Validation Rule R106 – LSF records

Home Forums Data issues Validation Rule R106 – LSF records

This topic contains 6 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Simon France 1 month ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Simon France
    Participant

    Hi all,

    There is a new validation rule that looks like it has been implemented incorrectly.

    The Rule is: Validation “Rule R106 – There must not be more than one LSF record at the same time” and it was added to Version 5 of the validation rules. It is causing learners to fail if they have two or more LSF records at the same time.

    How can this be invalid?

    We have learners who are supported for multiple learning aims at the same time and, since the LSF record is now at aim level, then I understand we have to include an LSF record for each.

    According to the change management notes, the rule has been implemented to enforce Apprenticeship Levy rule but it isn’t only being applied to apprenticeships. We are entirely classroom-based and do not have any apprenticeships.

    FIS is not allocating funding to any learners who are falling foul of this rule.

     
    #148916

    Martin West
    Participant

    Hi Simon,
    See the Provider Support Manual for further details.
    310. The Learning Support Funding (LSF) FAM type should be recorded against one of the learning aims for learners who need learning support funding. For apprenticeship and traineeship learners this is recorded on the programme aim record only. For traineeship learners, once the Programme aim has ended the LSF is recorded against one of the remaining component aims if applicable: see paragraph 572 for further details.
    You can only claim it once for each learner.
    HTH

     
    #148928

    jessicar
    Participant

    Hi,

    Just looked into this yesterday. provider support manual says:
    The Learning Support Funding (LSF) FAM type should be recorded against one of the learning aims for learners who need learning support funding.

    See page 48 – theres a couple of example on there.

    You will only receive £150 per month regardless of the number of learning aims they are receiving support for.

     
    #148930

    Simon France
    Participant

    Thanks for your replies.

    It seems to me that LSF should really be recorded against the learner record then rather than the learning delivery. If we only need to record that support is being received between date a and date b and the actual learning aim being supported doesn’t matter then it is just more of an administrative headache to record it at learning delivery level.

    This is especially true when a learner is being supported for a class that is made up of units. From our point of view – we are supplying a support worker in one class from September to December, for example. However, on the ILR we have to record support for aim A from September to October half-term and then aim B from half-term to December because the LSF dates have to tie up with the aim dates. If they we also doing an English class alongside it which was being supported, we were also recording this on the English aim.

    If a learner is supported on two classes of differing lengths then it could be that we need to add just a couple of weeks’ support onto one class to make sure we claim the correct LSF. It was certainly much easier to just add the LSF record to both classes and let FIS decide how much we are entitled to.

    I wonder what triggered the need for the validation rule..

     
    #148950

    Stuart Mitchell
    Participant

    Simon, I’m with you on this one. LSF makes more sense at learner level (as ALS was) and there never seemed any logic in shifting it to learning delivery level, given that clearly a learner who needs support for one aim is likely to need it for other aims also.

    From the start there have been big inconsistencies within the guidance, and between the guidance and the validation rules. For instance, in para 310 of the provider support manual, quoted above, note that the third sentence flatly contradicts the first two.

    We’ve always followed the same approach as you, and never had an issue with it until R106 raised its head. I logged this yesterday (no reply yet) since it does seem like an error on their part, due to the rules validation document stating that R106 has been introduced because of apprenticeship levies, yet it’s been applied across the board.

    Given that LSF has always been calculated on the basis of £150 per month per learner, regardless of how many LSF records exist and overlap, I’m not sure what the purpose of R106 actually is.

     
    #148970

    Ceri Fishlock
    Participant

    Hi

    I had contacted the ESFA about this problem. The response I received is as follows:

    Further to your query;

    I have checked with our Data Governance team who have advised that R106 is a new rule which has been introduced to enforce that a learner can only be recorded with one LSF record at any one time.

    This also supports the funding rules that a learner can only receive one LSF payment for any given month.

    Providers have been made aware of this rule as it was included in version 5 of the validation rules which was made available in February 17.

    Please see below – Please refer to the final tab – Cross record rules

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ilr-specification-validation-rules-and-appendices-2016-to-2017

    Regards

    Service desk

     
    #151587

    Simon France
    Participant

    Mmm…

    I still think it is an unnecessary rule. I thought the Funding Calculation is working out and paying for only one month anyway. What this rule is actually doing is causing us to mis-represent the learning aims for which a learner is supported.

    If the idea is that we only need to record the fact that a learner is receiving support during their enrolment with us then I think it should be against the learner record with start and end dates – a bit like the D&P record.

     
    #151593
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.