Ruth Canham-James
Last activity
Member since
Votes
26
Subscriptions
289
Replies
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Samuel Bridge It's a lot to learn! It's always nice when you can benefit from someone else's experience. I was doing this when the changes first came in and we were all finding our way through it. Also, rather sadly, I find this quite interesting... And I just noticed my numbers above were wrong (5% of £12,500 is £625), but you get the jist!
Samuel Bridge It's a lot to learn! It's always nice when you can benefit from someone else's experience. I was doing this when the changes first came in and we were all finding our way through it. ...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
In the co-investment report, column T (% of co-investment collected), is how much you're recorded as PMR overall so far (columns P and R), compared with column Q (co-investment due from previous years) and column S (co-investment due in this year). Column S, the amount due in this year, only considers the money "due" one month at a time, as ESFA pay us the 95%. Look at one student across several reports, and you'll see column S increase each month (whilst they're still on programme). If a student starts in Sep on a 20 month app that's total £12,500 (£10k on programme payments), our total on programme income each month is £500. That's £475 from ESFA and £25 from the employer. We choose to collect the whole 5% up front, which is £600. 6 months in, column S will show we are only "due" £150 (£25 x 6). £600 is 400% of £150. We've collected 400% of what is due so far. As the amount due goes up, but the amount you collected stays the same, the % slowly comes down each month, until you finally hit 100% once the completion element becomes "due" (the same month ESFA pay us the completion element).
In the co-investment report, column T (% of co-investment collected), is how much you're recorded as PMR overall so far (columns P and R), compared with column Q (co-investment due from previous ye...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
I am talking very small numbers, it just happened to have come up recently. A couple were actually early fails, which made me question whether they really were fails, or should be withdrawals. I'm told they did have exams scheduled earlier than planned (these are adult courses with fixed cohort end), and they attended some, but not all, exams. We were debating if that should stay as a fail, or be switched to a withdrawal. So you're right, if they're withdrawals, we could lose some payments that I'd argue we are due, as they basically did finish everything.
I am talking very small numbers, it just happened to have come up recently. A couple were actually early fails, which made me question whether they really were fails, or should be withdrawals. I'm ...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Steveh I have no idea! I don't deal with Exams, it was something Exams said to me. Maybe it's more of an internal thing, where we remove from seating plans etc. I do feel that, if we fully expected them to show up, and they're just absent, that's a fail. A student who pulls out of exams before they were happening, seems more legitimate as a withdrawal, but it's a fine distinction. I also don't fully understand the implications, as I don't deal with achievement/retention data either.
Steveh I have no idea! I don't deal with Exams, it was something Exams said to me. Maybe it's more of an internal thing, where we remove from seating plans etc. I do feel that, if we fully expected...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Dan Hodgetts Your specific example won't create a data lock, as you were including your assessment price within the training price record. When you follow the rules and don't include the assessment price in your TNP1, it does cause a data lock when you add the TNP2, as the overall price goes up. If you find any of your TNP records are wrong, as long as you amend it in the academic year in which it was first returned, that's ok. Once a TNP record has been in an R14 for a closed year, you can no longer just "fix" it, you have to add a new TNP to show the change. There's a good explanation of why that matters in this webinar. It's to do with price episodes and there being a snapshot at each year end.
Dan Hodgetts Your specific example won't create a data lock, as you were including your assessment price within the training price record. When you follow the rules and don't include the assessment...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Minimum for that specific Standard you mean? The only minimum OTJ I know about is the validation rule one. I wouldn't get involved in the specifics of each Standard, our apprenticeship team manage that. But yes, if there's a Standard minimum, that also needs to be met, and you equally can't artificially extend durations to meet that.
Minimum for that specific Standard you mean? The only minimum OTJ I know about is the validation rule one. I wouldn't get involved in the specifics of each Standard, our apprenticeship team manage ...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Yes and no. If the apprenticeship has fully completed/withdrawn, then probably yes. If they're still on programme, then no. We collect the whole co-investment up front in most cases, so they appear as over 100% right up until the completion payment has been triggered. We double check the refunds required once a quarter, though we do process refunds as and when we withdraw apprentices, or they change employer. We have a few that sit at 101%/102% because of change of employers and rounding to whole pounds, and that's fine. You don't want to round up your refunds, and end up at 99% contribution and lose your entire completion element for the sake of £1.38.
Yes and no. If the apprenticeship has fully completed/withdrawn, then probably yes. If they're still on programme, then no. We collect the whole co-investment up front in most cases, so they appear...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Even where we had a set duration because of scheduled classes, if we thought the RPL would take them below the one year duration if we didn't have fixed classes, we still say they're ineligible. P25.4.1 could apply for us if it's normally a two year course, we think RPL means a duration and price reduction of 20%, but we can't reduce below two years because of timetables. They would still have met the one year minimum even if the timetabling hadn't been a problem. That small exemption doesn't negate all the other rules that say you should reduce the duration.
Even where we had a set duration because of scheduled classes, if we thought the RPL would take them below the one year duration if we didn't have fixed classes, we still say they're ineligible. P2...
Ruth Canham-James commented,
We will see next September! I'll try asking the Service Desk, but I don't expect term to fully understand the complexities of PHours for T levels.
We will see next September! I'll try asking the Service Desk, but I don't expect term to fully understand the complexities of PHours for T levels.
Ruth Canham-James commented,
Simon Liversedge What makes you think that? The 22/23 rules say; P24.2.3 There must be evidence that the programme content, duration and price has been reduced accordingly (see paragraphs P25 to P26 for further guidance, including how to calculate and document the price reduction); P25.4 Your assessment must quantify the content which should be omitted from the training plan, in the form of a volume of off-the-job training hours. P25.4.1 The reduction of off-the-job training hours must translate to a reduction in duration and in the total negotiated price. (If you cannot reduce the duration, you must still meet the minimum requirements of the off-the-job training policy for the full duration of the apprenticeship that you have reported to us in the ILR). P25.4.3 Where you account for prior learning and experience and the reduction of content would mean that the apprenticeship would fail to meet either the minimum duration requirement or the minimum off-the-job training requirement, the apprenticeship is not eligible for funding.
Simon Liversedge What makes you think that? The 22/23 rules say; P24.2.3 There must be evidence that the programme content,duration and price has been reduced accordingly (seeparagraphs P25 to P26...