Non Regulated learning - Complete or Withdraw?

Depends what their planned date is.

We go with anything within one month of the planned end date is completion no achievement and anything earlier is a withdrawal.

The definition of Completed is "The learner has completed the learning activities leading to the learning aim", so the question is, did they do all the learning activity you set out for them to do? If no, withdrawal, if yes, early fail/pass. It definitely possible to have early fails and passes, but be prepared to justify them to an auditor! It's something they were very interested in last time, as their suspicions are that they are actually withdrawals. The tricky bit with non-reg is if the team didn't plan out what the students should have been doing over the duration. They should have a plan of what the student was going to do, and what would constitute a pass. If not, how can you possibly says whether it's a withdrawal, fail or pass? 

Thanks for the advice.  They had a planned end date of 27/06/24 and there would have been a plan in place for the "project" they were doing all academic year.  We usually complete anyone who attended in last 6 weeks of their planned end date as an "early completion" so those are fine, it was just those that hadnt attended for months, sounds like we should be putting them as a Withdrawal, as they didnt complete what was planned.  

(Is it not just EEP though? I think I might just call it EEP? So, still timetabled, organised and within normal working hours but not on an aim and then this problem goes away...)

(Unless someone thought they were being cunning by trying to boost an ach rate by having a bunch of non-reg aims...)

Good question about the EEP.  We were just looking at the best way to accurately record the data in the ILR, so not trying to boost any ach rates etc 

I've seen it in other places (it doesn't even really work, no one important looks at overall ach anymore)...

So, yeah, would totally EEP it going forward, probably wouldn't change it retrospectively and agree with setting those not seen since Christmas to withdrawn.

There are good reasons to use non-reg aims for some learners, don't get me wrong.

It's not always clear whether to use a non-reg and EEP, or just EEP. We only use them for 16-18 funded students on our lowest level programmes, where they won't be doing any regulated aims other than English and maths. I don't know what difference it makes fundamentally to have the Z00 code there or not, but I guess it shows the general area and level of what they did in the LRS? 

At National Star we do use Non-Reg aims to record the RARPA progress, as a specialist college for students with disabilities. We always have one or two students not doing accreditation at all.  Last time Ofsted were in they were interested to see the non-accred aims as recognition it's not all about accreditation for NSC students. Hours are in EEP.

I agree with Ruth Canham-James I've had the pleasure of this before on ESFA audit. Our learners follow a scheme of work for enrichment and work related activity at 60 hours but we make sure the learner has at least 50% positive attendance before completing them as achieved. 

If the aim is achieved an auditor will expect to see a non regulated cert with the qual code and last date of attendance to match the ILR and registers. As we deliver all our EEP aims at the back end of the progamme they didn't question the completion status of each aim and just wanted to see the cert evidence as the learners had already gone past their funding qualification period. 

We produce a certificate for achievement of the Z code aims end of each year. Colleague cleverly did some sort of magic to populate a certificate document using the codes as an export from ILR.