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 26 August 2022 07:49
Can anyone advise if the report 12 FRM69 (Proportion of planned EEP hours is greater than or equal to 50% of total planned hours and learner is not recorded with high needs) requires any specific action for Traineeship learners? Just wanted clarification as Traineeships do not require a higher level of planned learning hours against EEP? Thanks Irene
No one has replied to this post.
I'm glad you asked this Irene, I've got the same "issue" and was trying to decide if I needed to do anything. I can't work out what I can do anyone as the hours recorded are the reality of the programme. Will be interesting to see other's responses.
26 August 2022 07:57
Same here - I have asked the ESFA for some advice on it - will let you know if I get a response.
26 August 2022 08:02
Previously an internal report
16 to 19 study programmes; 16 to 18 traineeships; T levels
Non-qualification hours cover employment, enrichment, and pastoral (EEP) activity. These hours must be timetabled, organised and/or supervised by the institution. Institutions must always record work experience that is eligible for funding as employability, enrichment, and pastoral (EEP) hours. Work experience that the institution has planned, organised, and supervised will be recorded as non-qualification activity and should be identified in data returns using the work placement entity.
Review evidence, correct as necessary.
Request evidence, determine action.
26 August 2022 08:55
Guessing for traineeships then as the majority will be EEP hours its a report that can be ignored once we have double checked? Not much we can do about it as the hours on EEP will be more than planned hours especially where learners are not doing maths or English.
26 August 2022 09:05
I have also asked the ESFA for guidance as I have no idea how to get around this
26 August 2022 12:40
26 August 2022 14:07
The costs that areusually recognisedas educational costsare:• Staffing costs that relate directly to delivery of education andtraining – includes those involved in management of educationand training delivery• Premises costs that relate directly to delivery of education andtraining• Education awarding body and examination registration costs• Equipment and material costs that are wholly attributable tothe education/training delivery• For non-qualification activity to be eligible for funding,institutions must be able to evidence that they have incurred acost in delivering the activity that corresponds to the amount offunding being recorded for this activityThe costs thatshould not usually berecognised aseducational costsare:• Staffing costs for those whose salaries (and other staffingcosts) are being met from the organisations (or a relatedcompany) commercial activities• If these costs are split between this heading and fundableactivities above, then a reasonable apportionment modelshould be followed• Building and premises costs that are not part of dedicatededucation and training activities• Other equipment costs that are incurred by the commercialwork of the organisation (or its related companies)• No weekly wage or attendance allowance to individualstudents can be included in recognised costs as part ofeducation costs – if students need paying they should be onApprenticeships and not study programmes• Equipment and/or material costs which are not directlyattributable to education/training delivery or costs which arebeing met from other sources of funding
26 August 2022 14:10
FRM69 is an "are you sure?" report, you DON'T need to clear it.
27 August 2022 13:39
If 16-18 year old traineeships do not need to be looked at, I do not understand why they are included in the report.
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking why are they in there, so any clarification people get back would be appreciated.
01 September 2022 16:25
Because they didn't think enough about it before releasing it? Surely not?
01 September 2022 16:30