Clare Parker-Doyle

funding_qualifying_period_excl

Created

None

Hi all.  I have a query regarding QAR inclusion/exclusion.  If an apprentice has was on the system less than 42 days before withdrawing and  TRUE under funding_qualifying_period_excl then shouldn't they been QAR exclusion not inclusion?

Any help appreciated.

Clare

Replies

No one has replied to this post.


Timmo

Hi, The explanation on qualifying period for apps is in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/qualification-achievement-rates-2024-to-2025/qualification-achievement-rates-2024-to-2025#exclusions. Scenario 5 (below) is the more common but scenario 6, covering restarts, may also apply (a bit long to paste in here).

HTH

Apprenticeships scenario 5

Apprenticeships where the learner has withdrawn from the apprenticeship within the funding qualifying period and has not achieved the learning aim.

Rules for identifying the excluded apprenticeship:

Programme aims where: 

  • the planned duration is 168 days or more 

  • the actual duration is less than 42 days; and 

  • the Completion Status is 3 (Withdrawal); and 

  • the Restart Indicator is 0 (Not a Restart)

(Edited)

Clare Parker-Doyle

Thank you for replying.  They have all that in place so should be showing as QAR excluded right?  They are showing as QAR included on the report for QAR R10.  Just want to make sure I am not missing something before sending a query to the QAR team is all.  Thanks C

James Francis

Hi Clare,

I noticed this last week, it definitely seems to be a bug with the data extracts where funding_qualifying_period_excl is TRUE (should be 1 according to the spec but that's a separate issue), but the qar_status is set to QAR Inclusion (again not quite matching the spec) whereas it should be QAR Exclusion. It seemed to be affecting all records. I've reported it to DfE but am yet to receive a response.

James

Clare Parker-Doyle

Hi James.  Thanks for replying.  I will report it as well. 

Thank you Timmo for your link as well.

Timmo

Thanks Clare Parker-Doyle, TBH James Francis is a more knowledgeable source than I am these days!