Peter Hancock
Last activity
Member since
Votes
84
Subscriptions
56
Replies
Peter Hancock commented,
I know I'm reopening an old thread, but it is still relevant in 25/26. Is this saying that when a 19-23 year old without a full L3 wants to do a 1st full L3 that happens to be FCFJ fundable that it must be funded from FCFJ (LDM378) and cannot be funded from ASF core funding?
I know I'm reopening an old thread, but it is still relevant in 25/26. Is this saying that when a 19-23 year old without a full L3 wants to do a 1st full L3 that happens to be FCFJ fundable that ...
Peter Hancock commented,
Penny Collins we've had that scenario before with FRM01 as well. The FRM01 shows the provider with whom the achievement was recorded (scroll to the right). If you check on the PLR, you should be able to see it there as well.
Penny Collins we've had that scenario before with FRM01 as well. The FRM01 shows the provider with whom the achievement was recorded (scroll to the right). If you check on the PLR, you should be...
Peter Hancock commented,
Penny Collins Good point. In my message I didn't say "how much" funding could be claimed. (I wish that the funding rules still had paragraph numbers to make it easier to refer to specific clauses). Full funding or co-funding will be determined by the learner's current circumstances at the time the new aim (repeat aim) begins. Funding reduction for prior learning should be used: "reduce the funding amount claimed for the qualification aim by the percentage of learning the learner does not need". There is no guidance about how to calculate the percentage. I think some use credits, units or dates. This could be an interesting subject for debate in its own right. You must not use prior learning to reduce funding for: English and maths qualifications up to and including level 2 or essential digital skills qualifications (EDSQs) up to and including level 1 For these quals, we can claim 100% funding even if the learner has some competency and does not need to attend the whole course. Interesting point about "English": does anybody think this includes ESOL, or just "English"?
Penny Collins Good point. In my message I didn't say "how much" funding could be claimed. (I wish that the funding rules still had paragraph numbers to make it easier to refer to specific clauses...
Peter Hancock commented,
I have a couple of queries relating to ASF: 1) Is this a special case because it is English functional skills? If it was, say, ESOL, maths FS, digital skills FS, essential digital skills, or any other qualification, can they be funded again? 2) Can the repeat funding be claimed in the same academic year, or is there a limit of once per academic year? ie, for learners who took their learning and test in the 1st half of the year, can they be funded again for repeat learning in the 2nd half of the year? The only funding rules about repeat funding that I can find are the two at the bottom of the What We Will Not Fund section. So, it looks like all quals where the learner fails can be funded again and again, even in the same academic year.
I have a couple of queries relating to ASF: 1) Is this a special case because it is English functional skills? If it was, say, ESOL, maths FS, digital skills FS, essential digital skills, or any o...
Peter Hancock commented,
I've just remembered that when we record PMRs, we can only record whole pounds, so there will usually be discrepancies due to the missing pence in the %collected calculation. Steve Hewitt you're right about the SEM flag, the service desk told me the same thing.
I've just remembered that when we record PMRs, we can only record whole pounds, so there will usually be discrepancies due to the missing pence in the %collected calculation. Steve Hewitt you're ...
Peter Hancock commented,
I thought that the threshold for receiving sufficient co-investment to trigger the completion payment was something in the region of 90+%. This would mean that small discrepancies would not prevent payment of the completion payment. Has anybody else noticed this, or am I wrong? I find this whole thing tricky to manage because there doesn't seem to be a single report that clearly shows all the necessary information. 1) The co-investment and PMRs report: a) sometimes splits an apprenticeship over multiple lines, eg if there is a BIL. So, the calculations about % received need to be manually calculated. b) sometimes includes apprenticeships for which no co-investment is needed. These lines show that % collected is 0%. 2) The Employer-level co-investment report: a) aggregates multiple lines of the same apprenticeship into a single line (this is good), but b) it omits the amount and % of co-investment payments collected (bad). It would be interesting to hear how others manage this in case I am missing something.
I thought that the threshold for receiving sufficient co-investment to trigger the completion payment was something in the region of 90+%. This would mean that small discrepancies would not preven...
Peter Hancock commented,
The DfE informed us today that the problem was fixed, and we have now signed our funding claim.
The DfE informed us today that the problem was fixed, and we have now signed our funding claim.
Peter Hancock commented,
Today, the DfE has provided me with the following update: we are extending the deadline until 5pm on the 7 November. Technical team are still investigating the issue. We will confirm once this is resolved.
Today, the DfE has provided me with the following update: we are extending the deadline until 5pm on the 7 November. Technical team are still investigating the issue. We will confirm once this is...
Peter Hancock commented,
Is everybody else accessing funding claims without problem?
Is everybody else accessing funding claims without problem?
Peter Hancock commented,
Tracy Laight, I have this issue for one of our apprentices. I've read the funding reports guidance, but can't see any relevant notes. Did you ever get to the bottom of this issue?
Tracy Laight, I have this issue for one of our apprentices. I've read the funding reports guidance, but can't see any relevant notes. Did you ever get to the bottom of this issue?