Ryan Wiseman
Last activity
Member since
Votes
21
Subscriptions
21
Replies
Ryan Wiseman commented,
I assume these apprenticeship aims that are 2&8 are non-mandatory to the STD? Or else they wouldn't have been able to enter gateway. Doesn't help you for right now, this is why we record ours as FM99 & Aim Type 4, if the ESFA/Auditors want an opinion on these courses we are delivering in good faith to students/employers they can start contributing towards it. If I was in the scenario of having them as components I would have done a 2&8 and waited for the achievement when the learner sat in EPA to then change it to 2&1. As Steve makes no difference from a funding point of view.
I assume these apprenticeship aims that are 2&8 are non-mandatory to the STD? Or else they wouldn't have been able to enter gateway. Doesn't help you for right now, this is why we record ours as FM...
Ryan Wiseman commented,
Hi Angelique, Yes looks like a problem with the new FIS. We have a problem with the new 2425.6 version & various other providers have discussed on JISC they are also having a problem. I would suggest using your current version for now to produce the CSV/other tasks you use it for & use the Submit Learner Data as your error checking tool until it's resolved. Ryan
Hi Angelique,Yes looks like a problem with the new FIS. We have a problem with the new 2425.6 version & various other providers have discussed on JISC they are also having a problem. I would sugges...
Ryan Wiseman commented,
To add to this, completely agree with Ruth 100% The scenario I get myself twisted where planned delivery hasn't happened for example: Scenario 1: Level 3 Animal Management - 520 hours - L.D.A - 14/12/24 - Ok claiming for full 520 Tutorial - 34 Hours - L.D.A 09/12/24 - Ok claiming for full 34 hours Work Experience - 30 hours - Never started or organised yet. This co-hort has their planned work experience time in March 25 is this a non-start and therefore hours shouldn't be recorded. Or do we justify that the learner would have done it if they didn't withdraw & we shouldn't be penalised so leave the learner as 584 & not reduce down to 554 Level 3 Animal Management - 520 hours - Student completed & achieves - Ok claiming for full 520 Tutorial - 34 Hours - Student completed & achieves - Ok claiming for full 34 hours Work Experience - 30 hours - This co-hort went out in March 25 and 48/50 students went out & are ok. The two learners that didn't go out, would you non-start their work experience if a "replacement" of 30 hours isn't delivered to drop them down to Band 4? I appreciate we aren't expected to go down the "actual" hours route & then you have things in the rules with discretions for full time BTEC's, 5 GCSE's, 3 or more AS/A2's where they expect to be paying you the Band 5 rate...
To add to this, completely agree with Ruth 100%The scenario I get myself twisted where planned delivery hasn't happened for example:Scenario 1: Level 3 Animal Management - 520 hours - L.D.A - 14/12...
Ryan Wiseman commented,
Yes, we are getting these errors recently as well. For us it's all learners who are 24+ years of age showing as fully funded on their local flexibility courses - with the reason being they are unemployed & on benefits. We do not have the LDM - 391 Earnings Threshold against these learners. I've seen talks on JISC about this scenario regarding unemployed on benefits & guess we "could" put the Earnings Threshold against these students and "use our discretion" that learners are earning under 25k but it's not clear. I've not heard anything back from my helpdesk query yet to confirm if they want us to put the earnings threshold in or if these will change to a warning (only put it through on Tuesday 17th)
Yes, we are getting these errors recently as well.For us it's all learners who are 24+ years of age showing as fully funded on their local flexibility courses - with the reason being they are unemp...
Ryan Wiseman commented,
Hi Simon, If I was in this situation I think I would withdraw the learner from the original A Level programme (probably with 1 day before your 2nd year A Level students come back) re-enrol the student on the 2nd year course codes with 1 year dates to finish in summer 2025. Then in 24/25 you can flag the learner as normal & you don't have to worry about the FM99 roll-over record because it'll be closed. Then you can give a pro-rata refund for the YR2 if you collected the full fee. You are correct that you shouldn't change the roll-over records Fund Model because it will mis-match from your 23/24 R14 to your 24/25 R04 so it's either leave them as Fund Model 99 for the entire 2 years or withdraw and re-enrol. Which since it's full cost and wont hit your retention data i'd lean towards the withdrawal.
Hi Simon,If I was in this situation I think I would withdraw the learner from the original A Level programme (probably with 1 day before your 2nd year A Level students come back) re-enrol the stude...
Ryan Wiseman commented,
Yes Sarah that is correct. As an example for a 16 year old doing a Band 5 study programme doing regulated Maths & English you would get £375 x 2 for the Maths and English funding = £750 £570 x 2 for the Block 2 Disadvantage Funding = £1140 If a learner achieves both GCSE's with you in 24/25 & gets 4's in both subjects. In 25/26 you will no longer get this £750 but will continue to receive the £1140 for Block 2 if they continue on another Band 5 study programme. How it is calculated can be found here: 16 to 19 funding: English and maths funding - GOV.UK
Yes Sarah that is correct. As an example for a 16 year old doing a Band 5 study programme doing regulated Maths & English you would get £375 x 2 for the Maths and English funding = £750 £570 x 2 f...
Ryan Wiseman commented,
Feel for you in this scenario Rachel - this is something that really bugs me. Even though I agree with everything Ruth has said. From an employer engagement point of view if you're going to refer them to debt collection for a "small" amount of money - the chances of them going to another training provider for any future business is enhanced. In 23/24 we lost a £1800 completion payment because a Levy company had a shortfall and owed us £16. We had the training assessor, head of department, finance department all trying to contact the employer & in the end we absorbed the loss. We contemplated the idea of not letting the learner go into gateway until co-investment was 100% paid but we didn't want to penalise the learner for the employers negligence. 100% with you though Ruth - wish the apprenticeship service would take this task on. Or at least give us the flexibility of us still receiving our completion payments with co-investment due & instead the check in audit is to provide sufficient evidence we tried to contact the employer(s) & we were unable to receive payment... We're currently penalised multiple ways: The £ co-investment amount due, the College's time chasing up unpaid invoices & our completion payments being withheld.
Feel for you in this scenario Rachel - this is something that really bugs me. Even though I agree with everything Ruth has said. From an employer engagement point of view if you're going to refer t...
Ryan Wiseman commented,
Hi Janet, On some MIS systems a ZPROG001 is added as a default when your learning aim value is NULL (blank) against your course code/offering level & as a guess you have this against EEP like your tutorials, enrichments etc? It sounds like you need to go through and remove the ZPROG001 learning aims from your non apprenticeship, non t level/t level foundation courses which will then clear these errors asking for these additional fields to be populated. When the "error" is you shouldn't be returning this learning aim on the type of study programme you are describing.
Hi Janet,On some MIS systems a ZPROG001 is added as a default when your learning aim value is NULL (blank) against your course code/offering level & as a guess you have this against EEP like your t...
Ryan Wiseman commented,
Hi Roz, In the Core maths qualifications: technical guidance on page 5 - "In order to count in performance tables as Core Maths, qualifications should have allocated to them at least 180 GLH. I would imagine you may start losing benefits like your Core Maths premium 16 to 19 funding: core maths premium - GOV.UK if you don't get above the 180+ also.
Hi Roz, In the Core maths qualifications: technical guidance on page 5 - "In order to count in performance tables as Core Maths, qualifications should have allocated to them at least 180 GLH.I woul...
Ryan Wiseman commented,
Hi both, We must have missed this update and have been leaving funded courses our staff do as Full Cost (but charge no fee) which suggests now we could claim some funding. I've been trying to find something in the rules that confirms this change & have been struggling to locate. Would either of you be so kind to point out where this change is acknowledged in the guidance?
Hi both,We must have missed this update and have been leaving funded courses our staff do as Full Cost (but charge no fee) which suggests now we could claim some funding. I've been trying to find s...