Peter Hancock
Last activity
Member since
Votes
84
Subscriptions
54
Replies
Peter Hancock commented,
Jade Wilson I thought it was just me! :) Steve Hewitt Nothing has changed in my setup that I know about. The application files are stored in sharepoint, and this syncs to a local folder on my device. When I run the application, I am running it from the local folder. I will try to test it in another local folder that is not syncing to sharepoint to see if it makes any difference. Jade Wilson what is your setup?
Jade Wilson I thought it was just me! :) Steve Hewitt Nothing has changed in my setup that I know about. The application files are stored in sharepoint, and this syncs to a local folder on my dev...
Peter Hancock commented,
At least there is now a dedicated section on the funding page for FCFJ, so we don't have to refer to the loans LDNS to over-ride the Adult skills LDNS like we did last year!
At least there is now a dedicated section on the funding page for FCFJ, so we don't have to refer to the loans LDNS to over-ride the Adult skills LDNS like we did last year!
Peter Hancock commented,
Peter Hancock commented,
Hi Ben, Thanks for your quick reply, but I can't see the answer to my question there. Funding Line Type is not a field in the ILR file, and I would like to know what processing takes place with other fields in order to derive the value in Funding Line Type.
Hi Ben, Thanks for your quick reply, but I can't see the answer to my question there. Funding Line Type is not a field in the ILR file, and I would like to know what processing takes place with o...
Peter Hancock commented,
On the FCFJ processing priority, I am surprised that they say there is "no priority", as this will affect year-end funding reconciliations. On the other hand, I think it gives providers the "flexibility" to choose which allocation is going to pay for the learning aim, so that's a good thing, right?
On the FCFJ processing priority, I am surprised that they say there is "no priority", as this will affect year-end funding reconciliations. On the other hand, I think it gives providers the "flexi...
Peter Hancock commented,
On the issue of "proving" low wage, I believe the old adage about "can't prove a negative" applies. Like others, I think this should be self declaration from the learner.
On the issue of "proving" low wage, I believe the old adage about "can't prove a negative" applies. Like others, I think this should be self declaration from the learner.
Peter Hancock commented,
I have read this week's ESFA Update which includes some notes about OTJT at para 3. ESFA Update further education: 6 March 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) Does this change anything? My reading of the information presented this week is that nothing has changed. Although it states that this information is in response to several queries received at the help portal, it seems to only restate what was already published. And, there is no comment about all the queries we have made about the calculation methodology (wrt rounding, etc...) and the FRM37 report.
I have read this week's ESFA Update which includes some notes about OTJT at para 3. ESFA Update further education: 6 March 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) Does this change anything? My reading of the ...
Peter Hancock commented,
Yes, I received a notification today at 15:23, so something has been fixed. Strange how some others received a notification last week, but I didn't. Today's notification was sent from GOV.UK Email <gov.uk.email@notifications.service.gov.uk> with the subject Update from GOV.UK for: ESFA Update. My old notifications (up to 17/1) were from ESFA Update <news@esfagov.uk> with the subject Latest news for further education: 17 January 2024. Is anybody still receiving notifications from ESFA Update <news@esfagov.uk>?
Yes, I received a notification today at 15:23, so something has been fixed. Strange how some others received a notification last week, but I didn't. Today's notification was sent from GOV.UK Emai...
Peter Hancock commented,
Hi Ruth Canham-James, Picking up your comment about the discrepancy between PDSAT and FRM37..... Our PDSAT report 24A-215 Planned OTJT Hours was blank last month, but now it has 3 records, all of which were present in our ILR since before Christmas. So, I think that the report methodology may have changed in the last month, and I have written to the PDSAT helpdesk to find out. Our latest FRM37 report includes the three shown on 24A-215, with many others as well (which have not finished, so they must be listed due to planned OTJT hrs?). So, not only could both reports be wrong, but they may be wrong in a different way. Surely they should both match?
Hi Ruth Canham-James, Picking up your comment about the discrepancy between PDSAT and FRM37..... Our PDSAT report 24A-215 Planned OTJT Hours was blank last month, but now it has 3 records, all of w...
Peter Hancock commented,
FRM37 seems to have a dual purpose, showing learners who meet one or both of the following conditions: a) PLANNED OTJT hours are insufficient b) ACTUAL OTJT hours are insufficient. Unfortunately the report does not say which of the conditions has triggered the learner to be included on the report. Considering that the ILR specification says the ACTUAL OTJT hours should be returned only "at the end of the practical period or where the apprentice leaves the apprenticeship early", is it correct to assume the following about learners on the FRM37 report: 1) If the apprenticeship has not ended (ie actual end date is null), their inclusion on the report must have been triggered only by the PLANNED OTJT hours. 2) If the apprenticeship has ended (ie the actual end date is not null), their inclusion on the report could have been triggered by either or both of the PLANNED and ACTUAL OTJT hours. Would be interested in your thoughts.
FRM37 seems to have a dual purpose, showing learners who meet one or both of the following conditions:a) PLANNED OTJT hours are insufficientb) ACTUAL OTJT hours are insufficient. Unfortunately the...