Replies
No one has replied to this post.
Sorry think the link had included a space have updated the post now.
I was wondering if other people have noticed something similar with their data? Or if we were coding something incorrectly on our side?
I've flagged this is an issue with the customer support portal. However that was last week and we're now receiving emails saying their very busy and might not be able to respond for a while.
Yes I can see that it will be counted differently once they achieve, but this will happen outside of the academic year that we're currently being reported on.
It just feels odd that they're sitting negatively against us when actually they are exactly where they are meant to be at this point.
This is a feature not a bug I'm afraid... Because there's no way of telling via the ILR how long the EPA process should/can take, they had to pick a number and went for 180 days. I think it's because there was definitely a *thing* on some standards of people doing an actual qualification (even where not mandatory) and then not doing the EPA, so they're worried anyone in Gateway for ~6 months should be a withdrawal...
That's a real shame if true, besides the fact that the EPA process is normally scheduled to be longer then three months. But also delays on the EPA side are often to do with the availability of Assessors with the EPAO. We're still waiting on the assessment dates for learners who went through Gateway in early April. If any of them have to resit any elements, this cohort of learners will easily end up past the six month date at the current rate.
I mean, the whole point of the AAF is not that you should never have anyone on it, they're not meant to be interested until you're in the vicinity of the threshold and, even then, it's meant to be the START of a conversation, not "computer says no". Understanding *why* you've got learners on the report and that you have an idea of when they *will* complete is the key thing, so you can show you're in control of what's going on.
I agree and it is only a supplementary indicator. However it's one that I imagine we'll trigger in the next year or so, potentially from a mixture of learners who gatewayed on time but had their EPA process delayed and EPA processes which are actually just meant to last six months. There are always things that affect our success rates which are completely out of our hands.
I still think learners who have gatewayed should be removed from this statistic. If anything just so I don't go mad explaining to our operations team that overdue EPA from learners who gatewayed in a timely way will count against us. But also that them being overdue bares no relation to what was agreed on the training plan and with the EPAO.
It also doesn't help that the number on the dashboard doesn't seem to link to the number reported on the learner data that sits behind it.
Sam Bern
AAF Past Planned End Date including learners who are in EPA
Edited
We've been reviewing the data on the new AAF dashboard, we noticed that when we reviewed the learner data for the Past Planned End date that learners who had gone through gateway within six months but their EPA was still ongoing were still being counted where six months had past since their planned end date but had completed gateway and this was recorded as their actual end date.
The learner actual end date is meant to be the date that they are expected to end learning shortly before gateway. EPA can last six months and in rare instances more.
Reading the logic of the report that's been posted here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeship-training-provider-accountability-framework/apprenticeship-training-provider-accountability-framework-and-specification--2
it does state that they looks at zprog aims where the completion status is 1 or 2, learners who are post gateway are still considered 1 but the outcome is set to 8.
Shouldn't these be excluded from this report, where the gateway date is less then 3 or 6 months after the planned end date but they are still going through EPA?