I’ve just been updating my funding table for 17/18. I know some people favour a flow chart, but I prefer a table. I’ve tried to annotate it with paragraph/page numbers of where in the funding guidance I got that information from.
Firstly, do you think it’s correct? Secondly, what about the areas I’ve left in white? We discussed this last year, and I can only conclude (again) that they’re not funded at all, as those scenarios just aren’t mentioned in the funding rules at all.July 27, 2017 at 5:28 pm #182307
I would also make it clear that for 19-23 First Full Level 2 or 3 the qualification must be on the list. Our Childcare level 3 EYE (60126292) was on last years list but has been removed this year. Similarly, Advanced Learner Loans are only available for qualifications in the ALL catalogue.
LiamJuly 28, 2017 at 8:42 am #182482
Yes, good point, like I’ve done on level 2.
And yes, I used to have a note on there that was a caveat that anything I’ve coded as “Loan Funded”, would be Unfunded if there wasn’t a loan available for the specific aim. I’ll put that back on.July 28, 2017 at 9:47 am #182508
In the absence of any other comment, I’m going to assume this is correct 🙂
What are other peoples plans for the situations I’ve left in white?August 2, 2017 at 1:07 pm #184134
We have split the other level 2 section as it depends on the learner prior attainment. If a 19-23 learner does not already have a full level 2 then they have to pay full cost fees. (The table on page 22 of the Adult education budget: funding rules).August 3, 2017 at 8:47 am #184368
Yes, my table is split based on prior attainment. I’ve reached the same conclusion, that the bits I’ve left white, are unfunded.August 3, 2017 at 10:52 am #184418
Hi, not sure I follow the logic for 19-23 year old students only being fully funded for ‘other Level 2’ qualifications if they already HOLD a full level 2?
I agree that’s what the guidance suggests on page 22 of the funding rules, so I am guessing it’s to encourage those who don’t already hold a full level 2 to undertake a full level 2, rather than undertaking ‘other Level 2’ qualifications?
However, it does seem a little unfair that, for example, an unemployed 19-23 student who does not hold a full level 2 would have to pay full fees to study ‘other level 2’ qualifications? But on the other hand, an unemployed 19-23 student who DOES hold a full level 2 would be fully funded?! Maybe I’m missing something, but would be useful to hear others thoughts on this.August 9, 2017 at 4:05 pm #186408
Also, there’s disparity between a 19-23 year old, and a 24+ student, it’s completely unfair. On the table, they stick out like a sore thumb. I raised this last year but nothing has changed. The worst bit is that I strongly suspect it’s not deliberate, and was just an oversight on the part of whoever wrote the funding guidance.
I wish they still issued a table like this, it would be much clearer than the combo of prose and table in the guidance. They might spot anomalies like this if they formatted it in this way. This is based on the old funding tables we had years ago (see pages 92/93 of this old funding guide).
Fortunately, we run few non-full level 2 fundable qualifications, so it’s more of an academic exercise than a genuine concern.August 9, 2017 at 4:26 pm #186420
I agree, I suspect it could be an oversight as it does not specify anywhere else in the guidance that the ESFA will NOT fund students undertaking ‘other level 2’ qualifications, if they don’t hold a full level 2.
The only possible reason I can think of for withholding funding for other level 2 quals from students who don’t already hold a full level 2 would be to encourage them to undertake a full level 2 qualification. But this just doesn’t feel right to me and as you correctly point out, why does this not also apply to 24+ students? For me, the guidance isn’t clear enough here.
From the table on page 22, it’s difficult to determine what the omission of specific guidance for 19-23 students who DON’T already hold a full level 2 qualification actually means. We are assuming it means there is no funding for them to undertake ‘other level 2’ qualifications, but it could just be an unintended consequence of trying to highlight the fact that even those students who already have a full level 2 qualification are still fully funded (and therefore those who don’t hold a full level 2 are also fully funded?).
I wonder if someone from the ESFA could confirm?August 9, 2017 at 5:10 pm #186434
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.