lharkins

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 106 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • lharkins
    Participant

    I got this back from service desk this morning:

    “…Good afternoon
    The Update simply indicates that your data for R13/R14 and R01 should be up to date and any amendments completed before the hard close for each return. This is directed at those providers who need to make amendments (because of Covid 19 issues, Breaks in learning etc) and have not yet done so.

    Thank you for contacting the ESFA Service Centre…”

     

    lharkins
    Participant

    Yeah thanks Martin
    All start dates are pre-Aug 1st
    Have submitted a query to ESFA
    Be nice if we could claim extra money for all the non-error errors i have to try to resolve 🙂

     
    in reply to: SLD LSDPostcode_02 error #459218

    lharkins
    Participant

    They were OK in my R12!

    NE42, NE6, NE63

    Most appear to BE NE codes

     
    in reply to: SLD LSDPostcode_02 error #459210

    lharkins
    Participant

    @ Martin

    Thanks Martin, I saw 194. however I cannot see any situation or that would show “…where assessment has identified the learner cannot undertake provision identified in paragraph 193…”

    Am i just being thick?

     
    in reply to: Trainee Essential Digital Skills #459207

    lharkins
    Participant

    Thanks for the responses
    I found the 2 EDSQ aims in HUB but this cannot be the case.
    What are other providers doing for their 19+ trainees?
    Are you delivering a suitable alternative?
    What about RPA/RPL?
    If someone has a Level 3 in IT, are we expected to ignore it and put them through an assessment for the essential Digital Skills?
    Thats a bit like ignoring someones A level maths

    I have spent hours looking for guidance

     
    in reply to: Trainee Essential Digital Skills #459184

    lharkins
    Participant

    Hi Martin.
    Thanks its what i thought first. but my MIS is telling me thee have been no changes to these records and they have not been errors prior to last week. We also made no changes and the 3 from last week have come off the match report and a new one which again had no data changes has appeared

     
    in reply to: Apprenticeship Data Match Report #456471

    lharkins
    Participant

    Have you tried the EPAO Directory. there’s lots on there and they appear to have all their fees on. Admittedly i haven’t looked at a lot but there’s plenty of contact detail too

    https://www.epaodirectory.com/home

    HTH

     
    in reply to: EPAO's #415583

    lharkins
    Participant

    Just confirmation. received this from helpdesk::

    Further to your query;

    Rule name: phours_01

    Please refer to the guidance below – Para 4.2.4 – Page 29 onwards

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/823097/ProviderSupportManual_19_20_Version_1_PDF.pdf

    If you have any 18/19 carryover learners into 19/20 then you should only include the off the job hours for the new period of learning left.

    Best go back through again and fix the fix for the fix to avoid the error…..

     
    in reply to: restart planned hours #412493

    lharkins
    Participant

    I have an open ticket with the helpdesk on this one.

    Its only supposed to apply to new starts (BiL is a restart…)and has not been an issue till now

    They originally pointed me to the wrong guidance in the PSM

    If they ever get back to me ill post their reply

     
    in reply to: restart planned hours #408621

    lharkins
    Participant

    Is the key the learning?

    if for example the learner went past the end date but had completed all the learning elements and refused to do the end point assessments for example. They would be complete but have failed

    If however they missed every 2nd learning session and still had learning outstanding after the expected end date they would be a withdrawal

    Martin i think them coming back would be complicated anyway with the system as it is lol

     
    in reply to: Withdrawal -v- Complete #406149

    lharkins
    Participant

    Totally agree Chris. There is a need to ensure minimum training and there should be a quality driven requirement but really think someone needs to do FS numeracy at L2 down at the policy department…

     
    in reply to: 20 % off the job and 30 weekly hours #366616

    lharkins
    Participant

    OMG. MY SMT are going to think i’m completely incompetent having just issues new guidance to people i’m going to have to redo it. Hey, here’s an idea, why dont i just re-issue it and send out a quiet email to everyone so they can miss the update. At least i’ll be OK…

    I know this is policy and its in the rules but in the real world, can someone (and by someone ESFA would be good) give me a valid reason why someone on a 52 week apprenticeship working a 40 hour week (on average) needs to to in real terms and based the ESFA commitment statement calculation, over 100 hours more OTJ training? Is it because we assume more working hours means needs more training? if that’s the case why does not someone on a 20 hour contract need to do 100 hours less training?

    I’m sure it is going to come up again in our employer negotiations and I know our Apprenticeship Director is going to ask…

    Would love to see a written justification as to how this works from the ESFA. And by that i mean a quantifiable study that shows unambiguously that someone working more hours per week needs more training…

     
    in reply to: 20 % off the job and 30 weekly hours #366596

    lharkins
    Participant

    Just had this
    Fixed by making sure all 4 SQL services were started

     
    in reply to: FIS Storage settings #324936

    lharkins
    Participant

    if you have 16-18 allocation you can find it here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/16-to-19-allocation-data-2018-to-2019-academic-year

    in the spreadsheet

     
    in reply to: Upin number #309352

    lharkins
    Participant

    Thank you for the reply but i dont appreciate the tone.

    Where does it say a learner who passes their level 1 functional skills tests on week 50 of a week 54 week apprenticeship must be put through the turmoil of an exam at level 2. How does that benefit the learner?

    we are talking about learners assessed as operating at E3 or below, who often struggle with exams and often need more than 1 attempt.

    I cannot see in the assessment plan where this is a requirement for EPA gateway

     
    in reply to: Functional skills and Standards #254470

    lharkins
    Participant

    Hi

    I thought i knew the score with this but now i am confused again. If we dont need to show anything in our accounting system, what does this paragraph about this very question mean (received from help desk recently)

    However the provider (as employer) is still expected to contribute co-investment as a portion of the total costs of the apprenticeship, so the amount of co-investment shown on funding reports doesn’t change when LDM code 356 is used.

    How can we prove we are contributing the co-investment payment if we dont show we are contributing the co-investment payment in the accounting system. Is this where the detailed breakdown of costs comes in?

     
    in reply to: Employer/Provider = the same #251775

    lharkins
    Participant

    Not sure about the legality side of things but the rules make it clear that this cannot be done: “[Apprentices must] not be asked to contribute financially to the direct cost of learning or assessment (this includes where an apprentice leaves their programme early; employers must not claim training or assessment costs back from ex-apprentices.)”

    As far as i am concerned, as a provider we are obligated to protect the Apprentice so i would certainly be raising this as an issue with the employer reminding them what the rules they signed up to state

    It would be down to our business development professionals to ensure any such issue was rectified and our SLA makes it clear the employer must not do this before they are signed up

    I would see this in the same way as if our apprentice was working in a dangerous site or was being paid below minimum wage

     
    in reply to: Apprentice withdrawal fees #248598

    lharkins
    Participant

    Also, is there a list of state benefits that can be accepted outside the ESA, JAS UC?

     
    in reply to: Learner classification #247616

    lharkins
    Participant

    signing*

     
    in reply to: Learner classification #247614

    lharkins
    Participant

    Thanks Martin, and if they are not singing on for the NI credits?

     
    in reply to: Learner classification #247612

    lharkins
    Participant

    Should also mention the learner does not fit in to funding rule 142 or 143 classifications as far as i can tell

     
    in reply to: Learner classification #247608

    lharkins
    Participant

    Did not say the were not, just that i could not find any link where they said it would be

    Thanks for posting

     

    lharkins
    Participant

    So do I…

    Its March now and all I can find is the Dashboard
    I need the tables for what my SMT want.
    Any ideas where they are anyone?

     

    lharkins
    Participant

    Hi
    We generally try to use the LRS verification type as this covers 2 areas at the same time.
    With people who have no official ID (and yes we got some) we see what they can provide
    HTH

     
    in reply to: Identification debate #238850

    lharkins
    Participant

    Just an update in case any one else needs to know:

    Reply form help desk –
    “I have looked into the query regarding the Lottery funded learners, I would advise that this would not effect any government funded learning.”

     
    in reply to: Lottery funding #238153
Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 106 total)