16-19 Participation in education

Written Evidence Submitted by City of York Council

Introduction

1. We are pleased to submit this response to the Select Committee’s call for evidence. Working with our partnership of providers, we feel that we have collectively made good progress in raising participation, reducing the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) and improving opportunities for progression. However, at this time we feel that confidence among our providers is fragile given the significant cuts in funding rates they face, the reduction in direct funding to learners to support them in their participation and uncertainty over the qualification frameworks which will underpin provision for new participants.

What impact has the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) had on the participation, attendance, achievement and welfare of young people and how effective will be the Discretionary Learner Support Fund in replacing it ?

2. Young People’s Learning Agency (YPLA) data (October 2010) shows that 1847 16-19 year olds in learning in York were in receipt of EMA. This number has increased since then because of concerted efforts on the part of York College and local training providers to respond to the priority set out in successive Local Area Statements of Need around the establishment of new provision (with flexible start dates) aimed at reducing NEET (At York College, 43% of learners were in receipt of EMA by January 2011). Of the learners receiving EMA in October 2010, 82% were receiving the highest rate and 70% were York residents. Many providers have expressed concerns that travel costs (which young people commonly use EMA to pay) will deter young people from accessing appropriate provision and over 550 young people on EMA in learning in York travel from outside the LA area.

3. There are higher proportions of EMA recipients in certain types of provision reflecting higher levels of disadvantage, lower prior attainment on entry and greater vulnerability. In our five school sixth forms the average proportion is 21%, at Applefields (Secondary Special School) 37%, at York College 38% and at the two most significant local training providers 73% and 78%. Clearly, a high proportion of new participants under Raising the Participation Age (RPA) arrangements would be eligible for EMA and its removal takes away a key incentive to participate.

4. Indications to date of the scale of the Discretionary Local Support Fund (DLSF) are that it will be increased threefold compared to its current level. We have no information about the methodology which will underpin its distribution. However, on the basis of available information, the new DLSF seems likely to be worth only about 14% of the previous total funding delivered by DLSF and EMA combined. In the case of our School Sixth Forms for example, a threefold increase would take the total funding available to £34k p.a. If 80% of current EMA claimants receive the highest rate by virtue of low family income, this would leave our schools with approximately £160 p.a (or £4 per week) to address hardship issues for each young person currently receiving £30 per week.

5. 16-19 Participation in York has been rising in recent years. This is in the context of cohort decline and rates of participation and attainment already above regional and national averages. In York, young people ready to undertake Level 3 programmes (especially A Levels) were generally already participating. The new participants have been starting provision at lower levels or on vocational and work based paths. Learners on these programmes are far more likely to be in receipt of EMA suggesting that it has had a significant positive impact. YPLA data shows that participation of 16 year olds in York increased from 88% (2005) to 92% (2007). For 17 year olds the increase was 73% to 77%. The drop in participation levels between the ages of 16 and 17 will need to be eliminated during the phased introduction of RPA. The annual NEET figure for York has reduced from 5.1% (Nov ’04 – Jan ’05) to 3.7% (Nov ’10 – Jan ’11). Overall 16-18 year old participation at York College has been increasing at over 2% a year with a rise of 7% from 2006/07 to 2009/10.

6. With particular vulnerable groups the evidence is more striking. The "school leaver" cohort of Traveller young people supported by Connexions Personal Advisers in York is small (around 10 – 12 per year) but startling improvements in their participation have been achieved, from 0% in 2005 to 58% (2008), 50% (2009) and 72% (2010). Previously, they would have been either NEET or sporadically employed in low grade jobs. All these young people receive the highest level of EMA and our Traveller and Ethnic Minority Support Service (TEMSS) reports that reaction to the withdrawal of EMA in the Traveller Community has been negative with families saying that they will be unable to support their children attending college without it. The young people involved view EMA as their earnings and earning money brings respect in the community.

7. On the basis of the evidence available to us we believe that EMA has had positive impacts on participation, attendance and welfare. In particular we believe that it has provided a significant incentive for disadvantaged young people to access higher level qualifications thus contributing to social mobility and more socially equitable outcomes. The impact of the withdrawal of EMA cannot yet fully be understood. However, we are very concerned that significant numbers of young people reaching the end of the first year of a two year programme this summer, and who embarked on those programmes in the expectation that they would receive EMA throughout, will now "drop out". Our Schools and Connexions Service report a significant increase in the number of young people in Year 11 enquiring about apprenticeships this year because they will not receive EMA at school or college. This is putting pressure on the supply of apprenticeship places. The ending of Programme Led Apprenticeships means that there will probably be a significant number of young people aspiring to start apprenticeships in September 2011 for whom places will not be available.

What preparations are necessary, for providers and local authorities, for the gradual raising of the participation age to 18 years and what is their current state of readiness ?

8. The Statutory Guidance (Funding Arrangements for 16-19 education and Training) published by YPLA (December 2010) sets out the framework for Local Authorities LAs) to work with providers in their areas to ensure that the LA’s statutory duties regarding the supply of appropriate provision for 16-19 year olds (and 19-25 year olds with Learning Difficulties or Disabilities) are met. This document, whilst it is consistent with the government’s stated intention to avoid prescription, strongly emphasises the need for a coherent and transparent cycle of strategic analysis and needs identification conducted by the LA on a partnership basis. We believe that such an approach is appropriate. In nearly three years since the last government instigated the machinery of government changes covering 16-19 education we have used it with our partner providers to develop an annual Local Area Statement of Need (LASN). We have, as the statutory guidance also suggests, worked with neighbouring authorities on this analysis because we are keenly aware that we need to take into account the interests and needs of young people who travel to learn in York.

9. However, there is an inherent tension between the statutory guidance and other policy strands (such as the expansion of Academies and the introduction of Free Schools) which emphasise the primacy and autonomy of individual institutions. A coordinated approach to RPA is advocated on the one hand, on the other providers are encouraged to exercise freedoms and autonomy.

10. Our strategic analysis and resulting LASN have become more sophisticated during each iteration, but we have made two key assumption in terms of our identification of priorities and gaps in provision to be filled. These are firstly that the phased requirements of RPA will have to be met and secondly that what is needed to meet them is not simply "more of the same". In the case of disengaged young people, for example, something different is needed because the existing provision has already failed. With young people who opt for employment with training we need to work with employers and providers to link jobs to training and also to expand the quantity and range of apprenticeship places available. We have made a good start and providers have acted to deliver on the priorities set out in the LASN.

11. We also believe that a key element of an RPA strategy has to involve provision in secondary schools for young people upto the age of 16 years. We have worked with our schools to develop a broader curriculum for York’s young people so that more of them have access to courses which suit them as individuals, allowing them to achieve and progress. This has included supporting the development of Diplomas, vocational provision and Foundation Learning. Working on a partnership basis we have brought providers together so that they can ensure that clear progression routes are available post 16, particularly at York College which is the mainstream setting for the majority of provision below Level 3.

12. Finally, if virtually all 16-19 year olds are to participate, we believe that young people and parents/carers need access to comprehensive and impartial Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG). Again, working on a partnership basis we have supported a range of developments by, and with, providers to improve the IAG available. These include the development of a web based prospectus of all learning opportunities in the area, an annual city-wide progression event with supporting literature, partnership standards around provision of IAG within schools and colleges and easy access to advice through a Connexions Centre.

13. The fragile confidence referenced in para 1 is possibly most relevant with regard to RPA preparation. The significant cuts in funding for 16-19 learner responsive provision are central to this. Firstly, the innovative and flexible provision needed to bring many young people into participation is more costly than "traditional" academic provision at Level 3. Next, the chosen mechanism to achieve those cuts has been the reduction (by 74%) of the funded hours for "entitlement" provision. This includes the holistic learner support which underpins progression and achievement such as IAG, tutorial time, opportunities for personal development such as volunteering and support for applications to HE and employment. To improve retention from 16 to 17 and 17 to 18 these support mechanisms are vital; it is also likely that those who will have to be brought into participation will have greater need of such support than the majority of those currently participating. The changes in the role of Connexions and the proposals to create an all age careers service add to the uncertainty. Finally, the grant funding to support coordinated activity related to RPA requirements (Local Delivery Support Grant, 14-19 Flexible Fund, Area Web Prospectus grant, Foundation Learning grant) has either ceased or been significantly reduced and transferred to non ring fenced funding streams such as the Early Intervention Grant.

What impact raising the participation age will have on areas such as academic achievement, access to vocational education and training, student attendance and behaviour, and alternative provision ?

14. There is every reason, on the basis of past experience, to expect that academic achievement will continue to rise as participation post 16 increases. This has been the case in York in recent years with improved outcomes at 16 and 19 years old accompanying the increases in participation set out in para 5. To ensure that this is the case, provision needs to meet the needs of learners, to be of high quality and to be engaging and motivating for young people. It will also be necessary to make sure that young people are guided and supported along appropriate pathways for them. There is already a significant issue of young people "dropping out" of provision in year or part way through a two year course. This contributes to the reduction in participation between the ages of 16 and 17 (see para 5) and we know that there is work to be done here. For example, the Year 12 cohort in our A Level based school sixth forms in January 2009 significantly reduced (by 17%) to become a smaller Year 13 cohort a year later. In national terms this is not a high figure. For various reasons, there will always be some young people who "drop out" from courses. Providers will need to be responsive in such cases, "picking up" and re-engaging young people. This will call for increased flexibility, not least over start dates – under RPA arrangements it will not be acceptable for a young person to have to wait until the following September to start a new course.

15. As stated in para 11, participation post 16 is linked to achievement and engagement pre 16 supported by clear progression routes. Throughout this response we strongly advocate the development of a curriculum offer aligned to learners’ needs and underpinned by a sophisticated analysis of the cohort. With the support of providers we are raising participation and achievement and improving access to vocational and applied learning pre 16. We do not believe in the division of learners between academic and vocational pathways at an early stage (age 14 years, for example) and strongly support the right of young people to access "mixed programmes" in Key Stage 4. This work, and the further development of Foundation Learning is also affected by fragile confidence.

16. We are currently awaiting the outcomes of the Wolf Review of vocational qualifications which the recent White Paper ("The Importance of Teaching", November 2010) states will advise "on how to ensure all young people are in valuable education or training, that supports progression to employment or further and higher education". The outcomes of this review are clearly critical to further development of an RPA strategy, but schools in particular lack the confidence and incentive to take a measured way forward given the White Paper’s emphasis on academic qualifications and the retrospective introduction of the English Baccalaureate measure.

17. Attendance and behaviour are heavily influenced by the quality of provision and its suitability for learners. Engaging and motivating provision which promotes achievement and progression improves attendance and behaviour. Collaborative development of Diplomas and vocational provision in York is underpinned by timetabling arrangements ("common days") which facilitate city wide access to specialist courses and facilities. This has led, in many schools, to a concentration of optional subjects, including broader, non GCSE options on those "common days". Schools which make extensive use of management information systems to track behaviour and attendance report that the "common days" have higher attendance and significantly fewer referrals of poor behaviour by young people. We should expect the same effects post 16. Indeed York College reports that the behaviour and attendance of some of our city’s most challenging young people has surpassed all expectations on their "Step Up to Progress" programme (part of their response to the LASN priority to develop innovative and flexible provision to address NEET). As stated in para 10, this provision is not simply "more of the same".

18. Clearly, much of the provision described above would fit into the category of "alternative provision", but there is a place for more. With post 16 learners smaller training providers, including third sector organisations, have made significant contributions in York. These organisations too are affected by fragile confidence rooted in uncertainty, principally over funding.

19. RPA requires new strands of provision which are delivered very effectively. As discussed above, we have embraced our role in shaping provision by working with and influencing providers. However, we have no real ability to facilitate immediate changes in the pattern of provision because of the total reliance on lagged numbers as a basis for allocating funded places to providers. A school or college can "smooth out" the budgetary implications of offering new provision which attracts new learners (it will receive the funding the following year) when funding rates at per learner level are consistent. However, a small voluntary organisation or new training provider able to offer small scale but valuable provision in an RPA context cannot. We would support some flexibility at the margins of the 16-19 funding systems to allow us, in our role as champions for all young people, to seed some of the new and innovative provision RPA demands.

25th March 2011