Replies
No one has replied to this post.
I anticipate that these issues would be included in the due to be published this month 20/21 QAR documentation.
In the meantime, I expect that those who have access to ProAchieve would continue to use this to monitor their retention and achievement.
An Alternative to doing it manually is to use the Access mdb ILR data to report retention and achievement and if you have included course or cohort data in the PSLD fields you can produce useful reporting as in the example below.
HTH
Craig Humphreys
Apps QAR Methodology
Created
How is everyone finding how to monitor their projected QAR? Just wanted to see if anyone else is having similar issues that we are…
I think it has gone under the radar a little with Covid, and not publishing the data last year. It seems to be a little too complex now for what it should be to monitor, especially based on the inclusion of achievement date as a hybrid end date, and the change to the learners expected end date now being the expected practical period end date rather than the expected EPA date. We previously used to use our MI system built in reports to do monitor this, but it isn’t practical anymore and can only be done manually.
The expected end year as it is for us, if learners were to fall May-July – these are more than likely to now be included in the following year due to the EPA period. There is also the case where EPAO’s are busy at this time of year with other providers also trying to get their learners achievement through before year-end.
This has been the case with some of our learners, who have gone into Gateway, but when trying to book the learners EPA’s, the EPAO’s don’t have availability now till August at the earliest, so those learners who we had down as expected this year, are now due to be next year Overall achievers. This has reduced our projected cohort size for the year and therefore each withdrawal then has a higher percentage impact on that cohort.
Going forward out of a Covid pandemic world, this period is also likely to be harder to get learner availability during peak holiday season.
Not only that, but we are also hearing that there are potential changes coming to some of the standards we delivery where the gateway period is likely to be extended to 6 months which further exacerbates the issue and throws retention rates into question.
I personally think that they need to add another date field to the ILR to include an expected EPA date as well as the expected practical period end date. Use the practical period end as the funding end date but use the expected EPA date as the hybrid date for the QAR as it is becoming impossible to project going forward without this.
Alternatively, not to use the achievement date for a hybrid-end, but rather the actual end date for the year they fall into. The achievement date could still be used to measure success when they eventually sit their EPA. The only issue with that is if they are in gateway for a longer period of time and cross-over funding years.