Could the 24/25 funding rules significantly impact your provision?

The 2024/25 apprenticeship funding rules are an oddity. Every year there is an expectation of something significant, something that could lead to real improvements in provision or something that could lead to real risk in a model or method of delivery.

The reality of 2024/25 is that there isn’t anything ground-breaking, but – as with every year – there are new clarifications, new rules and a lot of tinkering that gives providers new opportunities to improve or pitfalls to avoid.

Let’s look at two examples – two changes that aren’t ground-breaking but could actually make a big difference to the effectiveness of your provision. One is about a new rule – the other is about something a little more controversial: not applying a new rule relaxation/flexibility.

Amendments to the SEND flexibilities

Currently, if an apprentice has an Educational Health Care Plan (EHCP) or its equivalent, and within 8 weeks of starting, an “appropriate professional” certifies that the apprentice cannot achieve the required functional skills level, they can qualify by achieving only entry level 3. This allows apprentices who excel vocationally but struggle with functional skills to reach the End Point Assessment (EPA), thus boosting a provider’s revenue (since full funding is received only if the apprentice sits the EPA) and improving qualification achievement rates (QAR) and retention rates.

From 1 August, this rule is changing positively. The requirement for an EHCP or equivalent will be removed, and the assessment won’t need to be done within the first 8 weeks. This change will allow existing apprentices with difficulties, but without an EHCP, to benefit from the reduced functional skill requirement. This could significantly increase achievement rates and revenue for providers by enabling more apprentices to reach the EPA.

This new rule will rely heavily on the experience and expertise of the professional who is to certify apprentices. Providers will need to invest in this role, whether directly on staff or through third-party support providers with expertise in this area. Strong support plans and reasonable adjustments are crucial, and learning support funding, along with increased volume of completion payments, will likely justify the investment in such a role.

Overall, this rule change is very positive but will require investment in the infrastructure of learning support for providers to fully benefit from the flexibility but it’s a no-brainer to invest here for the increased quality and revenue returns.

Progress reviews and employer signature

The SEND flexibilities are a positive step for providers. One change that sounds positive – but could actually be potentially negative – is the removal of the need for an employer to sign progress reviews.

On the surface, this sounds like it reduces bureaucracy, as providers no longer need to chase employers for signatures. But, progress reviews play a crucial role in gaining ongoing commitment from employers. These reviews ensure employer satisfaction with the programme, clarify their role in supporting the apprentice, and secure their continued involvement. Removing the requirement for employer signatures could undermine the level of commitment you need.

Effective employer buy-in often requires line manager involvement in progress reviews and agreement on the outcomes. Sometimes that’s essential for service recovery activity with a given employer. If signature agreement can be captured – and digital systems can make this quite easy – the result of that is increased buy-in to the outcome.

Progress reviews are essential for capturing the voices of both apprentices and employers. Treating reviews merely as a funding rule requirement, rather than as a tool to assess and ensure effective delivery, is a mistake.

The rules don’t suggest ignoring employers in reviews, but without a signature to confirm agreement to the planned actions, many providers may limit the buy in. If employers aren’t involved, patterns of non-involvement can develop, leading to unidentified dissatisfaction and negatively impacting success and revenue. The relaxed rule, which seems beneficial, might actually be detrimental.

This year, providers have an opportunity to evolve and redesign the progress review process to make it a qualitative tool for driving improvement and effectiveness, rather than just a checklist. If the rule change leads to less employer involvement, it may be a flexibility you decide not to apply.

That’s just two rule changes – there are many more where providers will need to think carefully about their impact on their provision. Relying on your software system or a short webinar giving an overview of the rules is unlikely to cut it.