Ruth Canham-James
Working in College MIS since July 2009.
Last activity
Member since
Votes
251
Subscriptions
1160
Replies
Ruth Canham-James commented,
The ESF logo went 3 or 4 years ago. We've never used an ESFA logo, I've never seen anything saying it was a requirement. I've been through many audits and it's never been mentioned.
The ESF logo went 3 or 4 years ago. We've never used an ESFA logo, I've never seen anything saying it was a requirement. I've been through many audits and it's never been mentioned.
Ruth Canham-James commented,
The only way to release that payment, if you absolutely can't get the employer to pay, would be to reduce the total price to a level that means they didn't owe you more than they actually paid. I definitely wouldn't recommend that, and it would involve the employer agreeing the change on the Apprenticeship Service. You are categorically not allowed to record a PMR if you didn't receive it, even if you don't care about the £16. We don't normally let apprentices sit their EPA if we're outstanding payments from the employer. If the only money they owe was as a result of insufficient funds on the final Completion payment, ESFA don't withhold the Completion payment. They can't really, as it would be a circular argument. Since we only check for insufficient funds every quarter, it's technically possible that a levy employer could owe us for an on-programme payment, and we wouldn't have spotted that until after EPA, but it's pretty unlikely given that the gap between them getting to gateway and sitting the EPA. Doing it quarterly (rather than waiting until the end) helps us find and deal with reluctant payers before it becomes too late. We make sure we explain really clearly why they owe us money. I give the account manager the details, and they usually call to explain before we invoice. We have it in our employer contract, that if we lose funding as a result of their action/inactions, we will invoice them for what we lost, so that would be the £1,800 plus the £16 they owed us anyway. We've never had to invoke that though, as so far they've all just paid. It's rather punitive that we can lose thousands because an employer refuses to pay £16 🙁
The only way to release that payment, if you absolutely can't get the employer to pay, would be to reduce the total price to a level that means they didn't owe you more than they actually paid. I d...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
As Ben says, yes to FS and Programme aim stuff. With the "main component aim", it depends what it is. If it's a real qual like a Diploma, treat it like any other qual aim, just close it when they finish as 2/8, and record an outcome and grade when they pass. If you've included a non-reg (Z00) aim because you have no other components (or you just add it routinely to every standard), that doesn't represent anything anyway, so we just have script that copies the AED, Completion Status and Outcome from the Programme Aim.
As Ben says, yes to FS and Programme aim stuff. With the "main component aim", it depends what it is. If it's a real qual like a Diploma, treat it like any other qual aim, just close it when they f...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
I was waiting to see what others replied, but I'll be brave 😂 I tell our delivery team that they have to have really good reason to extend a PED by more than the duration of the break, and they must document this, and make sure the re-planned activity takes this into account. It can't look like an excuse to avoid late completion (though that's not really a worry at the moment). Nothing written down from ESFA, but until the rules say "must", I'm interpreting that as optional. Also, we've had several apprentices go on a BIL after their original PED, (they were running behind) so we have to extend by more in that case! Good question about the combined duration. At the moment, we stick with the original Planned OTJ. If the student was already behind on OTJ before they go on a break, adding both durations together to come up with a new Planned OTJ makes it an impossible target. If a student was behind and didn't go on a break (just went past the PED) we wouldn't need additional OTJ. If we started getting measured on timely achievement, I can see why this might be an issue as it could look like we're manipulating stats. I think if it was clearly a proper break, with good justification for the extension, I'd hope we could argue it.
I was waiting to see what others replied, but I'll be brave 😂 I tell our delivery team that they have to have really good reason to extend a PED by more than the duration of the break, and they mus...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Peter Keating It was in the ESFA Update yesterday. Basically, you don't have to use the rounded calculations as long as you're sure your calculations are correct according to the main guidance. As I understand it though, it won't stop us from getting flagged as "at risk" in the Apprenticeship Accountability Framework if we are not using their new rounded calculations. We will then have to have an ESFA "management conversation" to explain why we're not wrong. Also, the equivalent PDSAT report is using a different calculation, presumably not rounded.
Peter Keating It was in the ESFA Update yesterday. Basically, you don't have to use the rounded calculations as long as you're sure your calculations are correct according to the main guidance. As ...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
If they're dual nationality, and have at some point lived outside of the UK, I would absolutely expect them to have a British passport. I know we accept it when people self-declare themselves to be British normally (as not everyone has a passport to prove that), but if they've provided a French passport and declared dual nationality, I would be really pushing for evidence of British citizenship. I'd accept an expired British passport.
If they're dual nationality, and have at some point lived outside of the UK, I would absolutely expect them to have a British passport. I know we accept it when people self-declare themselves to be...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
I think that rounding guidance only appeared in Oct 2023, it wasn't in a copy of version 4 I have. We can't possibly be expected to apply a new calculation to anyone who started before that? Before that, we were following the published guidance which didn't mention rounding. Essentially for a full timer, that was =((((Planned End Date-Start Date+1)/7)/52)*46.4)*6 (replace 6 with what calculation you'd normally do for a part timer). All of our new FRM37 "errors" are just fine if we use that calculation. Also, the equivalent pDSAT report to FRM37 isn't throwing up any of these records, so must be using a different calculation. I think it's important we all report that we were using the published guidance available at the start date for anyone starting pre Oct 2023. We can apply this new rounded version of the calculations from the date the guidance was issued, but I'd still argue that, since this version was issued after the start of the academic year and there are no change notes explaining this, we shouldn't be expected to have noticed this.
I think that rounding guidance only appeared in Oct 2023, it wasn't in a copy of version 4 I have. We can't possibly be expected to apply a new calculation to anyone who started before that? Before...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Just add in 23/24 ILR with true start dates and price etc. You will lose all on programme payments from Nov 22 to Jul 23. And will just be able to claim the remaining on programme payments from Aug 23, plus the completion payment. That's assuming it was a levy payer and didn't require a reservation. If it required a reservation, and that's only just been sorted, your earliest start date is December 2023. If you record that, you cannot use any of the OTJ hours/duration done before that, so you'll have to extend the end date to a year after the new start date to manage that. They're the only way to claim funding legitimately. We have a really strict process for this. We will just withdraw apprentices after a few months if the DAS hasn't been sorted. If they needed a reservation, we're even stricter, and will make them completely restart on a date that fits the reservation. End of ILR year is also a key line we don't cross.
Just add in 23/24 ILR with true start dates and price etc. You will lose all on programme payments from Nov 22 to Jul 23. And will just be able to claim the remaining on programme payments from Aug...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
@... Might be a silly question, but will a blank work? We trialled all the RPL stuff, and it did error sometimes, but we definitely managed to get things through with a price reduction and no OTJ/duration reduction.
@... Might be a silly question, but will a blank work? We trialled all the RPL stuff, and it did error sometimes, but we definitely managed to get things through with a price reduction and no OTJ/d...
Ruth Canham-James commented,