Replies
No one has replied to this post.
I've yet to see what the claim will look like, will it not be split at all, just one big block? We've got a lot of thinking to do about how/what/how much we claim for TL and the evidence to support that. Flexibility always sounds nice but you still have to come up with strict internal policies so everybody knows what they're doing. We'll likely end up mirroring at lot of what happened this year with the non-reg.
It says "how much money have you spent" and we say "all of the money you gave us" and they say "that's fine".
So, on the mid-year claim, there will be a spent to date (into which you put half the allocation) and an estimated spend for the rest of the year (into which you put the other half of the allocation). Then on the year end/final ones you just confirm it.
There has never been a real audit of CL by ESFA (some CAs are mucking about with one), can't imagine this changing for TL (it is, after all, only a tiny fraction of a small fraction of the whole budget). Because of this there aren't really evidence requirements. I know it's scary, but that's how it works.
Ruth Canham-James
Tailored Learning and ASF in the same year
Created
We're going to be doing Tailored Learning next year to replace some activity that was previously non-regulated AEB (we've never done Community Learning). Some of the adults have historically done a short non-reg course for a term or so, then started a regulated aim later on. I can't see a reason why that's no longer possible. The question is about Learning and Learner Support. 24/25 rules say that all support for Tailored Learning must come from the TL allocation through the funding claim. I guess that means we have to split any support claims between the time when they do TL, and the time they are ASF. That's going to be tricky for Learner Support. I also assume we'll only add the LSR fields (as relevant) if and when the student starts an ASF course?