Martin Outlaw
Last activity
Member since
Votes
0
Subscriptions
13
Replies
Martin Outlaw commented,
The FE Provider Dashboard is now working for me, and on R05 Data. However, it seems that it is no longer possible to download the background learner data. One step forward as they say.
The FE Provider Dashboard is now working for me, and on R05 Data. However, it seems that it is no longer possible to download the background learner data. One step forward as they say.
Martin Outlaw commented,
Hi Laura, In the Apps monthly payments report, they would appear in the month's Levy funding column, but on a Non-Levy "Funding Line Type" row. Martin
Hi Laura, In the Apps monthly payments report, they would appear in the month's Levy funding column, but on a Non-Levy "Funding Line Type" row. Martin
Martin Outlaw commented,
Ben, I raised a service desk query (R10) regarding learners being counted as past their planned end date, when their planned end date fell between the period end date and the file submission date. The second part of the query was regarding the double counting of leaners who went on a second BIL, and that the days count went from the first BIL, and ignored the interim period of learning. The second part of the query was addressed, the first has not been. I will be re-raising this with specific refence to R13.
Ben, I raised a service desk query (R10) regarding learners being counted as past their planned end date, when their planned end date fell between the period end date and the file submission date. ...
Martin Outlaw commented,
It goes to the employer that they are with when they reach the deadline, so in each of your two examples the 2nd employer gets the payment. M
It goes to the employer that they are with when they reach the deadline, so in each of your two examples the 2nd employer gets the payment. M
Martin Outlaw commented,
"more than 250 apprentices past their planned end date, regardless of the length of time" This part of the measure seems unnecessarily harsh to me. Given that previous "Timely Achievement" gave a 90 day leeway, it be more appropriate to only count those past 90 days. M
"more than 250 apprentices past their planned end date, regardless of the length of time" This part of the measure seems unnecessarily harsh to me. Given that previous "Timely Achievement" gave a 9...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Steveh, I deal with all of the data in a spreadsheet table, with specific sort orders applied, then using a number of different formulas to build up the various pieces of information that I wish to get from it, and use of the offset function to avoid this type of duplication. Martin
Steveh, I deal with all of the data in a spreadsheet table, with specific sort orders applied, then using a number of different formulas to build up the various pieces of information that I wish to...
Martin Outlaw commented,
It would seem that the Planned break calculation for the first of the two planned breaks uses the original learning actual end date, and the current period end date (or file submission date), and completely ignores any time back in learning between the two.
It would seem that the Planned break calculation for the first of the two planned breaks uses the original learning actual end date, and the current period end date (or file submission date), and c...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Hi, I have checked mine today, are there are definitely still issues with it. We have a couple of learners who have gone on a second planned break. My expectation would be that having returned to learning the first planned break would be ignored, but this is not the case as they are double counted. I am yet to work out, quite which dates are being used either. The Learners Past Planned end date is not correct either, as they appear to have used the file submission date to calculate it rather than the period end date. Our drill down data for R10 is counting 2 learners with an Expected End date of 01/06/2023 (R11). The use of the file submission date may apply to Breaks in learning too. Martin
Hi, I have checked mine today, are there are definitely still issues with it. We have a couple of learners who have gone on a second planned break. My expectation would be that having returned to l...
Martin Outlaw commented,
Hi, Yes it does mean that they do not have enough levy. the £1,318.15328 has come out of the levy pot and the balance of £1,912.24672 has been paid from the co-investment pot, £1,816.63438 from the ESFA , and £95.61234 required from the employer. Martin
Hi, Yes it does mean that they do not have enough levy. the £1,318.15328 has come out of the levy pot and the balance of £1,912.24672 has been paid from the co-investment pot, £1,816.63438 from the...
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...