Benjamin Feighery
Last activity
Member since
Votes
1
Subscriptions
10
Replies
Benjamin Feighery commented,
Hi Martin, Maytas has done this for pretty much as long as the ZPROG has been around. In the early years it helped to avoid errors and i do seem to remember a validation rule error (possibly around 13/14) would trigger if you tried to have a component aim PED later than a ZPROG PED. It is a perfectly sensible thing to ensure the programme aim covers the full length of the planned components of a programme otherwise it makes a mockery of having a programme aim at all. Also, since the introduction of FM36 having a shorter programme planned end makes it possible to draw down OPP funding faster than you should if the system allows the programme aim to be shorter than the component aims. Having rules change on providers after a learner's start date and forcing additional unplanned learning is more stupid in my opinion.
Hi Martin, Maytas has done this for pretty much as long as the ZPROG has been around. In the early years it helped to avoid errors and i do seem to remember a validation rule error (possibly aroun...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
Be careful with the ILR when adding aims after the original programme aim ZPROG001 planned end. Some MIS systems ILR exporters will change the ZPROG001 Planned end date to be the latest PED of any aim and so you would be changing the PED of the whole programme which will lead to complications with Audit and QAR as well as affecting any remaining OPP payments for this academic year (assuming that 5 months ago is a PED in September). Ben F.
Be careful with the ILR when adding aims after the original programme aim ZPROG001 planned end. Some MIS systems ILR exporters will change the ZPROG001 Planned end date to be the latest PED of any...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
still waiting for my response from the ESFA.. only been logged for almost 2 weeks with one provider :(
still waiting for my response from the ESFA.. only been logged for almost 2 weeks with one provider :(
Benjamin Feighery commented,
looks like the ESFA are letting this one through as well while they work on the fix.. Good morning Ben. Responce received. We have detected a defect with LearnDelFAMType_104 and the rule is being changed to a warning while this is investigated, apologies for the inconvenience caused. Kind Regards. Andy ESFA Customer Service
looks like the ESFA are letting this one through as well while they work on the fix.. Good morning Ben. Responce received. We have detected a defect with LearnDelFAMType_104 and the rule is bei...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
Agreed Steveh, this is just something that needs to be sorted by the ESFA and not something that providers should be trying to work around when the rules are clear, we have enough work to get on with without hiding hundreds of correctly coded aims from ILR's. my calls are with the relevant team at the ESFA now so when i get a response back i'll update the post.
Agreed Steveh, this is just something that needs to be sorted by the ESFA and not something that providers should be trying to work around when the rules are clear, we have enough work to get on wi...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
I just got a reply from the service desk to say the issue would be resolved in the R12 refresh so sounds like we can ignore this data and wait...
I just got a reply from the service desk to say the issue would be resolved in the R12 refresh so sounds like we can ignore this data and wait...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
Steve Hewitt not so much a problem if they come back and achieve.. across years it's zero sum and a disappointment, but if they come back then withdraw or fail then you are hit twice for the same learner. when we had the minimum standards in place, that one learner could be the difference between 40% and a visit from your contract manager. counter provocative statement: ever feel like they might want to let a mistake like this through so that the QAR shows the rates are rising and claim that policies are working?
Steve Hewitt not so much a problem if they come back and achieve.. across years it's zero sum and a disappointment, but if they come back then withdraw or fail then you are hit twice for the same l...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
Steve Hewitt i think this response was disproportionate given they started badgering providers through the FRM's to look at their 12month + BILS at the same time, it was perfectly within their remit to write to providers with any volumes of long BILs and ask them to justify the situation rather than penalise learners; if they are going to impose something like this then they really have to review the impact on the rest of the rules and state the maximum duration of a BIL in the funding rules/provider support manual rather than buried in the QAR business rules.
Steve Hewitt i think this response was disproportionate given they started badgering providers through the FRM's to look at their 12month + BILS at the same time, it was perfectly within their remi...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
Thanks for the Replies, it sounds like the issue might be with the way that they have redacted the 1920 data out of the files so hopefully an easy fix for them (fingers crossed before the R12 version) Steve Hewitt i have the same concerns regarding the achievement date issues, i've had some heated exchanges with the ESFA team at the end of 18/19 about issues like this where it will end up double counting learner's across year but they don't seem to recognise the impact that has on the credibility of the stats or a providers ability to track their own performance. I still can't believe they are OK with forcing BIL's in to withdrawals if they don't return in the 2nd year and perfectly happy to count them again as withdrawals or achievers when they actually return; makes a mockery of the only limit to the length of a BIL being the qualification having closed before they decide to return.
Thanks for the Replies, it sounds like the issue might be with the way that they have redacted the 1920 data out of the files so hopefully an easy fix for them (fingers crossed before the R12 versi...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
Similar headaches for me the past 2 weeks trying to get this set up on multiple machines. I was using the Developer version of SQL 19 which FIS was fine with when i changed from (Local) to "Machinename\DatabaseInstanceName" but PDSAT just wouldn't play ball no matter what i did. the key in the end was to install the 2019 localDB from the link that PDSAT suggests and ensure i restarted the machine after the SQL install so that the SQL instance actually booted up and was visible to PDSAT when the application launched. I thne just replaced the connection string with (localdb)\MSSQLLocalDB as suggested and it all worked. the bit that really stumped me was that (localdb)\MSSQLLocalDB wasn't visible in SQL management studio (SSMS or in the Windows Services so it didn't actually look like anything had installed, but connecting directly to (localdb)\MSSQLLocalDB in SSMS allowed me to see the data that PDSAT was using. Hope that helps, Ben F.
Similar headaches for me the past 2 weeks trying to get this set up on multiple machines.I was using the Developer version of SQL 19 which FIS was fine with when i changed from (Local) to "Machinen...