Proportion of planned employment, enrichment and pastoral (EEP) hours is 50% or more of total planned hours

This report lists 16 to 19 students where half or more of their planned hours are employment, enrichment and pastoral hours rather than qualification hours. It does not say that enrichment is wrong. It says that when it becomes the larger part of a funded programme, DfE wants to see what it costs and what it achieves.

The comparison is the planned employability, enrichment and pastoral hours figure against total planned hours. DfE's expectation, stated in the summary, is that in most cases a young person is enrolled in learning leading to a regulated qualification approved for funding 14 to 19, a substantial work placement preparing them for progression to an apprenticeship or other employment, or a T Level. One point is easy to miss and changes how you read the list: DfE states it has already excluded students who have self-declared learning difficulties, disabilities or health problems, or who have been reported as requiring additional support. So the usual explanation for a high enrichment proportion has been taken out before the report was produced.

DfE's instruction is to make sure planned learning hours are correctly recorded for any qualifications being delivered, and that non-qualification delivery is recorded as employability, enrichment and pastoral hours. A high proportion therefore has two possible readings: the split is right and the programme really is mostly non-qualification, or qualification hours have been under-recorded or left in the wrong field. DfE sets a separate eligibility test for the non-qualification part: evidence of a cost incurred that is proportionate to the funding recorded against it, and a demonstration that it improves either progression to further levels of study or entry into employment. It states plainly that audit risk increases where this exceeds half of study programme hours.

Planned hours decide the funding band without distinguishing what the hours are. DfE separates qualification from non-qualification hours so it can see where funded time is going, and this report is the point at which that balance becomes a question.

16 to 19 study programmes where planned employability, enrichment and pastoral hours are half or more of total planned hours, after excluding students with declared learning difficulties, disabilities, health problems or reported additional support needs.

No. DfE does not call this an error and does not ask you to change it. It tells you what it will do, which is to ask for evidence of cost and need, and it tells you what follows, which is a higher risk of audit. A programme can be correct, well designed and still appear here, but it will need to be explainable.

• The programme is genuinely built around a substantial work placement or other non-qualification activity that DfE's own summary recognises as a valid shape.
• The student is part way through a programme where the qualification element is concentrated in a later year.
• The qualification hours are correct and the enrichment hours are correct, and the balance simply reflects the curriculum offer for that cohort.

• Qualification delivery recorded in the employability, enrichment and pastoral field because it was easier than splitting the timetable.
• Planned learning hours under-recorded because only part of the qualification delivery was counted.
• A programme template applied to a cohort whose actual qualification hours are higher than the template assumes.
• Non-qualification hours built from an intended enrichment offer rather than the one timetabled.

• Look at what the enrichment hours actually cover, and confirm none of it is qualification delivery sitting in the wrong field.
• Confirm the planned learning hours capture all the qualification delivery for the year, not part of it.

• Take the planned learning hours and the planned employability, enrichment and pastoral hours as recorded, and the timetable behind each.
• Check the split is real: identify which timetabled activity sits in which field, and whether any of it is in the wrong one.
• If the split is right, establish what the non-qualification activity is and what it is intended to achieve for these students.
• Work out what that activity cost to deliver, and whether that cost is proportionate to the funding recorded against it, because this is the test DfE names.
• Establish how progression or entry into employment is improved by it, and how that is evidenced rather than asserted.
• Remember these students are outside the excluded group, so an explanation resting on additional support needs does not apply to this list and will not answer the question.
• Decide whether this is a recording problem, a curriculum design question, or a well founded programme that needs its evidence assembled.

• Learner.PlanEEPHours
• Learner.PlanLearnHours
• LearnerFAM.LearnFAMType
• LearnerFAM.LearnFAMCode
• LearningDelivery.LearnAimRef
• LearningDelivery.FundModel

• PlanEEPHours_01
• PlanLearnHours_03

• Y-218
• Y-204

• R04
• R14

The total hours set the band, so moving hours between the two fields does not by itself change what is earned. What is at stake is whether the non-qualification part is eligible at all, which DfE ties to evidenced cost and demonstrable value rather than to the hours figure.

DfE states directly that risk of audit increases where this exceeds half of study programme hours, and that it may ask to review evidence of cost and need in-year. Assembling that evidence when the report appears is a great deal easier than assembling it when an auditor asks, and an audit sample is not confined to the records that prompted it.

• The timetable for the enrichment and pastoral activity, showing what is delivered and when.
• The cost of delivering that activity, at a level that can be set against the funding recorded for it.
• The stated purpose of the activity and the progression or employment outcomes it is intended to improve.
• The qualification timetable, to confirm the learning hours figure is complete.

• Where qualification delivery has been recorded as enrichment, move it to planned learning hours as DfE instructs, and correct it in the system that owns the timetable.
• Where learning hours were under-recorded, correct the figure at source, regenerate and resubmit rather than editing the return.
• Where a template produced the split, correct the template so the cohort does not reappear next collection.

• Assemble the cost evidence and the progression case now, while the delivery is current and the people who designed it are still there.
• Record why the programme has this shape for these students, so the answer is the same whoever is asked.

• Split qualification and non-qualification hours when the programme is designed, rather than allocating a total afterwards.
• Where a curriculum area intends a high enrichment proportion, build the cost and progression evidence into the programme approval rather than treating it as an audit task.

• Is any of what we have recorded as enrichment actually qualification delivery?
• Which courses does this affect, and is the pattern by course rather than by student?
• Do we know these students are outside the group DfE excluded, and have we stopped explaining them as support cases?

• What did the non-qualification activity cost us, and is that proportionate to the funding recorded against it?
• If we were audited on this tomorrow, what would we produce, and how long would it take to produce it?
• How much of our 16 to 19 funding sits on programmes with this shape?

• A good answer shows the timetable, the cost and the intended progression outcome, and says which students are affected and why the shape is deliberate.
• A weak answer is that the enrichment is good for the students, with no cost attached to it and no progression outcome named.

• planned-hours-explained
• sixteen-nineteen-mechanics
• audit-readiness