Benjamin Feighery
Last activity
Member since
Votes
1
Subscriptions
10
Replies
Benjamin Feighery commented,
i just got a file appear in the portal in the last hour so looks like they are on the way to publishing them all. the file wasn't there at 2pm so this is "breaking news"
i just got a file appear in the portal in the last hour so looks like they are on the way to publishing them all. the file wasn't there at 2pm so this is "breaking news"
Benjamin Feighery commented,
The gateway date (ZPROG001 Actual End Date) will remain the July date but the learner should be returned to completion status 1, outcome 8 while they await their EPA tests. Once their EPA test is taken then the Achievement date is added and the status/outcome is changed but the actual end date should always stay as the gateway date.
The gateway date (ZPROG001 Actual End Date) will remain the July date but the learner should be returned to completion status 1, outcome 8 while they await their EPA tests. Once their EPA test is ...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
My apologies, I read your post as the learner withdrew last May. In that case it is fine to just re-open as there should be no break's processed with the learners once they hit gateway due to the learning elements having been completed. Thanks, Ben F.
My apologies, I read your post as the learner withdrew last May. In that case it is fine to just re-open as there should be no break's processed with the learners once they hit gateway due to the ...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
Hi Jean, This is a bit of a tricky one. You cannot re-open the old aims as they have been reported closed in a previous academic year so you will have to restart them on programme. The problem is if there is no learning left to be done and this is assessment only then it is not a valid programme, if the learner had decided to return before hard close 22/23 then the action would have been as you suggested, to re-open the aim but that is no longer possible. That said, not allowing this would be against the spirit of the funding and would disadvantage the learner by not allowing them to finish their programme. Another thing to note is that there was guidance issued previously that learner returning to programme with the same employer should be amended to be a break in learning even if they were previously withdrawn. So if the learner is still with the same Employer then i would be processing a return from break in learning, re-state the TNP1 & 2 and have a file note ready to explain what happened. The previous withdrawal must keep the same actual end date but you can change the withdrawal reason to be a break in learning. Hope that helps.
Hi Jean, This is a bit of a tricky one. You cannot re-open the old aims as they have been reported closed in a previous academic year so you will have to restart them on programme. The problem is...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
Thanks James Francis I just took a look at that schema file and it lists the SPECFEE before the NETFEE still which corresponds to the manual change i've made to our ILR output to get it through FIS and the hub.
Thanks James Francis I just took a look at that schema file and it lists the SPECFEE before the NETFEE still which corresponds to the manual change i've made to our ILR output to get it through FI...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
Thanks James Francis I've switched round the NETFEE and SPECFEE on 1 learner in our file and confirmed it fixes it in FIS, i'm awaiting a response from our MIS supplier to see if they are making the change or if the ESFA are adjusting their schema to match what's published.
Thanks James Francis I've switched round the NETFEE and SPECFEE on 1 learner in our file and confirmed it fixes it in FIS, i'm awaiting a response from our MIS supplier to see if they are making t...
Benjamin Feighery commented,
Hi Paul, I have seen the same this morning, i am guessing they've copied over an incomplete version of the EDRS data locally on DAS again and it's spitting out errors where it can't find the number. The 1st one on our list was checked in blue sheep and was a valid number with no indication it had become invalid since issue. hopefully if it gets logged enough with the helpdesk it will be turned to a warning or actually fixed
Hi Paul, I have seen the same this morning, i am guessing they've copied over an incomplete version of the EDRS data locally on DAS again and it's spitting out errors where it can't find the number...