Steveh
MIS and Funding specialist with over 20 years of experience! Remembers submitting funding returns on floppy disks through the post...
Last activity
Member since
Votes
24
Subscriptions
863
Replies
Steveh commented,
Not to bang on too much, but this is where Ofsted get very worried about providers "recruiting with integrity" and no one wants a worried Ofsted inspector...
Not to bang on too much, but this is where Ofsted get very worried about providers "recruiting with integrity" and no one wants a worried Ofsted inspector...
Steveh commented,
Cripes, Entry 1 is a *long* way from Level 1 though... P141 is the one you're looking for: P141 We will fund Functional skills English and / or maths at level 1 or below where you (or a subcontractor) have conducted an initial assessment that shows the apprentice needs to study at a lower level before being able to achieve their level 2. (my emphasis) So, yes, you get £471 for each English or Maths aim you add to a learner which can be multiple levels over the course of their App. But seriously, you need to be sure someone assessed at that level can cope with the rest of the App, I'd be very, very hesitant about taking them on before they'd improved their skills (and there are a lot of other providers out there with AEB to spend and FS is almost the last thing fundable in the workplace (and if we're talking maths, there's MILLIONS in Multiply funding knocking about...))...
Cripes, Entry 1 is a *long* way from Level 1 though... P141 is the one you're looking for: P141 We will fund Functional skills English and / or maths at level 1 or below where you(or a subcontracto...
Steveh commented,
I'm unsure what a POT is in this situation, but you have to record both learning aims in your ILR, the original one and the one they're transferring to (the only exception would be if it was an error in-year and they were always meant to be on the Ext Dip, at which point you'd "just" change the Learning Aim (although, depending on which system you're using this isn't necessarily easier!)).
I'm unsure what a POT is in this situation, but you have to record both learning aims in your ILR, the original one and the one they're transferring to (the only exception would be if it was an err...
Steveh commented,
This is a transfer. So, it's perfectly reasonable to change the hours to match the new programme (take the hours they've done so far then the remaining hours on the new programme).
This is a transfer. So, it's perfectly reasonable to change the hours to match the new programme (take the hours they've done so far then the remaining hours on the new programme).
Steveh commented,
Not for the QAR. Would for your retention factor which I think is a solid reason for flagging it completed?
Not for the QAR. Would for your retention factor which I think is a solid reason for flagging it completed?
Steveh commented,
Heh, they were wrong even then ;) I don't get why you can't have them running over academic years though? There's nothing I can think of to stop you? You only record the *hours* for a year at a time (which is a bit of a faff), but there's nothing wrong with having the aim itself crossing the two years. But, anyway, assuming they went and you've got proof, would just flag them as completed/achieved because that's what's happened for that bit of the WEX. As I say, they're excluded from QAR so it sort of doesn't matter.
Heh, they were wrong even then ;) I don't get why you can't have them running over academic years though? There's nothing I can think of to stop you? You only record the *hours* for a year at a tim...
Steveh commented,
Well, partial should only be used for HE courses, so don't use that (frankly, it should have been done away with years ago!). Is this for Traineeships or regular study progs? It definitely doesn't matter for the latter as the generic ZWRK aims are excluded from the E&T Qualification Achievement Rates. I'll leave it to someone with better knowledge than me of the Traineeship QAR to answer how to code them in those circs...
Well, partial should only be used for HE courses, so don't use that (frankly, it should have been done away with years ago!). Is this for Traineeships or regular study progs? It definitely doesn't ...
Steveh commented,
I guess so, as you say, they're still employed. Going to depend on a. the learner's availability/willingness b. whether any elements of the EPA need them to be in the workplace (and whether that can be arranged during the break)?
I guess so, as you say, they're still employed. Going to depend on a. the learner's availability/willingness b. whether any elements of the EPA need them to be in the workplace (and whether that ca...
Steveh commented,
The only thing I can think of is if you had a minus number on your R14 greater than the positive number on your R03? You should still have had a remittance slip either way?
The only thing I can think of is if you had a minus number on your R14 greater than the positive number on your R03? You should still have had a remittance slip either way?
Steveh commented,
The QAR definitely won't care if the original record is there because it's clever enough to link the records across years providing the learner ref is the same and you've got the Original Start Date in. Worth pointing out that the Indicative Funding report (if you're using it!) is very much NOT clever enough so you're money will be all to whack in that without the original record. ALSO that there's an outstanding query about how the Apps Accountability Framework is counting BILs if they're in this year's data but refer to previous years...
The QAR definitely won't care if the original record is there because it's clever enough to link the records across years providing the learner ref is the same and you've got the Original Start Dat...