Replies
No one has replied to this post.
Hi,
I have the same problem and was just about to post on here, I've emailed the Service Desk too so we'll see what they say. Same situation for me, all old style Functional Skills that are part of Apprenticeship learners, all of the aims listed as an ‘error’ have an end date prior to August 2021 (either withdrawn or achieved) however the Apprenticeship is still on-going for the 21/22 contract year which is why they are included in the ILR.
Steve
You just can't return the legacy FS in 21/22, they just don't exist in the 21/22 learning aims data. Since you can no longer claim the legacy FS, you'd have to close them in 20/21 anyway. The only reason for reporting them in 21/22 would be if they were closed apprenticeship components, which you're supposed to keep reporting every year until the programme aim is completed. In this case, you just don't report them in 21/22, it isn't an issue. It'll only cause trouble if that was the only component(s) you had, in which case you'd need to add the non-reg aim.
Agreed Steveh, this is just something that needs to be sorted by the ESFA and not something that providers should be trying to work around when the rules are clear, we have enough work to get on with without hiding hundreds of correctly coded aims from ILR's.
my calls are with the relevant team at the ESFA now so when i get a response back i'll update the post.
Just received this response from the Service Desk:
"We have detected a defect with the LearnAimRef_89 error and the rule is being changed to a warning while this is investigated. Please resubmit your data on or after 19 August 2021. Apologies for the inconvenience caused."
Steve
All of the errors that were present yesterday with regard to the legacy functional skills with the exception of one! There is one learner who restarted their learning in February 2021 and the functional skill planned end is set at March 2021. The aim was not achieved however until 8th of August and this has now rejected the learner record. We have several more learners in similar circumstances that are continuing after having been on a break in learning due to the lockdown primarily.
There is no funding for this record in 2021/22 so do we just close down as having been achieved two weeks before it was i.e. end of July and wing it? No funding issue as I see it, just working around something which is not our problem as Steve quite rightly says.
HI everyone - thank goodness for this forum - sometimes I think I'm going mad !! - anyway, I have just ran a batch through the FIS (we have a subcontracting arrangement with a provider for some of our funding so I can't upload it straight on to Submit Learner Data' to check for errors) - and even though it's the 19th of August and as per the post above stating "We have detected a defect with the LearnAimRef_89 error and the rule is being changed to a warning while this is investigated. Please resubmit your data on or after 19 August 2021. Apologies for the inconvenience caused." - it has still given me these error messages.
Has anyone tried it on the Submit Learner Data today and if so, did it still give you errors for this? If it has returned a WARNING instead of an ERROR Message, then I'll get in touch with our Main Provider and explain the situation. MTIA
Benjamin Feighery
21/22 R01 errors - Legacy functional skills aims: LearnAimRef_89
Created
Good afternoon,
Has anyone else got issues with legacy functional skills causing errors on learners in 21/22.. i am tracking this issue with 3 providers and the ESFA service desk have responded with something non-sensical. All the aims have been closed off at the appropriate time (i.e. on or before 31st July 2021)
The issue is that the legacy functional skills aim codes don't exist in the 21/22 LARS database because they finished on 31st July 2021 but any learners carrying over from last year will still be submitting the closed off aims and that is causing the errors.
Has anyone else reported this to the ESFA and gotten a sensible answer like "we'll role those aims over to the new year" or "we'll fix the validation rule so the aim only has to be live on LARS at the time it was active and not in every year since"
Thanks,
Ben F.