Consultation on possible 2020/21 ILR change – T levels

Home Forums Data issues Consultation on possible 2020/21 ILR change – T levels

This topic contains 8 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Caspar Verney 3 weeks, 1 day ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • SFA STAFF

    Following feedback from ESFA funded training and educational institutions about the complexity of the ILR dataset and the visibility of our decision-making around changes to it, we announced the introduction of new change management governance in Update on 3 April. This drives a more consultative approach, ensuring training and educational institutions are represented in our change planning and decisions.

    We published a list of the key proposals for change received for ILR 2020/21 in Update on 4 September, and are now opening the consultation window.

    We have received a proposal to change the 2020/21 ILR dataset to record planned hours for each learning aim within a T Level Programme. T Level programmes are new technical level 3 programmes for 16-19 year olds.

    The proposed solution is to use the existing planned hours field. Using the planned hours field is expected to ensure T Level programmes can be clearly and accurately recorded in the ILR for funding and monitoring purposes.

    In line with the ILR change management governance we are seeking your views on this proposal to help inform our decision on whether to make this change or not. Specifically we would like to hear from you in response to these questions:

    • Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?
    • Would you expect to record planned hours for each learning aim for your own purposes? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?
    • How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?

    Feel free to give us any other feedback on this proposal.

    This post will remain open for around two weeks to collect your views. Your responses will be collated and added to our analysis, and the decision will be confirmed before the end of the year.

     
    #397593

    steveh
    Participant

    Seriously? Seriously SERIOUSLY?

    I’m long enough in the tooth to remember the absolute nightmare of moving to planned hours at learner level, when we TOLD you again and again that it did not reduce bureaucracy because we’d all be recording it internally at aim level anyway. I have never met a provider that does not record planned hours at aim level for all study programmes and then aggregates it for the ILR field.

    What we can’t have is a mixed economy, that’s what drives complexity and error. If we’re recording T-Levels like this, let’s go back to recording EVERYTHING like this.

    Having said that, surely the only qual hours t-level learners will be doing is on their t-level (won’t be many needing E&M as well)? So why not just continue to use the current, learner level field because the values will be the same?

     
    #397644

    andybank
    Participant

    I agree with Steve.
    We record planned hours at aim level and aggregate up to learner level via update reports. Introducing a cohort-defined category just makes things more complicated and more vulnerable to error.

     
    #397708

    Ruth CJ
    Participant

    As Steve points out, I suspect we all record planned hours at aim level anyway. Due to the complicated rules about when we do and don’t record the planned hours, or part of the planned hours etc, at learner level, the calculations in our software are very complicated. This was the result of moving to learner level planned hours several years ago. It would make sense to have all learners follow the same model, whichever way it goes.

    If we were recording hours on the learning aims, I assume we would not need to record the hours on the Placement record too. You can already see how many Industry Placement hours we deliver from the Placement record. Surely the ESFA can add together the learner level Planned Hours with the Placement Hours to get the total hours. Is there any reason anyone needs to see what the breakdown of the rest of the hours is on a T Level, considering you don’t require this for non T Level programmes?

     
    #397724

    steveh
    Participant

    Given that this thread is getting less traction than the other one, shall we hijack it to talk about Sex? On the basis that there won’t be another place to allow us to share our feelings on this?

    For those of you unfamiliar with my near-decade long campaign on this, you might like to read last years’ articles in both TES and FEWeek:

    https://www.tes.com/news/esfa-refuses-legitimise-non-binary-students

    https://feweek.co.uk/2019/02/06/the-esfa-needs-to-talk-about-sex/

    which were supported across the board by NUS, AoC and several colleagues here etcetc.

    All I’m asking for is to remove the mandatory flag on the field called “sex”, that’s all. I’m not asking for extra fields, extra values in current fields or anything else, just one tiny change which ESFA have been unable to tell me why they can’t implement.

     
    #399563

    DChilds
    Participant

    • Is this a change you think would benefit the further education sector?

    It is unlikely to benefit to the sector.

    • Would you expect to record planned hours for each learning aim for your own purposes? If not, what changes would you need to make to provide this data regularly and would this be a significant cost?

    We already record planned hours for each learning aim.

    • How confident would you be the accuracy of the data and why?

    This data is accurate, it is audited.

    As other posters have detailed clearly, it would be very burdensome to have two systems to collect and differentiate learner hours.

     
    #399851

    Greg Devereux-Cooke
    Participant

    I have nothing new to add, other than to agree with the above posts!

    We record at aim level and aggregate up like others, and a mixed method (aka added complication) is always a risk of introducing errors.

    And no, there is no benefit that i can see to the FE sector. Can anyone?

     
    #399862

    Saeed Keynejad
    Participant

    No to a mixed economy. It is all or nothing. Agree with Steve Hewitt.

     
    #400358

    Caspar Verney
    Participant

    I agree with Steve Hewitt.

    In addition if sex can only be binary in the ILR then M or F are inappropriate entries and should be change to Y or N. If M or F must be retained then other choice(s) should be made available.

     
    #400402
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.