Ben James
Last activity
Member since
Votes
214
Subscriptions
342
Replies
Ben James commented,
Oh I'm not confusing them, I know the fact that most of the time them both being 20% is incidental, I was just wondering if the EPA cost being 25% would have any impact on the split. Presumably then, given that it's 80/20 all the time, it would be 75%(training)+5%(portion of EPA) for the OPPs and 20%(remaining portion of EPA) for completion.
Oh I'm not confusing them, I know the fact that most of the time them both being 20% is incidental, I was just wondering if the EPA cost being 25% would have any impact on the split. Presumably the...
Ben James commented,
Agree with Martin; planned end date has not bearing on whether a learner completes or withdraws. There are obviously exceptions, but generally speaking; If a learner is on a Framework and leaves early they'll be a Withdrawal (3 - Withdrawn/3 - No Achievement) If a learner is on a Framework and achieves they'll be an Achiever (2 - Completed/1 - Achieved) Standards are slightly more nuanced in that if a learner progresses to the stage where they take their EPA they are still marked as having completed (2 - Completed) but this can either result in a pass (1 - Achieved) or a fail (3 - No Achievement)
Agree with Martin; planned end date has not bearing on whether a learner completes or withdraws. There are obviously exceptions, but generally speaking; If a learner is on a Framework and leaves ea...
Ben James commented,
Definitely no changing the PED (only allowed to correct errors) - leave them as continuing and they'll go significantly over. You won't need to worry about it affecting your timely QAR data as Standards are exempt from this calculation (at least they are/were in terms of the 19/20 business rules, the 20/21 guide is due at the end of May). It wouldn't be classed as a break in learning as the learner will be continuing with their training. There may be scope for renegotiating the price, depending on what the initial cost you negotiated was, but this is a conversation you'd need to have with the Employer. As far as OTJ is concerned, I'd suggest it makes sense that seeing as the learner will still be engaged in their practical period and will be working towards their qualification, I see no reason that any OTJ hours completed during this time shouldn't count towards the original planned amount (this will not change as you're not revising the planned duration).
Definitely no changing the PED (only allowed to correct errors) - leave them as continuing and they'll go significantly over. You won't need to worry about it affecting your timely QAR data as Stan...
Ben James commented,
I'll be sure to have my Turing machine on hand next time they publish an update!
I'll be sure to have my Turing machine on hand next time they publish an update!
Ben James commented,
Yeah I did open the August 2020 one and see that it was updated on May 2021.. but the update on May 24th 2021 which I screenshotted above suggests they've "published version 2 of the apprenticeships technical funding guide from August 2021". Odd, no?
Yeah I did open the August 2020 one and see that it was updated on May 2021.. but the update on May 24th 2021 which I screenshotted above suggests they've "published version 2 of the apprenticeship...
Ben James commented,
Has the Achievement Date been populated on the ILR? I presume the Completion Status and Outcome is also 2 and 1 and you've entered the AED for the Programme?
Has the Achievement Date been populated on the ILR? I presume the Completion Status and Outcome is also 2 and 1 and you've entered the AED for the Programme?
Ben James commented,
One of the main reasons is if you have not recorded all of the necessary co-investment contributions. Levy paying Employers do sometimes find themselves without sufficient funds in a given month, at which point they'd need to co-invest, and you'd need to record receipt of said payments on the ILR, otherwise the achievement/completion payment won't be released. I'd check your Period End reports to see if the Employer did need to co-invest at any point, and go from there?
One of the main reasons is if you have not recorded all of the necessary co-investment contributions. Levy paying Employers do sometimes find themselves without sufficient funds in a given month, a...
Ben James commented,
Page 71/72 of the Funding Rules which concern actions to take when there is a change to the working hours of the apprentice during the programme (e.g. an increase or a decrease to original working hours) [image] Conversely, if you and the Employer (and any other participatory parties) agree there is no material impact, the Apprenticeship Agreement and Commitment Statement need not be updated
Page 71/72 of the Funding Rules which concern actions to take when there is a change to the working hours of the apprentice during the programme (e.g. an increase or a decrease to original working ...
Ben James commented,
I presume the Employer is a levy payer? If so, may be worth checking to see if at any point they had insufficient funds and would’ve therefore needed to co-invest. Providers need to report that all required co-investment contributions have been received before the payment can be made. Period end reports would be your best bet.
I presume the Employer is a levy payer? If so, may be worth checking to see if at any point they had insufficient funds and would’ve therefore needed to co-invest. Providers need to report that all...