Data Issues

‹‹ Forum

• ILR 2010/11 – A14/A69 (7 posts)

• martinwest said 1 year, 7 months ago:

  Field A69 (Eligibility for enhanced funding) is restricted in use to ER Apprenticeship provision and it is employed at an individual aim level with the corresponding A14 (Reason for funding) set to match.
  This would seem to be straightforward but for validation rule A04_A14_A69_AD04_1 which picks up unfunded aims (A10=99) as an error even though they were migrated using the flowchart to A69=99. In addition funded aims that start after the start of the programme will also generate the same error if the aim AD04 is different to the programme.
  For A14 it is clear in the guidance that the age of the learner is defined as their age at the start of the programme but AD04 is not the start of the programme but the start at aim level, even the guidance for A69 states ‘starting a programme’, the error can be overcome by selecting the correct values for A14/A69 but this requires that these values will have to be manually set for each aim if the learner reaches an age band boundary during the programme.
  Is this an error in the validation rule? If not, do the powers to be understand the extra workload caused by these changes that are not only difficult to understand but will also be difficult to implement by provider staff who may not understand the ILR specifications in detail.
  Who said the aim was to reduce bureaucracy?
  Not a good start in preparation for Period 1 – 2010/11.

• sharonking said 1 year, 7 months ago:

  For all non-funded aims within an apprenticeship programme, code 01 should not be used in the Reason for full funding/co-funding of learning aim field, field A14, a relevant 'not fully funded' code should be used. If A10=99, and therefore not funded, on migration field A69 would be set to 99 as the aims would not be eligible for enhanced ER funding. From 2010/11 the Eligibility for enhanced ER funding is calculated at aim level, so this field should be set for all aims and depending whether the learner is eligible for enhanced funding, for each aim. If the learner is 19 or over and entitled to Enhanced ER funding, then field A14 should be set to 01, for all relevant aims.

• martinwest said 1 year, 7 months ago:

  Sharon
  Thank you for the response but the issue was that the situation of an apprenticeship learner starting an individual aim (funded or unfunded) when the age-band starting the aim is later than the age-band starting the programme is not covered in the migration, ILR specification guidance or the ER Provider Manual.
  In this situation for funded aims where the 2009/10 values of L28 were ‘99’ then does this constitute eligibility for enhanced ER funding and the use of code ‘02’ or ‘03’ in A69, if not the A04_A14_A69_AD04_1 error will be generated. It is possible to incorrectly set (A14 to 28 or 32) or set (A69 to 02 or 03) to avoid the error with the resulted funding being calculated at the 16-18 and 19+ rate respectively even though A69 remains at ‘99’ in the first instance. What rate will these learners then attract for these aims as it should be based on their age at the start of the programme and if 16-18 the 16-18 rates or does this new system at aim level select the fully funded 19-24 rate?
  For unfunded mandatory framework apprenticeship aims, the only relevant not fully funded code would seem to be 19 (Fee is zero).
  As I said previously the correct values for A14/A69 will need to be set to avoid the validation error and to ensure the correct funding is calculated so it is not to much to ask that the migration specifications and the ILR specification guidance is clear and not open to misinterpretation. With regard to the ER Provider Manual this has now evolved into a copy of the ILR specifications with a few guidance notes, the guidance for A69 is limited to the statement ‘Relevant code’ which in my opinion is not fit for purpose.

  25 years experience as a training provider manager, consultant and MI software supplier who can still remember when the ILR was a single A4 document and yes I am possibly at an age where I should consider gardening leave as the current ILR system is now too complicated for me to understand.

  Is it only me or do others think that we need better guidance on this issue.

• peterw said 1 year, 6 months ago:

  Hello,

  We have a similar problem for ER apprentices, so need some guidance.
  If a learner who is 19 in October, starts a course in September, then, I understood, the whole course would be funded at 16-18 rate.
  However, if the NVQ started in September, but the Techcert does not start until November, then what is the correct coding for the Techcert. The guidance states that L28 should not be coded 15.
  Would the Techcert be funded at the 19+ rate, or how can I code this to ensure 16-18 funding ?

• peterw said 1 year, 6 months ago:

  I Spoke to The Data Service, who suggested that L28 should be coded 15 99 for these ER learners. Which I have done.

  However, I wonder why in 2010-11, L28 is being replace by A69 and moved from Learner Information Section to each Aim and Sub Aim.

• peterw said 1 year, 6 months ago:

  >>>"I Spoke to The Data Service, who suggested that L28 should be coded 15 99 for these ER learners. Which I have done."

  Evidently the above is incorrect, or I misunderstood. Additional guidance states:
  "There is a known issue with Rule A04_A14_A16_AD04_1. This rule is incorrectly giving errors in the following circumstance – if the learner started an apprenticeship programme aged 18 and then started one of the learning aims within that programme aged 19+. In this circumstance field L28 does not need to be set to "eligible for enhanced funding". Field L28 should remain coded as 99 99. This will mean that when your data is migrated into the 2010/11 database, new field A69 will be set correctly to code 99. "

  So I will change L28 back to 99 99

• lisamacdougall said 1 year, 6 months ago:

  Rule A04_A14_A16_AD04_1 will be removed for data migration and 2010/11. It is incorrectly generating errors where the learner starts the programme aged 18 but has turned 19 before starting a subsidiary aim. In this circumstance L28 should be 99 99 and A69 for 2010/11 should be 99.

  Apologies for any confusion this has caused.

  Lisa Macdougall (Data Specification Manager, the information authority)