Irene Schofield

Report 12 FRM69

Created

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

 

Replies

No one has replied to this post.


David Dalby

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.

Dave

Linnea Clarke

Same here - I have asked the ESFA for some advice on it - will let you know if I get a response.

Martin West

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.

Changes from previous funding year

Previously an internal report

Funding streams reviewed

16 to 19 study programmes; 16 to 18 traineeships; T levels

Relevant guidance

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.

What you need to do (providers)

Review evidence, correct as necessary.

What we will do

Request evidence, determine action.

SimonL

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. 

Sharon Ward

I have also asked the ESFA for guidance as I have no idea how to get around this

Chris Roberts

  1. ESFA expects non-qualification activity to be a coherent part of study programmes which support the delivery of nationally recognised qualifications for all students. Whilst recognising a higher level of non-qualification activity may be appropriate for some students on high needs programmes or those students who also hold an EHC plan. Some traineeships or supported internships programmes may also have a higher EEP content but are subject to the following guidance. For non-qualification activity to be eligible for funding, institutions must be able to evidence that they have incurred a cost in delivering the activity. For this reason, for example, homework after the end of the teaching day remains a non-fundable activity. In recording EEP hours as part of funding returns institutions must be able to evidence the costs they are incurring. For funding audit purposes, these costs should be reasonable and proportionate to the funding the EEP activity is generating. Additional funding audit attention will be made where the amount of EEP activity being funded makes up more than half the study programme funding. Where EEP activity is above this figure, auditors will need to see evidence of costs that can be directly related to the delivery of education and examples of recognised educational costs are now shown in Annex B: Table 1b.

 

 

Chris Roberts

The costs that are
usually recognised
as educational costs
are:
• Staffing costs that relate directly to delivery of education and
training – includes those involved in management of education
and training delivery
• Premises costs that relate directly to delivery of education and
training
• Education awarding body and examination registration costs
• Equipment and material costs that are wholly attributable to
the education/training delivery
• For non-qualification activity to be eligible for funding,
institutions must be able to evidence that they have incurred a
cost in delivering the activity that corresponds to the amount of
funding being recorded for this activity
The costs that
should not usually be
recognised as
educational costs
are:
• Staffing costs for those whose salaries (and other staffing
costs) are being met from the organisations (or a related
company) commercial activities
• If these costs are split between this heading and fundable
activities above, then a reasonable apportionment model
should be followed
• Building and premises costs that are not part of dedicated
education and training activities
• Other equipment costs that are incurred by the commercial
work of the organisation (or its related companies)
• No weekly wage or attendance allowance to individual
students can be included in recognised costs as part of
education costs – if students need paying they should be on
Apprenticeships and not study programmes
• Equipment and/or material costs which are not directly
attributable to education/training delivery or costs which are
being met from other sources of funding 

Steveh

FRM69 is an "are you sure?" report, you DON'T need to clear it.

Paul Rogers

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.

 

Paul.

Steveh

Because they didn't think enough about it before releasing it? Surely not?