Trying to get your head around what qualification is eligible for Enhanced Learning Credits (ELCs) funding can be a challenge. It seems simple enough to state that the qualification must be listed at Level 3 or above on the Department for Education and Skills' National Qualification Framework (NQF) (England and Wales) or at the equivalent (Level 6 or above) on the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF). And, for the vast majority of higher-level qualifications, these frameworks are the authoritative reference lists. But - and it is a big but - what about the myriad other qualifications on the market that seem to be well known, tried and tested, worthwhile and valued by employers.

First of all it is important to understand the difference between academic and vocational qualifications. At Level 3 and above on the NQF (Level 6 on the SQF) these fall into well-recognised categories such as A-levels, Certificates in Higher Education, Diplomas, Foundation Degrees, Higher National Diplomas, Graduate Certificates/Diplomas, Bachelor's Degrees, Masters, Postgraduate Certificates and Diplomas, and, at the top of the tree, Doctorates.

On the vocational side qualifications include a range of certificates and diplomas at NVQ Levels 3 to 5, with Vocational Diplomas at the highest level. Just to confuse things further both academic and vocational higher-level qualifications now equate to generic levels in a revised NQF structure.

Other qualifications
However, there are hundreds of other qualifications, and we have all heard the horror stories of well-intentioned learners spending their hard-earned cash on learning that results in a worthless qualification. There is no implication here that ELC-approved learning providers fall into these categories; the MoD and the Enhanced Learning Credit Administration Service (ELCAS) go to great lengths to quality-assure providers wishing to apply for Approved Learning Provider status. And, by keeping the numbers within a manageable range, we can ensure there are sufficient resources to: carry out rigorous evaluation and inspections; compare and benchmark provider service delivery, support and course costs; and, equally important, ensure that those higher-level qualifications offered are eligible for ELC funding.

However, it can still be difficult to decide whether a qualification course that does not appear on the NQF (which may be for a number of reasons) is eligible for ELC support. There are many 'industry standard' or 'vendor' certificates and qualifications on the market, the majority linked to vocational skills and highly valued by employers. Unfortunately, there are many worthless ones around too, providing nothing more than a statement that Fred Smith attended a course and achieved a certificate in this, that or the other. However, this may not be worth anything. It may not be valued and recognised by an employer. It may not help Smith enhance his skills to benefit his career and promotion prospects in the Services or get a job on leaving. It may just waste a lot of his own and the tax payer's money - for nothing.

To help bring some official recognition and support for such qualifications the MoD and ELCAS liaise with the approved provider; awarding, regulatory and governing bodies; and Sector Skills Councils across the major skills sectors. The purpose is to bring some sense and understanding to these other qualifications and determine, where appropriate, higher-level equivalence.

Since the ELC scheme began in April 2004 we have achieved some success. For example, with the RAF's help, we have agreed Level 3 equivalence of the training leading to award of a Private Pilot's Licence with the Civil Aviation Authority. We have sought the assistance of the e-Skills Sector Skills Council to pull together a matrix of eligible higher-level vendor IT qualifications, and undertaken similar work with Summit Skills on building services engineering. We have also agreed with the Health & Safety Executive, PADI and BSAC the instructor-level diving courses that can be supported through the ELC scheme.

This work will continue to provide clear guidance and advice where this is possible, but not all organisations are quick to respond and offer a definitive statement. They do not necessarily know the answers and clearly it takes time to agree which vocational courses equate in terms of rigour, commitment and learning to a higher-level academic equivalent.

The ELC scheme is largely meant to be about personnel pursuing higher-level learning, delivering benefits to both the learner and the Armed Forces. But the nature of the scheme also means Level 3-plus learning can be pursued during resettlement or for up to ten years after leaving the Services. The majority of this learning is likely to be vocational (learning new skills or enhancing existing ones) with the qualification benefiting the learner and a future employer and, nationally, adding to the UK's skills base.

The major difficulty claimants and countersigning education staff have is determining whether a vocational course leading to a qualification should be supported through the ELC scheme. For the vast majority of qualification courses the rule is clear: the qualification must appear on the NQF or national equivalent. However, if an industry standard qualification has been assessed as being at NQF Level 3 or 3-plus, and accepted by a reputable awarding or regulatory body, this information will appear on the ELCAS website, linked where possible to external advice and guidance. These instances are likely to be few and far between. If an academic or vocational qualification offered by a learning provider is not on the NQF at Level 3, you should be suspicious at the very least. It may be largely worthless and, if so, will certainly not attract ELC funding. The onus still remains with the learning provider and individual claimant to provide the evidence to show that a qualification is at NQF Level 3 or above.

Improving scheme administration
It is totally accepted that the ELC scheme may appear bureaucratic and inflexible to some people, and like many new initiatives the devil is in the detail. Scheme members should be reassured, however, that ELCAS, MoD HQ and the Service scheme administrators will continue, where practicable, to review, streamline and improve the claims procedure. But an important point to understand is that the scheme operates within strict Ministerial guidelines. Funding provided by MoD in support of learning must be accountable and we must have robust and fully auditable systems in place to track how ELCs are used by our people in pursuit of higher-level qualifications. Inevitably, learning providers may have to tweak their course registration process, invoicing procedures and learning support to comply with the particular requirements of the ELC scheme, taking into account the particular circumstances of Service life.

Claimants can also help things run smoothly. ELCAS continues to deal with a high proportion of claims that, for one reason or another, are queried or rejected. After three years of operation, almost 20 per cent of the total claims received by ELCAS have not complied with the correct claims authorisation procedures. This figure is even higher for those received by education staff. Mistakes slow things down. The time and effort taken to put them right incurs significant additional cost, and the resultant delay due to ELCAS staff having to chase queries with individual claimants, their line managers, Service education advisers and learning providers could mean you miss the course you wanted to start - especially if you left its organisation until the last minute.

Some of the main reasons for rejection include applicants having enrolled on a course - and sometimes having paid a fee - without first having obtained the necessary Claims Authorisation Note (CAN) from ELCAS. Other learners fail to plan adequately ahead and allow sufficient time between submitting a claim and starting a course. Allow at least five weeks for this process and note that, on receipt, it can take ELCAS up to 15 working days to generate a CAN. Any claim submitted within 15 working days of the start of the course will automatically be rejected by ELCAS as there is simply insufficient time to process it. This problem is exacerbated by submission of a second or third ELC claim, which is automatically rejected because the course evaluation form for the previous claim was not completed (there is more on evaluation at the end of this article).

It does not seem unreasonable to ask learners to plan ahead, research and discuss their learning with their line manager and Service education adviser. This applies equally to qualifying ex-Service people using their ELC, some of whom, again, leave their claim submission until the last minute. The 15-day margin is in place for good reason. If you do not plan sufficiently ahead you could find yourself significantly out of pocket as retrospective claims are not allowed under any circumstances.

As mentioned above, another reason for claim rejection that frequently arises is that the course does not meet the necessary minimum criteria (Level 3 or above on the NQF) or even that the learning provider is not on the ELCAS approved list. Failure to follow the correct procedure for signing, authorising and dating the claim form, the claim not being received in the qualifying financial year, applicants with fewer than four years' service and therefore not eligible to claim an ELC, and incorrect financial data such as the learner's contribution being less than 20 per cent or the MoD's contribution calculated as exceeding the current £1,000 limit are other reasons for rejection.

Do not assume that all courses offered by an Approved Provider are automatically admissible under the ELC scheme. This is a common misconception: one provider may supply many courses, but only those at NQF Level 3 or above (and equivalent) may be undertaken for regular ELC purposes.

Other reasons that cause ELCAS staff to query claims include incomplete or illegible forms (accounting for some 25 per cent of all rejected/queried claims), applicants not registered on the ELCAS system, or more than one active claim being processed for an individual in the financial year. All this has a knock-on effect, with the process for dealing with claims being delayed while ELCAS staff follow up queries. Those that are rejected and returned add to the burden of education staff, as valid but incorrect applications have to be reprocessed and this is not helped by personnel moving and sometimes being difficult to trace.

The message is clear: plan ahead and spend time getting it right first time round. Don't buck the system or pay up front, or you almost certainly will not get your money back. Be diligent in completing your claim form, and make sure it is legible, correctly authorised and dated, and contains all the information requested.

Post-course evaluation
Another important area that continues to be neglected is post-course evaluation. To date, less than a third of applicants are completing and returning their evaluation forms. Again, this leads to further chasing, with ELCAS staff issuing reminders and education staff taking further time to trace individuals to pass them on. After people have been chased, the response rate improves to about 50 per cent, but nothing less than a 100 per cent completion rate is good enough.

Evaluation is extremely important. Learner feedback is an essential element of the quality assurance process and provides the evidence to help us tackle poorly performing learning providers and, where necessary, suspend or withdraw their approved status. It is also a requirement for the individual to retain a copy of the evaluation in their Personal Development Record. If you do not and cannot provide evidence of course completion, future ELC claims will be denied.

It is in your own interests to take the time to complete the ELC post-course evaluation pro forma.