Martin Outlaw
Last activity
Member since
Votes
0
Subscriptions
13
Replies
Martin Outlaw commented,
Yes Charlotte, I have been using the Apps Indicative Funding report and counting against the ZPROG001 aim, for all in-scope aims. Where a learner has multiple ZPROG001 records resulting from a funding change (Employer related) the original record is not counted. Multiple records created by BIL are counted, and thereby for part of the cohort against which the % is calculated. Counts are on completion status, 1,2, 3, & 6; in this case we are looking at only 1 & 2, and then making a comparison between the planned end date, and either the Learning actual end date for completers, or the ILR reference date for in learning. (using the previous period). I am not happy with the results that I'm getting, so I am investigating potential alternative methods of counting. I have not been able to match the AAF results for BIL. If only the ESFA could provide a detailed specification of how they have arrived at their figures, and a drill down facility to see which learners, it would make it so much easier to sort out the discrepancies.
Yes Charlotte, I have been using the Apps Indicative Funding report and counting against the ZPROG001 aim, for all in-scope aims. Where a learner has multiple ZPROG001 records resulting from a fund...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Hi, I have managed to match the data for both R06 and R07, for the current number of apprentices past their end date, the over 180 days, and over 365 days. However this has only been possible by using the previous period end date, so as per their example (e.g 31/03/22 for R08), I would have to substitute this with 28/02/22. It make no sense to me to use the ILR reference date from the Previous period, but it does give 6 matching answers, and not 6 non-matching answers. I have used dates in 2023, 31/01/2023, 28/02/2023, not 22 as their example states, (or have I completely misinterpreted what they were trying to say).
Hi, I have managed to match the data for both R06 and R07, for the current number of apprentices past their end date, the over 180 days, and over 365 days. However this has only been possible by us...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Martin Outlaw commented,
I would add that I had considered the inclusion of withdrawals <42 days to be completely intentional, in so much that the accountability framework was including a new set of measures that would account for areas missed by the usual QAR. If only we had a real Technical Specification.
I would add that I had considered the inclusion of withdrawals <42 days to be completely intentional, in so much that the accountability framework was including a new set of measures that would acc...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Hi Steveh, Definitely included in the Main AFED dashboard counts. May not be included in the Beta dashboard count, I couldn't agree the beta total either way, but excluding them brings it closer. Martin
Hi Steveh, Definitely included in the Main AFED dashboard counts. May not be included in the Beta dashboard count, I couldn't agree the beta total either way, but excluding them brings it closer. M...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Steveh, there are some very interesting things going on here. I have managed to match the calculations for the AFED dashboard Apprenticeships, with the correct numbers for in learning, planned breaks, withdrawals and completions, and the resulting percentages. The count is being taken from the indicative funding report, and counts ZPROGS, but not all of the ZPROGS are in scope. If a learner returns from a BIL and has 2 ZPROGs then they are both counted, the first remains in the BIL count, the second in the learning count, or withdrawn, or completed depending on the final outcome. If a second ZPROG is created in the report as a result of a funding change then only the latest version is counted. BIL count goes up with each new BIL, and only goes down if the learner fails to return, as the 6 changes to a 3 and the learner is then counted as a withdrawal. It is counting the the completion status field at 1, 2, 3, & 6 for all "In scope" ZPROGS. The Beta dashboard is however a complete mystery, the headline total number of learners matches the original dashboard, but the withdrawal count and percentage does not, the learner summary and withdrawals over time, appear to be counting all aims even if the Apprenticeship component filter is unticked, and ticking it barely changes any of the results. It is a beta after all. HTH Martin
Steveh, there are some very interesting things going on here. I have managed to match the calculations for the AFED dashboard Apprenticeships, with the correct numbers for in learning, planned brea...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Ours has updated too, and is zero, as we had expected it to be.
Ours has updated too, and is zero, as we had expected it to be.
Martin Outlaw commented,
Hi, Ours has come out the same, I am wondering if they have included frameworks, as the number they quote roughly matches the frameworks. All of our standards have EPOA, so the figure should be 0. Martin
Hi, Ours has come out the same, I am wondering if they have included frameworks, as the number they quote roughly matches the frameworks. All of our standards have EPOA, so the figure should be 0....
Martin Outlaw commented,
Vicky, With regards to the query over previous years payments not showing up, we have experienced this with previous episodes of learning on the same programme, where the funds showed up in last years report but not this one. What you need to do is ensure that the previous episode is set to always export, the ESFA get the data for last years funds in this years export, and the co-investment report is corrected. On your first point, we run a PICS report to get the more specific ACT codes (ACT1L, ACT1N) then use a lookup on the Supplier Aim reference to copy the data in to any ESFA report that needs it. Martin
Vicky, With regards to the query over previous years payments not showing up, we have experienced this with previous episodes of learning on the same programme, where the funds showed up in last ye...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Might help if the Apps co-investment contributions report recorded the Current ERN, and not just the ERN at start of learning.
Might help if the Apps co-investment contributions report recorded the Current ERN, and not just the ERN at start of learning.