Tagged: Minimum Standards
I was wondering if anyone had found any abnormalities in the Minimum Standards Data. I have found leavers that have achieved 1 day late or even early appearing as Learners below Minimum Standard on Classroom and Workplace Learning and do not understand why. The Minimum Standards data also contains the Functional Skills element of Traineeships 19-23 and does not include the Employability even though they are in the same group category and has the same planned end, start, actual end dates and same leaver status whether it be as a withdrawal or achiever.December 21, 2014 at 12:50 pm #11778
I too have the same thing (learners who have successfully completed and achieved) who are below minimum standards. having read the guidance thoroughly (and asked on MIS Holex), it would appear that they are on a learning aim which is below the minimum standard threshold and so everyone is classed as falling below the threshold on that particular learning aim, regardless of whether they have achieved or failed (look at scenario 2, page 9 of the CBL Guidance Notes which are part of the zipped file, or page 8 of the WPL Guidance Notes).
Regarding the traineeship – employability element – I’m assuming you mean the work placement learning aim? SFA are not including those aims within the success rate “Work-experience or work-placement aims – Aims where the Learning Aim Reference (A09) is ‘Z0007834’ to ‘Z0007838’.” You should also find a csv file of excluded aims and the reasons why they have been excluded within your downloaded zip file.December 23, 2014 at 10:21 am #11803
Firstly, thank you for your response.Regarding the Traineeships, I am actually referring to the Functional Skills elements and not the work placement as this is in the Excluded Report. The actual Functional Skills for the Traineeships are in the learners they have included.December 24, 2014 at 10:36 am #11826
I don’t think this should be happening, however just to check the obvious first – are you talking about 2013-14 or 2014-15? In 2014-15 Traineeships should be wrapped within a Program Aim (ZPROG001), but in 2013-14 they were not and hence the statistics may be handling them differently (and possibly incorrectly).
Secondly, do the Functional Skills definitely have the Traineeship FAM code stamped on them? LDM = 323.
Thirdly do the Functional Skills have different Actual End Dates to the Work Preparation and Work Experience Aims? This should be permissible if the Learners continue with their Functional Skills after a successful Achievement, but the statistics may be handling it incorrectly. Alternatively, have your Traineeship Learners left to go into employment, for instance, and not concluded their Functional Skills? I think that the Traineeship Rules say that you should still record that as a successful outcome, but you may have done differently?
Hope these ideas help.
CasparDecember 24, 2014 at 11:09 am #11828
Hope you had a good Christmas. Thank you for your response and to answer your questions – I am referring to 13/14 Traineeships. The Functional Skills do have 323 stamped on them. Yes the Functional Skills do have actual end dates that differ from the actual end dates of the Work Preparation and Work Experience Aims on some and then the same on others. Some have gone on to Employment/Apprenticeship , completed all elements successfully and are still working against us on the Minimum Standards, even though they achieved early. On Traineeships that have gone into Employment but not achieved the Functional Skills, we have claimed the Employment outcome but not the Functional Skills as the Learner never completed them but withdrew them on the final day the Learner completed any work on them. I really am at a loss with this and would appreciate any further help you could give me, thank you.December 29, 2014 at 11:42 am #11831
It seems to me that the Minimum Standards statistics are treating these 13/14 Traineeship FS elements incorrectly from what you are saying.
If the learners in question Achieved then they did not fall below any Minimum Standard for a Traineeship specifically. In fact if the Learner progressed to employment and did not Achieve the FS, then they were STILL successful against the Traineeship and there should be no penalty whatsoever for that outcome since it still ranks as successful within the context of a Trainneship (since actual Achievement of the FS is NOT a pre-requisite for a Traineeship).
If the Learner in question progressed to an Apprenticeship then the FS (at Level 1, at least) would be a pre-requesite for successful Achievement for that qualification – thus they would not be able to Achieve their Apprenticeship without those FS and so in this case it might be fair enough to say that they failed to reach the Minimum Standard required for their Apprenticeship. However if they did Achieve the FS then it would all depend on the Outcome of the Apprenticeship overall.
Therefore in my opinion you should appeal to the Authorities as it does appear that their statistics are incorrectly treating Functional Skills within Traineeships, since they are not a be all and end all within that qualification. The necessary test for the Authorities to make would be if the Functional Skills had a FAM code of 323 in 13/14 and in which case they should be excluded for the statistics. If the Learner progressed to an Apprenticeship then the Outcome of the Apprenticeship should decide the issue, irrespective of the FS within the Traineeship umbrella that may well have continued during the Apprenticeship (the Traineeship Rules said that the Learner should continue the FS within the Traineeship umbrella and that it should not be stopped and then restarted under the Apprenticeship umbrella since that could lead to double-funding). It would thus be down to the Provider to correctly declare the Outcome of the Apprenticehip for which the Level 1 FS would be a requirement, even if these were delivered under the Traineeship.
I cannot see any other way to argue this and believe that the above should be unassailable. I don’t know if anyone else is watching at this time of year, but I would welcome a second opinion.
Nicole, please post back here how you get on with your appeal, assuming that you agree. You could ask the Data Service, or it may be quicker to go to your Relationship Manager who really should be on your side.
HTH & Good Luck in 2015,
CasparDecember 29, 2014 at 12:20 pm #11832
Thank you for your prompt response. My Managing Director has already contacted the Dataservice before the holidays but has still not received a response due to the holiday period. I have looked over all the comments and data again and just cannot find any logical explanation as to why these Functional Skills have worked against us on Minimum Standards. I will keep you updated on anything that I can find out and once again thank you for all your help and support.December 29, 2014 at 12:37 pm #11833
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.