Chris Bennett
Last activity
Member since
Votes
3
Subscriptions
8
Replies
Chris Bennett commented,
Bud is frustrating in that it automatically defaults to exactly 'x' months after the apprenticeship start date (based on what is configured in the programme build) with no mechanism to confirm or alter this date through the front-end. We remove the FS aims from the ILR export when adding the learner to the ILR in Bud, and then re-activate the aim(s) and manually adjust the start and end dates accordingly once we have the first day of learning confirmed for English/maths. This ensures we don't inadvertently start drawing Functional Skills funding for a learner.
Bud is frustrating in that it automatically defaults to exactly 'x' months after the apprenticeship start date (based on what is configured in the programme build) with no mechanism to confirm or a...
Chris Bennett commented,
Yes, we have been getting the warning message appear when adding learners at the new funding band, and this is also appearing for employers, however it hasn't prevented us or the employers from approving the records at the new higher prices. The indicative ILR report is showing the correct funding band maximum and profiling the payments as expected. Despite not recognising the funding band change, the Apprenticeship service is putting all our September starts on v1.4 of the Team Leader standard, even those that started before 19th September/25th September (learners imported via CSV upload so the file had the exact start date).
Yes, we have been getting the warning message appear when adding learners at the new funding band, and this is also appearing for employers, however it hasn't prevented us or the employers from app...
Chris Bennett commented,
Just adding these bits (couldn't fit them in my original post!) Provider Support Manual The way total negotiated price (TNP 1) is calculated is changing from 1 August 2022, and will be calculated as follows: Funding band max - RPL savings - any other employer discount (e.g. large cohort) Anything over and above the funding band is dealt with off-line between the provider and employer; the DFE does not need to know about this amount or have it recorded in the ILR or apprenticeship service. The provider also does not need to record that this money was collected from the employer. Apprenticeship Funding Rules P106 When you agree a price with the employer, your starting point must be no more than the maximum of the funding band for the standard. P106.1 If the price you agree with the employer exceeds the maximum of the funding band, then you must agree off-line (outside of the ILR and apprenticeship service) how the employer will pay you any difference. We do not need to know about the amount of this difference. You may charge VAT on the difference.
Just adding these bits (couldn't fit them in my original post!) Provider Support Manual The way total negotiated price (TNP 1) is calculated is changing from 1 August 2022, and will be calculated ...
Chris Bennett commented,
Have been running into the same problem today, can create a new cohort and add the first apprentice details, but clicking 'add another apprentice' to add the 2nd+ learners threw up the error message every time. These are cohorts created today so I don't think getting your employers to resend the requests will help Gary Petley - sorry! CSV upload is working fine, and is actually a significant improvement with the changes they've made. We have 'add apprentice records' permissions with most of our employers, but previously had to create a cohort and add details for a first dummy learner manually, just to get to the upload CSV link which always felt like a clunky process. You can now upload a CSV with up to 100 new apprentice records, even if they are all from different employers. If you've got 'add apprentice records' permissions then leave CohortRef blank in the CSV file and it will create the cohorts for each employer when you import. This is really useful for our large 'group' type employers, where one cohort of learners actually sit across several levy accounts as they all belong to different businesses within the group. Unfortunately CSV import still needs dates in the YYYY-MM-DD format, so takes a bit of care to make sure you don't end up with dd/mm/yyyy dates if you are manually preparing or tweaking a CSV file with Excel, etc.
Have been running into the same problem today, can create a new cohort and add the first apprentice details, but clicking 'add another apprentice' to add the 2nd+ learners threw up the error messag...
Chris Bennett commented,
It would be helpful if the ESFA could include an additional example and instructions within that article for the correct dates to use when the gap is within a calendar month, rather than straddling two months as per the only example given. It's useful for that specific scenario, as there is no employer in place on the last day of the month so the article clarifies who pays each instalment. However if an apprentice left their original employer on 30th March, and started with a new employer on 31st March - does the new employer pay the March instalment?
It would be helpful if the ESFA could include an additional example and instructions within that article for the correct dates to use when the gap is within a calendar month, rather than straddling...
Chris Bennett commented,
Richard Holmden - my provisional R14 data download is now showing and available, hopefully yours is available too now.
Richard Holmden - my provisional R14 data download is now showing and available, hopefully yours is available too now.
Chris Bennett commented,
If these are apprenticeship standards (FM36) then the QAR uses the hybrid end year, which is the later of the: achievement year planned end year of the learning aim actual end year of the learning aim reporting year If the apprentice has an actual end date in 20/21 but achieves in 21/22 then they will be counted in your 21/22 QAR figures (assuming reported on time and the planned end is no later than 21/22).
If these are apprenticeship standards (FM36) then the QAR uses the hybrid end year, which is the later of the: achievement year planned end year of the learning aim actual end year of the learn...
Chris Bennett commented,
Cheers Paul Taylor, can understand why this has been put in place, it is just trying to fully decipher how it applies in practice. Thanks Martin West, that is a clearer explanation in the technical guidance, and it seems like they have used a bad example in the business rules. So if I'm understanding correctly, it works as follows: Learner with planned end date in 2019 to 2020, goes on a break in learning in 2019 to 2020, no restart record by R04 of 2021 to 2022, will be counted as a withdrawal for QAR year 2020 to 2021. Learner with planned end date in 2020 to 2021, goes on a break in learning in 2019 to 2020, no restart record by R04 of 2021 to 2022, will be counted as a withdrawal for QAR year 2021 to 2022. Is that right?
Cheers Paul Taylor, can understand why this has been put in place, it is just trying to fully decipher how it applies in practice. Thanks Martin West, that is a clearer explanation in the technical...
Chris Bennett commented,
Thanks for the reply Martin West - it is the example which follows in the business rules that has confused me: If this scenario happens, we will set the reporting year to one year after the latter of the expected end year or actual end year. For example, if you recorded an aim with a ‘Learning planned end date’ in July 2020 with a planned break in learning in April 2019, this will be a withdrawn aim in the 2020 to 2021 funding year if there is no restart record in: the R14 ILR return in 2019 to 2020, OR the R14 ILR return in 2020 to 2021, OR the R04 ILR return of 2021 to 2022 In this example, the learner started their break in the 18/19 funding year (Apr 2019), and it suggests they wouldn't be counted as a withdrawal if they have a restart record by 21/22 R04 - so they could potentially have been on their break for ~31 months.
Thanks for the reply Martin West - it is the example which follows in the business rules that has confused me: If this scenario happens, we will set the reporting year to one year after the latter...
Chris Bennett commented,
Thanks for sharing that Steve Hewitt - exactly the same problem here with App data, number of achieved learners is as expected, but no withdrawals have gone into Hybrid End Year 2020, they are all 2020.5 It's a shame they cannot address, resolve and re-release the R10 data, or do an additional QAR In Year release at R11 given this problem. This would allow providers some extra time to check/reconcile against their own records and raise queries if needed.
Thanks for sharing that Steve Hewitt - exactly the same problem here with App data, number of achieved learners is as expected, but no withdrawals have gone into Hybrid End Year 2020, they are all ...