As with the form attached to SSIN 21 would it not be 
simpler for such questions (i.e. nos 10 to 14 on that form) 
to be filled in only if the Institution's Progress 
Committees believe the student has a case for seeking 
tuition fee support for a repeat year. This would reduce 
the load significantly and speed up the consideration of 
worthy cases.
Gary Walker
University of Liverpool

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:27:38 +0100 Roger Clark 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The guidance to LEAs is as follows:
> 
> "B72	It is for LEAs to apply the discretion they have to approve fee support
> for repeat study in certain circumstances as they see fit.  Where it has
> responsibility for payments, the Student Loans Company will pay sums
> specified by LEAs where the LEA has deemed the student eligible in
> accordance with the mandatory provisions and discretions set out in the
> Regulations. In exercising discretions, LEAs will in all cases need to
> balance their duty to protect public subsidy with the intention implicit in
> the Regulations for exceptional special provision to be made where the
> circumstances call for it.  LEAs may wish to consider the reasons for repeat
> study in consultation with the institution."
> 
> In this context, the LEA's questions seem not unreasonable; but there is
> nothing to prevent an institution answering the questions in a way which
> sets out the broader aspects of the case, and raising issues outside the
> scope of the LEA's questions, if that might be helpful to the student.
> 
> Roger Clark
> Academic Registrar
> University of Reading
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Stephen V
> > Duggan
> > Sent: 16 October 2000 21:57
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Repeat Funding Applications
> >
> >
> >
> > Grateful for views.
> >
> > A form sent to us by Brent Council concerns a student who
> > has applied for repeat funding for a third year (of four).
> > It's a new request, as far as we're aware, and slightly odd.
> >
> > A two-page "Pro-forma: College Report on Repeat Year of
> > Study Funding" ask questions such as ....
> >
> > 	"2. Is part-time study or private revision a
> > possible alternative for this student?   Yes/No
> > If NO please explain why overleaf"
> >
> > 	"6. Do you consider he/she is capable of completing
> > the remainder of the course satisfactorily without further
> > interruption or examination failure?  	Yes/No"
> >
> > 	"8. Do you consider that he/she should be advised
> > to withdraw from the course or transfer to a course of a
> > lower level? Yes/No"
> >
> > We customarily send a letter of support to funding bodies,
> > where our Progress Committee has agreed to allow a repeat
> > year, indicating the grounds on which the decision was
> > made.
> >
> > However, we're slightly concerned at the nature of some of
> > the questions and the suspicion that, were we to answer in
> > the negative (or, indeed to indicate that we can't answer a
> > question), the student's application would be rejected.
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Stephen V Duggan
> > Assistant Registrar
> > University of Aberdeen
> > King's College
> > Aberdeen
> > AB24 3FX
> >
> > tel (+44) 1224 272051
> > fax (+44) 1224 273613
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 

----------------------
[log in to unmask]



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%