Replies
No one has replied to this post.
We just close every aim down to the last date of positive attendance recorded. Programme end date is obviously the last aim date that gets closed.
We close the sessions for each qual down to the last date of attendance as well to reduce the impact on overall attendance which is a struggle on study programme at the best of times.
Working off the 4 week/28 day rule works for us when making leavers, however we do exempt any learners from this if we have evidence of an intention to return. For example a learner with health issues who can evidence doctors appts etc.
Of course, this would all be a lot easier if Further Education had AN ACTUAL DEFINITON OF ATTENDANCE rather than everyone just making up their own...
No point in shooting yourself in the foot about this. I'd set any marks after the last date of attendance to neutral. You're already losing out on the retention!
Steven Edmondson
Withdrawal Register Marks
Created
We are reviewing our withdrawal processes. Currently, when a w/d is processed all subsequent marks as of the processed date are recorded as “Not attended and not required to and attend”.
However, any non-attendance marks between submission of w/d request and processing of w/d continue to add up and affect overall attendance in both Prosolution and our internal attendance tracking dashboard.
As not all withdrawals are processed in a timely manner curriculum are asking why attendance marks after last date of attendance cannot be recorded as “Not attended and not required to and attend” on completion of the withdrawal process.
How do other providers manage this situation? Do you have a set number of absences a learner can have before withdrawal ( we are aware of and follow the 4 week rule) Do you go back and amend absent marks in this period up to a certain point to account for the point the withdrawal was in processing?