Forum Replies Created
it is perhaps down to the timing of how the achievement rates analysis works. I think the reference to the 2018/19 year in 2020 is because that is when the 2018/19 rates are made available externally. The 2019/20 if the same process continues will be available externally in 2021 i.e. the 2020/21 contract year.
Providers that have been advised of the next steps by October if below minimum standard for 2018/19 are kind of left guessing I suppose.
the official ESFA line is:
Reformed apprenticeship measures, however, require a more fundamental review as we move from frameworks to standards. We will apply the current Minimum Standards policy to apprenticeship provision (all ages) in 2020 (academic year 2019 to 2020), based on 2018 to 2019 data, for one final year.
This says to me that the 2019/20 achievement rates will not me used as the main indicator for issues however I can’t imagine they will be ignored either.
As you correctly say, the current year, impact on performance by the lockdown etc. plus also the very low achievement rates nationally on apprenticeship standards if that has continued in 2019/20 don’t make this an easy task
It keeps us on our toes Steve!
Let’s just hope the 2020/21 contract year does not start off as this year did! Now that was a nightmare!
do you think it should appear in an update to the apprenticeship technical funding guide?
Hi Steve, I have updated the situation incorrectly. I do apologise.
I can now see the payment is confirmed in the monthly payments report. I had missed this due to the simple fact that I cross-check monthly from the indicative funding report to period end report and the former has only one ZPROG001 aim however the monthly payments report now has a second ZPROG001 showing. It is this second row that has the funding showing from the point of the employment status change.
This will be as it has been a modification just to overcome the problem perhaps as a special case?
When we are dealing with hundreds of rows of data, 2390 in my case at P11, it is clearly necessary for the electronic systems help with the process and in this case it was comparing apples and pears so to speak.
I know Steve
I have now had the benefit of seeing the detail via the period end monthly payments report and despite the fact the DAS mis-match disappeared for the two records I had this problem with there is no payment present for period 11. I feared this would happen and have flagged this with the ESFA.
I can’t see the actual payment being any different to the detail in the period end report so still a problem!
Yes indeed Steve, the period end payments report and DAS situation is the final hurdle!
I have had a similar error earlier this week although I was getting UKPRN_13 and not UKPRN_11. The problem I had is because the provider does not have a procured non-levy contract and no funding stream set up in the SLD to match the ACT type 2.
I sought advice from ESFA support and they had modified the SLD system to compensate for this and advised me to just add the employment status change but not to add the ACT type 2 i.e. just leave the original contract type open.
This has cleared the SLD UKPRN_13 error and the funding system should no be paying the OPPs from the point of employment status change to 11 however the proof in the pudding will be when I see the period reports. This particular record has been stopped by the employer in DAS at the point of redundancy so I will be looking closely to see if that blocks payment or not.
I know this is slightly different to your situation however worth a try to see if this also clears the UKPRN_11 error and perhaps if so just double-checking with the ESFA that this “tweak” is okay as they see it.
I did actually have this resolved within 2 days so it was a quick turnaround and fix at the ESFA’s end which was good.
if you close down the ACT type 1 with the last date of employment as the “applies to date” and then start a new ACT type 2 record with the date the employment status change takes place I think that should work.
I did try one myself where the applies to date and the new ACT type 2 date was the same and that is rejected as overlapping.
whenever they say “escalated” they actually mean it has been passed to whichever subcontracted IT company is looking after it and no doubt in a job queue.
We have to carry out due diligence until it comes out of our ears and monitor if anyone so much as moves with our subcontractors. I get the feeling this is a do as we say and not as we do scenario?
Still not working I see!
I can honestly say that any enquiries I have ever had to raise with the Apprenticeship Service have never actually been resolved.
5 days, never! All I ever get is every 5 days or so the comment “we are still working on it”!!
It would appear the set up is not very robust?
That is absolutely correct. This is what has led to the national 2018/19 achievement rates being so low I would say for standards.
Another one to watch out for is that you correctly code the records as 1,8 when the learning has been completed and awaiting EPA. If you process tham as 2,8s as we used to and that status is still present come the period 14/period 4 close they will count as fails in the 2018/19 year!
It’s a good game if you don’t weaken!
my comment is based on this statement from the QAR team earlier this year:
It was necessary to update the Technical Specifications after R04 had been collected – the reason for doing so was to improve the accuracy and integrity of QAR. This change was necessary because of the changes made in the ILR specification for 2019/20 regarding how the achievement of standards on FM36 are reported. We had expected to make the corresponding change in the 2019/20 QAR business rules but during testing we identified that actual end dates in 2018/19 and achievement dates in 2019/20 had been reported in R04. We were not expecting to see this and identified that some providers might have missed paragraphs 319 to 323 of the 2019/20 Provider Support Manual when returning their R04 ILR data. The change was therefore necessary to identify achievement dates from 1 August 2019 onwards and prevent their incorrect inclusion in the 2018 hybrid end year based on the 2018/19 actual end date reported in R04 because that date is no longer telling us when the standard was achieved.
It is saying that where an achievement date had been incorrectly entered in the ILR for a record for a 2018/19 planned and actual end date and the achievement date is in the 2019/20 year the overall achievement counts in the 2019/20 and not the 2018/19 year as expected. I saw this in practice where erroneously the achievement date field should have been left blank.
I had counted these apprentices internally as achievers in the 2018/19 year however the final QAR sees them in the 2019/20 year.
it is the achievement date. This was a very late modification to the 2018/19 business rules and caught me out for one for the final internal analysis of the 2018/19 year.
Not seen a letter yet however I cringe at the transparency table header “still in learning after 31st November”. I wonder which year that date actually fell in? And these people can actually calculate an achievement rate?? Doesn’t fill with much confidence does it?
After two weeks of trying to access this system and being passed from pillar to post and fed duff information thank you very much!
What a waste of time
Problems her too. Happened within the last 10-15 minutes
Okay Martin, thanks for that.
If we are the only one being paid incorrectly that is odd and I am 100% certain we are being overpaid.
I complete a full and detailed analysis of the period end report against what I know should be paid from the indicative funding reports which I run through my own template to sort out the funding lines that should be paid at the 90% co-funding rate.
The funding summary report from the SLD also shows full funding. Please note this is for the adult non-levy non-procured line.
I can clearly see that for period 5 the ESFA for some reason has overpaid us for a few functional skills. This is for a small number closed as withdrawn however the OPPs have not been stopped in payment terms when they should have been. This though does balance payments report to the remittance, it is the payments report to the indicative earnings that is wrong.
I have however seen a major blunder which may be a one off. A levy paying company at periods 3 and 4 had insufficient funds to cover the training cost and the payments received were co-funded. At period 5 I can now see a retrospective adjustment to periods 3 and 4 whereby the co-funding in the payments report has gone negative and this has been covered by retrospective full levy payments. The blunder is that the negative figures showing in the previous months has not been taken off the actual amount paid at period 5.
The way I work is to simply on a cumualtive basis YTD which to me is the only way to do this. I just compare the funding earned YTD at individual learner and aim level with what has been actually received YTD and the balance due is working out correctly other than the anomaly above.
I am no Matrix expert but have never seen this requirement in the
SFA APPRENTICESHIP AGREEMENT FOR TRAINING PROVIDERS
for the Provision of Levy-funded Apprenticeship Training 1 May 2017
or any subsequent additional documents.
Just another confusing situation?
absolutely right, last minute decisions. The previous technical guidance published in August should have taken into account the achievement date as this was well known about at that time.
I based internal achievement analysis throughout the period end of 2018/19 contract year to the point of the recent QAR data release on this document and the QAR 2018/19 business rules only to find that some achievers who had an actual end date in 2018/19 but their achievement date in 2019/20 will now count in this contract year and not last year.
Make it up as they go along, nothing wrong with that!!!!! I think not!!
has there been an official communication from the ESFA explaining how the achievement date is now being used to determine the year in which the overall achievement rate is reported? I only found this out when I was running the full cross-check to the R04 data file we refer to. I can see this in the technical guide however an official announcement would have been helpful.
I may have missed it. I ended up having to modify the achievement rates reporting internally as a result of what in my opinion is an afterthought.
It is the “ProvisionalR04-V1” you need