Repeating functional skills (not apprenticeship)

Providing they're going to the classes and not just resitting the test (ie there is LEARNING) then, yes, that's fine, we can have all the money again.

Great, thank you Steve!   

I have a couple of queries relating to ASF:

1) Is this a special case because it is English functional skills?  
If it was, say, ESOL, maths FS, digital skills FS, essential digital skills, or any other qualification, can they be funded again?  

2) Can the repeat funding be claimed in the same academic year, or is there a limit of once per academic year?  
ie, for learners who took their learning and test in the 1st half of the year, can they be funded again for repeat learning in the 2nd half of the year?  

The only funding rules about repeat funding that I can find are the two at the bottom of the What We Will Not Fund section.  
So, it looks like all quals where the learner fails can be funded again and again, even in the same academic year.  

So, it looks like all quals where the learner fails can be funded again and again, even in the same academic year. 

Basically, yes, but don't take the proverbial... Most important thing is to have the proof that they failed! Obviously, in-year, this will have an effect on your Achievement Rate, so there's an argument for just leaving a learner who failed an exam as continuing and only completing them at the end of the year with a "final" result.

Multiple instances of the same aim in one year, even when not overlapping, will pop up in PDSAT, so you would definitely be asked about it at audit, so make sure you've got your ducks in a row.

I did think this was only for legal entitlement so just to be clear - learners can repeat any failed aims? What about "any part of any learner’s learning aim or programme that duplicates provision they have received from any other source"?  What if they didn't take the exam as not ready - would it be funded again in this case?

We had a funding error last year (ESOL) learner didn't achieve but presumably claimed elsewhere so was clawed back. Therefore am being cautious about claiming any repeat learning. 

Penny Collins Good point.  In my message I didn't say "how much" funding could be claimed.  
(I wish that the funding rules still had paragraph numbers to make it easier to refer to specific clauses).  

Full funding or co-funding will be determined by the learner's current circumstances at the time the new aim (repeat aim) begins.  

Funding reduction for prior learning should be used:  "reduce the funding amount claimed for the qualification aim by the percentage of learning the learner does not need".
There is no guidance about how to calculate the percentage.  I think some use credits, units or dates.  This could be an interesting subject for debate in its own right.  

You must not use prior learning to reduce funding for:

• English and maths qualifications up to and including level 2 or
• essential digital skills qualifications (EDSQs) up to and including level 1

For these quals, we can claim 100% funding even if the learner has some competency and does not need to attend the whole course.  
Interesting point about "English":  does anybody think this includes ESOL, or just "English"?  

Penny Collins "We had a funding error last year (ESOL) learner didn't achieve but presumably claimed elsewhere so was clawed back." Can you explain this further please? Are you sure it wasn't an ESOL learner who had previously completed the same learning aim *with you* (ie was on FRM01 list)? I'm not aware of any mechanistic way that DfE has of doing this otherwise.

Peter Hancock yes, RPL for ASF is "easy" if the qual is unitised and the learner literally doesn't have to go to some classes. Beyond that it's an organisational decision. Personally, if it's not unitised and they're planning to go to all the classes, I'd have all the money, regardless of what type of qualification it is (see above caveats on in-year).

Steve Hewitt it was FRM01, ESOL writing, completed no achievement. Had not done that learning aim with us before. I did think it was a bit odd but assumed had achieved it with another provider? Subcontractor agreed should not have been claimed. 

Penny Collins we've had that scenario before with FRM01 as well.  

The FRM01 shows the provider with whom the achievement was recorded (scroll to the right).  If you check on the PLR, you should be able to see it there as well.