Paul Rogers
Last activity
Member since
Votes
12
Subscriptions
0
Replies
Paul Rogers commented,
I have not seen anything in writing, it is only where I have observed feedback from the auditors over the past few years. Overseen what the main audit firms have reviewed as part of the controls audits and substantive audits of late. The document Martin shared is what we all have. Others may have attended workshops from compliance experts. Presently however nothing definitive has been released by the ESFA to confirm what is and what is not, other than the document above where you must ensure that (1) the off the job activity justifies learning took place and (2) that it related specifically to the KSB's of the apprenticeship they are doing. You need to ensure that the narrative is of a suitable depth to allow both an auditor of ESFA compliance AND an Inspector at Ofsted to walk away feeling assured that it is. Paul.
I have not seen anything in writing, it is only where I have observed feedback from the auditors over the past few years. Overseen what the main audit firms have reviewed as part of the controls a...
Paul Rogers commented,
Hello, My understanding, due to Covid, is that this is deliberately not being made publically available. Only the ESFA, the provider and Ofsted will have this information for the 19/20 and 20/21 years. Paul.
Hello, My understanding, due to Covid, is that this is deliberately not being made publically available. Only the ESFA, the provider and Ofsted will have this information for the 19/20 and 20/21 y...
Paul Rogers commented,
Each provider is very different. It all depends how you use your data and not use the course code as such to replicate information that is already available. For example some might put learning areas, but that could be covered by your department structure or SSA codes. The key is to determine what works for you. Do you need to determine the difference between full time and part time, or day, evening and weekend. How about broad subjects, and then if delivery in the community or on site is important. So many options. Year of study is sometimes included to link in different systems. Some dont even use a course code !
Each provider is very different. It all depends how you use your data and not use the course code as such to replicate information that is already available. For example some might put learning a...
Paul Rogers commented,
Ruth Canham-James. I think the definition should be clearer for actual end date of ZPROG001 in the context of Apprenticeship and confirm that it is the 'end of practical period' allowing all subsequent definitions of the time up to to the achieved end date to reach your definition. Much cleaner.
Ruth Canham-James. I think the definition should be clearer for actual end date of ZPROG001 in the context of Apprenticeship and confirm that it is the 'end of practical period' allowing all subse...
Paul Rogers commented,
Hi, it would be for the learner to decide what is the most appropriate, but it differs per organisation based on knowledge and severity of the condition. A lot are using the social and emotional option as it relates to the known definition of SEMH. You would then have supporting details of the precise concern as part of your inclusion data collection which is outside of the ILR.
Hi, it would be for the learner to decide what is the most appropriate, but it differs per organisation based on knowledge and severity of the condition. A lot are using the social and emotional ...
Paul Rogers commented,
Agree with Rebecca on this one. The only time you are permitted to update the planned end date is when a learner comes back from a break in learning or when you assess them as a new start. You never change the original planned end date for a ZPROG001.
Agree with Rebecca on this one. The only time you are permitted to update the planned end date is when a learner comes back from a break in learning or when you assess them as a new start. You ne...
Paul Rogers commented,
You should also use the personal learner record to see if the ILR data is available there as a starting point. However, only when you actually start to claim the funding on the DAS will you truely know how much is left. Your role however is to make the best determination on the evidence you have been given and to charge accordingly. If you end up deciding they need the full funding, thats fine, you just will not get it as some has already been used. You would then expect the employer to pay the remaining themselves. The employer can check their account to know how much has been spent so far and provide you with that. Paul.
You should also use the personal learner record to see if the ILR data is available there as a starting point. However, only when you actually start to claim the funding on the DAS will you truely...
Paul Rogers commented,
Hi, VAT registered companies must add VAT on top of these fees. Paul.
Hi, VAT registered companies must add VAT on top of these fees. Paul.
Paul Rogers commented,
It’s utter drivel. Employers ask us to do the work for them. Now we ask them to create a reservation first. More bureaucracy for the employer just to keep their ‘reservation’ part of the system. How is this even going to be enforceable and how much stress will be added to staff who accidentally submit and ILR and it’s not in the das first. No discussion about this in the technical user group either.
It’s utter drivel. Employers ask us to do the work for them. Now we ask them to create a reservation first. More bureaucracy for the employer just to keep their ‘reservation’ part of the system...
Paul Rogers commented,
I would follow the same protocols for any other electronic signature. It should be irrefutable and able to confirm that it was the individual that placed it there. A typed signature in a document, in my opinion, shows no confirmation that it was the individual who put it there. It could be anyone, but of course if your End Point Assessment Organisation has confirmed it is acceptable, then so be it! I would want to assurance myself that the document came from the originators email address as a minimum however to confirm it is genuine. The gateway form is not a funding requirement however, it is an EPAO requirement. The only signature requirement I can see is confirmation from the employer at the point of entering gateway that they will continue to employ the apprentice until the final date of EPA. Maybe others can add some more information, but that my take on it for you. Paul.
I would follow the same protocols for any other electronic signature. It should be irrefutable and able to confirm that it was the individual that placed it there. A typed signature in a document...