Tool
Questions to ask, and what a good answer sounds like
You do not need to understand the ILR to hold it to account. You need to know which questions expose a problem, and to recognise an answer that describes a process rather than giving you a number.
At the monthly finance or data meeting
Every month
Ask the same questions every month so the trend is visible. A count that rises month on month is a control failure, and that is exactly what a single snapshot hides.
“How many learners are recorded as in learning who have not attended recently?”
A good answer
A specific number, the main reason behind it, and confirmation that curriculum has verified the list.
A weak answer
We run a report on that. Or: it is under control.
Why it matters: This is the single most expensive data error in further education, and it is entirely measurable.
“How many aims have ended with no outcome recorded?”
A good answer
A number that is falling, with a date by which it will be zero.
A weak answer
Results come in at the end of the year.
Why it matters: An aim with no achievement recorded counts as a non-achievement, permanently once the year closes.
“What moved in earnings since last month, and why?”
A good answer
A written explanation identifying the causes, with the data changes behind them.
A weak answer
It fluctuates.
Why it matters: An unexplained movement is a data problem that has not been located yet.
“What is outstanding on the data quality and monitoring reports?”
A good answer
A short list with named owners, or nothing outstanding.
A weak answer
We are working through them.
Why it matters: These reports test the same things an audit will, while the data can still be corrected.
In the fortnight before R04
Before the December return
This return carries the student numbers that build next year's 16 to 19 allocation. Nothing after it changes that, so the questions are about verification rather than intention.
“Have curriculum areas verified their own learner lists, in writing?”
A good answer
Yes, from each area, with the names they did not recognise resolved.
A weak answer
MIS has checked them.
Why it matters: Only the people who teach the students can confirm who is actually attending.
“Do planned hours reconcile to the delivered timetable, and can I see the reconciliation?”
A good answer
Yes, here it is, and these programmes needed correcting.
A weak answer
They are set from the programme template.
Why it matters: Planned hours against delivered timetable is the standard audit test for this stream.
“What do we know is wrong that we will not be able to fix before the deadline?”
A good answer
A specific list, with the funding consequence of each item quantified.
A weak answer
Nothing that I am aware of.
Why it matters: A known and documented issue is a far better position than one discovered later.
Around the mid-year return and funding claim
At the mid-year point
This is the last point at which management action still changes the outcome for reconciled streams. The questions are about decisions, not reports.
“Are we on track to earn our allocation, and if not, what are we doing about it?”
A good answer
A forecast with assumptions stated, and a decision already taken.
A weak answer
We are monitoring it.
Why it matters: After a certain point in the year, under-delivery can only be reported, not managed.
“What did our last eligibility evidence sample find?”
A good answer
A percentage, a cause, and the process change made as a result.
A weak answer
We check eligibility at enrolment.
Why it matters: The common audit finding is not ineligibility. It is eligibility that cannot be demonstrated.
“If somebody asked for the evidence behind a learning support claim today, how long would it take?”
A good answer
Minutes, and here is the test we ran.
A weak answer
It is all on file.
Why it matters: Evidence that cannot be found within a reasonable time does not help at audit.
In an assurance or audit committee
At a governing body meeting
Assurance is not the same as reassurance. These questions are designed to produce measures rather than narrative.
“What would have to go wrong for our funding position to be materially misstated?”
A good answer
Three or four named mechanisms, each with a current measure and an owner.
A weak answer
We have strong controls.
Why it matters: Naming the mechanism is what makes the control testable.
“What did the last funding audit find, and what changed as a result?”
A good answer
The findings, the actions and evidence the actions worked.
A weak answer
Nothing significant.
Why it matters: A finding that produced no change is likely to recur.
“Who owns each funding-critical data item outside MIS?”
A good answer
A named person per item, and data quality reported by owner.
A weak answer
MIS is responsible for data quality.
Why it matters: MIS inherits the data. Accountability that stops there cannot fix the cause.
The reasoning behind these
A set of questions that a finance or senior leader can ask without being an ILR technician, each with the answer that should reassure you and the answer that should not.
Read the full moduleThese are suggested questions and FEFunding's view of what a useful answer contains. They are not a required assurance framework, and they do not replace your own audit and governance arrangements.