Ruth Canham-James
Working in College MIS since July 2009.
Last activity
Member since
Votes
178
Subscriptions
831
Replies
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Can they stop you though if you're not claiming funding for it? You definitely wouldn't be able to count it as OTJ. I understand why you'd want to let them so they don't have to catch up if/when they do find a new employer. An auditor might then say that this is prior learning, and you should reduce down the price as a result, as you wouldn't be teaching that as part of the new training plan, you'd be doing it outside of the time they were actually apprentices.
Can they stop you though if you're not claiming funding for it? You definitely wouldn't be able to count it as OTJ. I understand why you'd want to let them so they don't have to catch up if/when th...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Richard Heath I've had the same thoughts. We're currently not devolved, and our recruitment areas doesn't even border any devolved areas. One of our recruitment areas is devolving soon, and I assume we'll be approaching them to continue to get funding for "their" students (above my job role). It is going to severely limit choice for some adults and employers when areas don't want to pass funding into other areas. Even assuming you can get agreements between areas, each of them has different data collection requirements over and above the ILR, meaning we'll all be working with multiple sets of rules, purely based on home postcode of the students. I know some private training providers already deal with this, but it's deeply inefficient, and a GDPR concern.
Richard Heath I've had the same thoughts. We're currently not devolved, and our recruitment areas doesn't even border any devolved areas. One of our recruitment areas is devolving soon, and I assum...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
There is PSM guidance of correcting things after a hard close. There's a section called "Continuing learners whose Learning planned end date has now been identified as significantly incorrect", but it's generic for all funding streams, and is trickier on apprenticeships than other funding streams. You don't have to extended the planned end date if there were specific reasons why that you can document. If it was just an admin error, I would fix it. You'll find it does very odd things to your on programme payments, but should work out right in the end.
There is PSM guidance of correcting things after a hard close. There's a section called "Continuing learners whose Learning planned end date has now been identified as significantly incorrect", but...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
We took the ESF logo off our forms from 23/24. I assume that's what you mean by EU logo 🙂
We took the ESF logo off our forms from 23/24. I assume that's what you mean by EU logo 🙂
Ruth Canham-James commented,
We record all gateway apprentices as Completion Status 1, Outcome 8 and with an Actual End Date. That's what we're supposed to do, we can't opt not to do that. You don't record them as Completed until they pass/fail EPA. You just can't project that all gateway apprentices are going to complete. We do get a few of these every year. It's frustrating because you lose the whole 20%, but the EPA was probably less than 20% so we're actually losing training funding, and we probably won't get a full refund from the EPAO either, so it can be a big loss.
We record all gateway apprentices as Completion Status 1, Outcome 8 and with an Actual End Date. That's what we're supposed to do, we can't opt not to do that. You don't record them as Completed un...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
If the components are regulated quals, you still report the true result/outcome of that aim. Programme aim is a withdrawal. The non-reg aims you have to include really doesn't matter as it doesn't represent anything, but we'd withdraw it to match the programme aim.
If the components are regulated quals, you still report the true result/outcome of that aim. Programme aim is a withdrawal. The non-reg aims you have to include really doesn't matter as it doesn't ...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
We find that, if we take how many hours a term time only apprentice does over a year, then divide that by normal working weeks (46.4), to get a "average weekly hours" they are nearly always still doing over 30 hours a week, so we don't do anything with the duration, as the OTJ will meet the minimum in the year anyway. We calculate OTJ based on the "average weekly hours", so they end up needing more than 6 hours a week when they are working. If that calculation end up less than 30, we'd then calculate the extension following the normal part time calculations, but using the "average weekly hours" to calculate that. Same for OTJ.
We find that, if we take how many hours a term time only apprentice does over a year, then divide that by normal working weeks (46.4), to get a "average weekly hours" they are nearly always still d...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Help desk forwarded my query to the Apprenticeship Service, who replied: I understand from your email that you would like to know where you can find an EPAO's organisational ID as they do not appear on the APAR (Apprenticeship Provider and Assessment register) which replaced the EPAO register. I have escalated this to our Technical Support Team to investigate further. We aim to resolve issues within 10 working days but occasionally it can take a little longer; we will keep you updated if this is the case. I do appreciate how AS support confirm what they think you're asking. I'll let you know when I get an update.
Help desk forwarded my query to the Apprenticeship Service, who replied: I understand from your email that you would like to know where you can find an EPAO's organisational ID as they do not appe...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
We'd put the early December date, but I don't feel 100% confident on that. What if they've been doing college lessons in that time? I guess since they weren't employed, and they didn't meet the 30 days rule, that makes then technically not an apprentice during that time, even if they were studying? I'd also say the 12 weeks starts from early December. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has been told different by the help desk/an auditor.
We'd put the early December date, but I don't feel 100% confident on that. What if they've been doing college lessons in that time? I guess since they weren't employed, and they didn't meet the 30 ...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Well that's weird! The full rule for that is: "If a FAM type is returned (LearnerFAM.LearnFAMType is known), the FAM code must be a valid lookup for that FAM type (error where LearnerFAM.LearnFAMCode <> valid lookup on ILR_FAMTypeFAMCode)" LearnerFAM.LearnFAMType is not null and LearnerFAM.LearnFAMCode <> valid lookup on ILR_FAMTypeFAMCode But 4 is a valid code for FAM Type EEF. I think you'll have to ask the help desk. The rule references an external table (ILR_FAMTypeFAMCode) that we don't have access to.
Well that's weird! The full rule for that is: "If a FAM type is returned (LearnerFAM.LearnFAMType is known), the FAM code must be a valid lookup for that FAM type (error where LearnerFAM.LearnFAMC...