Paul Corker

Eligibility Consistenty

Created

I have been reading 25/26 guidance and notice difference between ASF, Apprenticeship, and 16-19 guidance. For instance around the  residencey duration for the other types of peaople and their eligibility.

ASF - Certain Imigration Status are exempt form the 3-year rule. Asylum Seeker have to have lived in UK for 6-months

Apprenticeship - Certian Imigration Status are exempt from the 3-year rule. Asylum Seeker not eligible for funding

16-19 - Certain Imigration Status does not use the same language "including those who may not have lived in the UK for the last 3 years". Asylum Seekers look like there is not a 6-month condition but hard to clarify.

Now DfE publish all guidance should there be some consistency. They keep using the word "Clarification", but nothing is clear to me in the eligibility area. Can anyone clarify so I can let our tutors know without them having to read all of the guidance themselves?

Replies

No one has replied to this post.


Steve Hewitt

Yeah, no, this is LITERALLY THE WORST BIT.

So, because 16-19s are treated *basically* like school kids, *everyone* is eligible, Asylum Seekers are DAY ONE eligible, para 40.f, of the 16-19 rules and almost everyone else who isn't on a student visa will fall into one of the para 40 exceptions, you just need to work out which one (note most of these also appear in the Apprenticeship Rules explicitly for 16-18s).

19+ is more complex because it applies a different set of rules. Sadly, these have diverged in the last three years because the Apprenticeship policy team and ASF Policy team DO NOT TALK TO EACH OTHER. It is genuinely inexplicable. I have further thoughts but will not write them here as I don't want to get kicked off...

However, the main reason Asylum Seekers are ineligible for an Apprenticeship is they're not allowed to work, outside of certain shortage occupations where they'd need to prove they had the skills already (and therefore would fail on prior knowledge).

Steve Hewitt

Oh, and don't forget that GLA and West Yorks have different (more generous) eligibility rules for their ASF to the national rules as well...

Steve Hewitt

Or, at least, that was the position THIS MORNING!!! In Update this afternoon we've had Quite The Change!!!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dfe-update-18-june-2025/dfe-update-further-education-18-june-2025#information-adult-residency-eligibility-criteria-simplification

Individuals will be eligible for [ASF] funding if they are ordinarily resident in the UK on the first day of learning and the learning is taking place in England.

There is no change to the eligibility requirements for asylum seekers.

Individuals will not be able to access ASF funding if:

  • they are here without authority or lawful status
  • they are resident in the UK on a student visa, unless they are eligible through meeting any other of the categories
  • they are in the UK on holiday
  • they are in the UK on a sponsorship visa
  • their residence permit imposes a study prohibition or restriction

We will provide full details in an updated version of the ASF funding rules which will be published in early July.

This basically puts ASF on the same footing as the 16-19 funding, so all of your classroom should be "the same" except Adult Asylum Seekers will still need six months, I presume. Now, all we need is the App Rules to change (not happening).

Joan Mitchell

Hi,

Sorry to jump on this question, but Steve, does this mean the 3 year residency has been removed?

Thanks Joan

Steve Hewitt

This is certainly the implication Joan! Will be waiting for the detail before *properly* jumping up and down, but yes.

Joan Mitchell

Oh wow, that would be fantastic!!  I shall refrain from getting the party poppers out though :)  Thanks so much Steve.

 

Steve Hewitt

Feels like BNO and Spouse Visas are going to be the most obvious winners (as well as providers not needing to use ridiculous flow charts to work things out, fortunately I only spent an hour or so on my 25/26 version!!!)? Those on working visas could win too (although note the exclusion for sponsored workers, so we're not *entirely* out of the woods yet!).