Matthew Butson
Last activity
Member since
Votes
0
Subscriptions
7
Replies
Matthew Butson commented,
Hi Timmo, Thanks for the reply. Yes, that is correct. There is a hanging continuing enrolment from the 2020/2021 that was incorrectly carried forward into 21/22. This shows on the In-year QAR for this year although the hybrid end year shows as 21/22. As per the business rules this is how it should be recorded and will be treated as a withdrawal. I just wanted to double check that don't need to report it this year to close off the record to stop it affecting the 22/23 stats as well? I hope that makes sense. Matt
Hi Timmo, Thanks for the reply. Yes, that is correct. There is a hanging continuing enrolment from the 2020/2021 that was incorrectly carried forward into 21/22. This shows on the In-year QAR for t...
Matthew Butson commented,
Thanks Steve. I was looking at a report that had applied the qualifying period rules to CL provision and was just double checking the rules.
Thanks Steve. I was looking at a report that had applied the qualifying period rules to CL provision and was just double checking the rules.
Matthew Butson commented,
Hi all, My view on this has always been similar to Steve's but I can see this from both sides. The definition for the learning actual end date in the ILR spec as "The date that the learner completed the learning activities necessary to achieve the learning aim or the date the learner withdrew from the learning activities, accurate to within a week." would indicate that the exam is defined as a learning activity as it is necessary to achieve the learning aim.
Hi all, My view on this has always been similar to Steve's but I can see this from both sides. The definition for the learning actual end date in the ILR spec as "The date that the learner complete...
Matthew Butson commented,
Thank you, Steve. You have both confirmed what I was thinking. What made me question this was that the rules do state that you must query any contradictory information with the learner if there is mismatch between the learner's self declaration of their prior attainment and the PLR, but that the PLR will not necessarily override the learner’s self-declaration. In this case it is their initial assessment conflicting with their confirmed prior attainment. Have a weekend both and enjoy the sun!
Thank you, Steve. You have both confirmed what I was thinking. What made me question this was that the rules do state that you must query any contradictory information with the learner if there is ...
Matthew Butson commented,
Matthew Butson commented,
Good afternoon, I just wanted to check what learning aims other institutions are using for this programme. There are the sector gateway job outcome and employability aims in LARS but are other institutions delivering other aims as part of this programme? Kind regards, Matt
Good afternoon, I just wanted to check what learning aims other institutions are using for this programme. There are the sector gateway job outcome and employability aims in LARS but are other inst...
Matthew Butson commented,
Thanks Martin, that's a great suggestion but I still get the same error. I think you are right and the address should be included. I will speak to Maytas Support again about this.
Thanks Martin, that's a great suggestion but I still get the same error. I think you are right and the address should be included. I will speak to Maytas Support again about this.
Matthew Butson commented,
I have checked and the FM is 10 and the SOF 116. The planned hours are 3 so from my understanding of the validation rule that should be okay but the error is still popping up.
I have checked and the FM is 10 and the SOF 116. The planned hours are 3 so from my understanding of the validation rule that should be okay but the error is still popping up.