Yolanda De Luca commented, 10 August 2022 07:58

Ours are errors too now! The majority of these are already FM99 and most of them don't even have a loan. The recently added Category has an effective from date of the 01/04/22, all our learners started before this date so even with this added category, I can't understand why these would error. Eleanor, I'm not sure what the ESFA's reply means either, none of ours are LDM 378, so I don't think this added clause is going to make any difference at all. As this stands, I don't think I can do anything to correct the errors.

1. LearnDelFAMType_110 Errors

Ours are errors too now! The majority of these are already FM99 and most of them don't even have a loan. The recently added Category has an effective from date of the 01/04/22, all our learners sta...

Yolanda De Luca commented, 15 December 2021 15:00

Thanks Martin for replying Just to clarify: The same as the above but if prior attainment changed for 21/22 we added another record making the "date level applies" equal to the earliest start date for 21/22. I'm not referring to learning agreements which started in 20/21 and have continued on the same learning agreement in 21/22. This is a little difficult to explain but effectively what we have done is created a record to show the learner's earliest prior attainment at our institution (this could be 3 years ago but have started a new learning agreement year on year), then added  their current attainment for the 21/22 Learning Agreement. e.g. Learner had a Prior Attainment of level 1 in 20/21, when they first attended our college, they completed all aims on Learning agreement by the end of 20/21. The learner then enrols in 21/22 but their attainment level has is now Level 2, achieved with us It always used to be that prior attainment was collected when the learner first enrols at an institution and had to remain unchanged - previous ILR Spec below.  The data captured in this field should be the learner's prior attainment when they first enrol with the provider. This field should not be updated if the learner progresses to subsequent learning aims within the same or subsequent teaching year, after completing their initial learning programme.  Where a learner returns to a provider after an absence of more than one teaching year, then the Prior attainment field should be re-evaluated and updated. Has that rule completely gone now? As the old Prior Attainment field has now been removed from the ILR, is it right that we would only show the current attainment level so that in my example above only the level 2 would be recorded? Does it mean that the Prior Level data will only exist from 21/22? Thanks

1. ILR Error R131 'Prior Learning'

Thanks Martin for replying Just to clarify: The same as the above but if prior attainment changed for 21/22 we added another record making the "date level applies" equal to the earliest start date...

Yolanda De Luca commented, 15 December 2021 13:14

I put this in a couple of days ago but have not had any response, so will be cheeky and add to this thread. The R131 error is in it's hundreds and I need to fix these for R05. Hi, I have read the posts regarding this error dated from about 3 months ago and wondered if anyone has any further updates since then. When recording the new Prior Level fields, we have done the following: added a record for the original prior attainment (previous years) in the new entity, using the new values with the learner's earliest start date in previous years, if this remained unchanged for 21/22 we didn't add any further records, effectively leaving us with a prior attainment with a date <01/08/21. The same as the above but if prior attainment changed for 21/22 we added another record making the "date level applies" equal to the earliest start date for 21/22. For learners new to the college (first enrolment in 21/22),  we created a single record making the "date level applies" equal to the earliest start date for 21/22. I appear to have error R131 (If returned, There must be a prior attainment record matching the earliest learning ai/m start date for the learner) for any learners for which I have a date <01/08/21 Should we be recording the learner's prior attainment (level when first started at our institution), in the new entity, given that this information has always been required and that the new entity is there, or so I thought, to show the current attainment which could not be seen previously in the ILR?     I am very cautious of removing the old attainments input into the 21/22 Prior Level fields (converted to new values), in case it turns out that it should be there. If I can determine whether the old data should be included, I then know, I need to get to the bottom of why these are errors. I think deleting the old records may well get rid of the errors but may not be the right thing to do.   I would really appreciate any feedback on this.   Yolanda

1. ILR Error R131 'Prior Learning'

I put this in a couple of days ago but have not had any response, so will be cheeky and add to this thread. The R131 error is in it's hundreds and I need to fix these for R05. Hi, I have read the p...

Yolanda De Luca commented, 13 December 2021 15:22

Hi,  I have read through this thread and can see these are from 3 months ago. Have there been any updates since? I was able to submit R04 without this issue, thank goodness, as R131 was a warning. Now I'm preparing for R05, the warnings have now become errors. I have a similar issue to that posted by Angela Peck; done the following regarding the new Prior Level fields added a record for the original prior attainment (previous years) in the new entity, using the new values with the learner's earliest start date in previous years, if this remained unchanged for 21/22 we didn't add any further records, effectively leaving us with a prior attainment with a date <01/08/21. The same as the above but if prior attainment changed for 21/22 we added another record making the "date level applies" equal to earliest start date for 21/22. Should we be recording the learner's prior attainment (level when first started at our institution), in the new prior level fields, given that this information has always been required and that the new entity is there to show the current attainment which could not be seen in the ILR in previous years. I am very cautious of removing all the old prior attainment records created in 21/22 Prior Level, in case it turns out that it should be there. If I can determine whether the old data should be included, I then know, I need to get to the bottom of why these are errors. I think deleting the old records may well get rid of the errors but may not be the right thing to do. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Yolanda

1. 21_22 R01 FIS error for Prior Level

Hi,  I have read through this thread and can see these are from 3 months ago. Have there been any updates since? I was able to submit R04 without this issue, thank goodness, as R131 was a warning. ...

Yolanda De Luca commented, 18 May 2021 09:52

Thanks Kelly I think it was the wording in an email sent to me, where I was questioned whether a learner living in Torquay could be funded. I know that Torquay is in the UK but wasn't sure if there was some other restriction to funding, devolved area or otherwise. Sometimes when you get this type of email it makes you question yourself.

1. Eligibility for funding

Thanks Kelly I think it was the wording in an email sent to me, where I was questioned whether a learner living in Torquay could be funded. I know that Torquay is in the UK but wasn't sure if there...

Yolanda De Luca commented, 04 February 2021 15:33

Thanks Martin, Why have they made this so complicated. There is no suggestion in the guidance that these 2 reports are no longer FRM reports but can be found in the PDSATs. I'll have a look at our PDSATs.

1. FRM04/05/26

Thanks Martin,Why have they made this so complicated. There is no suggestion in the guidance that these 2 reports are no longer FRM reports but can be found in the PDSATs. I'll have a look at our P...

Yolanda De Luca commented, 03 February 2021 10:56

Thank you so much everyone the FRM06 report gave me such a scare. I have re-submitted our file today and it looks much better.

1. FRM06 Continuance issues - P6 problems?

Thank you so much everyone the FRM06 report gave me such a scare. I have re-submitted our file today and it looks much better.

Yolanda De Luca commented, 03 February 2021 09:51

Thanks Ruth, I have been looking in both places but it still feels like I'm not getting all the usual reports for 20/21. I don't understand why they're splitting the reports, placing them in different locations, doesn't make any sense to me. It worries me that the reports will appear at a later stage and we will have a last minute panic.

1. FRM reports

Thanks Ruth,I have been looking in both places but it still feels like I'm not getting all the usual reports for 20/21.I don't understand why they're splitting the reports, placing them in differen...

Yolanda De Luca commented, 03 February 2021 09:33

Thanks Martin, I am looking at the same qual in previous year.

1. FRM reports

Thanks Martin, I am looking at the same qual in previous year.

Yolanda De Luca commented, 20 January 2021 17:46

Thanks Martin, that's great and such a relief. I can see them now.

1. Apps Period End Reports

Thanks Martin, that's great and such a relief. I can see them now.