Forum Replies Created
Of course, no problem. My email is in my profile 🙂
As far as my understanding goes, the HE dataset in the ILR is sent to the OfS to inform their stats, and is not used by the ESFA at all. The reason HEIs don’t have to do the HE dataset at the moment is that we also return these students in the HESA return, and the OfS use that for everything. I would be very sturprised if we had to start doing the HE dataset.
We’re HE and use SITS, but not for our ILR so I might not have all the answers. Happy to talk it through though if it would help though.
I think you’ll be lucky to find anyone at the ESFA who understands anything about HESA, and anyone at Liaison who fully gets the ILR (been there, tried that). Tribal is a bit vague on ILR as well. I really wish the SITS people and the EBS people would come together! I think we’re on our own at the moment…
Where are you having problems with in coding at the moment?
Who wins between ESFA funding regs and OfS rules depends who you’re talking to and which return you’re doing or dataset you’re looking at. The ESFA might classify apprenticeships as FT, but the OfS doesn’t expect them to be according to their definitions. That doesn’t mean they definitely can’t be though.
As you’re looking at APP resources then you will have to use the OfS definitions of FT, which you’ll find in the HESES guidance. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of Annex H of the HESES19 guidance goes into how to determine mode for apprenticeships. In short, if the credit load and duration is the same as the equivalent degree only course (and you ensure to only take into account the degree element of the apprenticeship, not anything else) then you can likely class it as FT. Otherwise, it’s PT.
Hope this helps
ETA: if you’re looking at older APP datasets, all apprenticeships were included in the FT lines irrespective of their actual mode of delivery, and you couldn’t disaggregate apprenticeships from normal delivery. At the briefings I went to this was pointed out to be contrary to other OfS datasets, so they said this would be changed for later releases. You may need to check the definitions of the dataset you’re using.
January 13, 2020 at 10:16 am in reply to: Full Time vs Part Time – How to classify apprentices? #420213
- This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by joannab.
You’ll need to submit a new file. If one gets stuck like this it won’t ever process (at least mine haven’t when this has happened previously).
Not quite yet, but we’re about to start implementation of it
We had that for a month or sowith one of ours – I think it takes time for all the systems to get in synch. Also, I think we found that even when the employer is on DAS and you have all the details, if the company who is transfering funds hasn’t finished doing everything you will get the issue.
Have you checked the actual xml file to make sure the LLDD details are all being output?
OK, that makes sense in terms of the dates. We’ve gone the other way and started ours in September and then run through 4 terms to meet the minimum duration.
It does sound like you need to use the class code as you’re a SCITT. Are there any other fields you’re unsure about?
We had a demo of BUD but I personally wasn’t hugely impressed with it. Obviously no system does everything that you might like it to, but when we raised questions in the demo they were quite negative about whether the system would ever be able to do what we were asking for and were not open to discussing why we might want it or what any work arounds could be. The UTC that we work quite closely with uses it, which was why we had the demo in the first place. They’ve put a lot of time and effort into BUD, but still don’t have it quite working in the way they want.
We have chosen to go with Aptem, but we haven’t started implenting it yet so I can’t say how good it is in the long run.
Are you an HEI? If so you probably won’t be using the class code. If you are an HEI I’m happy to discuss this more.
Also, ITT/ITE usually follows the academic year (you may of course be an exception). Are you sure that you should be using 18/19 rather than the 19/20 tool?
Well, you’re definitely not alone but you still could be losing your mind…. this time of year definitely does it to me!
Yes, we were having this problem – the two-step submission process seemed to be falling over part way through: I never got the “there are issues do you still want to submit etc etc” message, and the file does not show in the submitted file list. This imples to me that even though the message implies that we aren’t submitting anything until we agree to submit a file with warnings/errors it actually is recoreded somewhere that we can’t see.
Good news though: I’ve generated a new file today and although the process is very slow I have been able to get a file through. Yesterday’s phantom file still doesn’t show anywhere though.
It would have been helpful if they’d bundled the user guide with the software, but you need to go to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/check-how-accurate-your-ilr-data-is-with-fis to get it.
Short answer – extract everything into a folder and click the catchily-titled “ESFA.DC.ILR.Desktop.WPF.Exe”August 22, 2019 at 3:25 pm in reply to: FIS and the Learner Entry Tool for 2019 to 2020 – available to download now #391293
I base the reports mostly from the FIS access, and the front end is Power BI.
Apprenticeships certainly cost more to run (though I’m not sure that the increased costs would be £4K), but in many cases unless we charge above the funding band max we get less from the levy than we would in fees. The top funding band is £27K, but the university fee cap is £9250 p.a. so we end up getting £750 less over three years. When it comes down to it though, if the employers are happy to pay the higher fee and there is a costing that backs up that charge then definitely go for the higher fee.
We’ve just had our 19/20 levy contract through, and I can’t see the requirement in there. Has anyone spotted it in theirs?
There’s nothing that will stop you doing this, but you will need to make sure that you can justify the costs for the apprenticeship. Will those on the apprenticeship be costing you £4K more to deliver? It’s worth remembering the apprenticeship funding bands are showing the maximum you can charge, not what you have to charge.
We have differences in price between our degree apprentices and non-apprentices, but usually the apprenticeship cost is less (equivalent to £9K per year whereas ‘normal’ UG students are charged £9,250)
Option 1: I’d be very surprised if you don’t have plain old notepad and you can use that to check the file. It’s not as pretty but you can still navigate by line using ctrl+G.
Option 2: You should be able to open the xml in your internet browser. It can be slow to open but it will get there eventually. I don’t think you can navigate by line number, but if you do a ctrl+F and search for <empid>.</empid> you should be able to find the dodgy record
Option 3: do a query in your MIS system for the erroneous value in whichever field is the source for empID.
Hope one of these works for you 🙂
edited to add – even if one of these works I’d get onto your IT department and ask for notepad++ as it really is easier to use that. I’ve never had a problem getting it once you bring up “required for statutory purposes”, “efficient data management” and “submission of high quality, reliable statutory returns” etc etc
- This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by joannab.
No further yet. We’ve got Aptem coming in next week, not sure when OneFile are. We will definitely have them in though because of our procurement procedures.
I can’t see a permission that let’s someone solely receive the notifications. It looks like an account needs to have more access than that, and then they select whether to receive emails or not. If you don’t want to give that member of staff access to apprenticeships service then I’d suggest someone who already has access signs up for the emails and then you manage everything by using rules/autoforwards from that email address to whichever additional email addresses you want.May 21, 2019 at 9:04 am in reply to: Permissions to enable receipt of stop notifications #370228
I would code them as “other”: travel costs are listed as an example in this category. If you were topping up a prepaid travel card like an Oyster I might go for “near cash” in that circumstance as slightly different.
It’s been a couple of years since I’ve managed the HESA return (and we don’t fill these fields complete in our ILR) but I don’t remember having to state which bursary payments were made from SO allocations and which weren’t. Everything to do with SOA was dealt with via the OFFA monitoring returns.
Sounds like the best way forward!
Hi Claire, I’d be inclined to check with the OfS as well (you’ll probably hear back from them sooner anyway). I asked the OfS something about this a year or so ago (verbally, so nothing in writing unfortunately) and they said “we don’t use HEI ILR data in any way” so if they are identifying you by UKPRN they you’re probably fine to have a mismatch.
If they are making the assumption that HEIs won’t be submitting the HE dataset and using that as the sole way to prevent double counting they might currently be thinking you have more students than you do. If they are doing some kind of data matching a mismatch might cause a problem as well.
I’d be interested to know the answer! Even without the HE dataset it is really hard to get the ILR and all the HESA returns matching perfectly (we use separate systems), so if the OfS really don’t care what’s in the ILR it would be great to not have to do quite so much data matching and clean up.
The Z codes are probably why you are forced to put in the HE dataset. Once you get your own aims you won’t have that pain anymore!
You might want to ask the OfS how to approach it. I assume you’ll be returning the withdrawn student in your HESA return as dormant for this year so that you can close the record? If the OfS are going to take all the info from your HESA return it probably doesn’t matter what you put in the ILR, so you could put in the minimum of 0.1.