16-19 Participation in education
Written Evidence Submitted by Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire Partnership
CSWP is a provider of Information Advice and Guidance (IAG) services to young people in Coventry and Warwickshire as well as holding the Next Step contract to deliver IAG to adults in the West Midlands Region. Additionally CSWP holds several other local contracts including a recent ESF contract to co-ordinate training to NEET young people in Coventry and Warwickshire in partnership with 14 providers of education and training.
1. There has been considerable progress in the Coventry and Warwickshire area in increasing the rate of young people entering education, training or employment at age 16. In Coventry between 2006 and 2010 the percentage in education, training or employment has increased from 94.2% to 97.3% and in Warwickshire from 93.5% to 96.2%. During the same period the 16 to 18 NEET rate in Coventry has fallen from 8.7% to 5.7% and in Warwickshire from 6.7% to 5.2 %.
2. One of the key factors in increasing participation rates and reducing NEETs has undoubtedly been the effect of EMA which has given encouragement to young people and their parents for them to remain in education and training post 16. In Coventry in November 2010 4234 young people were in receipt of EMA. 49.6% of learners in school sixth forms are in receipt of EMA. In one inner city school this rate is 80% and in a local college for people with disabilities it is 95%.
Almost 200 young people in Coventry receive EMA for attendance at Foundation Learning with a Training Provider (formerly E2E) or other work based learning.
3. Foundation Learning with a vocational Training Provider is a particularly crucial area as some of the most disadvantaged young people and young people who have not engaged with academic forms of learning are attracted to this provision. Prior to EMA this form of learning was traditionally paid an allowance originally based on Youth Training Scheme and Youth Opportunity Programme. The practically based vocational learning in effect paid an allowance in lieu of a wage. Because it is based on a hands on vocational model which is attractive to many young people who have not succeeded at school it is viewed by young people and their parents as "work" which should attract some form of allowance.
4. One of the benefits of EMA has been that the mechanism of payment incentivises young people to put in full attendance and attain milestones. This has contributed to improved attendance and attainment with many providers and thus cost effectiveness of provision. This should be an essential element in balancing the cost effectiveness of a modest payment to young people.
5. Research evidence shows clearly that young people who are long term NEET are more likely to be unemployed or otherwise economically dependent in later life, to experience poor health, to be involved in substance misuse or offending behaviour, to become teenage parents and to have reduced life expectancy. There are both economic and social effects which emanate from failure to continue to reduce NEET levels.
6. Through Total Place Price Waters Cooper estimated the cost of NEETs in Coventry, Warwickshire and Solihull. Between February 1989 and 2010 there has been an average of 1986 young people aged 16 – 18 who are NEET across the three local authority areas. The cost of direct services to these groups was £14.8m per annum and the total cost to the community is estimated at between £56m and £65m per annum. These costs need to be taken into account as the costs of rising NEETs may easily outweigh any savings made through withdrawal of EMA.
7. Information from IAG Advisers currently working in schools and colleges in Coventry and Warwickshire is that many parents and young people are seriously considering whether to continue in education and training if EMA is withdrawn. In particular this will affect disadvantaged young people including those from low income families or with poor family support, young people with disabilities, young people from rural areas or who need to travel to train in specialist areas e.g. agriculture. Even if we assume that Ministerial statements that 90% of young people would continue in learning without EMA the inference is that we could see a rise of 10% in NEET levels which would undo the progress made over the last five or more years. In some areas of Coventry and Warwickshire where EMA take up is over 50% these figures would be even greater.
8. It is of particular concern that some young people may not progress to the second year of a 2 year course which they commenced in September 2010 if EMA is withdrawn. This would be a tragic loss of the investment already made both in economic and human terms.
9. There are currently insufficient apprenticeships to meet the potential demand of young people especially if young people are deterred by EMA withdrawal as well as the future changes to Higher Education fees. Cessation of Future Jobs Fund which has been very successful in re engaging young people in the local area is also of concern when the numbers of JSA claimants aged 18 – 24 have increased more than any other age group. It is evident that many young people and their parents feel they are unfairly targeted by the cumulative effect of these measures.
10. Our evidence is that the benefits of EMA greatly outweigh the costs in terms of the economic and human potential costs of young people who are NEET. EMA encourages young people and their parents to view education and training as positive options. It will be much more difficult to attain the reality of raising the participation age if there is no EMA. Of particular concern is the future of vocationally based foundation learning which will be severely impacted. Young people at a disadvantage socially and economically will be more adversely affected and this will further impair equality of opportunity and the possibility of upward social mobility of future generations.
25th March 2011
|