Accountability framework dashboard / Breaks in learning

Yes it is including with a subsequent restart record when these should be excluded.

I mean, being paid and DAS being updated are such a long way from where they're getting this data I would forget about that bit ;)

Just looked and my single BIL (look, our Apps are tiny) is also this, wasn't even on a break for 180 days (was barely six weeks!), so, yeah, it's still not working right...

Haha, was more to illustrate just how NOT on a break they are.. but I take your point. 'Nice' to hear others are also experiencing the same, misery does love company after all.

Morning

I actually reported this again yesterday. We are still green and on track but would like it to show the correct figures. 

I'm hoping somebody can help as I must be looking in the wrong place, but how can I export the data for the "total number of apprentices"? This number seems higher than I calculate myself, the exports for the withdrawals/overdue just seem to give those learners, but I could do with seeing who the ESFA are counting in the overall number of learners to check that, any ideas?

Steve

Click on Apprenticeship Learners on the dashboard and this will take you to the summary page select return and then click on Learner data, this will display all programmes which can then be exported by selecting the more options …

HTH

Ah ok thanks, didn't think to look in that section, though I'd be able to get it from the Accountability Framework area.

I've selected R10 and exported, however there are more learners in that list compared to the figure shown in the Acc Fwk section, can't see anything to filter on within the export to make them match up though? Any ideas?

The definition in the guidance is ‘Total number of apprentices’ means all your apprentices within the academic year, regardless of their completion status’ and ‘Apprentices who do not meet the qualifying period of a minimum 42 days are excluded. This is set out in the apprenticeship funding rules’.

Which would explain why the number of apprentices indicated on the AAF is lower than the number of records exported, in my case this was 1797 and 1878 exported.

There are errors in this though as those on a BIL are reported incorrectly as they have not excluded those that have restarted in my case they report 72 when there are only 30.

HTH

Mine now match the AAF.

Thanks for the update Henry.

Mine three (ie it's now 0)!

Hi,

I have checked mine today, are there are definitely still issues with it. We have a couple of learners who have gone on a second planned break. My expectation would be that having returned to learning the first planned break would be ignored, but this is not the case as they are double counted. I am yet to work out, quite which dates are being used either.

The Learners Past Planned end date is not correct either, as they appear to have used the file submission date to calculate it rather than the period end date. Our drill down data for R10 is counting 2 learners with an Expected End date of 01/06/2023 (R11). 

The use of the file submission date may apply to Breaks in learning too. 

Martin

It would seem that the Planned break calculation for the first of the two planned breaks uses the original learning actual end date, and the current period end date (or file submission date), and completely ignores any time back in learning between the two.

I mean I can see how a second BIL would confuse it... It's sort of outside how the QAR works as well, because that just does: if CompStat = 6 then ignore (regardless of how many there are), so it's not something they can easily lift from the code for that...

I'm trying to work out how you would code it because we still want it to count the second one (and I think I've just broken my brain trying to work out what it would do with a third!!!).

Steveh

The solution I used was to identify using the DMax (of the learning start date) for the programme (standard) and where this = [LearnStartDate] then Choose([CompStatus],'In learning' ,'Achieved', 'Withdrawn' ,'','','On BIL'),Null) to identify the latest completion status and those still on a BIL.

Good Morning Henry,

The form has been submitted with example data included. REF CI-0209023 .

Thank you

Steveh,

I deal with all of the data in a spreadsheet table, with specific sort orders applied, then using a number of different formulas to build up the various pieces of information that I wish to get from it, and use of the offset function to avoid this type of duplication.

Martin

Morning All - It would seem for us that Learner Past the End Date is now going Amber without corresponding volume, when we extracted the data we have learners flagged who have actually been returned on the ILR as completed. Is anyone else having a issue, do we know if there is a blip in the Accountability Dashboard?

Thanks Paul

From the guidance:

Apprentices past planned end date

This refers to apprentices who are past their planned end date or were past it when they completed their apprenticeship.

This includes apprentices where the ILR ‘completion status’ field is recorded as either:

code 1 – the learner is continuing or intending to continue the learning activities leading to the learning aim

code 2 – the learner has completed the learning activities leading to the learning aim

We’ll assess organisations with more than 15% of the total number of apprentices past their planned end date by 365 days or more as ‘at risk’.

We’ll assess organisations as ‘needs improvement’ if they have either:

more than 15% of the total number of apprentices past their planned end date by180 days or more but less than 365 days

more than 250 apprentices past their planned end date, regardless of the length of time

HTH

Thanks Martin West helpful reminder, but we seem to have a wider issue that the data is classing learners past the end date based on the practical end (i.e. gateway) and not the end date, so where I have learners who have reached gateway and have a year in EPA that the data is flagging them past the end date, even though they are due to finish in Feb24. I think it is time to raise a query

. 

The length of time in EPA is not included in this measure as it only includes those where the actual end date of the practical period is greater than the planned end of the practical period.

I believe the intention of this measure is to identify where providers are getting compressed funding as they are drawing down funding over a shorter period than the actual delivery period.

HTH

Armstrong, Paul I'm very confused here. If your learners are going to gateway on time, then they should have an ActEndDate in the vicinity of their Planned End? Because ActEndDate is the the last day in learning, entirely separate from EPA.

(I'll not ask about year long EPA processes because I Don't Want To Know...)

"more than 250 apprentices past their planned end date, regardless of the length of time"

This part of the measure seems unnecessarily harsh to me. Given that previous "Timely Achievement" gave a 90 day leeway, it be more appropriate to only count those past 90 days.  

M

Yeah, you'd think, but here we are. Basically any large provider is going to fall foul of this, but, as it's only one measure out of many, only the start of the conversation etcetc, it shouldn't be a deal-breaker.

The more "cunning" will extend planned ends on new starts and finish people "early", but that's not going to help for a couple of years minimum (and I am not advocating it as a course of action). But this means you get less per month and only get the balance with the completion payment...