search

DFE-Digital / ecf2

This application will replace the Manage training for early career teachers service in 2025.
5 stars 0 forks source link

Find out what data we actually need about an early career teacher and their induction and training 👾 #18

Open claire-hughez opened 1 month ago

claire-hughez commented 1 month ago

Why

We’ve talked about the structure of the data model, but this largely rests upon knowing what data we actually need to collect from our different user groups.

We felt it was unclear what is the data we actually need to be collecting, so this ticket will aim to clarify that.

What

Find out:

‌

[From previous disco] For each process within the service and related to our service purposes and agreed future vision, we need to map out:

Context & links

Can use the service rules and funding summary.

Previous disco stakeholder links:

Who knows about this

@mason-emily @claire-hughez

kas-madrigal commented 1 month ago

@mason-emily want to have a chat about this? I left a bunch of post-its

gracecbrennan commented 1 month ago

Kas and Emily are going to catch up on this today before chasing Nathan

claire-hughez commented 1 month ago

Catchup happened, now this is nearly done

gracecbrennan commented 1 month ago

Emily needs to cross reference this with Nathan's scheduling documents but is planning to finish this one off today

mason-emily commented 1 month ago

https://lucid.app/lucidspark/b6f362cf-8201-4799-aac2-9efb0f18b2a9/edit?view_items=y01YD2y_B7-k&invitationId=inv_cf2261a1-b288-46f7-bb47-51121c5d0ec6

JSJohal commented 1 month ago

Thanks, this looks great. This will be super helpful to use as part of #60!

gracecbrennan commented 1 month ago

@mason-emily to share with lpdob team for comments

mason-emily commented 1 month ago

ECTs

We definitely need the following fields from schools to register ECTs:

We might also want:

We will also need these fields separate to the initial registration:

Mentors

We definitely need the following fields from schools about mentors:

We might also want:

We will also need these fields separate to the initial registration:

claire-hughez commented 1 month ago

@mason-emily On the above, is it 'We definitely need the following fields to be collected from schools'?

peteryates commented 1 month ago

Eventually I think so, but initially ABs will be claiming ECTs.

claire-hughez commented 1 month ago

We might want to specify - I thought that list was just data from schools. We already get an induction start date from ABs, so I thought it was a 'maybe' for schools.

mason-emily commented 1 month ago

This was what we need to collect from schools, and start date was referring to start date at the school not induction start date. I think we'll carry on updating that list today so isn't a final version yet!

gracecbrennan commented 1 month ago

Another session happening this morning with Tony and Pete to discuss.

JSJohal commented 1 month ago

ECTs

We definitely need the following fields from schools to register ECTs:

  • School URN (school admin will be logged in so we'll know it)
  • TRN
  • DoB (don't keep, use to check TRN)
  • National insurance number (don't keep, use to check TRN)
  • Email (clarify if personal or school)
  • Programme choice
  • Appropriate body

We might also want:

  • Whether participant is doing a non-standard induction (reduced, extended, part time, late start)
  • Start date at the school
  • Lead provider & Delivery partner pairing (from a pre-defined list)
  • Full name (can we get this from DQT if we don't need it to check)

We will also need these fields separate to the initial registration:

  • Mentor assigned to ECT

Mentors

We definitely need the following fields from schools about mentors:

  • School URN (school admin will be logged in so we'll know it)
  • TRN
  • DoB (don't keep, use to check TRN)
  • National insurance number (don't keep, use to check TRN)
  • Email
  • Programme choice

We might also want:

  • Whether participant is doing non-standard training (part time, late start, replacement)
  • Start date at the school
  • Lead provider & Delivery partner pairing (from a pre-defined list)
  • Whether mentor has completed ITT mentor training? (can probably get this from within DfE)
  • Whether mentor is doing mentor training? (could also be separate to the registration journey)
  • Full name

We will also need these fields separate to the initial registration:

  • ECT(s) mentor is assigned to

Thank you - this is super helpful!

A few musings I had:

1) Do we always need the ECT / mentor National insurance number? I think in the ECF1 journey we only ask for it sometimes - I've gone through in staging envs a fair few times where it's not asked NINO but only asked name, DoB, TRN - is NINO asked if something doesn't match?

2) Appropriate body: assuming we can continue doing this as a default on an academic year level? Although you can currently choose a different appropriate body to the default when adding an ECT as in ECF1.

3) Programme choice: assuming that would be at a academic year level - as in ECF1, there's no option of selecting a different programme choice / type when adding an ECT.

4) Do we know why we don't we ask school users about their lead provider / delivery partner pairing in ECF1? We do ask if it's changed if they're a returning user, but don't ask them to select their new pairing. ECF1 lets school users add ECTs even if there's no confirmed lead provider / delivery partner pairing yet (cause it's not been confirmed by the LP).

mason-emily commented 1 month ago

Do we always need the ECT / mentor National insurance number? I think in the ECF1 journey we only ask for it sometimes - I've gone through in staging envs a fair few times where it's not asked NINO but only asked name, DoB, TRN - is NINO asked if something doesn't match?

No you're right, we only need it when we can't match the participant in DQT using TRN and DoB (and possibly first name, tbc)

Appropriate body: assuming we can continue doing this as a default on an academic year level? Although you can currently choose a different appropriate body to the default when adding an ECT as in ECF1.

Yep we definitely still need the concept of a default AB for the year, but some ECTs might have a different AB to the default - I can try and ask for some data on this to see how common that is

Programme choice: assuming that would be at a academic year level - as in ECF1, there's no option of selecting a different programme choice / type when adding an ECT.

Yep need a default for this too - but in cases where people transfer into a school they can keep their old LP so a different one to the default

Do we know why we don't we ask school users about their lead provider / delivery partner pairing in ECF1? We do ask if it's changed if they're a returning user, but don't ask them to select their new pairing. ECF1 lets school users add ECTs even if there's no confirmed lead provider / delivery partner pairing yet (cause it's not been confirmed by the LP).

In ECF1 it's the LP's role to claim schools and anything before that happens offline. We have #35 to explore improving that process

claire-hughez commented 1 month ago

Tejas also told us that the new TRS API should allow you to search by name and DOB, instead of TRN and DOB.

This hasn't been built yet, but might be an easier way to validate who the teacher is and that they have QTS later.

mason-emily commented 1 month ago

From speaking to Nathan: