[sambernSpectator]

Yes we had them in a similar way. We found that when we went into apprenticeship service and filtered by data match the values were actually different from the ILR and were able to request a change. Which I think resolved the issue.

The issues seems related with TNP 3&4. However we never heard back from the service desk or the apprenticeship service. We’ve been chasing this issue since February in one form or another.

[sambernSpectator]

Thanks Martin, that was the issue.

They had not migrated to our 18/19 export this will be rectified at R14.

[sambernSpectator]

On our MIS we have entered them as withdrawals, but looking at the data I can see that the withdrawal reason in the QAR is ‘Not withdrawn’. I’m going to chase this up with our MIS to make sure the withdrawal is being properly updated in the export.

Thanks for suggesting that.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by  sambern.

[sambernSpectator]

We also haven’t had a FRM R01, we have had the R13 for 18/19, but nothing yet for R01 19/20. It might be because the data match wasn’t available for R01. Normally they start these a few months into the year.

[sambernSpectator]

Like many of the above comments, we’re collecting this information in our e-portfolio system. Reporting this on a monthly basis wouldn’t be possible for us currently and would require substantive development and process change.

We’d be able to provide this figure at the end of programme when it has been internally audited and confirmed by our quality and admin teams. As a month to month basis I don’t see how this would work without triggering accidental errors or other issues.

[sambernSpectator]

Thank you Natalie, that was really useful. Has the Q&A document that’s discussed in the video been released as well?

[sambernSpectator]

On this report I believe you should be checking that the two columns Employer Co Investment Required and Training Payments Received are similar or match. They need to match completely by a learners completion/withdrawal and should be updated a minimum of every three months. Depending on how you invoice and receive payments they may not match completely until the end of programme.

Levy employers appear on here once they have used up their Levy Pot. However you don’t receive any notice of this happening other then the learner being added to the Co-Investment report that is generated in the App Monthly reports on the hub. So it’s a good one to check every month.

[sambernSpectator]

I noticed this on the hub today and remembered this thread. It might be useful to this issue. See below.

This release includes a data fix which affects reports FRM12 and FRM15. Some providers may notice a significant increase in the number of records appearing in these reports from R10 onwards.

For FRM12, these reports should now align to the funding reports on the Hub that highlight where employer co-investment is required. You will need to collect co-investment for the apprenticeships on this report.

For FRM15, apprentices on standards must have an EPAO recorded. Please review and update the EPAO where appropriate.​

[sambernSpectator]

I just had this response from the service desk

Dear Sam

Thank you for your interest in the ILR webinar.

This will shortly be available on Gov.uk.

Regards
Susan
Service Desk

[sambernSpectator]

Thanks Martin, I’ve emailed the service desk, hopefully someone will respond shortly.

[sambernSpectator]

I’d be happy with just the slides, if anyone from the ESFA is reading this please let us know where we can read them?

[sambernSpectator]

Has the webinar been made available?

[sambernSpectator]

Below is my understanding although it’s a bit hypothetical as we haven’t dealt with that specific situation.

It depends on whether the learner started this academic year and if there was an employer contribution.

The ILR alone will return the money, however if the Apprenticeship Service doesn’t match it’ll block your attempt to assign the learner to the correct employer as a learner can only be partaking in one Apprenticeship at a time on the AS. If the employer has made a contribution via co-investment which has been recorded, you also need to make sure that this is reimbursed and this is recorded in the ILR to trigger the payback. Although I’m not sure how having these payments after the end date would deal with data errors.

You can only return money or affect this academic year as we’re past the hard close of 17/18.

[sambernSpectator]

Hi All

I queried this with the ESFA in the autumn (so things might have moved on since then) and received this file. They gave me this guidance as to how to use it.

The first link I’ve used as a reference for the ONS file (which is huge) that let me pull out a list of initial Postcode Letters so we could send out a recruitment tool that can be used at signup.

Hope this helps.

The File from the ESFA

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Cd5Oj0zoYzMUhlVkhyTElmX01Fams5VXQwWVU0VTNteFFB/view?usp=sharing

Their email to me.
Please find attached a spreadsheet showing where LAs are in or out of a devolved area.

Providers can also use a geographical data lookup from the Office for National Statistics website to map learner postcodes to local authorities from which the devolved and non-devolved delivery can be determined. The ONS postcode file can be found here:

https://ons.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=8da1cb5b6daa4d72b8bbef115cf26746

• This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by  sambern.

[sambernSpectator]

Thanks Martin, that’s what I thought. We’re awaiting the initial assessment outcome against the new apprenticeship standard. What I described above is more the worst case scenario as the different standards are quite different but I wanted to check my recommendations on that specific outcome of initial assessment.

That’s a really interesting point that I hadn’t taken into account Martin with the Apprenticeship Agreement. Have you heard of anyone has anyone enforcing it with an Employer and Learner in a situation like this?

[sambernSpectator]

Thanks Martin, that IA funding review page it links to is really useful I’ll bookmark it for the future.

[sambernSpectator]

Where was this communicated? I know that ILM were a part of a group contesting the reduction and it was placed on hold pending the outcome, but I haven’t found an update that provided the date when this was happening.

[sambernSpectator]

Not sure if this is off topic. Just wanted to see what other people are sending through.

With the ROTAP application, the question

“Upload a copy of your registration certificate from the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).

It must include processing of personal data for delivering education and training.”

I’ve spoken to the ICO and they’ve said that Certificates no longer show the purpose for being on the register. So whereas previously our certificate showed that we were an education establishment on the briefing sheet. Now it just shows our name and DPO. Is there something I’m missing?

[sambernSpectator]

Learners below the MS threshold applies to all learners whether they achieved or not when the cohort they belong to is under 62% (for apprenticeship, this is different for certificates and other qualifications). Refer to the minimum standards of success document for 17/18 (I don’t think they’ve released 18/19 yet).

So if the overall success rates for Intermediate Apprenticeship in Equine services (I made that up) is at 58% all learners in that cohort whether they achieved or failed are considered to be below MS.

[sambernSpectator]

Thanks for confirming Matt!

[sambernSpectator]

Same here, I think it’s due this anytime this week.

[sambernSpectator]

I don’t see it yet either. It should be appearing in the Business Reports tab which is where the 17/18 reports appeared.

[sambernSpectator]

We’re also having issues, we’re struggling to reconcile the remittance advice with the Period End Funding summary report that’s generated in the apps period end zip file in the hub. Maybe we should share how we’re reconciling these two reports?

I’ve started a thread elsewhere as we also have an issue with payments and withdrawals without a contract number in the remittance advice. Does anyone else have this?

[sambernSpectator]

Thanks Alison, I did see that earlier thread however as these lines had no contract number I didn’t feel they fitted into the regular remittance issues that we’re also having.

Does your remittance advice have blank contract numbers on as well?

[sambernSpectator]

Yes you’re correct. Sorry Couldn’t find it previously. Thanks Martin.