Planned hours for continuing students who complete or leave learning within 6 weeks of 6 September
A funding monitoring report identifies records and patterns that DfE wants providers to investigate and be able to explain. Appearing on one does not by itself mean a record is wrong. Many flagged records are correct and simply need their evidence produced; others turn out to need a correction.
Where this comes from
Every word below is DfE’s own, read from the published guidance on 19 September 2026. Nothing in this section was written by FEFunding.
Summary
You must calculate the planned learning hours (PLH) for a student’s study programme when they are first enrolled. Study programme planned hours reflect the hours planned for the academic year whereas T Level planned hours are recorded for the length of the T Level programme.
Funding streams reviewed
- 16 to 19 study programmes
- T Levels
What you need to do
When a student successfully completes their study programme significantly earlier than the planned end date, you must reduce the planned hours as appropriate to the actual period of attendance.
When a student withdraws from one or more aims within the first 6 weeks of a programme, you must remove all the planned hours for the aim from the total planned hours, unless excluding the hours already delivered within the first 6 weeks would make a material difference to the student’s funding band. In those cases, you can include the hours already delivered in the planned hours.
What we will do
We may contact you in-year to ensure data is reported accurately.
Changes from previous funding year
None
What this means in practice
This section is FEFunding’s explanation, not DfE’s wording. It was drafted with AI assistance against the official guidance above. Its approval is pending confirmation, so it is not yet shown as reviewed by a person. Where it differs from the Department’s own words, the Department’s words are the authority.
In plain English
This report lists students who carried on from last year, came back in September, and then finished or left within about six weeks. Their planned hours were set for a whole year when they first enrolled. The report asks whether those hours still describe what actually happened.
Based on FRM71 Summary.
Working knowledge
DfE's starting point is that planned learning hours are calculated when a student is first enrolled, and that for a study programme they cover the academic year. A continuing student therefore arrives in the new year carrying a full year of planned hours. If they complete or leave in the first few weeks, the record can still be claiming a year of delivery for a few weeks of attendance unless somebody goes back and adjusts it. T Levels sit differently again, because DfE records their planned hours for the length of the programme rather than for one year.
Based on FRM71 Summary.
Technical detail
DfE gives two distinct adjustments and they are not the same. Where a student successfully completes their study programme significantly earlier than the planned end date, the planned hours must be reduced to the actual period of attendance. Where a student withdraws from one or more aims within the first six weeks of a programme, all the planned hours for that aim come out of the total, unless excluding the hours already delivered in those six weeks would make a material difference to the funding band, in which case the delivered hours may be included. So an early completer and an early leaver are treated differently, and the second carries an exception the first does not.
Based on FRM71 What you need to do.
Why this report exists
Planned hours decide the funding band, and they are set at enrolment rather than at the end. A student who leaves almost immediately is the clearest case where the figure set at the start no longer describes the year, so it is where DfE looks.
Based on FRM71 Summary; planned-hours-drive-the-band.
What DfE is identifying
Students continuing from the previous year whose planned hours were set for the full year but who completed or left learning within six weeks of the start of September.
Based on FRM71 Summary.
Does appearing here mean something is wrong?
Not by itself. It is entirely normal for continuing students to leave early in the autumn, and that is not an error. The question is narrower: has the planned hours figure been adjusted to match what happened, in the way DfE requires for the case that applies.
Based on FRM71 What you need to do; exception-is-not-error.
Legitimate reasons for appearing
- The student completed their programme early and the planned hours have already been reduced to the actual period of attendance.
- The student withdrew from an aim within the first six weeks and the hours were removed, or were retained under DfE's material difference exception.
- The student is on a T Level, whose planned hours DfE records for the length of the programme rather than the year, so the figure is not a single year figure to begin with.
Based on FRM71 What you need to do; FRM71 Summary.
Data or process problems that can cause it
- The hours were set at first enrolment and never revisited when the student left, because nothing in the process prompts a return to them.
- The leaver was recorded correctly but the adjustment to planned hours was treated as a separate task that nobody owned.
- The early completion was treated as an achievement to record rather than as a change to the hours.
- The withdrawal was recorded after the hours had been finalised for the return.
Based on mis-generates-the-ilr; withdrawal-timing-affects-performance.
What to check first
- Establish which of the two cases applies: did the student complete early, or did they withdraw.
- Check whether the planned hours still show a full year of delivery for a student who attended a few weeks.
Based on FRM71 What you need to do.
Working through it
- Confirm the student is a continuing student and identify the date they actually stopped attending.
- Establish whether they completed the programme or withdrew, because DfE's instruction differs between the two.
- For an early completion, check whether the planned hours were reduced to the actual period of attendance.
- For a withdrawal within the first six weeks, check whether the planned hours for the aim were removed from the total.
- Where the hours were retained, establish whether that was the material difference exception being applied deliberately, or simply hours that were never removed.
- Check the recorded actual end date is the date the student genuinely stopped, not the date it was noticed.
- Look at how many students share the pattern, because an adjustment nobody owns affects everybody who leaves, not only these students.
Based on FRM71 What you need to do; completion-status-and-outcome.
ILR fields involved
- Learner.PlanLearnHours
- Learner.PlanEEPHours
- LearningDelivery.LearnActEndDate
- LearningDelivery.LearnPlanEndDate
- LearningDelivery.CompStatus
- LearningDelivery.Outcome
Based on FRM71 What you need to do; CompStatus_06.
Related ILR validation rules
- CompStatus_06
- PlanLearnHours_03
Based on CompStatus_06; PlanLearnHours_03.
Related PDSAT reports
- Y-209
- Y-210
- Y-214
Based on Y-209; Y-210; Y-214.
Returns this relates to
- R04
- R14
Based on r04-is-the-census-for-16-19; final-return-closes-the-year.
Funding implications
Unadjusted planned hours claim a band for delivery that did not happen. There is a second effect worth knowing: the December return carries the 16 to 19 student numbers that the following year's allocation is built from, so hours and leavers recorded wrongly in the autumn reach next year's allocation rather than only this year's earnings.
Based on planned-hours-drive-the-band; r04-is-the-census-for-16-19.
Audit and assurance implications
The evidence an auditor wants is the attendance record showing when the student actually stopped, and the working behind whatever hours figure was left in place. Where the material difference exception was used, the fact that it was a decision rather than an omission needs to be visible.
Based on evidence-must-be-contemporaneous; FRM71 What you need to do.
Achievement rate implications
When a withdrawal is recorded changes whether the aim counts in the achievement rate, so a leaver recorded late in the autumn is not a neutral administrative delay.
Based on withdrawal-timing-affects-performance.
Evidence to look for
- The attendance or register record showing the last date the student was in learning.
- The completion record where the student finished early, and what was achieved.
- The calculation behind the planned hours as they now stand, and what was removed.
- Where hours were retained under the six week exception, the assessment of the funding band difference that justified it.
Based on evidence-must-be-contemporaneous; FRM71 What you need to do.
If the data is wrong
- For an early completion, reduce the planned hours to the actual period of attendance, as DfE instructs.
- For a withdrawal within the first six weeks, remove the planned hours for the aim from the total, unless the material difference exception genuinely applies.
- Correct the actual end date to the date the student stopped rather than the date it was noticed.
- Make the change in the source system and regenerate the return, rather than editing the file.
Based on FRM71 What you need to do; correct-the-source-not-the-return.
If the data is right
- Record which of DfE's two cases applied and what was done to the hours, so the answer is not reconstructed from memory later.
- Where the exception was applied, record the funding band assessment that supported it.
Based on change-evidence-matters.
Stopping it recurring
- Make the planned hours adjustment part of recording an early completion or a withdrawal in the first six weeks, rather than a separate task that depends on somebody remembering. A student who withdraws from the whole programme after the first six weeks keeps the planned hours recorded at the start; the retention factor reduces the funding instead.
- Run the autumn leavers list against planned hours before the December return, since that is the return the following year's allocation is built from.
Based on mis-generates-the-ilr; r04-is-the-census-for-16-19.
Questions an MIS manager should ask
- When a student completes early or withdraws in the first six weeks, who adjusts the planned hours, and how do we know it happened?
- Are these students early completions or withdrawals, and have we treated them differently as DfE requires?
- How quickly does a withdrawal reach the record after the student actually stops attending?
Based on withdrawal-timing-affects-performance.
Questions a finance director should ask
- Do any of these students move funding band once the hours are corrected?
- Does what we are about to submit in December describe the students we actually have?
Based on planned-hours-drive-the-band; r04-is-the-census-for-16-19.
What a good answer sounds like
- A good answer distinguishes completers from leavers, says what happened to the hours in each case, and can produce the date the student actually stopped.
- A weak answer is that the hours were set correctly at enrolment, which is true and is not the question being asked.
Based on FRM71 What you need to do.
Related Academy learning
- planned-hours-explained
- withdrawals-and-breaks
- sixteen-nineteen-mechanics
Based on planned-hours-drive-the-band.
Funding streams this report reviews
FRM71 in other funding years
Working through it in your own system
- Read the official wording for this report and note exactly which records it identifies.
- Find those records in your own data using the fields the report names.
- For each one, decide whether the record is correct and simply needs its evidence produced, or genuinely wrong.
- Trace a wrong record back to the entry in your source system that produced it, rather than to the file it appeared in.
- Correct it at that entry, regenerate and resubmit.
- Keep the evidence and the reason for the change together, so the record is explainable at audit.
The Academy has no verified supplier guidance for this report yet. Menu locations differ between product versions and between colleges on the same version, so we do not publish navigation we have not confirmed. The steps above are what has to be true in the data, which is the same in every system.
If the record does turn out to be wrong. Correct the record in the system where the data is entered, then regenerate the ILR file and resubmit it. Editing the generated file directly removes the symptom and leaves the cause in place, so the same record returns at the next submission with nobody expecting it. Keep a note of what was changed and why: that note is what makes the correction explainable later.