Ruth Canham-James
Working in College MIS since July 2009.
Last activity
Member since
Votes
251
Subscriptions
1160
Replies
Ruth Canham-James commented,
I think so, but I don't use the reports usually, I just calculate it, it's really quick. Full price * 0.8 = x (on programme payments) x / planned months duration (being careful to include the last month if the Planned End Date was the last day of the month) = y y * months completed (again, make sure you include the month if their AED was the last day of the month) = z z is how much income you should have received by the end date, whether it be levy, ESFA 95% or employer 5%. Full price - z = how much you're not getting. Divide that by 20 to get the refund. Always round the refund down to the nearest pound, not up, or it'll look like you claimed slightly too little. Not a big issue for a withdrawal since there's no completion payment, but it's still annoying on the co-investment report. One of my previous team members made a spreadsheet that does the calculations for withdrawals and change of employer, and it takes into account month ends and rounds new prices and refunds appropriately, it's really useful! The only time I go back and look at the apps monthly payment reports, is if there's been a break or an employer change that can complicate things a bit.
I think so, but I don't use the reports usually, I just calculate it, it's really quick. Full price * 0.8 = x (on programme payments) x / planned months duration (being careful to include the last ...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
I had the same reply. I do plan to adjust our calculations to match the ESFA ones from now on, as I don't want that many non-errors appearing on our FRM reports. I won't be updating existing ones. I wouldn't be concerned about these appearing on the PDSATs (though we have nothing on report 24A-215, as that uses a different calculation from the FRM reports, which is absurd), as those only really get checked externally at audit, and based on this email we've had, we can justify our numbers. The issue with these being on the FRM report, is that these are monitored by ESFA, and they love to email our principals off the back of those telling them we've done something wrong. I can annotate the report, but it makes it trickier to spot the genuine errors where we accidentally didn't follow the rules. That's why I'll be using the ESFA calculation in future, so eventually we can get back to FRM37 being only what we believe to be errors. And yes, the new calculation absolutely is rounding statutory leave, which they explicitly say not to do. I wonder if using the new calculator, will push any "correct" ones into PDSATs as too low because it can round down.
I had the same reply. I do plan to adjust our calculations to match the ESFA ones from now on, as I don't want that many non-errors appearing on our FRM reports. I won't be updating existing ones. ...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
We accept Driving License as evidence of identity, alongside a self-declaration that their Nationality is British. We even accept other things at a push, like bank statements or NI/NHS letters. Not everyone has a passport, and quite a lot of people don't have a birth certificate through no fault of their own, and it isn't always easy for a 16 year old to get a replacement (though we'd strongly advise it). We've been audited many times and it's never been questioned. ESFA have always accepted self-declaration, and we accept it unless we have any reason to believe there's any doubt. For example, my husband is British and has never held any other nationality, but was born in Saudi, so his driving license says Saudi. That could be justification for then asking further questions. I know that not everyone born in the UK (which is listed on a driving license) after 1982 is eligible for British citizenship, but if someone was born in the UK, and went to school in the UK, and declares that they are British, I wouldn't question that.
We accept Driving License as evidence of identity, alongside a self-declaration that their Nationality is British. We even accept other things at a push, like bank statements or NI/NHS letters. Not...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Why are you waiting 42 days? ILR guidance says you should include all learners who have done even one instance of learning. They still have to go in the ILR if they withdraw between days 1 and 42. I think most providers just record their apprentices in the ILR as soon as they start. Sometimes it turns out they never actually started and we have to remove from the ILR, and sometimes that leads to some clawback. I know we're not supposed to return things that didn't actually happen, but when you've got 10k+ students, that's a serious challenge to keep track of. It always gets corrected pretty quickly. I've raised this issue with DfE. We should be allowed to record apprentices in our ILR a little before they start to allow for this function in the DAS, but we can't because of an ILR error about financial records dated after the file creation.
Why are you waiting 42 days? ILR guidance says you should include all learners who have done even one instance of learning. They still have to go in the ILR if they withdraw between days 1 and 42. ...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
You simply record on the Training Plan the hours that you plan to deliver. It must be at least the value in Annex C if there's no RPL. It can be higher than the Annex C value if that's what you plan to deliver. It can be lower if there is RPL (but it doesn't have to be, and it can't be below 187 ever). We would reduce our price if there was content we didn't need to deliver due to RPL, even if we stuck with the usual OTJ hours for any reason. You don't have to change your duration. You can still deliver that standard in 24 months, and only deliver 487 hours. You might decide to still deliver 557 hours over 24 months, or 487 over 24 months and just spread things out a bit, or you could deliver 487 hours in 19 months if you want to fast track them. You should record the hours you plan deliver (meeting the minimum) and a duration that you think is realistic based on your plan. That might look very different for two students on the same Standard. Duration will impact on how many months your funding gets spread over. If you understate durations, you run the risk of apprentices not completing as 'timely'. If you overstate your durations, you can lose money if they withdraw part way through.
You simply record on the Training Plan the hours that you plan to deliver. It must be at least the value in Annex C if there's no RPL. It can be higher than the Annex C value if that's what you pla...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Yes, I spotted this! I don't know why they are bothered about this, as no funding will be pulled down until there is a DAS record that matches. We are in the habit of just returning everything we enrol in the ILR, even if we're still just finalising the DAS bit. We know they cause DLOCKS, but we're not worried. Now, we're going to have to find some mechanism by which we can have the enrolment in our systems, but not include in the ILR return until the DAS record has been fully confirmed. Mildly annoying, but not a big issue, and I suspect lots of providers already do it that way. We definitely won't be waiting to do the data entry until the DAS record is done, as then we have no sight of them and can't chase them up as easily (I do know some providers won't even key them to internal systems until the DAS record is ready). It won't be a validation error, as the validation rules don't look up Apprenticeship Service data. It'll just be a DLOCK as normal. I'm not sure they'll actually police this, but we'll attempt to follow this rule anyway.
Yes, I spotted this! I don't know why they are bothered about this, as no funding will be pulled down until there is a DAS record that matches. We are in the habit of just returning everything we e...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
It would be absurd if a student who didn't find a new employer could continue, but one who found a new employer who wouldn't get involved, couldn't, it's essentially the same thing. I choose to interpret this as anyone who is made redundant with less than 25% to go, can continue (assuming it's practically possible), regardless of subsequent employment status. If that happens though, I wouldn't be comfortable with the new employer being involved in any way, other than perhaps releasing the apprentice for time to do some OTJ. They shouldn't be involved with the EPA. If the apprentice can't do the EPA without a workplace assessment, I'm not sure what I'd do.
It would be absurd if a student who didn't find a new employer could continue, but one who found a new employer who wouldn't get involved, couldn't, it's essentially the same thing. I choose to int...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
I always feel uneasy about that statement in bold. That's just not how we plan hours, and it's definitely not how auditors check hours. If you could prove that your average timetabled/planned hours for a cohort on an qual was 400, but one student was timetabled less, you absolutely would not get away with pulling this rule out to justify why you wanted to claim 400 hours but only timetable 380. Equally, if 90% your cohort really do 150 hours of maths, but 10% complete early after only 50 hours (which is an unknown at the start, as we don't know how many will pass Nov resits), we have to record the Planned Hours for all students as 140? That doesn't make sense. The plan for all of them was 150, and some just didn't follow the plan. We've got some roll on/roll off 16-18 funded delivery (it's a nightmare to record), and each student has custom hours based on their own circumstance and plan, we couldn't apply that statement if we wanted to. So, I basically ignore that statement as I don't really understand what it's getting at. No auditor has ever raised it, all they want is timetables to evidence the plan for each individual student. With regards to your first question, we wouldn't add the Biology full hours back in. If the full withdrawal was before 6 weeks, it makes no odds anyway. If it was after 6 weeks, the rule about removing/reducing hours for withdrawals pre-six weeks on the Biology still stand. We'd keep the actually delivered hours for the Biology in any case.
I always feel uneasy about that statement in bold. That's just not how we plan hours, and it's definitely not how auditors check hours. If you could prove that your average timetabled/planned hours...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
You can either get the new employer to pay the lot (really unfair, and you'd have to tell them you were doing that), or you can push the first employer to pay. If you don't do either, you won't get the Completion element. Normally, the new employer would pay 5% of the remaining price you've quoted them. We'd refund the first employer anything they already paid that was above what we were actually funded for during their time as employer. It should be in their contract that they will pay, so you can send them to debt collection if you see fit, but it doesn't mean you can record they paid when they didn't. I would love for the Apprenticeship Service to be responsible for collecting employer co-investment. Cut us out as the middle man. They can much more easily monitor levy payers with insufficient funds and generally who owes what, and they could build an invoice and payment part into the Apprenticeship Service website. They could have the fun of chasing employers who refuse to pay, and not penalise us by withholding the Completion Payments. In the meantime, raise with the Apprenticeship Service, see if you can get them to contact the employer. We try and be pretty strict about non-levy employers paying up front and in a reasonable time frame, or we will withdraw.
You can either get the new employer to pay the lot (really unfair, and you'd have to tell them you were doing that), or you can push the first employer to pay. If you don't do either, you won't get...