information about how you use ‘Get help with ESFA services’. We use this information to make the
website work as well as possible and improve government services.
You have accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any
This is a new service – your feedback will help us to improve it.
Created 20 January 2022 15:19
Whilst QARs are fresh in peoples minds after this week's publication, I thought it would be useful to pose the question Craig flagged in the post below about how providers and the Agency sensibly predict when learners are going to complete their apprenticeships. How are providers modelling when learners are going to complete for achievement rate outturns?
Further education and training providers community - Apps QAR Methodology
As we all know the QAR uses a combination of ILR planned end date, actual end date, and achievement date to determine when learners achieve. The was fine for frameworks as the planned end date was a reasonable indicator of when then completion was going to occur. However, for standards the planned end date indicates the planned end of the practical learning period and does not take into account EPA. This gap can be several months depending on the sector and means that learners 'due' to complete in a particular year based on their planned end date are in reality never going to do so. Those with planned end dates in May - July are almost certainly going to fall in the next cohort year for example.
To me it would be sensible if the Agency introduced an expected EPA achievement date field and to build this into the QAR calc. This allows providers and the Agency to model outturn and look at which learners are genuinely late. This last point is important if the Agency introduce passed planned end date metrics into their provider risk monitoring as they have suggested. All learners on standards will go passed their planned end date if this has been set properly.
How are providers managing this process? We have introduced an expected EPA achievement date into our internal data collection and we use this in our achievement rate modelling. However, MIS software suppliers will only use the approved specification in their QAR reporting so without the introduction of an ILR field that captures planned achievement, then the software will not be able to produce accurate predictions.
No one has replied to this post.
As the ESFA are to review how they calculate QARs as part of considering a wider set of quality measures in the future then any suggestions from Providers may be helpful but we do need to consider what they/we wish to measure.
We can only go with the current calculations until such time as the ESFA determine what they need to measure so from my point of view it’s a case of wait and see before we change internal reporting at a provider level.
21 January 2022 07:45