16-19 Participation in education

Written Evidence Submitted by Helen Roper

The response assumes that the requirement remains at a minimum of 280 GLH unless the young person has already achieved the level 3 threshold.

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.

I am unable to comment.

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.

2.1 The increase in absolute numbers of young people in education and training will be relatively small as the raising of the participation age coincides in a dip in the population of 14-19 year olds. Providers are therefore well prepared to accommodate the additional students.

2.2 However, there is likely to be a significant change in the profile of young people "staying on". The young people currently leaving education and training at 16 are generally working below level 2 and/or have become disengaged with school (and often therefore with learning). Providers will need a broad offer of engaging, vocational, level 1 and level 2 courses. They will also need the flexibility to deliver both full and part-time. It is likely that most new students would wish to take up training places rather than full time education. Colleges and private training providers have demonstrated the capacity to respond quickly to market demands.

2.3 In rural areas, school sixth forms provide much of the post-16 offer, the core of which often takes the form of "traditional" A level courses. Young people are faced with long journeys in order to access other types of education and training. Vulnerable and less committed students are less likely to travel to learn. To overcome this barrier to learning, schools will need to broaden their core offer, including the provision of part-time training and there will be a consequent impact on staffing requirements and other resources. (Including new resources for CEIAG to raise awareness of the offers and progression routes available). Schools, because of their younger age groups, do not have the same flexibilities as other providers. Schools show very different levels of preparedness.

2.4 Local Authorities have an important role in raising awareness of the rise in participation age. There is a need for careers education, information, advice and guidance support in schools, particularly 11-16 schools. It will be vital to build upon the work of the September Guarantee to engage the wider group. There is a role for curriculum support and advice in ensuring that the pre-16 courses available offer the widest possible post-16 progression opportunities.

2.5 Local Authorities need to ensure that the changes are widely publicised to businesses. Local employers should have strong influence on the types and content of training available to 16-19 year olds. It is unclear if employers are fully aware of the proposed changes; some have made passing reference to "raising the school leaving age".

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 alternate provision?

3.1 It is likely that there will be a small increase in the number of young people achieving level 2 by the age of 19 but the projected profile of the additional young people in education and training suggests there would be little or no impact on level 3 achievement.

3.2 There will need to be a wider access to a vocational offer that recognises the skill sets required by local businesses even though the businesses are not "commissioning" the training

3.3 There is unlikely to be a significant rise in full time attendance but part-time attendance on training courses could rise.

3.4 It is difficult to predict an impact on behaviour; it is possible that it could worsen if disengaged young people were required to attend education or training, particularly if they had been looking to leave at 16. However, at present the Government has indicated that it is not prepared to enforce participation. Unhappy and potentially misbehaving young people could therefore "vote with their feet" so there would be no impact on delivery.

3.5 There will be a greater requirement for alternate provision i.e. more informal settings to accommodate young people who have become or at risk of becoming disengaged with formal education.

25th March 2011