Qualification achievement rates 2024 to 2025

Hi Sarah

Yes you are right on this. A change in the methodology means that you now have 4 months less for learners to return from a break and them not to be counted as a penalty leaver within the QAR. 

I assume (and we know the folly of assumptions) is that the DfE have looked at the proportion of learners who come back in that window and have decided that this would not make a significant difference to achievement rates.

Thanks

Paul

Hi Paul

Thank you for your response.

The addition of 'continuation of break record' suggests that they can continue to be recorded as a break in learning at that point without being deemed as withdrawn.

The change in the 4 months won't have a huge impact as it is rare we have these kind of timescales on breaks in learning, however it looks to us like the rule has changed around having to withdraw apprentices who are on long term breaks in learning.

Thanks

Sarah

Oh, heck, yes, of course this will have to happen if they're not using R04 any more! Hadn't even occurred to me...

Sarah Hudson you DO NOT have to mark them as withdrawn though, they can stay as a BIL and when they DO come back and achieve they will count positively against you in that year.

Wait, no, hold on...

wait wait wait...

Have we not go this backwards...

We also treat learning aims as withdrawals in the QAR methodology where they have a Completion status of 6 (‘Learner has temporarily withdrawn from the aim due to an agreed break in learning’) and where either: 

• they do not have a corresponding restart record in the same funding year 
• they do not have a corresponding restart record or continuation of break record in the following funding year. 

For example, if you recorded an aim with a planned end date in July 2024 that had a break in learning beginning in April 2023, this will be a withdrawn aim in the 2024 to 2025 funding year if there is no restart record or continuation of break record in either:  

•  the R14 ILR return in 2023 to 2024

•  the R14 ILR return in 2024 to 2025

This is just saying there needs to be a BIL record in the subsequent year's ILR, I don't think it matters if they haven't come back???

Oh heck, feels like a trip to the Customer Service Desk for me...

My reading of this Steve is that the process is as it was but you just have 4 months less to return. If you are a BiL then you have up to the end of the following academic year to return in order to not be counted as a leaver in the QAR. The difference is that you no longer get the first 4 months of the 3rd academic year to return in now that they are no longer using the R04. 

The process was already inequitable in that a learner going on a break in July would have 16 months to return (now 12) whereas an August break had 28 months (now 24). Obviously most breaks are shorter than a year but suspect there will be some small impact on headline achievement rates as a consequence of this. 

I think I will raise a query with customer service desk, although I don't expect a definitive answer. 

I am with Steve, the addition of the continuation of break record suggests as long as they remain recorded on a break they are excluded.

I will raise with customer services and update here on their response.

We can compare answers!!!

I don't think that is any change from the current process. 

If a learner is on a break in learning in 23/24, then that break in learning continues to be submitted in corresponding years until either the learner returns and restarts their learning, or you report the learner as having withdrawn . 

If the learner has not returned by R14 24/25 then this will be counted as a withdrawal in the QAR.

Where a learner is retrospectively changed from a break to a withdrawal in 24/25 but with a 23/24 learning end date, then this learner stops being included in the ILR return. In this instance learners get added into the QAR as withdrawal and labelled as an overdue break in learning and added to hybrid end year based on planned end / actual end +1 year. 

My reading of that is that, aside from the R04 change, this is the same as it was previously but interested to see what the combined response is from the service desk is. 

Ah, but, not everyone *does* roll over their BILs into the following year's data (more fool them, particularly if they're Apps), there's certainly no Rule that says you must and, as far as I know, with most student record systems, it's a pain in the bum to do it...

Let us see what they say though.

So after re reading this many times I now get that the fact that it has the continuation of break record stated actually doesn't make a difference to the 2 year rule, they would be either returned, withdrawn or continued on break anyway in that time, it is just stating the obvious. The only difference as Paul said is the 4 months. I did however already raise the query with DfE and this is what they came back with:

Every time an aim is returned as a break in learning, the 2 year timer resets.
 
So if an aim is returned as a break 3 years in a row, but then not returned at all for 2 years after that, then the aim will become overdue and count as a withdrawal.
 
However, it's also worth noting that although technically an aim can keep getting returned as a break, doing so repeatedly for longer than breaks are expected to last for may trigger an investigation by DfE.

What I don't understand is why this isn't detailed as an actual funding rule, they set no limit however you might be investigated if it goes over the 2 year 'rule' that isn't a rule.

We don't allow breaks to go past the 2 years anyway as the likelihood of a successful return for longer breaks diminishes as time goes on but it is something that we have always questioned as it isn't very clearly written.

You'll be delighted to hear that my response from the Service Desk only talked about AAF and not QAR, due to the usual lack of reading comprehension, so I've sent it back to them to look at it again...

My interpretation of this is I think the same as Steve Hewitt - that provided BILs are rolled over and continue to be reported as a break until they return or withdraw, they won't be treated as an overdue break (and thus withdrawal) under the QAR methodology.

I actually wonder if this has always been the case...and the only change is that this has now been clarified by the addition of the reference to continuation of break records in the guidance? (aside from the changes to not use R04 data of course).

Overdue breaks is the bit of the QAR that I've never quite mastered, my internal calculations are normally spot on, except for where I have expected the odd long-term break to be treated as overdue and counted as a withdrawal under QAR, but it hasn't. As a provider, we always roll ongoing breaks into the current ILR year until they return or withdraw, and if converted to a withdrawal, we would include them in the ILR data for the year when that decision took place, which is the year they then impact the QAR (reporting year becoming the hybrid year end if it's later than the planned or actual end date).

I had assumed the intention of overdue breaks in the methodology was to prevent providers manipulating QAR by just leaving learners on a break instead of withdrawing them, but the AAF would now cover that, as your percentage and duration of breaks would flag you if you tried to do that, but perhaps that is no longer (or was never) the reason for it.

Yes, just got basically the same response back as Sarah Hudson:

An aim marked as a BIL means the aim has an actual end date (the day the learner left to go on a break) and that the aim is closed.

The system therefore awaits a new return to learning aim to be submitted.

Every R14 that the BIL aim is returned, it rests the 2 year timer for when the system expects a return to learning aim to be submitted by.

However, if an aim is repeatedly returned as a planned break, exceeding the length of time planned breaks usually take, this can trigger an investigation.

This is to avoid learners being left as an infinite BIL

Obviously have asked them to define "usually"!