Becky O'Brien
Last activity
Member since
Votes
3
Subscriptions
43
Replies
Becky O'Brien commented,
Ruth Canham-James I've changed my mind about asking them. I don't want to go around in circles about this Absolutely agree about the purpose of the SEM and what to do at audit. I don't think we've ever had a query about us NOT returning it for learners who were 25+, so it shouldn't be an issue now given it is equally irrelevant to determining eligibility for funding.
Ruth Canham-James I've changed my mind about asking them. I don't want to go around in circles about this Absolutely agree about the purpose of the SEM and what to do at audit. I don't think we've ...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Connor Goulding Not that late! I've still not had an answer from the ESFA, other than it being passed to their policy team so you're doing better than them! That is very helpful, thank you.
Connor Goulding Not that late! I've still not had an answer from the ESFA, other than it being passed to their policy team so you're doing better than them! That is very helpful, thank you.
Becky O'Brien commented,
Ruth Canham-James Wow... to be that muddled over what the rules clearly state! The SEM flag thing makes no sense. Reason Required To establish employer eligibility for apprenticeship funding We've never returned it unless the employer and apprentice combination was eligible to have co-investment waived. Why would it be returned in circumstances where it does precisely nothing to establish employer eligibility for funding? Sorry - I know you've said this, but just repeating it to show how nonsensical it is. I'll try asking them myself: see if I get a different answer.
Ruth Canham-James Wow... to be that muddled over what the rules clearly state! The SEM flag thing makes no sense. Reason Required To establish employer eligibility for apprenticeship funding We'...
Becky O'Brien commented,
I had an issue yesterday with View Your Educational Data which I use rarely. I was able to reset the password, however.
I had an issue yesterday with View Your Educational Data which I use rarely. I was able to reset the password, however.
Becky O'Brien commented,
Thank you, Steve. You can see why I'm second guessing myself though! I have managed to read these rules both ways as you have. I wish they would just give a clear set of examples, but I know that's a pipe dream. I've also asked the helpdesk, so I'll see what they say. As ever, it's important to know what other non-ESFA people think so we can collectively identify where the ESFA think they are being clear, but are not, rather than it just being certain individuals not understanding (like the wishy-washy wording the first time they introduced the 28 day "rule", where we all interpreted it differently to their intention).
Thank you, Steve. You can see why I'm second guessing myself though! I have managed to read these rules both ways as you have. I wish they would just give a clear set of examples, but I know that'...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Thanks Ben. My thoughts had been going your way anyway (despite what my post might indicate), and that leaving them at 1-8 is enough. I am however, checking with ESFA.
Thanks Ben. My thoughts had been going your way anyway (despite what my post might indicate), and that leaving them at 1-8 is enough. I am however, checking with ESFA.
Becky O'Brien commented,
Ryan Wiseman (sorry there are 4 profiles with that name, so if this is wrong I can't tell) To some extent you would look at the rules when they started, although I think I'd apply the need for a statement to all finishing early and with less than the full planned hours who started before 25/26 to be safe. 25/26 rules in this area can't apply backwards as there has been a fundamental change in how OTJ is calculated. No, you do not have to give back funding. You just need to have on file a record of the difference between the planned and actual, and the reason why they are different. It's not like a Skills Scan.
Ryan Wiseman (sorry there are 4 profiles with that name, so if this is wrong I can't tell) To some extent you would look at the rules when they started, although I think I'd apply the need for a st...
Becky O'Brien commented,
I've gone through the guidance in detail previous and wrote up guidance (specific to our org so can't share it all). What I think *may* be correct is.... If no event has taken place and the learner did not withdraw, but they finished recently: the programme aim must be set as 1, 8, with no actual end date. The Skills Bootcamp specific non-reg aim must be set as 2,8 The component aims must be set to a closed status as appropriate Then.... if 6 months after the latest component aim learning (not planned) end date there has been no event: Programme aim: actual end date = same as the latest dated component aim, aim status 2, 3 Skills Bootcamp non-reg: aim status 2,3 (achieved is mentioned as an option, but elsewhere it indicates that should only be used if there has been an event) I'm not 100% sure if this is correct, but it's what we're doing for now until we're told it's wrong!
I've gone through the guidance in detail previous and wrote up guidance (specific to our org so can't share it all). What I think *may* be correct is.... If no event has taken place and the learn...
Becky O'Brien commented,
Steve Hewitt Thank you. I'll show the person I'm going to be discussing this with your reply. If we do chose option 2 we'd of course document what happened and why we've done this. Absolutely would not dream of applying this across multiple apprentices!
Steve Hewitt Thank you. I'll show the person I'm going to be discussing this with your reply. If we do chose option 2 we'd of course document what happened and why we've done this. Absolutely would...
Becky O'Brien commented,
100% agree with the points about search results and DfE staff being present.
100% agree with the points about search results and DfE staff being present.