Replies
No one has replied to this post.
Oh, I was just talking to Nick about this the other day. I thought that everyone on the aim got the extra regardless of the LDM code? I didn't think the codebase was clever enough to only add it for LDM 378s?
Pretty sure I tested this using LET and FIS when it was first introduced and that was what it did? Might be wrong/they might have got smarter? Also, guess it's pretty easy to see on the occupancy report if you've got real examples of it!
I checked our main occupancy report, and in columns P and Q, it's clear we're not getting an uplift for everyone, and they're the rows where we didn't code term as LDM 378. Here's an example, both are 19-23 and on the same aim and same start date, but one had a full level 3 already and was low wage, so we coded as 378;
I have some more from this year and last year too. Some are not low wage, but 24+ and FFL3. I have been wondering whether we're doing ourselves out of the uplift, but I'm really confident I'm right, and we shouldn't be coding them as 378 if they were eligible for legal entitlements.
I really think this isn't clear enough though, and I'm sure people are unwittingly recording it incorrectly. They should be simple to spot in the ILR should ESFA have a mind to check; 19-23 at start, prior attainment below level 3, aim has legal entitlements, and LDM 378. If they don't want us to do that, they should probably make it a validation rule, then it would be clear.
Well, I've been back and forth several times with the service desk and their answer is still unclear. I asked;
If a student is eligible on a particular qualification, for full funding under both the Legal Entitlement category and Free Courses for Jobs category, are we allowed to record the LDM code 378 to collect the £150/£600 uplift? Yes or no?
They responded;
Recording LDM code 378 would mean the leaner was funded for the level 3 through Free Courses for Jobs (instead of through legal entitlement).
The learner would not be able to claim level 3 funding through legal entitlement, if they've already completed or are receiving level 3 funding through Free Courses for job.
A learner would never be paid or be eligible for the level 3 through both at the same time. Can only be funded through one pot for the level 3 and once it's achieved, then they would no longer be eligible for the funding.
I don't want to claim both at once! There's a much longer trail on this, where he says we should "apply under legal entitlement" (that's not how it works), then says LDM 378 is "not required" (I know, but is it allowed). Why can't they just say no, and that be the end of it? I even explained that the guidance wasn't clear, and I think some providers are using 378 on students who were eligible under legal entitlements.
Also, the last statement is not true surely? A student might get funded under legal entitlements for one level 3, then could be funded under FCFJ as Unemployed/Low Wage for another level 3 the following year?
Ruth Canham-James
FCFJ AND Legal Entitlements
Created
Hello,
We've been having a conversation with one of the software companies we're working with (course modelling), who are applying an FCFJ uplift to all fully funded targets on aims that have both legal entitlements and FCFJ. We think that's wrong. Our understanding is that, if an aim has both legal entitlements and FCFJ funding, we are only due the uplift if the student wasn't eligible for the legal entitlements (so was 24+ or already had a FFL3). The reason we think that is this flow chart;
We haven't been coding those students as LDM 378, and I think that's correct. They would always have been funded, even before FCFJ. It explicitly says in the flow chart that they have exercised their legal entitlements, so it's not FCFJ. We have aims where we have a mix of fully funded and not coded as 378, so no uplift, and coded as 378 with an uplift.
Has anyone else interpreted this differently? If you didn't see this flow chart, it's not very clear, and I suspect some providers are recording students eligible for legal entitlements, as LDM 378. I think this needs making more explicit in the guidance.