Forum Replies Created
Thanks @steveh, you’ve confirmed my thoughts. I’ll feedback to the team and they can work through some alternatives. The idea just raised a warning flag with me and I wanted to double-check with others before they commenced planning.
Thanks Steve, that’s what I thought (and was worried about). Managers are doing planning and coming up with creative ideas for continuing our provision and maintaining social distancing. This particular idea got me twitchy.
Doing the Zoom call means tutors will be doing 32 hours of teaching instead of 16 as each week they will have 2 hours with the classroom and 2 hours with the remote learners. The cost of offering these preparatory course is going to double if we wish to maintain the learner numbers. Alternatively, we cut the learner numbers and lose funding.
We don’t deal with Apprenticeships but if someone had started on one particular aim and then changed to another you would close off the original aim with the appropriate completion/outcome codes and add the new one.
If you have mistakenly recorded an incorrect aim on the ILR for a learner then you would just change it.
We understand exactly the same, Peter. We can provide learning support but it does not get claimed via the ILR and does not go on the Learning Support line of the funding claim.
Thanks Helen and Dave. That’s really useful and I honestly can’t remember having seen in before. I’ll give you a call, Dave.
Ah, I see, @Ruth_CJ. Yes, you’re right @melonroof would need to put in the Benefit Status.
However, I think the validation rule is failing simply because the employment status is ‘Employed’ and there is no LDM 363. This would only apply to ESFA funded aims, though. If @melonroof is devolved then she has the same issue I have where LDM363 is not taken into account at all and it looks like we have to do some jiggery-pokery with the Other Funding Adjustment field.
These are learners who are employed but earn less than £17,550. They’re not on any benefits but the GMCA will fully-fund them. The ESFA do the same but with a lower income threshold. The LDM coded 363 is used to indicate these for ESFA funded learners.
An employed person is co-funded unless they earn less than the low wage threshold determined by your funding body or doing one of the entitlement aims. If you are funded by the ESFA and their income is less than the threshold then you would put code 363 in the Learning Delivery Monitoring to indicate that.
If you are not funded by the ESFA (like me…) then we have problems.
Thanks @warrilowk. I’ve not seen any guidance from the GMCA so I’d best get on to them.
Oh dear, that sounds horrendous. Thanks for responding.
I was at a GMCA Event last week and they said the ESFA will be issuing data files to show which postcodes fall within which Combined Authority.
You’re right, we don’t switch off once we reach allocation currently. However, it is much easier to manage when it is one allocation for all of your provision. When you’re given just 14k for a subset of learners who live just over the hill then it is a different story. Just one extra person on an ITQ would put us at 6% over the allocation.
Awesome. It’s going to be great fun keeping track of how much of the reduced ESFA funding is being used for those outside of the Combined Authority. What do you do once you’ve spent your allocation? Turn people away?
I would say fully-funded if they are in a Work Group for Universal Credit.
If they are not in a Work Group for Universal Credit then they would be fully funded at your discretion. You would need to be satisfied that they will start seeking work once they are better and that they need these skills in order to improve their chances of finding work.
Ah, I see. So v1 said you must keep but v2 had it removed. Thanks Martin. I always visit the site to get the documents so I always know I’m referring to the most up to date version. The flaw in that plan is that I don’t have previous versions to compare…
Sorry for dragging this one up again but I’ve found something that needs clarification regarding the evidence requirements.
Para 152 of the rules states we must have seen evidence of the learner’s gross annual wages.
..says “providers must see and keep supporting evidence” (my emphasis).
I’m tempted to go with the guidance issued in the funding rules document rather than a news announcement but I don’t want to get pulled at audit for not keeping the evidence.
And data retention periods.. Is this the same as the document retention period?
I agree that it is vital we get some guidance on this from the ESFA. Since we are giving the data them then they must surely have to let the learners know what they are doing with it.
One part I’m struggling with is the data retention period? We know that for match-funded provision we have to keep documents up to 31/12/2030 but do we have to keep the data for the same length of time? How long will the ESFA be keeping it for?
I think this is quite a big deal for the sector. Aqua has been the system of choice for a large number of local authorities for over 20 years.
Now, a lot of local authorities and other providers will have to make a large investment in new software that a) they didn’t expect to and b) probably won’t have the money for.
If you’re in the North-West, Matt Smith at Cheshire West & Chester Council is organising a meeting next Wednesday with a view of forming an alliance to try and get a good deal.
To answer @leonara’s question, though. We’re in the process of switching to Tribal.
It’s a known issue. See here:
Have they only recently been allocated a ULN? There is a delay between learners being allocated a ULN and that ULN reaching the Hub.
Like you say, shows an incredible lack of understanding of this group.
The aim this learner is doing is not on the entitlement list and they are employed so not on any benefits. None of these circumstances would usually indicate full funding.
I seem to have missed this little detail from the Government Contribution Table. And I’ve also missed the reasoning behind it. A person with a prior attainment of Level 3 can be funded for a Level 2 qualification but a person with a prior attainment of Level 1 cannot? That makes no sense to me at all.
It is calculated using number of days between dates and not sessions (e.g. a course that is once a week would have 15 days between three sessions.)
From Wednesday’s update:
6. Qualification achievement rates (QAR) 2016 to 2017 – provisional data window
We will publish your provisional QAR data for 2016 to 2017 in the week commencing Monday 8 January 2018.
You have until 5pm Friday 2 February 2018 to inform us of any concerns about how we have implemented our published methodology; you cannot request fixes or adjustments to your 2016 to 2017 ILR data.
Your final QAR data will be published during March 2018.