16-19 Funding Past Planned End Date

Home Forums Data issues 16-19 Funding Past Planned End Date

This topic contains 4 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  steveh 1 month ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Ruth CJ
    Participant

    I feel like this is a daft question, but I can’t find the answer in any guidance.

    If a 16-19 funded students was on a two year course, and you let them continue a year past their Planned End Date, would you attract any funding for year three if you reported PLH? PED is at the end of year two (assume standard academic year). We’ve never allowed it, and I don’t think we’re planning to, but a curriculum staff member is asking what would happen if we did. We could let them fail this year, then re-enrol on the same programme again, and that would be funded, but we’d have a fail. There are personal reasons why the student is unable to complete this year, but they will continue to attend throughout (probably sporadically). It’s not in the student’s interests to withdraw fully now, they just need a slow down, not a total break.

    I know you wouldn’t get funding if this were AEB, so I’ve assumed the same for 16-19, but I’m not sure as we’d still be reporting PLH.

     
    #425772

    steveh
    Participant

    I think they do generate funding if you return hours?

    Because there is no such thing as a BIL for study programmes, I don’t think there’s any other way of doing it?

    Also, as is traditional, it will be costing you money to deliver to the learner, so you’re probably OK to claim funding?

     
    #425822

    Ruth CJ
    Participant

    That’s a good point. It’s counter to the other funding streams to receive funding after the PED, but the ESFA do advise just leaving them on programme.

    We have historically avoided this, as it’s just complicates matters to have students carrying on past their PED. We do it in HE quite a lot, as we often have year repeaters, but not FE.

     
    #425926

    Ruth CJ
    Participant

    I just had a look at a student where we let them continue, where their PED was in 18/19, and they didn’t attract any funding in 19/20. We reported PLH and EEP in 19/20, with a funding ID if 25, but the 16-19 Summary says they’re not eligible for funding.

    I’ve had a lot of requests recently about letting students “continue” with their current aims into next year (because they won’t be ready for the usual progression option). Looks like we’ll have to fail them in 19/20, and start them again in 20/21, reducing their PLH and EEP if they’re not receiving the full delivery again.

    If they’re not repeating the entire thing, that has implications for RPA. If they’re overlapping the repeat delivery with a whole new FT programme, we won’t get any more funding above band 5, so we’d be teaching for free.

     
    #447341

    steveh
    Participant

    I’m kind of interested in Mr Standing’s take on this, in These Unusual Times…

    Bit different when you’ve got a couple of learners across the piece in-filling into otherwise viable classes, then them not generating (more) funding is kind of fine, but if we’re talking about sufficient learners for it to affect the overall quantum of funding because they’re displacing other new learners then it’s a different problem.

    I mean, at least there won’t be performance tables for the fails to appear on, maybe I’m overthinking it…

     
    #447349
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.