Louise Tomkins

Last activity

Member since

Votes

9

Subscriptions

17

Replies

Community Reply

Louise Tomkins commented,

Its normally 14 days after the ILR closes, so I would suspect it will land tomorrow. Hope this helps

Its normally 14 days after the ILR closes, so I would suspect it will land tomorrow. Hope this helps

Community Reply

Louise Tomkins commented,

Ruth Canham-James I did try to argue it but this was their only option, even had Teams calls with their technical team to discuss it. We can't really keep 1/8 cross years, because as you said if the learner fails to resit EPA in the new year, of which we did have one or two in the earlier days, we have then lost the completion payment which for us is over £4k per learner, so we make sure that is claimed at the first EPA attempt. Steve Hewitt I met with a guy called Scott from the ESFA back in June last year,  below is part of the clarification as I don't have in writing all of the steps (ignore the certificate comment), he specifically said I had to claim the completion and mark as achieved or not at the point of the first full EPA, then add a new ZPROG, he seemed to suggest it would convert the previous fail into a pass, which we all know it doesn't once QAR is closed, which is why I still update the old one. I probably only have half a dozen a year affected by this a year but its still half a dozen non achievers I would rather not have. I do also agree with Jessica that the ESFA should provide some further clarity on cross year claims, but your suggestion would also work, just means the completion payment falls in Period 2 and not at the point of first full EPA. [image] Apologies if this has confused anyone, we clearly all have our own ways of doing things that are not always consistent, but in this instance, is on the advice of ESFA. Thanks Louise

Ruth Canham-James I did try to argue it but this was their only option, even had Teams calls with their technical team to discuss it. We can't really keep 1/8 cross years, because as you said if th...

Community Reply

Louise Tomkins commented,

Hi Wayne, Not 100% sure if this first part is the official way to record, but we have this situation every year, with EPA in June, results in July, then resits in September and results on the P14 ILR close date. If the learner first sat full EPA in 2023/24, and successful achievement was in 2024/25 but still within the Period 14 window, then we simply update the 2023/24 record from no or parial achievement, to achieved, this way, the learner only appears once in your QAR. If EPA didn't cross an academic year, this is simply what you would do anyway. ESFA advised us, if the successful achievement in 2024/25 is outside of the Period 14 window for 2023/24, then we have to add a new ZPROG aim starting in the new year, with 1 OTJ hour and new *TNP's at zero, ensure you include the restart indicator and original start date, this means your original record will remain as a non-achiever in 2023/24 and a duplicate record will show the achiever in the 2024/25 academic year. I don't think this is particuarly fair as its ultimately a duplicate record and personally we do continue to update the old record, even past Period 14, we know the ESFA won't ever use it in QAR but for us, it helps to know that those people who left in prior years did ultimately achieve and had they achieved within the academic year, our QAR would have looked more positive, this is the flaw with losing the achievers vs timely in QAR for standards. I hope this helps a little. Louise *for info the TNP's in PICS cause funding reconcilation issues, so they advise using the full TNP, either way it doesn't matter as you have already had the full funding

Hi Wayne, Not 100% sure if this first part is the official way to record, but we have this situation every year, with EPA in June, results in July, then resits in September and results on the P14 I...

Community Reply

Louise Tomkins commented,

My team are getting it too, so definitely a system issue, we'll raise it and tell them cookies hasn't fixed too.

My team are getting it too, so definitely a system issue, we'll raise it and tell them cookies hasn't fixed too.

Community Reply

Louise Tomkins commented,

Hi Carla, We incorporate the Apprenticeship Agreement into our Training Plan, there are two separate signatures for the two different auditable documents, but we combine them into the same document to send for electronic signing. TP is signed by all three parties, provider, apprentice and employer, whereas the app agreement is just signed by apprentice and employer. The contract for services is the agreement between the provider and the employer (not apprentice), it should lay out your pricing including any additional costs, contact details, liabilities and terms for co-investment payment ((when will you invoice, how do you expect payment etc.) as well as things like ensuring apprentices get time for OTJ, paid minimum wage, minimum H&S requirements are met, employer keeps up appropriate insurances etc.  If you are a member of AELP I believe you should be able to get a copy of their template contract agreement (approx 50 pages), we had this but as we work predominantly with large public sector bodies, we found it impossible to get them to sign, so we took out all of the legal jargon (i.e. termination, breach of contract, IP etc.) and kept it specific to the apprenticeship requirements of the two parties, ours is now 9 pages including a contacts page and a signatories page. We split ours into: Employer Commitments General responsibilities (H&S, RIDDOR, access to premises, receipt of auditable evidence provided timely, notice of any changes etc.) Apprentice responsibilities (Min duration, OTJ, min wage, min holidays, prevent/SG responsibilities etc.) Funding and Financial responsibilities (DAS updates required inc. timeframes, not stopping without notice, prompt approval etc., 50% working time in England, agreement to pay co-investment (inc. Levy when funds run out), employer pays if we lose out on funding due to them not keeping us informed and a few other areas Provider Commitment General responsibilities (high quality training, appropriate resources, H&S, RIDDOR, suitably qualified delivery staff, absence reporting etc.) Funding and Financial responsibilities (Manage funding received appropriately, ensuring co-investment is collected, ensure eligible payments such as incentives are claimed and paid timely, ensuring apprentices are eligible inc. thorough IA, only use DAS funds for eligible apprentices, contract with and make payments to EPAO as well as a list of things we won't do, such as claim duplicate funding, commence an apprentice if no prospect of them completing, ensure they meet the 50% England rule etc.) Employer and Provider Mutual Agreeements Agree a written TP, ensure apprentice has obtainsed sufficient KSB's to sit EPA, ensure EPA costs are incorporated in agreeing TNP, co-operation if apprentice moves employer, ensure funds not used for ineligible costs, neither party disclose any confidential information to the other without an explicit requirement to do so etc. Provider Training Delivery outline of our standard delivery including durations, methods etc. Provider Standard Costings EPA costs, resit costs (how many included in original EPA cost), additional membership/exam fees, breakdown of programme funding by eligible cost line as per funding rules) Dispute Resolution How we will resolve disputes internally and then further info on raising a complaint with ESFA where required I hope this helps, you do require all three as far as I am aware, its just trying to make sure the right terms go into the right documents, we have some that duplicate for the apprentices information such as requirements for OTJ, min wage, 50% in England etc. but go into more detail in the employer contract for service. Thanks Louise

Hi Carla, We incorporate the Apprenticeship Agreement into our Training Plan, there are two separate signatures for the two different auditable documents, but we combine them into the same document...

Community Reply

Louise Tomkins commented,

Community Reply

Louise Tomkins commented,