Sam Bern
Last activity
Member since
Votes
51
Subscriptions
37
Replies
Sam Bern commented,
Yup not working here either, they sent an email earlier saying it's not working, but may not have sent it out to everyone.
Yup not working here either, they sent an email earlier saying it's not working, but may not have sent it out to everyone.
Sam Bern commented,
Yup we managed to get a xml file uploaded and a report out, but wasn't really enough to time to action any findings from it.
Yup we managed to get a xml file uploaded and a report out, but wasn't really enough to time to action any findings from it.
Sam Bern commented,
Thanks Steve, that's easier then the emails I've had so far. Just need to persuade the EPAO that it's OK as well now.
Thanks Steve, that's easier then the emails I've had so far. Just need to persuade the EPAO that it's OK as well now.
Sam Bern commented,
It started working again for us. Although seems to happen intermittently, as tried uploading a smaller file a bit later and it threw another error. I think it might be a capacity issue at the DFE end?
It started working again for us. Although seems to happen intermittently, as tried uploading a smaller file a bit later and it threw another error. I think it might be a capacity issue at the DFE end?
Sam Bern commented,
Thanks Martin, I know I'm reading too much into this, however if we amend the practical period end date according to Note 6 don't we also have to calculate the new OTJ based on the below statement? "over the planned duration of the apprenticeship practical period"
Thanks Martin, I know I'm reading too much into this, however if we amend the practical period end date according to Note 6 don't we also have to calculate the new OTJ based on the below statement?...
Sam Bern commented,
They clarified this in the funding rule session this morning. The learner is increased via the above calculation. However if despite working 15 hours a week the learner does 6 hours OTJ a week, then the minimum duration is 12 months not 24. So if they do the otj of a full time equivalent the minimum duration can be 12 months. I guess this becomes harder to evidence when the numbers aren't quite as simple. I think it's interesting that in this instance Off-The-Job actually hampers a part time learner achieving an Apprenticeship. A learner currently working a part-time job could be a prime candidate for an Apprenticeship. I'm beginning to feel my life is taking real world situations and hammering them through a calculation which either says someone is a leaver or too great a funding risk to enroll.
They clarified this in the funding rule session this morning. The learner is increased via the above calculation. However if despite working 15 hours a week the learner does 6 hours OTJ a week, the...
Sam Bern commented,
We're reviewing our Apprenticeship Agreement process in light of the clarification and I want to make sure I'm not over complicating the process. The learner passes their Planned end date, they have engaged in the majority of their OTJ however still require further all be it a smaller quantity of OTJ. As their planned end date is being pushed into the future, this would require a recalculation of the 20% off-the-job. The new Apprenticeship Agreement also requires a new Training plan. which needs to be signed off by all three parties as dates in one have to match the other. Lets say the learner now requires another six months to complete their apprenticeship. This might be linked with re-doing work for their portfolio required pre-gateway. If that learner doesn't require the amount of training that justifies the 6 months extension with 20% off-the-job is that learner no longer eligible? Are they now a leaver?
We're reviewing our Apprenticeship Agreement process in light of the clarification and I want to make sure I'm not over complicating the process. The learner passes their Planned end date, they hav...
Sam Bern commented,
Thanks for that Martin, I agree with you. I'll raise it at the training the ESFA are doing tomorrow as one of the other questions. I think the wording has changed in the 23/24 rules to the below. However the calculation states Minimum Duration, the rules calls it expected duration. 63. If, at the beginning of the apprenticeship, the apprentice works fewer than 30 hours a week, or has a zero-hours contract, the provider must extend the expected duration of the apprenticeship, using one of the formulas below, and must work with the employer to make sure that the dates on the apprenticeship agreement and training plan are also extended
Thanks for that Martin, I agree with you. I'll raise it at the training the ESFA are doing tomorrow as one of the other questions. I think the wording has changed in the 23/24 rules to the below. ...
Sam Bern commented,
I'm replying because I'm also interested in the outcome of this. Hope your audit goes well.
I'm replying because I'm also interested in the outcome of this. Hope your audit goes well.
Sam Bern commented,
I completely agree, fingers crossed they just don't realise what an administrative burden this would be. I'd agree with you about the evidence part, but on Page 11 they specify where seeing it is enough, but then don't continue to do this in other places (such as contract or working location) "Confirmation that the provider has seen the learners identify document". I think this would be part of what I'd feedback once I've been through it properly. I'm really grateful that they've produced these evidence sections. But would like them to have a bit more clarity.
I completely agree, fingers crossed they just don't realise what an administrative burden this would be. I'd agree with you about the evidence part, but on Page 11 they specify where seeing it is e...