information about how you use ‘Get help with ESFA services’. We use this information to make the
website work as well as possible and improve government services.
You have accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any
This is a new service – your feedback will help us to improve it.
Created 17 January 2022 12:43
What are others thoughts on the 19-23 rule under AEB for quals below L2 where the learners prior attainment is below L2?
Do you agree if the course is not local flexibility they are not fundable? Even if they are in receipt of benefits?
We have asked our internal auditors for their advice.
No one has replied to this post.
(I think I've been having this conversation with a colleague of yours!)
I'd say that any valid Entry or L1 aim is fully funded for 19-23 without FL2 where it is appropriate as a progression to L2, employment status doesn't come into it (per the contributions table).
Specifically, that non-reg quals not explicitly having cat 40 attached to them on FALA is not a reason to not deliver them to a learner in this situation (apologies for the quadruple negative!). I don't know *why* non-reg aims aren't explicitly listed as "local flexibility" on FALA (I'd suggest oversight rather than active decision) but there's also no suggestion in the non-reg section of the rules that they can't be delivered to these learners.
17 January 2022 13:20
Sorry I wasn't aware you had been contacted for your expert knowledge.
How do we get around the fact that the contribution table specifically states fundable under local flexibility. Doesn't the fact that its not local flexibility, mean its not fundable?
The Non Reg aim is delivered as a short 3-4 week taster course to learners wishing to progress into the beauty industry. A number of learners enrol on the full L2's that they deliver.
17 January 2022 13:26
(that's ok, I think it's worthy of wider discussion!)
The gap in all of this is a statement from ESFA explaining why the non-reg aims don't have cat 40 on them, because I don't think anyone actually in charge of policy knows that it is a thing. We had a similar thing a couple of year's back where they didn't put Local Flex on the FL2 aims because they said it was implicit that they were still fundable for other learners. That only changed because we kicked up a fuss about it.
Lets put it this way, I'm almost certain a learner on this course would pass ILR validation and what you describe matches:
145.2. locally commissioned and/or locally developed basic knowledge and skills needed to access technical qualifications145.4. locally commissioned and/or locally devised technical education short courses (also known as taster sessions)
under the non-reg description.
17 January 2022 13:34
As per response from the ESFA today, they have confirmed they will fund non-regulated aims under local flexibility. I have now asked why they won't update the category code to reflect this so the FaLA is consistent with Policy.
18 January 2022 12:47
Thanks Firdaus, I was about to let lovely Steveh know the good news but you beat me to it lol
18 January 2022 13:24
Thanks both! :)
18 January 2022 13:28