16-19 Participation in education

Written Evidence Submitted by Merseyside Colleges Association of Principals

Introduction

The Merseyside Colleges' Association (MCA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry. The association represents all seven further education and three sixth-form colleges in Greater Merseyside.  The ten colleges involved in the association are Birkenhead Sixth Form College, Carmel College, Hugh Baird College, King George V College, Knowsley Community College, Liverpool Community College, Riverside College, St Helens College, Southport College and Wirral Metropolitan College.

Prompt 1

What impact the Education Maintenance Allowance 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. In the experience of all (10) Merseyside Colleges the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) has made a significant contribution to the participation, attendance, achievement and welfare of young people.

For example, in the only general Further Education on the Wirral over 90% of (some 2000) 16-18 learners are in receipt of the full EMA allowance. Many of this cohort group come from families experiencing second and third generation worklessness where routines, responsibility and a ‘work ethic’ are largely absent and there are few family role models or incentives to break this cycle. In the same College attendance of this cohort group averages 92% within a range of 87% and 96%. This is above the collegiate average for all learners. Retention and achievement of the same cohort group, for courses of all durations, are 90% and 91% respectively which place them 1pp short of the national 90th percentile. There has been improvement year-on-year for the past four years. This is typical of all MCA colleges.

At Liverpool Community College alone, 2300 students are in receipt of the full allowance. Attendance and retention for this cohort is 5-7% above the average for all students.

2. The EMA provides an incentive and positive pressure for both the family and individual learner in taking forward Government policy and targets and their translation ultimately into a positive economic contribution and reduction in benefits dependency. The EMAs conditionality on attendance and punctuality is a key component of its success. That it is a transparent allowance, where there are clear ‘rules’, provides both ‘felt-fairness’ and equity that helps counter stigma and possible unease/pride in young people seeking financial support.

3. The proposed replacement of the EMA with a Discretionary Learner Support Fund will not be effective for a number of reasons. Most obviously, the replacement of a c.£574m EMA resource with a ‘supplement’ of c.£75m by definition will drastically reduce the number of learners from low income families that could benefit. In trying to counter this, the criteria that Colleges must devise and the per learner amounts administered will likely be grossly diluted and create a tipping point in the implicit "effort/reward" bargain. In the view of Merseyside College Principals, the proposal will not return the same level of impact as the EMA. The argument posited by some that the EMA allowance merely contributes to ‘household budgets’ is answered convincingly by participation and performance outcomes and the facts that learners in receipt do incur costs of travel, meals and course-related expenditures. The expediency of the proposed approach promotes a retrograde shift from one of ‘independence’ (EMA) to one of ‘dependence’ (discretionary support) and as such will not provide the dual incentive to learner and family to promote/stimulate participation in education and/or training. This will be further reinforced in that colleges will be unlikely to conduct means testing of parental income (resource requirements) and because of audit requirements will be minded, where appropriate, to pay third parties directly rather than administer cash payments to individuals.

4. On Merseyside specifically, EMAs have supported the increase and widening of participation, raising of aspiration and growth in higher attainment levels amongst young people. Their removal is likely to disadvantage seriously young people in lower socio-economic groups, from minority backgrounds and from deprived areas in continuing their education and falling into NEET. This will be to the short, medium and long-term detriment of the economy, social cohesion and individual well-being.

5. It is also worth noting that even in relatively affluent areas such as Southport, there are still areas of significant deprivation in the town and the loss of EMA will have considerable impact, for example, students who currently travel to the College from towns such as Skelmersdale.

Prompt 2

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

6. The current cap on participation in higher education exerts a renewed and critical importance on the role of vocational education and training in contributing to economic recovery. There is an imperative to improve the organisation and preparation for vocational education and training underpinned by a small number of principles:

· 14-19 vocational education should be what is best for the individual learner;

· Individual learners have an entitlement to vocational education should they choose it;

· Choice should be guided by impartial information, advice and guidance not only about courses but on the range of occupations; future career pathways and earnings potential;

· Resources should follow the learner;

· Providers of vocational education for 14-19s should have vocational education at the heart of their mission;

· Providers of vocational education should have the experience, expertise and resources to deliver a high quality experience.

The YPLA and Local Authorities should be clear in their recognition of this and exert due and positive influence in their commissioning role – against the above principles. In so doing there should be visible and due regard for value-for-money; reducing duplication of provision; ensuring choice and access for young people; stimulating progression routes from schools and the place of commissioning in reducing ‘drop out’ at 17 and 18 and reducing NEET by strategies of prevention. Tensions should be reduced by the harmonisation of post-16 funding currently underway.

7. The FE college sector in general and Merseyside colleges in particular already have in place a broad and mature offer of vocational education and training, understood by employers and HEIs, from Level 1 through to HE; underpinned by literacy/English/numeracy/Maths/Language support; in each of fifteen sector skills areas; that perform well to national standards and addresses the needs of employers.

8. Government is urged to re-think its strategy for the Young Apprenticeship Programme (YAP) as this provides a well-developed, successful model, now understood, as part of promoting vocational education, training and as a feeder route to full apprenticeships with exposure to employers and the workplace. Experience suggests that 16 year olds require further time at Level 2. In a similar vein the current (poor) development of the Learner Aims Database (LAD), which is crucial to determining College funded provision, is proving to be a barrier to choice and progression for learners, particularly from Foundation Learning into Level 2 provision in all vocational areas. Major developments with such significant impact do need realistic lead and development times.

9. A significant factor continues to be the capacity/readiness of employers to support work-placements and generate apprenticeship places/jobs. This could be exacerbated with a potentially larger learner population to support.

10. On Merseyside the general state of readiness is good. For example, in each Borough an infrastructure of partnership working exists; there is a record of collaboration and joint developments; and there are a range of common post-16 processes. However, this situation is now at risk due to funding reduction requirements and the loss of staff experience and expertise at both provider and local authority level. Lack of funded ‘transitional arrangements’ could threaten the sustainability of the work and investment already made.

11. It is important to note that schools will have a greater responsibility for ensuring that the pre-16 curriculum is geared towards post 16 progression and doesn't just chase the highest points scores. Similarly the pre-16 advice and guidance will need to be more robust than ever, which may be problematical given the changes in procurement of these services within schools and the downsizing of Connexions without any clear alternative in place.

Prompt 3

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.

12. The FE sector has demonstrated consistently that increases in participation, academic achievement, access to vocational education and training, student attendance and behaviour all have the potential to improve significantly. The raising of the participation age will in principle therefore offer even greater potential; and FE colleges have the capacity to deliver this.

13. The incentive for participation potentially lost through EMA needs somehow to be built-back. There is also an opportunity for the raising of the participation age to signal ‘opportunity’. For example, one enabler that could be supported nationally is by giving more visible coverage and emphasis to vocational skills. Successful examples in recent years include the LSC and Apprenticeship television promotion campaigns; and there are further opportunities through themes of employability and enterprise.

14. There are opportunities to further stimulate improvements, by design, provided by other collaborative ventures, for example by defined progression pathways through new Academies and University Technical Colleges and compacts with employers and HEIs. These would benefit from a structured approach.

15. Success will be judged by impact on the economy and economic well-being and to this end the role to be played by employers e.g. as job creators, apprenticeship providers, advisors, mentors/enablers for enterprise, ‘experience’ providers etc. is crucial. Commitment by employers should somehow be stimulated and the capacity of individual providers in individual employer relationships may be limited.

16. Colleges get frustrated by the use of labels such as "alternative provision" often used as a euphemism for ‘provision for troublesome students’ often as a pretext for partnerships with colleges. The view of Merseyside colleges is that learners respond to provision that is appropriate for them and in which they have a personal stake/incentive. In this respect two factors are important. Firstly the incentive provided by EMA (comments above) and secondly choice of provision/provider which should not be constrained by funding arrangements. The Select Committee is also respectfully recommended to scrutinise responses by FE colleges made to the ‘Woolf Review of 14-19 Vocational Education’ (October 2010) which cover similar points embodied in this inquiry.

25th March 2011