Replies
No one has replied to this post.
I'm surprised more people haven't contributed to this post seeing as how the 'clarification' version has just been released.
I couldn't agree more with the whole bank account scenario, it just 'feels' wrong on all levels. Steve H posted on CMIS that he has challenged some of these issues and again I agree totally that this should be self-declaration as the value of collected evidence, for the reasons you have stated, is never going to be robust. Also, we are not accountants; showing income against expenditure and our supporting calculations. Students could also have embarrassing things on their statements that they would be mortified should we see them - like a monthly direct debit for a Fleetwood Town season ticket for example :-)
It does appear that older members of society are supported to return to work by gaining qualifications. It would appear that retirement is not forever nowadays but let's watch this space after 4 July.
Darren.
V2 is definitely more than a "clarification" version, now includes parts that were not mentioned at all in v1 and appeared to have been removed from 23/24. Cannot believe how late these changes are. Checking bank statements is a no-no for us, it's not appropriate to ask staff to trawl through bank statements adding up income and outgoings - and won't prove anything.
Well we are currently still on V1 with V2 to come later - in July, I'd expect it to be very early July too ;-)
Information: Updated adult skills fund funding rules for the academic year 2024 to 2025
The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) has updated the adult skills fund (ASF) funding rules guidance that was first published in March 2024, to clarify 2 points.
-
When using the earnings threshold, you must apply this to the learner’s gross annual salary and exclude any benefits.
-
You can fund unemployed learners using the ASF and we have added the unemployed definition back into the guidance.
In July, we will issue version 2 of the ASF funding rules 2024 to 2025 to include performance management rules.
Good to have another version out since the Webinar FAQs document.
There are some really great new avenues of funding for those not employed and not on benefits! Just as long as they're seeking work. I mentioned on CMIS that we'll have some form of self-declaration to confirm the bit about seeking work and the programme being relevant to their employment prospects.
For those of you that don't read the CMIS Jiscmail, there were a number of other concerns about checking bank statements raised:
- Students without a bank account
- Students with multiple bank accounts
- Students with joint accounts where their partner earns above £25k
- Not all money going into an account will be earnings, it could be support from a family member or any number of things
Plus as Darren points out, transactions that they may not want us to see (or bank transfers from friends with what seemed like hilarious notes)! If we ask only to see the monthly/yearly summaries, that doesn't account for partner salary and/or other income that's not earnings. If the money in is more than £25k, then we'd have to trawl through the detail to establish how much of it was earnings. How does the student prove that any salary income is their partner's and not theirs? It's just not possible. You can't prove absence of something.
We have grave concerns about the need to view bank statements, for the same reasons that have already been posted here: it is both highly intrusive, and not remotely reliable. And frankly a July date for clarifying the unemployed definition is completely unhelpful. Why the delay?
Does anyone know if these concerns are being fed back to DfE?
On the FCFJ processing priority, I am surprised that they say there is "no priority", as this will affect year-end funding reconciliations. On the other hand, I think it gives providers the "flexibility" to choose which allocation is going to pay for the learning aim, so that's a good thing, right?
Has anyone managed to understand how to code a 19 - 23 doing a L3 who does not already have a full L3? In the v2 update of the rules it says:
Learners aged 19 to 23 who have not previously achieved a full level 3 qualification must be fully funded, regardless of the earnings threshold or employment status, if they choose a qualification from the level 3 legal entitlement or FCFJ list. You must not charge them any course fees.
However, further down we get:
-
use LDM code 378 and FFI code 1 to claim for funding for 19 to 23 year olds learners, who have not achieved a full level 3 and earn above the earnings threshold
-
use LDM code 378, FFI code 1, and LDM code 391 when recording learners who meet the earnings threshold criteria or are unemployed, or are 19 to 23 years old and have not achieved a full level 3
These two seem to contradict each other for a 19-23 year old without a full L3 but earning over £25K and give no clues how to code one who is unemployed or earning under £25K. I'm lost.
Hello everyone, not sure if this link is still active. I am seeking an answer regarding ASF rules. One of my contacts believes that the hourly rate rule in the old AEB rules still applies to the earnings threshold. Whereas I believe it is simply below £25k gross salary. Hence a learner earning 15 per hour working part time, would earn below £25k and as such be eligible.
Can anyone clarify please?
Thanks in advance, Grant
Hi Ruth, you may have just clarified even further. The explanation given in the old rules was:
The threshold of £22,308 as an annual gross salary, is based on the National Living Wage (23 and over hourly rate) of £11.44, on the assumption of a 37.5 hour contract with paid statutory holiday entitlement (therefore, £11.44 multiplied by 37.5 hours per week, multiplied by 52 weeks per year).
As such we have always been led to believe a learner cannot earn over the hourly rate. Which always seemed nonsensical as it is min wage, so would only apply to young people.
Ruth Canham-James
AEB/ASF Changes 2024/25 Webinar FAQs
Created
I thought I'd create a thread for chat about this. I think most of us received an email titled "AEB/ASF Changes 2024/25 Webinar FAQs" on 14/06/2024. If you didn't, find a copy from somewhere.
This was a question I've had for two years, and had contradictory info on, so this is good to have in writing:
When they say "The course will also attract the FCFJ uplift regardless of which offer it is categorised under", I believe that may only be true if you record the LDM code 378. Originally we were told that these could only be funded under legal entitlements, so we didn't code as 378, and we didn't get the uplift. Code 382 (FCFJ specifically for low wage) has been retired.
These two are just great news:
I am really concerned about the evidence requirements for these:
Aside from the fact that lots of people have multiple bank accounts and can just show you the one with low/no income, it just feels a huge invasion of privacy and a massive overstep for a provider to be trawling through bank statements. With Low Wage, we just asked for payslips usually, so didn't need to see bank statements. You expect to show all your bank statements when you take out a mortgage, not when you sign up for a course. Also, what has outgoings got to do with it?
Very interested to see whether the new definition of unemployed includes that the learner needs to be seeking work. If not, that includes lots of retirees, which seems an unusual group for ESFA to choose to fund.