I’m fine with this new report, but why are they replicating all the DSAT reports? We already have this one.
If they’re planning to do away with DSATs and move entirely to the FRM reports, then they need to provide some functionality for making notes that copy over from month to month. The original FRM reports were nearly all proper errors that needed sorting, so we didn’t need notes. The DSATs are full of reports showing things that we’ve checked, and aren’t errors. I don’t want to waste my time going over the same records every month.March 21, 2018 at 1:41 pm #244019
Totally agree, not sure why DSAT reports are being duplicated, but at least with DSAT you can run that early on and not have to wait until days before then next period end. Like you said you can record notes, plus DSAT shows names making it easier to work through.
If there are plans to remove DSAT it will back fire, who has the time to check the same records every months?March 21, 2018 at 1:58 pm #244026
Yes, similar but not the same.
This report is a subset of the PDSAT report 18A-207 as it only includes those on a level 2 programme where you have claimed funding at or below L2, it excludes those with an EHCP.
You can use still use the PDSAT annotations for these, it is believed that the intention of this report is to identify where Providers may be claiming for progressive levels when this has not been evidenced at initial assessment at start as being applicable to the learner in which case they must be set to funding model ‘99’.
HTHMarch 21, 2018 at 2:26 pm #244038
I still don’t understand why this report exists at all. I can’t see any provider using the FRM reports but not the DSATs. I now have to remember which FRM reports are duplicates, so I can just ignore them, safe in the knowledge that I’ve already dealt with them through DSATs.March 21, 2018 at 2:35 pm #244041
I suppose one way of doing it, should you be questioned by your ESFA contact about learners on any of the FMR non-error reports, is just to send them your PDSAT report?
I got surprisingly close to doing this with the one day failures last year, but they were happy with me saying “people fail basic food hygiene”…March 21, 2018 at 2:38 pm #244043
I expect it is a simple as the ESFA have identified that some providers are claiming for both L1 and L2 FS when this is not evidenced by a requirement from initial assessment, some who have misunderstood the requirement have also posted questions on this forum.March 21, 2018 at 2:41 pm #244045
I think it exists because they were basically expecting next to no one to be doing L1 on L2 Apps but, I suspect, this has not been the case, and they think everyone is being lazy/is on the fiddle and not applying the new rule…
…So we get an FMR because someone near the top wants their account managers to be picking it up with *all* providers, rather than just those selected for audit…
March 21, 2018 at 2:41 pm #244047
- This reply was modified 1 year ago by steveh. Reason: clarity
As already stated you can check these in DSAT and I do. Noting for each one there is evidence to support a lower level or removing the lower level where there is no justification.
Repeating a report in FRM is duplication of something already covered
Same with the co-invest report, in FRM, in DSAT and also in the zip along with two others a week after period close.
Anything repeated like this is likely to get ignored to be honestMarch 21, 2018 at 2:50 pm #244050
I think Steve makes a good point. They don’t tend to send our principals emails about DSAT reports, they only do that for the FRM reports. So I guess that every time that want to tell us off about something, they have to create an FRM report, even if it’s a duplication.
Same as with the other principal emails, I wouldn’t mind if they were genuine errors, or the wording was clear that these might not be errors. I don’t want our Exec getting rattled every time they get a list of non-errors!March 21, 2018 at 3:12 pm #244067
As a side note – its a shame they are not as quick to publish the reports every month, as they are to send letters complaining what the provider hasn’t done.
Is now the the 22nd of the month and the BI reports are still not available.
Complete joke as always 🙂
March 22, 2018 at 10:16 am #244208
- This reply was modified 1 year ago by Matt Collishaw.
I hope Alex at the SFA who has commented before on the FRM reports can answer some of these questions. I can see the FRM reports as having a role when they check multiple ILR submissions from a provider, or comparing across providers.
At the moment though it’s starting to have reports in there that just work on one ILR submission, which to me is what the DSATS are used for (and this has better functionality with annotations and hyperlinks, etc..)March 22, 2018 at 12:28 pm #244233
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.