Data Issues

‹‹ Forum

• Official Guidance Discussion (31 posts)

• John McCabe said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  Comments, Queries and Problems about the Data Guidance FAQ

• steveh said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  <p>Right then, one at a time:</p>
  <p><a href="http://www.theia.org.uk/ilr/datamanagement/faq/#1">Should Colleges include every learner in the ILR?</a></p>
  <p>Why on earth would we include ASL learners? Surely this is going to lead to double counting? I've been working with LEAs for years and we've never put them in our FE returns. If we're putting them in our LR return why not put the ER learners in as well, set to non-funded, I don't see the difference. Also this will lead to serious logistical issues where we are trying to produce a return for the LEA AND our LR return as we'll have to change various fields for the two different masters, which is just what we need, particularly in November. Speaking of which my F01 doesn't have our ASL learners in, what are we meant to do about it?</p>

• steveh said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  oh ok, no a tags then…

  2. Should colleges include enrolments for learners that never attend?
  http://www.theia.org.uk/ilr/datamanagement/faq/#2

  How exactly should we tell the difference between never attended and attended once, given that their actual end date will be the same, ie start date. As these learners are never going to "count" for anything why can't we just leave them in? This is just increasing the bureaucratic load on colleges.

• steveh said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  3. If a learner transfers from one course to another, what is the new course start date?
  http://www.theia.org.uk/ilr/datamanagement/faq/#3

  What about learners moving from LR to ER, or LR to ASL (point 1 notwithstanding)?

  Also, why are we being punished for running unlisted quals? A learner on an A-Level or Nat Dip who transfers receives no financial disadvantage but Skills for Life learners who arguably need the funding more are disadvantaged as the GLH will have to be changed to match what is delivered and the pre-transfer hours disappear into the void.

  I'm wondering if an Equality Impact Assessment was done before this decision was taken as it seems to disproportionally affect learners on ESOL courses.

• steveh said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  4. How accurate does the start date need to be?
  http://www.theia.org.uk/ilr/datamanagement/faq/#4

  a working week, or calendar week? and do we mean:

  learner misses first monday evening class due to car breaking down, attends second class the following monday evening

  is OK, or

  all the sixth formers have a Monday start date in September, regardless of when their first class is between Monday and Friday that week

  is OK?

• steveh said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  5. What is the appropriate treatment for recording a learner who is enrolled on a National Diploma (2 year) but fails to reappear for year 2?
  http://www.theia.org.uk/ilr/datamanagement/faq/#5

  Why on earth would anyone put a learner on a Nat Dip or Full Literacy Qual if this is the way we're meant to do it? The quals are nested for precisely this reason, if you don't want us to use them why were they created in that way in the first place? You can't retrospectively decide that it's "wrong".

  And clearly success in FE hasn't *always* been done like this because loads of us have been doing it the other way round for years which, incidentally, is partially why success rates have been going up year on year which I haven't noticed anyone at the LSC complaining about too much. Any suggestion that the centre was unaware that this was going on might be politely described as disingenuous.

  I still see no rationale for not recording what the learner actually achieves. Learners, adult learners in particular, don't change qualifications on a whim, it is mainly because Real Life gets in the way and I think we should celebrate whatever achievement they reach, anything else seems punitive.

• steveh said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  (to be continued after the weekend, maybe someone else will join in?)

• John McCabe said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  Point 3
  The FAQ says "slightly later". Needs to be spelt out – given the guidance on start date, I would expect within two weeks. Ideally, we like to transfer ASAP.

  Don't assume that AS A2 people don't have a disadvantage. If somebody transfers from an AS to a GCSE there is a drop. Even worse, if somebody on an A2 fails a January module and drops back to AS to improve the AS grade in March then there is a major drop since resits are paid on hours.

• John McCabe said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  Point 4

  Given the six week rule, as a Sixth Form College we want the start date as late as possible to push the six weeks as close as possible to 1 November and give us as much leeway as possible. This means we want the start date to be the start of learning.

• John McCabe said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  Point 5

  I wonder how the h**ll schools are going to cope with this!

  We already have schools not recording uncashed AS's. Why should we be penalised for being accurate?

• steveh said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  Supplementary to point 5.

  There seems to be a real issue here between Plan and Actual.

  We are told we must record the learner's Planned Aim but we cannot record their Planned Hours, we have to show their Actual Hours so, for example where classes are cancelled due to Tutor sickness we've been told to remove those hours, even though they were planned, we still paid the tutor etc.

  Bascially we're being squeezed in both directions.

• steveh said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  6. What should colleges do if a learner's Individual Learning Plan is altered?
  http://www.theia.org.uk/ilr/datamanagement/faq/#6

  No one's going to do this though, are they? We'll continue to just change aims, given that I've never recorded actual learning aims on learning agreements, only course codes which link back to the course file, which has always got through audit. Given that the creator of this year's audit programme told me that any future comparison for changes would only be between F04 and F05 as "F01 is full of rubbish, everyone knows it" why this needless level of bureaucracy?

  Also, given that the LAD was such a mess this year and, with increasing change next year as we move decisively into the QCF, how can we have people signing learning agreements in July when we'll likely have no idea of the aims anyway?

  I wonder how long it is since the people who come up with these suggestions/rules/guidelines have been in the front line, surrounded by hundreds of learners trying to make sure they can get an education. It's a messy, chaotic, under-staffed situation and I can assure you the majority of learners do not care what their learning aim is as long as they are on the course they want.

• John McCabe said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  Quite agree. We do have course change forms which identify the subject and level but not the qual aim.

• pmudd said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  My main concerns are around the idea that we can always be firm about qualification aim within the "funding start period" and the penalties in terms funding for "unlisted" qualification aims. I have already sent the IA a detailed breakdown of the problems as I see them, but essentially they concern: key/functional skills, Skills for Life and Music Grade exams. In each of these cases it is rarely possible to firm up on the "final" qualification aim for the F01.

  In the Skills for Life area there are extra problems, because learners may enrol on several classes but be working towards the same qualification aim. At the end of the year these will therefore (as requested by LSC in the past) be manually amalgamated. Given that these classes are mixed ability there are further problems if the pressure that all learners in a class tackle the same qualification aim grows to the point where "streaming" becomes necessary – many classes would then become unviable, etc.

• rogerm said 7 months, 2 weeks ago:

  I'd like to add to steveh's comments about inclusion of ASL records in the LR ILR. As he says, these are being returned in an ILR by the local authority so adding them in to the LR ILR will mean they are returned twice. Surely, if they are to be included anywhere it should be as an addition to the ILRFRANIN form.

  Moreover, the provision for certain information – eg the restricted use indicator L27 – not to be returned for ALS learners on 10 glh or fewer for new starters will not be applied if the records are included in the LR ILR. What should we do in these cases?

  Currently our MIS produces a separate ASL ILR which we can upload to our lea's system. If these records are included in the LR ILR it will be necessary to extract them before they can sent to the lea's system. Records for First Steps, which we include in our ASL returns, have to be sent with funding stream code A10 = 80 and the ASL provision type set to 05, something that is not addressed in the new guidance. This will mean manipulating the data after it has been extracted and introduces a new level of complication.