Becky O'Brien
Last activity
Member since
Votes
3
Subscriptions
43
Replies
Becky O'Brien commented,
I don't think it's present in any of those reports as it doesn't have any effect on funding. You can use PDSAT (but not for 25-26 at the moment), or could convert your file into .csv using the FIS app, or even add the value into one of the Provider specified fields, then it would appear on both Apps Indicative and Apps Monthly payment in the Period End reports.
I don't think it's present in any of those reports as it doesn't have any effect on funding. You can use PDSAT (but not for 25-26 at the moment), or could convert your file into .csv using the FIS ...
Becky O'Brien commented,
You need to add a FAM record against the FS aims with the Apprenticeship Contract Type recorded, the same as for a programme aim. The Functional skills aims need to be set up with programme type as 25, and the relevant standard code recorded, exactly as on the programme and the vocational aim. That should resolve R30 and R66 (All funded component aims must have a corresponding programme aim with the same Programme type and Standard code). There is a field at aim level called "Subcontracted or partnership UKPRN" where the subcontractor UKPRN should be entered. https://guidance.submit-learner-data.service.gov.uk/25-26/ilr/entity/LearningDelivery/field/PartnerUKPRN
You need to add a FAM record against the FS aims with the Apprenticeship Contract Type recorded, the same as for a programme aim. The Functional skills aims need to be set up with programme type a...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Possibly the gap there between August and October? Is the employer they were made redundant from willing to change the stop date so it then tallies up with what you've recorded as the date they were made redundant, and the DFE funding kicked in? Then there's no gap. Also highly recommend asking the Apprenticeship service helpdesk, especially as R14 isn't that far in the future. PS is what you've called the "Actual end date" the achievement date? I don't understand why this after the gateway date.
Possibly the gap there between August and October? Is the employer they were made redundant from willing to change the stop date so it then tallies up with what you've recorded as the date they we...
Becky O'Brien commented,
If you mean the 16-18 additional payments, (which are not incentives), then yes, they are to do with age; or if 19-24, their age and having an EHCP/being a care leaver.
If you mean the 16-18 additional payments, (which are not incentives), then yes, they are to do with age; or if 19-24, their age and having an EHCP/being a care leaver.
Becky O'Brien commented,
I'm not aware of there being a way to do this in advance of it happening, unless your employers will co-operate and let you know if there will be enough to cover the payment. I'm fairly sure that the expectation is that we would be invoicing retrospectively, on the back of the information in the co-investment reports.
I'm not aware of there being a way to do this in advance of it happening, unless your employers will co-operate and let you know if there will be enough to cover the payment. I'm fairly sure that t...
Becky O'Brien commented,
I've just gone looking for published evidence to back up what I do, and I can't anything that is 100% clear, which is odd. However, I believe it is indeed only the monthly payments and not the achievement. I think I established that a few years ago by testing 2 identical aims: one with 0 RPL and one with a one higher than 0. I believe the achievement was paid in both cases, which makes sense, as you'd get that for a very overdue learner who hadn't taken a break and whose OPPs have run out, so you should get it for one who had a break too.
I've just gone looking for published evidence to back up what I do, and I can't anything that is 100% clear, which is odd. However, I believe it is indeed only the monthly payments and not the achi...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Am assuming you mean 25A-508, not 108? Also just double checking that this is about apprenticeships as you've not stated that? (There are some devolved areas that still have non-apprenticeship aims in that report). If about apprenticeships, then you are correct about it being FS only, as this part of the Provider Support Manual applies: Recording new aims when an apprentice returns from an agreed break in learning ..... Funding adjustment for prior learning Programme aim: Not Returned Component aim: Proportion of the aim still to be delivered (English and maths aims only) If it's not about apprenticeships, then where they are coming back to the same non-reg learning (note I said learning, not aim, as we have the same aim for many completely different courses in the same SSA and the same level) then RPL should apply.
Am assuming you mean 25A-508, not 108? Also just double checking that this is about apprenticeships as you've not stated that? (There are some devolved areas that still have non-apprenticeship aims...
Becky O'Brien commented,
I would investigate and be very clear concerning what the situation really is. You say "laid off", but he is still working sometimes, and should still have a contract in place. So what contract is he under now? Is it zero hours? Rules are clear that zero hours contract should not be an obstacle to an apprenticeship if you can still deliver within the rules. I'd also be very careful in determining if his OTJ time is still paid. If it is not, then that's not an eligible apprenticeship anymore.
I would investigate and be very clear concerning what the situation really is. You say "laid off", but he is still working sometimes, and should still have a contract in place. So what contract is ...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Did the OPPs that were clawed back in R08 when the error was made re-appear? If so, then that would point toward there being an additional reason for lack of payment of the achievement. I would then be looking to see if there is a mismatch, or, if there were non-governmental contributions due, were they all paid and recorded as paid in the ILR.
Did the OPPs that were clawed back in R08 when the error was made re-appear? If so, then that would point toward there being an additional reason for lack of payment of the achievement. I would the...
Becky O'Brien commented,
If they have already started both (which is my understanding), then I would put the one they have stopped attending on break, from the last time they did learning, not the start date, and restart once they've completed the other subject. Only put on break with the start date if they did not attend at all AND the start date is in a previous funding year. Where we stagger the start of FS, we make sure the training plan has both set of dates. We have a "pre-enrolled" status in our system, so staff are aware that that both are needed, but that one has not started yet. The one starting latest is made "active" and goes into the ILR once the learning has actually started. The TP should be updated if they start this earlier or later than originally planned. This results in us proving that we have 1) planned for both, 2) not drawn down funding for the second aim before they actually started. This works for us, but I understand that it might not work for all depending in your internal processes.
If they have already started both (which is my understanding), then I would put the one they have stopped attending on break, from the last time they did learning, not the start date, and restart o...