Forum Replies Created
Nevermind.. this oneis back in my latest submissions reports.
And not just the low number of queries to trigger a letter, but the effective timescales from the first set of FRM reports, to being able to confirm resolutions / outstanding issues. The balance seems a bit off right now.
First set of FRM reports available around 18th December if remember correctly… for us this meant 1.5 days to work on them prior to Christmas break and then another 2 days following before the R05 submission (obviously not the only thing we’re working on mind). Then having to wait until around the 20th Jan to confirm whether first attempt at R04 queries are fixed in R05’s FRM reports or not. Then, what, 14 working days from there to R06 deadline and letters go out even if you have a very low number queries remaining.. a bit harsh no?!
FRM20 – does the ULN field show for the rest of you?
The “period end” version of the Apps Additional Payment Report is now showing levy payments against the November column, but still nothing against October levy column. We were paid employer incentives for levy providers back on the 20th November ESFA remittance… yet still don’t seem to have any way to reconcile them using this report.
I have a number of apprentices from levy providers appearing on here where the Total Negotiated Price = Funding Band Max, so I can’t see a reason they would be on here. Is there anything else to check?
Does this FRM report have the ability to query the employer’s levy pot and check if it’s run out of funds and therefore switching to a co-investment model?
I was looking at the FIS version of Apps Indicative Earnings report to check how much funding was being calculated. Having checked The Hub’s version of the same report I can see that it does calculate the funding differently/correctly… i.e. if I make the TNP 1 and TNP 2 split total the original amount (e.g. £5,000), it does deduct funding earned in a previous year, which it seems the FIS version of the report does not.
Makes me wonder why the FIS version of this report has been published if it’s got this type disparity.
I don’t think they remember exactly when the split was known… just that it was in 2018-19. Is it not ok to just put it as 1/8/2018 to make these records applicable from this academic year onwards?
Also, if I have the first TNP1 as the original full value (e.g. £5,000) with a date matching the 2017-18 start date, then a second pair of TNP1 & 2 records (e.g. £4,250 + £750) with a date in 2018-19 (making a combined total of £5,000) then when I look on the Apps Indicative Earnings report for 2018-19, one of our completed-achieved apprentices has earned £5,000 for 2018-19. This can’t really be right if they have already drawn funding in the previous academic year… we would have drawn more than £5,000 across the 2 academic years when the cost of the apprenticeship has always been £5,000.
If there is only 1 price record on the DAS, then I guess either I can’t fix DLOCK_07 or I have to make the split TNP 1 & 2 the same price? As mentioned above, when I tested it this way, it seemed to draw more funding on the App Indicative Earning report than the cost of apprenticeship.. i.e. we get whatever was drawn down in 2017-18 when it was a single TNP record PLUS the full price of the apprenticeship in 2018-19.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Matt.
I’ve gone through the following phases/chapters/eons trying to fix DLOCK_07 for apprentices that started towards the end of 2017-18:
1) Record TNP 1 training records for the full cost of the apprenticeship as staff didn’t know what the split of training / assessment would be initially.
– No errors with this, but we weren’t recording TNP 2 for assessment cost (which we should).
2) Record TNP 1 training and TNP 2 assessment records for the split of training and assessment costs dated the same as the apprenticeship start date.
– Received DLOCK_07 errors that don’t make much sense, i.e. ILR value and DAS value are the same on DLOCK report, but apparently this is a “mis-match”. I can only assume this is because the DAS has a single TNP1 record for a particular price and our ILR now has 2 TNP records each different prices (even though they add to the same total price)?
3) Reinstate original TNP 1 training price for the full cost of the apprenticeship.
– Fixed DLOCK_07 errors, but received R68 errors on Rule Violations report (learner must not have more than one Apprenticeship Financial Record with the same FinType, Code and Date). I assume this is because I have 2 TNP1 records with the same date. I figure I should state that the split applies from 2018-19 and ensure the correct proportion of funding is drawn-down in 2018-19.
4) Amend the date of the split TNP 1 training and TNP 2 assessment records to have a date of 1/8/2018. Amend the TNP 1 training record for the split so that this and the TNP 2 assessment record equal the price remaining as of R14 of 2017-18 (i.e. so we only draw-down the proportion of funding remaining for 2018-19)
– Fixed R68 errors, but received DLOCK_07 errors again, this time the ILR value and DAS value are different.
…so I guess this means we need to get the employer to record this TNP split on their side too?
I’ve just tried this and it’s telling me that the 2 TNP1 records I now have can’t have same date (Rule Violation error R68).
Not really sure what other date I would put as the total negotiated price is still the same, it’s just been split out.
Thanks Ruth… our English and maths team are aiming for 100% compliance on CoF, so are getting twitchy about these few blips on this report. I’ll tell them to filter-out that cohort and I’ll raise it with the ESFA.
Based on the bit I quoted from CoF page, I would have thought the report would just say “Condition of Funding Does Not Apply” for all the “19+ continuing students” cohort, regardless of what their prior English/maths grades were or if they happened to be enrolled on a English/maths GCSE.
For us, none of our “19+ continuing students” cohort in the report have been labelled with “Condition of Funding Does Not Apply”. Do you need to explicitly flag these as exempt in some way? None of ECF/MCF codes would seem to be relevant for this.
Or perhaps this report just doesn’t reflect the ESFA’s rules?
@natalie-esfa Will a second version of the performance management rules for training providers published? The last performance management point (from the current V1 PMRs) for non-levy apprentices starting from Jan 2018 was using the R12 return of 2017-18. We’re still not completely clear on how this has been performance-managed since that point. We’ve heard through the grapevine that the allocation is performance-managed over “blocks” (block 1 = Jan-18 to Mar-18; block 2 = Apr-18 to July-18; block 3 = Aug-18 to Mar-19; block 4 = Apr-19 to July-19… etc.) but this surely should be made explicit in a new version of the performance management rules?
Ours isn’t SOF=1, but is FM=99, so it would seem that paragraph (b) would apply and so it would need an HE dataset.
Sorry, by “null” I meant null in our MI system. None of the fields/tags for these 3 fields have been exported to our ILR XML file.
One aim ref that’s coming up a lot for us is Z0001942. LARS says “NUL – Null Value” for all 3.
Sounds like a bug to me. Not on the FIS known issues doc yet.
The PCFLDCS_01 validation rule states: “If any of the LDCS fields (LearningDeliveryHE.PCFLDCS, LearningDeliveryHE.PCSLDCS, LearningDeliveryHE.PCTLDCS) have been returned and LearningDelivery.LearnStartDate => 2009-08-01 and the sum of the returned fields <> 100″
…which to me suggests that if all 3 are null then the rule shouldn’t trigger (at the moment it is triggering when all 3 are null).
Dan, Henry… as you’ve stated: “Submission deadline of final funding claim in the HUB – Monday 29th October (5pm)” …should you not update the blog post as it still states:
“You must submit a final funding claim by 5pm on Wednesday 24 October 2018 on the Hub.” … “You will not be able to complete the form after the deadline on Wednesday 24 October 2018.”
Not amending the hours for a student that withdrew from their entire study programme would only make sense (to me anyway) if the funding system knew not to generate funding for them based on completion statuses and latest actual end date being before qualifying period – do you know if this is how it works in this scenario?
Thanks – the Funding Summary Report is much easier to digest for these types of earnings.
Where the student has done both the Award and then the Certificate, is there any issue in only registering and accrediting them for the Certificate?
Also: if I read that right regarding the core aim – where they progress from Award to Certificate, the core aim should be re-assigned to the more substantial qualification? I.e. core aim is on the Award to being with, then when they progress to the Certificate the core aim is moved to the Certificate?September 6, 2017 at 12:36 pm in reply to: In-Year Award/Certificate Progression in Study Programme #195300
Thought so – thanks Martin.
Thanks Alex. We received that breakdown, but as it was based on 2016-17 delivery I initially wasn’t going to use it for this. Perhaps I will now though since there seems to be little else!
Well that’s frustrating!
We’re trying to complete a tender for more non-levy funds, and part of the requirement is give our percentage of non-levy apprenticeship delivery for 2015-16.
Hard to do without going back to every employer we engaged with in 2015-16 and asking them if they’re paying the levy or not!
Anyone else doing the same tender?
Thanks very much Chris – appreciate it.
Thank you. Annoying how they get this export right one year and then change it all in the next.
I can put together a table based on the Validation Rules spreadsheet and match on the RuleID field to get the rest of the info. Bit of a faff, but hey..
If you’re clicking on the “Contract & Finances” tab, it should be showing in the “Latest contracts and finances documents” section in the top-right. Make sure you right-click and “save target as” for downloading spreadsheets from the hub.