement then they are eligible to complete a L2 local flexibility qualification.
Still awaiting ours too!
Dawn and Martin, you are correct!
I have read that but it makes reference to V4 of the funding rules, not the new V6.
I asked the data service and i got the below response:
Thanks for your email
You will find the summary of changes at the bottom of the first funding rules page V6
I hope this helps with your query
But they aren’t there!