Rule Change 18/19 for adults on low wages

Home Forums Open Data Rule Change 18/19 for adults on low wages

This topic contains 7 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  somahony 3 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Shelagh1
    Participant

    Although the changes for adults on low wages in the funding rules is a welcome change and provides a more detailed explanation to previous documents in that it is explicit in terms of an actual figure:

    The new eligibility requirements for learners to receive full funding during the trial are:
    those that are eligible for co-funding, and,
    earn less than £15,736.50 annual gross salary based on the Social Mobility Commission’s low pay threshold of £8.07 (hourly rate in 2016) and on the assumption of a 37.5 hour contract with paid statutory holiday entitlement.

    However, as one of our manager’s pointed out, it is still open to question:
    do we read this that eligible learners need to be working full time? If part time do they need to earn less than £8.07 per hour?

    Or – is the detail provided an example of where the annual gross figure comes from?

    Shelagh (just when you think there has been some straight forward thinking)

     
    #264251

    Steve
    Participant

    Hiya

    This was discussed on a thread in the Data Issues forum. Someone from ESFA confirmed its regardless of hours worked and regardless of hourly rate they are paid

    Hopefully this link will take you to the thread:

    http://feconnect.sfa.bis.gov.uk/forums/topic/learners-in-receipt-of-low-wages/page/2/

     
    #264318

    Shelagh1
    Participant

    Thanks Steve, I have now looked at the thread. I did actually search for anything that would have been discussed under this issue before I submitted by query, but I must have missed this.

    Thank you for pointing me to it, you’re always helpful.

    Shelagh

     
    #264329

    somahony
    Participant

    Hi
    Can someone please clarify how to decide if someone is on a low income, will we look at total household income or just the income of that individual? Someone could be on a low income through choice as he/she only wants to work a few hours, they may have a partner who is earning £100,000, would that person still be eligible for a fully funded course? How do we prove that someone has not the means to pay if they are part of a household which earns a very high income? Any help really appreciated. Thank you

    Siobhan

     
    #267743

    Luke Burns
    Participant

    Hi Siobhan,

    The planned wording of the rules (as per the linked thread) is:

    You must be satisfied the learner meets both of the following:

    151.1 is eligible for co-funding, and
    151.2 earn less than £15,736.50 annual gross salary

    Hope that helps,

    Luke

     
    #267909

    somahony
    Participant

    Hi Luke

    Thank you for your reply, I am aware of this already but what I am unclear about this the following part
    151. You may fully fund learners, who are employed and cannot contribute towards
    the cost of co-funding fees. You must be satisfied the learner meets both of the
    following:
    How do we prove that a leaner cannot contribute to the cost of a course please? What evidence is needed for this purpose? A leaner may earn a low income but live in a household that earns a six figure sum, what I am trying to get clarification on is how can you prove that someone cannot contribute towards their co-funding costs.

    Thank you

    Siobhan

     
    #267923

    Luke Burns
    Participant

    Hi Siobhan,

    Although the stated purpose of the funding pathway is for those who cannot contribute towards the cost of co-funded fees, the actual validation that providers are expected to perform is solely based on individual income (paragraphs 151.1, 151.2, and 152).

    I imagine that is because it would be difficult to conduct a thorough investigation of a student’s household income, expenses, savings, etc., but perhaps this will be changed next year as you’re right, it does leave the door open to those who might not ‘need’ it, but that’s how the ESFA have set it up.

     
    #267931

    somahony
    Participant

    Thank you for your reply Luke, yes I do think more clarity may follow at some time from the ESFA.

    Siobhan

     
    #267933
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.