Sam Bern
Last activity
Member since
Votes
51
Subscriptions
37
Replies
Sam Bern commented,
Thanks Phil, I do follow your logic and I agree to match the ESFA data I'll have to ammend this count accordingly. Your example is really useful and it helps clarify my confusion as it's not what's descriped in the QAR specification. It defines the funding qualifying period field as the difference between these two dates. 'The actual duration of the aim, in days is the difference between the Learning Start Date and the Learning Actual End Date.' https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/qualification-achievement-rates-2024-to-2025/qualification-achievement-rates-2024-to-2025#qar-process Field: funding_qualifying_period_excl This is different to your example above. My issue is that they haven't actually followed the process that is outlined in this document or the document is incorrect. Maybe if there had been an example with dates in it, it would have helped. The reason as I understand it regarding 366 days was that they had to complete 365 days and they wouldn't have completed 365 days until the 366 day was complete. As the first day was not counted as a full day. I'm ready to admit I'm wrong on this. But I want to see what I could have referred to before the data was published this week that would have shown me I was wrong. In the grand scheme of things it's a really small issue which has only affecting our data this year in a tiny way. But if people have access to something where this is clarified I'd really appreciate it being shared.
Thanks Phil, I do follow your logic and I agree to match the ESFA data I'll have to ammend this count accordingly. Your example is really useful and it helps clarify my confusion as it's not what's...
Sam Bern commented,
Maybe I have gone down a rabbit hole with this. But the point is that there's no way to work this out, unless you have the end data and work back from that? Yes I could alter the calculation but the point of it is that no one else would consider this to be the norm? The only way to work this out is after the fact. And why was the minmum duration of 12 months defined as 366 days and not 365 days?
Maybe I have gone down a rabbit hole with this. But the point is that there's no way to work this out, unless you have the end data and work back from that? Yes I could alter the calculation but th...
Sam Bern commented,
When this happens to me I use the download data link on the QAR dashboard, then I compare the figures from the DFE to our internal figures to see what the discrepensies are. If this is the raw data you mentioned it did balance back to the reported figures in the dashboard for us. Included in the report is all data over several years, you need to filter against the hybrid end year, which will be 2024. Then the Overall_Leaver field is used to see who's being included.
When this happens to me I use the download data link on the QAR dashboard, then I compare the figures from the DFE to our internal figures to see what the discrepensies are. If this is the raw data...
Sam Bern commented,
Correct the learner cannot pay. However if you write it into your contract the employer can be charged for late notice, resits, etc. We don't subcontract but we do have a process for learners sitting exams remotely. Some of which are time speicifc and can't be changed once booked.
Correct the learner cannot pay. However if you write it into your contract the employer can be charged for late notice, resits, etc. We don't subcontract but we do have a process for learners sitti...
Sam Bern commented,
In the QAR specification they use this example. Learner goes on a break in learning 23/24. 'Overdue planned break' will be set to true if there is no withdrawn aim in 24/25 or there is no record of their BIL in 24/25. If there is a Break in learning aim returned in 24/25 then 'overdue planned break' is false as it's being returned and the break continues. I think an issue we're having is this new simplified QAR breakdown which actually makes it slightly harder to anticipate how the data reporting will handle this. The reality is this calculation isn't simple, it's really complicated that uses five years worth of data with different rules about how each aim is treated and counted. Example below 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 When we treat records as withdrawn due to the situation described they become flagged and described as ‘overdue planned breaks’.
In the QAR specification they use this example. Learner goes on a break in learning 23/24. 'Overdue planned break' will be set to true if there is no withdrawn aim in 24/25 or there is no record of...
Sam Bern commented,
I agree with you Steve. It won't have a huge effect on the QAR, and the BIL kept in check by the AAF. Most learners come back from a BIL within a year, however there are some where that is not the case. In the past we've had to make them leavers, however that will no longer be the case.
I agree with you Steve. It won't have a huge effect on the QAR, and the BIL kept in check by the AAF. Most learners come back from a BIL within a year, however there are some where that is not the...
Sam Bern commented,
Yup! Fingers crossed they remove the error reporting they included between duration, hours and price. I think currently its reduction amount in pounds. But I think new funding band maximum makes more sense?
Yup! Fingers crossed they remove the error reporting they included between duration, hours and price. I think currently its reduction amount in pounds. But I think new funding band maximum makes mo...
Sam Bern commented,
Yeah I'm just wondering what will need to be returned. Our IAG is firmly underway for our August starts and we're debating what data will need to be reported next month. At the moment we think it will be reduction in hours, our standard OTJT in hours for that programme, Reduction in hours, revised funding band maximum and RPL true or false.
Yeah I'm just wondering what will need to be returned. Our IAG is firmly underway for our August starts and we're debating what data will need to be reported next month. At the moment we think it w...
Sam Bern commented,
I'm not sure if that's what it means, it does state in the above that it'll be treated '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' so if a learner on a break in learning in July 24, comes back August 25. As long as at R12 and R14 24/25 has a break in learning record, R01 25/26 can have a restart record and it still be counted. The trick will be making sure that your LMS is including these records. Admiditedly until the data gets published I feel these specs can always be a bit tricky as keeping up with all the rules is just so hard.
I'm not sure if that's what it means, it does state in the above that it'll be treated 'if there is no restart record or continuation of break record in either: the R14 ILR return in 2023 to 2024 t...
Sam Bern commented,
We noticed the same thing as Martin above that learners who were on a break in learning at the end of 23/24 but were reported as withdrawn in this academic year 24/25 were not included in the calculation. This may account for some discrepencies around the reported figure being higher then expected. We also checked that they were being included in the r10 return which they were. We raised it with the DFE and they confirmed this was an error, which is being corrected in a future release of the data.
We noticed the same thing as Martin above that learners who were on a break in learning at the end of 23/24 but were reported as withdrawn in this academic year 24/25 were not included in the calcu...