Becky O'Brien
Last activity
Member since
Votes
3
Subscriptions
43
Replies
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...
Becky O'Brien commented,
As Steve has said, the EPA gets paid whenever it takes place. The only time you won't get paid is if you miss recording an achievement in the funding year it occurred: e.g. recording someone with a May 24 achievement date (part of 23-24) in 24-25 data.
As Steve has said, the EPA gets paid whenever it takes place. The only time you won't get paid is if you miss recording an achievement in the funding year it occurred: e.g. recording someone with a...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Steve Hewitt I agree, but am also not surprised at the lack of updated rules. I have to say a press release is a step above how they've communicated other changes. I'm thinking of the scrapping of the register of EPA orgs that we only discovered by trying to use it, or by reading an article in FE Week.
Steve Hewitt I agree, but am also not surprised at the lack of updated rules. I have to say a press release is a step above how they've communicated other changes. I'm thinking of the scrapping of ...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Becky O'Brien commented,
I'd say yes, although not sure what that will do to your payments as the "achievement" payment will have been paid already. Perhaps ask the apprenticeship service? We only record fails when we know the learner is not going to resit and the fail is the final result so I've not experienced this scenario.
I'd say yes, although not sure what that will do to your payments as the "achievement" payment will have been paid already. Perhaps ask the apprenticeship service? We only record fails when we know...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Levy paying employers should be able to add them with any date as they don't need to reserve funds. Non-levy is an issue as you have described. The only way at this point to add them without changing the start date is to use a levy transfer, as long as the levy transfer sending employer is happy with back dating. Recommend you don't put them in your ILR if possible until DAS issues resolved as we aren't meant to have apprentices who are coded as funded, for whom we are actually not receiving funding.
Levy paying employers should be able to add them with any date as they don't need to reserve funds. Non-levy is an issue as you have described. The only way at this point to add them without changi...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Do you mean additional payment? Incentives haven't been active for years. If so, then yes. If they are 16-18, then the only criteria for eligibility is their age. Eligibility criteria 99. The provider and the employer will receive an additional £1,000 payment towards the additional cost associated with training if, at the start of the apprenticeship training, the apprentice is: 99.1. Aged between 16 and 18 years old (or 15 years of age if the apprentice’s 16th birthday is between the last Friday of June and 31 August); or 99.2. Aged between 19 and 24 years old and has either an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan provided by their local authority and / or has been in the care of their local authority as defined in paragraph 101.2.
Do you mean additional payment? Incentives haven't been active for years. If so, then yes. If they are 16-18, then the only criteria for eligibility is their age. Eligibility criteria99. The pro...