Ruth Canham-James
Working in College MIS since July 2009.
Last activity
Member since
Votes
90
Subscriptions
567
Replies
Ruth Canham-James commented,
And you'd record the ECF/MCF as 3 - Learner has met the GCSE condition of funding as they hold an approved equivalent UK qualification. Don't enter the grade as if it were a GCSE.
And you'd record the ECF/MCF as 3 - Learner has met the GCSE condition of funding as they hold an approved equivalent UK qualification. Don't enter the grade as if it were a GCSE.
Ruth Canham-James commented,
I think if they started in the current year, you can just correct it. I'm sure we've done that several times. If you've already had some funding, it can make the amounts in the reports look a little odd, but it should balance out.
I think if they started in the current year, you can just correct it. I'm sure we've done that several times. If you've already had some funding, it can make the amounts in the reports look a littl...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
@... That is interesting: I'd check if you've definitely received the completion payment before doing anything. It normally does not change to 'completed' until the payment has been made to the provider. Do you know if that's the case if the completion element wasn't released because of under-collection of PMR? That would make sense as they'd leave it open on the assumption that you'll collect the missing PMR soon. If the year then closes, I guess it would never shut the DAS record.
@... That is interesting: I'd check if you've definitely received the completion payment before doing anything. It normally does not change to 'completed' until the payment has been made to the pr...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Steveh Because if we're not reducing the duration, we physically can't reduce the minimum OTJ hours. It still has to be 6 hours a week for a full timer. If our usual OTJ for that Standard was more than 6 hours a week then yes, we could reduce. If our normal OTJ for that Standard was only 6 hours a week (or close to), we can't go below minimum. EDIT If the hours are the same because they can't not be there, where the reduction coming from? That is a good question! We are still expected to reduce the price because we didn't need to deliver it, and we might not deliver that particular part, but we're forced to replace that OTJ with some other OTJ to meet the minimum 6 hours a week.
Steveh Because if we're not reducing the duration, we physically can't reduce the minimum OTJ hours. It still has to be 6 hours a week for a full timer. If our usual OTJ for that Standard was more ...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Sarah Vernon Might be a silly question, but will a blank work? We trialled all the RPL stuff, and it did error sometimes, but we definitely managed to get things through with a price reduction and no OTJ/duration reduction.
Sarah Vernon Might be a silly question, but will a blank work? We trialled all the RPL stuff, and it did error sometimes, but we definitely managed to get things through with a price reduction and ...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
You don't have to reduce OTJ. You should reduce price, but you only need to reduce duration (and therefore OTJ) if it's suitable. Just put your reasoning in the Training Plan. 29.1.2 If the provider cannot reduce the duration, they must still meet the minimum requirements of the off-the-job training policy for the full duration of the apprenticeship that has been reported to us in the ILR For example, where some of the delivery is classroom based, and that lasts a specific length of time, the content being missed might be in the middle. You can't change that plan for a whole class, so the duration has to be at least as long as the classroom based delivery plan.
You don't have to reduce OTJ. You should reduce price, but you only need to reduce duration (and therefore OTJ) if it's suitable. Just put your reasoning in the Training Plan. 29.1.2 If the provid...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Without knowing the guidance to back it up, I'm sure I've heard a couple of people confirm that you have to use the band max from when they originally started, even if you don't include the Original Start Date. Also, if they did more than 42 days originally, you'll already have drawn down some funding, so need to knock that off the new price. The new duration can be whatever you deem suitable (as long as the two periods together are at least a year), there's no restriction on that.
Without knowing the guidance to back it up, I'm sure I've heard a couple of people confirm that you have to use the band max from when they originally started, even if you don't include the Origina...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Definitely not. We deliver just for co-funding and no student contribution for all sorts of reasons. Plus, we don't record in the ILR what the student contribution was, so how would they know?
Definitely not. We deliver just for co-funding and no student contribution for all sorts of reasons. Plus, we don't record in the ILR what the student contribution was, so how would they know?
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Yes, they only do it after the R14 of the year after the overclaim, so it can be over claim from up to two whole years earlier. I don't know where it appears in reports, but we've just had clawback, from over claim in 21/22. I've often wondered what they do with levy funds overclaimed, do they put it back in the levy account of the employer? If an employer complains to us that we overclaimed, and it's made a difference to them, I don't think there's anything we can functionally do.
Yes, they only do it after the R14 of the year after the overclaim, so it can be over claim from up to two whole years earlier. I don't know where it appears in reports, but we've just had clawback...