Adam Walton
Last activity
Member since
Votes
8
Subscriptions
12
Replies
Adam Walton commented,
Unfortunately the ESFA's response was less than helpful on this. My first response from them was "You need at least one employment status for the learner when I checked your data submission you had a duplicate consecutive employment status. You will need to remove one of the employment status to clear the error, if you are having difficulties removing one of the employment status please contact your MIS direct." Followed by this after i made them aware a status had to be in place on each MIS system. "It is outside our remit regarding how to record the employment statuses on your 2 separate MIS for your learner. Please contact your MIS providers for further information. Can both be recorded with the same date status applies (earliest date) on the MIS you use?" In the end we simply withdrew them off our first MIS system and claimed no funding from day one as it was part of the same month. Probably not much help to you. Best of luck.
Unfortunately the ESFA's response was less than helpful on this. My first response from them was "You need at least one employment status for the learner when I checked your data submission you ha...
Adam Walton commented,
Our gateway declaration document with our EPAO already obtains several confirmations of gateway readiness. Including confirmation from all parties that they are happy all KSBs have been achieved and apprentice has demonstrated competency based on the apprenticeship standard. Could we just add it as an additional declaration to this, mentioning the training plan or would you recommend this is kept separate to the standard EPAO form (which we could request gets amended)?
Our gateway declaration document with our EPAO already obtains several confirmations of gateway readiness. Including confirmation from all parties that they are happy all KSBs have been achieved an...
Adam Walton commented,
To follow on from this then Steve. For arguments sake if we were to withdraw the learner as they only failed 2 of 3 elements (as we wouldn't be able to claim completion), but this has now surpassed the R14 submission deadline, what implications would this have as the actual end date would be in the previous academic year? Example: Learner actual end date 25/07/2024 Attempted elements 1 and 2 on 25/10/2024. 3rd element was planned for 10/11/2024. Learner withdrew and did not wish to continue, therefore we process as withdrawal and not completed without achievement. This however would show as too late for previous year data. Would this simply be something we would need to justify?
To follow on from this then Steve. For arguments sake if we were to withdraw the learner as they only failed 2 of 3 elements (as we wouldn't be able to claim completion), but this has now surpassed...
Adam Walton commented,
I do appreciate the response Steve. I just weren't sure how this is perceived considering both result in a fail. It does make sense that the fact the learner attempted is the evidence we need to set this as completion status 2 which is exactly how i have recorded them. Thanks for clarifying though should we have any in the future that simply do not attempt but receive a fail. Cheers
I do appreciate the response Steve. I just weren't sure how this is perceived considering both result in a fail. It does make sense that the fact the learner attempted is the evidence we need to se...
Adam Walton commented,
Can i just bring this thread back to life with a question please? :) If a learner fails all elements of EPA, then does not wish to continue or re-attempt. (This can be for one of 2 reasons). Either they attempted and failed, or they didn't turn up so was recorded as a fail by the EPAO. Will both of these situations allow for a completion status of 2 as a fail grade was officially given by the EPAO? And to clarify, entering this as a completion status 2, with no achievement - 3. ? I can definitely see why pass rates would be somewhat inflated if this would result in a withdrawal instead.
Can i just bring this thread back to life with a question please? :) If a learner fails all elements of EPA, then does not wish to continue or re-attempt. (This can be for one of 2 reasons). Either...
Adam Walton commented,
Thanks for this Alice, but we do have it set correctly on our DAS as a non-levy paying employer. The difference here is the learner was neither a withdrawal or a BIL so a new aim would not typically be created here. I am enquiring as to whether a new aim needs to be created with the TNP 3 and 4, even though they were not a withdrawal or a BIL and how this should be recorded to get rid of this DLOCK issue.
Thanks for this Alice, but we do have it set correctly on our DAS as a non-levy paying employer. The difference here is the learner was neither a withdrawal or a BIL so a new aim would not typical...
Adam Walton commented,
Thanks for your response Martin. Just looking across multiple months, the value of coinvestment payment and contribution payment stays the same across multiple months, this is before and after the employer took on new apprentices. I suspect this is simply an empty pot. So using this case as an example, are you saying it is taken on a month by month basis? I'm only querying this as i wasn't sure whether contribution payment was no longer required if funds were later available in an employer's account midway through the apprenticeship.
Thanks for your response Martin. Just looking across multiple months, the value of coinvestment payment and contribution payment stays the same across multiple months, this is before and after the ...
Adam Walton commented,
Looking back at this post, if a levy paying employer who ran out of funds during the apprenticeship but then midway through the apprentice's programme suddenly has funds in their levy pot, will these funds then be used again? If so, will previous funds also be requested that they have already paid 5% contributions for that we will then need to pay back, or once they become a co-invester due to insufficient funds, they remain that way for remainder of apprenticeship? Any help would be appreciated. I don't feel the funding rules answer this specific question. Looking at Paragraphs 119 and 142.
Looking back at this post, if a levy paying employer who ran out of funds during the apprenticeship but then midway through the apprentice's programme suddenly has funds in their levy pot, will the...
Adam Walton commented,
Thx for your response on this Steve, much appreciated.
Thx for your response on this Steve, much appreciated.