Steven Edmondson

Apprentice Rolled Component FTE/STULOAD


Struggled to find an example of this anywhere, please can anyone confirm from experience?

We have apprentices whose presence on a HE course in this year is due to being a component of a ongoing apprenticeship programme, the component was already completed in a previous year. Should the FTE be kept as what is was in previous years or should we adjust down to reflect they are now not undertaking any study? 

My personal suspicion is we just keep the value the same and as they have an end date in a prior year they don't form part of the OFS stats.


No one has replied to this post.

Ruth Canham-James


We got OfS audited last year, and this came up (it's not in any guidance). OfS didn't initially understand why we were still reporting rows in the ILR in the year after the AED, but we explained it could be your scenario, or possibly quals where we still didn't have a result at R14 (it can happen in some professional L4+ quals).

They agreed that we should enter 0.1, as it isn't possible to enter 0, and we have to keep them in the ILR for ESFA purposes. They did say they'd go away and consider allowing 0 in this field in future, but the minimum is still 0.1 in 22/23. If it were a qual in scope for HESES, you wouldn't include it in the HESES again.

It does matter if you're on the OfS Register, as they put us in a fee band based on our total FTE each year. You don't want to accidentally push yourself into a higher fee band if you can avoid it! See page 13 here. On that note, for non-recognised L4+, where FTE/STULOAD is a bit of a grey area, make sure you haven't overstated your FTE. The auditors were happy for us to calculate total qual FTE based on the LARS GLH as a percentage of 504 (the HE definition of FT is at least 21 hours a week for at least 24 weeks, so 504 hours). They didn't really know what to do with non-recognised HE as it doesn't fit their usual models, so I think they were just happy we were being consistent. You could base it off your planned hours, but we found that was often higher than the GLH, so we picked GLH as it resulted in lower FTE. 

Steven Edmondson

Excellent reply Ruth, thank you very much for taking the time. It continues to amaze me how often the different sections have no idea why data is being done a certain way!