Memorandum submitted by the Nuffield Review
of 14-19 Education and Training
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The question addressed in this memorandum is:
What is available for those with the very lowest skill levels,
who are outside of education, training and the world of employment?
Our focus will be on England.
Main points
1.1 Participation in education, training
and employment among 16-18-year-olds. Despite an increase
in the proportion of 16-17-year-olds in full-time education between
1992 and 2003, and taking into account the increase in the size
of the cohort in recent years, considerably more 16-17-year-olds
were not in education and training in 2003 than in 1992.
1.2 How many young people are outside
education, employment and training? The proportion of 16-18-year-olds
not in education, employment or training increased from 10% at
the end of 2004 to 11% at the end of 2005 (to a total number of
approx. 220,000 at the end of 2005). Certain groups of young people
are over-represented in this category.
1.3 Young people classified as NEET (not
in education, employment or training). Efforts should be made
to counteract the pejorative and homogenising force of this term.
1.4 Why young people move out of education
and training post-16. Decisions post-16 are mediated by a
range of factors and the process is often far from linear and
rational, and may rely on unpredictable factors such as informal
networks, peer group influence and serendipity.
1.5 Categories of young people as policy
priorities; young people in jobs without training. Creating
better education and training provision for those in work without
training at 16-17 should be one of the main policy priorities,
as well as providing for those (negatively) classified as "not
in education, employment or training".
1.6 What is available to encourage young
people back into education, training and employment? Recent initiatives—
impact and limitations. There is a plethora of current initiatives
to encourage young people back into education and training, or
into employment (from active labour market policies to education-based
policies and area-based policies), but they form a fragmented
picture and had limited impact.
Recommendations
1.7 Case-specific provision. Three
key factors in case-specific provision are: individualised provision,
availability of support, and progression routes.
1.8 Context-sensitive policy. There
is a need at the policy formation and implementation level for
context-sensitive policy that uses a holistic view, and takes
account of the wider social, labour market, and educational context
and of the more immediate context of the stakeholder institutions
and actors.
Further information is available in the Nuffield
14-19 Review Annual Report 2005-06 (Geoff Hayward, Ann Hodgson,
Jill Johnson, Alis Oancea, Richard Pring, Ken Spours, Stephanie
Wilde and Susannah Wright. Oxford University, October 2006).
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The Nuffield Review was established
in 2003, by the Nuffield Foundation, to provide an independent
review of every aspect of 14-19 education and training in England
and Wales. It is directed by Richard Pring (Lead Director, University
of Oxford), Geoff Hayward (University of Oxford), Ann Hodgson
(Institute of Education, University of London), Jill Johnson (UCAS),
Ewart Keep (SKOPE, Cardiff University), Gareth Rees (Cardiff University)
and Ken Spours (Institute of Education, University of London).
Researchers serving the Nuffield Review are: Alis Oancea, Stephanie
Wilde and Susannah Wright.
2.2 A core group of nearly a hundred people
drawn from schools, colleges, universities, government departments
and agencies, voluntary bodies, employers, examination boards
and private training providers helps the Review with submission
of evidence and with critical examination of findings at a range
of seminars.
3. FACTUAL INFORMATION
3.1 Participation in education, training and
employment among 16-18-year-olds
Figure 1 below provides a snapshot of participation
in education, training and employment among 16, 17 and 18-year-olds
for two years—1992 and 2003—based on administrative
data for England. All figures in normal font relate to 1992, all
those in italics are for 2003. Black figures on the left of ovals
and rectangles indicate values for 16-year-olds, normal font in
centre for 17-year-olds and black figures on the right for 18-year-olds.
The top line in the Figure indicates the size of each age cohort
(in thousands) for the two years in question. Notice that the
size of each age cohort increased between 1992 and 2003. For example,
the number of 16-year-olds in England increased from 550,300 to
654,800. The next line of boxes indicates the proportions of each
age cohort participating in either full- or part-time education
or training, and the proportion not in education or training.
Note that the proportion of each age cohort in full-time education
increased, between 1992 and 2003 but the proportion in part-time
education and training decreased, the result of a sharp decrease
in participation in the work-based route. The proportion of 18-year-olds
not in education and training declined, the result of increasing
participation in HE. However, it is the 16 and 17-year-olds that
concern us in this memorandum. The evidence indicates that the
proportion of these age groups not in education and training increased
since 1992 as the economy recovered from recession. Taking account
of the increase in the size of the age cohort over the time period
this means that considerably more 16 and 17-year-olds were not
in education and training in 2003 than in 1992—the complete
opposite of what government policy over the last decade intended
for these age groups.
Figure 1
The figures in the ovals on the right hand side
of the diagram show that, of those young people who are not in
education or training (NET), the majority of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds
were labour market active, either in employment or actively looking
for work (ILO unemployed) in both 1992 and 2003. The proportion
of 17 and 18-year-olds who are unemployed declined over the time
period, while the proportion of 16-year-olds in this category
remained constant. The proportion in each age group who are both
NET and economically inactive has remained the same and this is
the group about which we know the least. The light grey rectangles
provide information on labour market status. Note that almost
half of 16-year-olds and about 60% of 17-year-olds are in employment,
either full time or part time. This means that undertaking paid
work was a feature of the lives of more than half of 16 and 17-year-olds
in England and Wales in 2003. The data for 2003—the most
accurate data currently available—indicate, therefore, that
those who are NET at 16 and 17 are labour market active and the
likelihood of being in employment as a 16 and 17-year-old who
is not in education or training increased between 1992 and 2003
as the economy grew. The majority of these young people will be
relatively poorly qualified, and so this trend is indicative of
an increase in the supply of low-skilled jobs that these young
people can fill over the time period. The number of such jobs
has increased and so it is reasonable to assume that it is economically
efficient for employers to fill them with 16 and 17-year-olds
who can be paid a lower minimum wage. In a sense, then, there
appears to be a mutually reinforcing contract between young people
and employers which continues to encourage a significant minority
of 16 and 17-year-olds to leave the education and training system.
3.2 How many young people are outside education,
employment and training?
In terms of the actual numbers of young people
classified as "not in employment, education or training"
(NEET), the Statistical First Release; featuring revised data
for 2004 and provisional data for 2005, indicates that the proportion
of 16-18-year-olds not in education, employment or training increased
from 10% at the end of 2004 to 11% at the end of 2005, and estimates
the total number of 16-18-year-old "NEETs" (sic) at
220,000 at the end of 2005. This increase in the proportion of
young people classified as NEET shows a deterioration, rather
than progress, regarding the Public Service Agreement target to
reduce the proportion of young people not in education, employment
or training by 2% by 2010. Further, the ambition set by the 14-19
Implementation Plan that, by 2015, 90% of 17-year-olds are participating
still seems elusive when official statistics show that 76% of
17-year-olds were participating in education and work-based learning
at the end of 2005. Further, the figures for 17-year-olds classified
as NEET, an important group for both of these aims, show a steeper
increase, from 9% to 11%. Between 2004 and 2005, the proportion
of 17-year-olds in employment but not in education or training
fell from 12% to 9%, while the proportion of ILO unemployed (ie
not working but looking for work) rose from 5% to 7%, and the
proportion of 17-year-olds who were inactive in the labour market
remained stable at 4%. In an analysis of the groups that are over-represented
in the NEET classification, the following groups were identified:
— young people "looked after";
— young people with chronic illnesses
or disabilities and victims of accidents;
— young people suffering from mental
illness;
— young people engaging in risk behaviours
involving smoking, drinking alcohol and serious drug misuse; and
— young people involved in crime.
3.3 Young people classified as NEET (not in
education, employment or training)
The term "NEET", though established
in the literature and in the policy discourse, has no real substance,
referring as it does to a statistical residual category (although
it is sometimes used as if it had substance). Problems occur when
this category is used as a "black box", with little
detailed descriptions of those young people who are classified
as such, thus undermining as their individuality, identity and
defining characteristics. Further, the common collocation of NEET
with "group" compounds this, implying as it does common
characteristics between those classified in this group, which,
after all, includes individuals engaged in activities as diverse
as: caring for an elderly relative, parenthood, engaging in criminal
activity, coping with a serious physical or psychological illness,
searching for suitable education and training provision, travelling
or being on a "gap" year. A key difference here is between
those who have chosen their particular situation and those who
had little choice. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "NEET
group", and we should make efforts to counteract the pejorative
and homogenising force of this term. These young people are not
a homogeneous "group"; rather there is a high degree
of heterogeneity regarding how young. people became classified
as NEET, their future plans, their attitudes to employment and
training, their backgrounds, participant networks and levels of
personal and social capital (or lack of them). The path to becoming
classified as NEET may be associated with many different issues,
including socio-economic, educational, cultural, regional and
sub-regional factors. Teenage pregnancy and parenthood are a significant
factor within the group of young people classified as NEET. There
are many structural barriers in place to discourage young pregnant
women and young mothers from engaging in education and training.
This is a complex issue, embedded within societal and generational
expectations. Some young mothers explicitly plan for motherhood
first, education later.
3.4 Why young people move out of education
and training post-16
Young people's decisions at 16 are mediated
by their aspirations, experience and motivation, as well as by
their participant networks and the opportunities (subjective and
objective) they perceive to be available to them. Various factors
are involved in the "journey" young people make into
and within (and perhaps out of, and then back into, and then out
of again) the labour market and education and training. This process
is often far from linear and rational, and may rely on unpredictable
factors such as informal networks, peer group influence and serendipity.
Perceptions of time are also of relevance here. Returning to education
and training at a later stage is not straightforward for many
of these young people, which may be at least partly because of
the "channelling" of young people at a relatively early
stage in their education, and the "filtering" function
of GCSE results. The notion of lifelong learning, and the flexibility
of FE is questionable within a context of multiple deprivation
for some young people, which makes it very difficult for them
to return to education and training. In addition, pedagogy and
institutional ethos play a crucial role, as young people are discouraged
from returning to an institutional context at a later stage if
they found their earlier contact with it gruelling and dispiriting.
The CEO of the Rathbone charity, Richard Williams, describing
the difficulty for young people who do not respond well to institutional
frameworks and authority, said there are "more opportunities
to fail with more frequency and greater intensity if you do not
relate to formal institutions" (Nuffield Review workshop
contribution). Further, institutions resonate in various ways
with different young people. This raises the central question
of what the 14-19 system, institutions and assessment structures
have to look like to be attractive to young people. One particular
issue is the persistence of the belief that reforming and developing
qualifications increases participation, even though this has repeatedly
been proved mistaken over the last decade. This is linked to the
lack of policy memory identified in the Nuffield Review Annual
Report 2004-05, and the problem of "whirlwind" change.
Instability makes the system incomprehensible. Indeed, it is possible
that the constant stream of initiatives bewilders young people
and their parents, an unintended consequence which is contrary
to the desired 'effect. In addition to this, there is the problem
of the lack of effective and sustained long-term evaluation and
assessment of previous initiatives.
3.5 Categories of young people as policy priorities;
young people in jobs without training
Recent policy documents have emphasized the
need to reengage young people classified as "NEET".
However, with raising post-16 participation being the main policy
aim, it would seem that creating better education and training
provision for those in work without training at 16 and 17 should
be one of the main priorities, as well as providing for those
(negatively) classified as "not in education, employment
or training". Young people in jobs without training have
not been a policy priority in recent years, arguably because they
do not feature as a negative statistic (since they are participating
in employment). However, their employment may be routine, low-level
tasks, which arguably demand less explicit training input than
level 2 and level 3 apprenticeship programmes. This type of work
is characterised by a high turnover of staff or "churn".
Therefore, incentives for employers and young people to devote
time and resources to training may be limited. There is a danger
that young people move horizontally in the labour market, between
various precarious, low-level, routine and poorly paid jobs. Further,
many jobs available to 16-17-year-olds are JWT: any training available
is normally not more than induction and specific for-the-job training.
This may explain the persistence of the proportion of young people
in JWT, despite the policy intention that precisely this group
would be attracted into apprenticeship. In addition, those classified
as "ILO unemployed" and those classified as "economically
inactive" require particular attention appropriate to their
situation. Further, issues of teenage pregnancy and gender issues
are significant in this context.
3.6 What is available to encourage young people
back into education, training and employment?
Recent initiatives impact and limitations: There
are a number of current initiatives to encourage young people
back into education and training, or into employment. The initiatives
can be divided into three main areas: active labour market policies
(such as apprenticeship and the New Deal for Young People), education-based
policies (such as Connexions and EMAs) and area-based policies
(such as Excellence in Cities, which is now known as Aimhigher).
Table 1 covers a selection of some of the more high-profile recent
and current initiatives. Column A provides the context of each
initiative, column B, refers to its main evaluation(s), while
column C provides brief assessments (on the basis of the evaluations)
of the impact and limitations of each initiative.
Table 1
SELECTED POLICY INITIATIVES DIRECTED AT YOUNG
PEOPLE OUTSIDE EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
|
| A. Initiative | B. Research/evaluations
| C. Issues
|
|
Excellence in Cities
— Introduced in three phases, 1999-2001
— extended to post-16 education in 2001 as Excellence Challenge (now Aimhigher)
| Ireland, E and O'Donnell L (2004) Post-16 and post-18 transitions: initial findings. Slough: NFER.
| Some improvements were identified, but it proved very difficult to ascertain whether these were due to Excellence in Cities or to other unrelated factors.
|
Education Maintenance Allowance
— pilot 1999, 2000
— roll-out 2004 (announced in 2002 Spending Review)
| Maguire, S, Middleton, S and Thompson, J (2006) Young people and the labour market: Evidence from the EMA pilot database. Loughborough: Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP).
Middleton, S, Perren, K, Maguire, S, Rennison, J, Battistin, E, Emmerson, C and Fitzsimmons, E (2005) Evaluation of EMA pilots: Young people aged 16-19 years Final report of the quantitative evaluation. Research Report 678. Nottingham: DfES.
| The pilot study showed that a smaller proportion of young people were classified as long-term NEET in the EMA pilot areas, which could be linked to the availabilty of EMA (14.4% compared with 23.3% in the control areas, pp 21-22).
However, there is a problem of "deadweight" because many young people would continue in education and training without EMAs; the increase in those engaging in education and training has been offset by a reducation in those following the work-based route.
|
Increased Flexibility Programme
— Introduced 2002
| Ofsted (2005b) Increased flexibility programme at Key Stage 4. HMI Report: 2.361 [online]. At: www.ofsted.gov.uk, accessed May 2006.
Golden, S., O'Donnell, L., Benton, T. and Rudd P.(2005) Evaluation of increased flexibility for 14-16-year-olds programme: Outcomes for the first cohort. Slough: NFER.
| There are problems with the selection of pupils to engage in IFP, which can lead to further discrimination against pupils at risk of disengagement.
Further, there are also problems with the quality of some provision, attendance and attainment on the part of participants, as well as organisation problems, such as transport and timetabling, and concerns about the sustainability of the programme.
FE is not properly equipped to deal with 14-16-year-olds in terms of numbers, facilities and professional development.
|
Entry to Employment (E2E)
— recommended in the 2001 Cassels Report on modern apprenticeships
— pathfinder phase August 2002-July 2003
— national roll-out 2003
| Spielhofer, T, Mann, P and Sims, D. (2003) Entry to Employment (E2E) Participant Study. Final Report, Learning and Skills Development Agency, October.
Gentleman, S (2006) Promoting positive progression from E2E. Research Report 052310. Learning and Skills Development Agency.
| The participant study registered overall positive experience of young people in the pathfinder programmes. However, thegains reported were more at the level of personal development and jobsearch skills and much less at that of literacy andnumeracy.
Moving learners to level 2 is not a requirement of the E2E framework, but providers are incentivised to achieve it. Further, the growth of a range of pre-E2E programmes (such as the n2n— "No to NEET"—project in Bedfordshire and Luton) suggests that the level 2 targets may be too advanced, and may even militate against the progress of those classified as core NEETs.
|
Entitlement to Level 2 provision.
— announced in 2003 21st Centure Skills White Paper
— trialled 2005-05
— extended 2005-06
— rolled out 2006-07
| Anderson, A, Brooke, B, Doyle, A, Finn, D and Moley, S (2006) Understanding young people in jobs without training. Research Report 736. Nottingham :DfES.
| Young people are not always aware of this entitlement. This also applies to employers, who are not necessarily supportive of level 2 education and training, as it is not specifically job related.
Young people point to the need for "brokerage" or third party intervention to help them access level 2 provision andentitlement.[32]
|
Learning Agreements
— pilot April 2006
| Anderson, A, Brooke, B, Doyle, A, Finn, C and Moley, S (2006) Understanding young people in jobs without training. Research Report 736. Nottingham: DfES.
(Pre-pilot phase report)
| It is still very early in this initiative, but the pre-pilot highlighted the data problems in tracking young people in JWT.
|
|
4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION
4.1 Case-specific provision
At the level of the individual and institutional actors,
there is a need for flexible and case-specific provision with
regard to post-compulsory participation. There can be no "one-size-fits-all"
solution. Three key factors in case-specific provision are: individualised
provision, availability of support, and progression routes.
— Individualised provision is necessary, particularly
options for those whomay not thrive in the traditional pathways,
for various, possibly interlinkedreasons, including:
— Problems dealing with authority.
— Carer roles and young parents.
— There is a need for support for these young people,
in order to promote their inclusion in learning communities.
— The provision needs to offer progression routes,
rather than merely "warehousing".
Of course, some of these particular factors are catered for
within current provision. However, it may be of a fragmented and
piecemeal nature, which demands an unrealistic level of self-determination
from vulnerable young people. There is a need for alternative
models of provision which can operate in a case-specific way,
respecting the wider needs of the individual. This would enable
access to learning communities and allow the three above-mentioned
factors to be provided within one context. One example of this
is Rathbone, which operates at national level (www.rathbone.org.uk).
However, such provision may be localised and small-scale, such
as the Midlands-based project, Skidz.
4.2 Context-sensitive policy
In conjunction with this, there is a need at the policy formation
and implementation level for context-sensitive policy that uses
a holistic view, and takes account of the wider social, labour
market, and educational context and of the more immediate context
of the stakeholder institutions and actors. This needs to include:
— Sufficient acknowledgement of the various types
of relevant context (social, economic, political and educational)
operating at various levels (local, regional, national, EU and
international).
— Integration and coherence of policy formation
and implementation across the types and levels of context outlined
above (eg educational and family policy; training opportunities
and labour market regulatory frameworks; lifelong learning and
support for mature learners and older workers, as well as the
health service, the criminal justice system and the social services).
— Sufficiently open interpretations of context (openness
of the policy process to alternative discourses and experiences
in terms of defining the problems, prioritising aspects of the
context, setting aims, choosing potential solutions and their
time-scale).
— Adaptability to constant and unpredictable changes
in the contexts outlined above, and particularly in the political
environment, with regard to education and policy formation.
January 2007
32
See Anderson, A, Brooke, B, Doyle, A, Finn, D and Moley, S (2006),
p 30: "They'd probably be a bit annoyed because they're paying
me and I'm not there when they need me [...] they can't really
employ someone else when I'm somewhere else because they're still
paying for me." Back
|
