Adam Betts commented, 08 November 2021 08:57

Here's the official answer on this.  To quote the reply in the context of the example in the original post, it does "appear a little harsh", and is definitely not in "provider favour"!   CI-0105091 Dear Adam Thank you for your enquiry. The starting point to the answer is Funding regulations paragraph 13 (d), 64 and 67. Paragraph 67 states:  Students are usually only eligible for one ESFA funding model as the funding provided is intended to cover the whole of their learning programmes.   We set out some additional advice in Funding regulations: Annex C in the Question and answer 15 to help make clear that under no circumstances should any student have planned hours recorded for any period in which the same funded institution is claiming Apprenticeship funding. This applies regardless as to circumstances of transfer and in all such cases the planned hours should be removed for any time in which the Apprenticeship funding is being claimed.  The advice in Q&A 15 is merely intended to help make sure the requirements not to duplicate funding as set out in 13 (d), 64 and 67 can be as easily applied as possible by all providers. We will take your question into account in writing Funding regulations 2022 to 2023 but this does not change the advice above for you to make the required adjustments for 2021 to 2022.   We are now setting out this advice to all questions on study programme to Apprentcieship funding   Our advice makes the following points:   The advice on adjusting planned hours applies to all 16-19 study programme students moving to Apprenticeship provision within same provider    We accept for some students this may appear a little harsh but reducing planned hours reduces the value of “retention deduction” Many such students will have undertaken some under pinning knowledge for the Apprentcieship delivery We apply our guidance to make advice on adjusting funding data as simple as possible but accept some reductions are likely to be “in our favour” whereas others maybe in the “provider favour” We have been forced to adopt this guidance due to the numbers of students being put through 16-19 study programmes to reduce Apprenticeship costs We expect students started onto study programmes to be completed before moving onto Apprenticeships and we cannot afford to “incentivise by funding arrangements early completion/withdrawal from study programmes” No 16-19 students should ever be double funded at the same time at same provider and the simplest method is to reduce planned hours and not adjust Apprenticeship funding. I trust this answers your query but please reply to this email if you have any further questions. Please use our ESFA online form if you have any future queries. Many thanks ESFA Customer Service

1. Study Programme transfers to Apprenticeships -unhelpful guidance

Here's the official answer on this.  To quote the reply in the context of the example in the original post, it does "appear a little harsh", and is definitely not in "provider favour"!   CI-0105091...

Adam Betts commented, 15 October 2021 10:56

Hi Steve - would like to get something on here publicly that may help a wider group going through audit. Audit situations where there is no recourse to get a sensible answer from either the auditor or the ESFA are not much fun.  Also it doesn't seem to be widely understood (often by auditors) that a DSAT report is not necessarily an error!  It might be take-a-look-and-and-see-if-it-an-error packed up as an error.   My guess is that a provider somewhere had a model that delivered a small FM25 qual with potentially high hours, early completed whole cohorts and moved the on to an App.  This seems to inadvertently hurt providers delivering proper FT Study programmes who aim to move those learners into Apprenticeships and jobs.  

1. Study Programme transfers to Apprenticeships -unhelpful guidance

Hi Steve - would like to get something on here publicly that may help a wider group going through audit. Audit situations where there is no recourse to get a sensible answer from either the auditor...