|
1.0
|
What impact the EMA has had on the participation, attendance, achievement and welfare of young people and how effective will be the Discretionary Learner Support Fund in replacing it.
|
|
1.1
|
In Leeds, during 2009/10 9,305 young people received an EMA payment, of which 7,924 receive the full £30 per week payment. This is in excess of a third of the 16-18 year old cohort. Evidence from the scheme has shown EMAs have had a positive impact by increasing the numbers of young people participating in post-16 education, reducing the numbers who drop out of education and by providing incentives that contribute to higher attainment. There is a significant risk that low income students will be forced to drop out of sixth form or college because the additional costs attached to their course will be too high. We also believe that the changes to post 16 financial support will deter young people from making applications, and that this will begin to adversely impact on current year 11 students who are making applications to go to sixth form or college in September at the moment.
|
|
1.2
|
We welcome the arrangements to increase the hardship funds available by tripling the Discretionary Learner Support Fund. However, the proposed level of increase in this funding compared to the loss in EMA funding means we still very concerned about the potential impact on young people’s participation in learning. In 2009/10 Leeds residents received £8,315,000 in EMA payments and as a city we received a total of £507,624 in Discretionary Learner Support Funds. We feel that the increased level of hardship funding will still not be sufficient to provide the necessary support to ensure our most vulnerable young people are able to participate and remain in post 16 learning.
|
|
1.3
|
We are faced with an immediate difficulty in the work taking place to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET). One of the key developments in Leeds has been the provision in place to support young people to re-engage in learning at any point throughout the academic year, both through training provision and flexible start courses in FE College. From January onwards we will be hit with an immediate reduction to funding for young people to engage in these courses, as they will not be able to apply for EMA and new finance support arrangements will not be put in place until September 2011. This will lead to an immediate fall in the number of young people accessing training courses, funded through Foundation Learning and YPLA / ESF NEET funds.
|
|
1.4
|
We are particularly concerned about young people who are on programmes funded through ESF NEET funds as the vast majority of these young people would normally be eligible for EMA payments. As there is no specific Discretionary Learner Support Fund to support these young people and the money available through the ESF funding is not sufficient to provide alternative payments, it will be a major challenge to attract young people to these programmes and even more difficult to ensure they remain engaged.
|
|
1.5
|
The impact on vulnerable groups of young people, including looked after young people and care leavers, young people in low income families, young people living independently of their family and teenage parents will be significant. Current funding that is available to these groups of young people to engage in learning assumes the ability to access EMA payments. For example, the funding provided by Children’s Services to looked after young people age 16-19 will have to be reformed to compensate for the lack of EMA. This will place an additional budget pressure on Local Authority resources.
|
|
1.6
|
The impact of the discretionary learner support fund will depend on the arrangements put in place by providers to manage the funding. The approach of providers could mean that young people in the same circumstances are offered different levels of financial support by different providers, depending on the criteria they set for access to the funding. There will also be a significant increase in the administrative costs to distribute the funding. The national EMA model allowed a national approach to assessing eligibility. Individual providers needing to establish auditable systems for allocation with no national indicator, such as access to EMA, will have to put in place systems to assess family income.
|
|
2.0
|
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.
|
|
2.1
|
There is further work required by the partnership to develop provision to meet the needs of young people who are NEET. The learning offer to young people has increased over the past few years but there are still a number of young people who do not engage with the current learning offer for whom further developments are required.
|
|
2.2
|
Part of the development work required is with employers, putting in place through strong links to develop programmes with clear progression in to real employment opportunities in the local area.
|
|
2.3
|
The development of flexible start provision has focused on young people who require lower level courses. The next stage is to develop the offer for young people at level 2 and level 3, putting in place opportunities for young people who start a course and then decide that they have made a wrong choice and wish to look at other learning programmes.
|
|
2.4
|
Expansion of apprenticeship places, particularly in popular areas such as construction that have a large numbers of small employers.
|
|
2.5
|
Clarity is required on arrangements for teenage parents who currently choose to care full time for their children. Systems will need to be developed further to plan for childcare arrangements, good working arrangements exist at present but the expected increase in demand for childcare places for teenage parents age 16-18 will need to be planned for.
|
|
2.6
|
The lack of clarity on monitoring arrangements and enforcement duties is preventing the local authority from planning fully to meet their duties. Clarity is requested on how local authorities will be required to monitor participation. The local authority is particularly concerned by the potentially enormous cost of implementing the enforcement duties as set out in the Education and Skills Act 2008. The government will have to give careful thought to enforcement options to ensure they are affordable.
|
|
2.7
|
Previous planning has been based on the responsibility for IAG delivery to young people being with the local authority. Recent announcements on the establishment of an all-age careers guidance service and the duty on schools to ensure provision of IAG to young people have led to uncertainty about ensuring young people get appropriate support to identify a suitable learning pathway. The planning around this area of work is changing significantly and clarity is required on the role and remit of the all age careers guidance service.
|
|
2.8
|
It is essential that a local, comprehensive, accurate and live online prospectus of the post 16 offer (including apprenticeships) is easily accessible to ensure young people and parents re aware of all the options.
|
|
3.0
|
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.
|
|
3.1
|
The anticipated result of raising the participation age is that academic achievement at age 18 for young people will increase, thus increasing the number of young people with Level 2 and Level 3 qualifications at 19.
|
|
3.2
|
Planning to ensure all young people have a suitable learning route post-16 has already increased the offer to young people, access to vocational education and training may expand further but this is reliant on suitable funding systems in place to allow providers to offer well resourced provision for young people.
|
|
3.3
|
The VCFS sector could play a much greater role in providing education and training for young people who are NEET, and organisations in the sector have already developed effective ways of doing this, for example through delivery of ESF-funded provision. However although many in the sector are keen to develop this further, the current funding system often makes it very difficult for them to become involved. The solution would be for a grant to be made available to local authorities to support this type of provision.
|
|
3.4
|
It is unclear of the impact of raising the participation age on student attendance and behaviour. The concern from learning providers is that young people who are only engaged in learning provision through compulsion will not have the commitment to their learning that is required for young people to attend and achieve; moreover, unless appropriate provision is made available for this group, their reluctant presence would be likely to be disruptive and detrimental to other learners. Ensuring that young people and families understand the benefits of learning and have realistic choices to identify a learning route that meets their needs will be required to ensure that raising the participation age does not have a negative impact on student attendance and behaviour within learning provision. Support to young people is required to ensure that young people receive the support and guidance they require to make appropriate choices. Support systems are also required to support young people with barriers to learning to sustain their engagement in learning. This is a key issue that needs to be addressed, as many young people who are currently NEET are in that position because of significant barriers that they face outside the education system, i.e. in their personal and family situations; raising the participation age will not in itself remove or even reduce those barriers.
25th March 2011
|
