16-19 Participation in education

Written Evidence Submitted by Fern-Chantele Carter

· What impact the EMA has had on participation, attendance, achievement and welfare of young people and how effective will the DLSF be in replacing it

1. There is a need to ensure the colleges have someone to target the students most in need- not necessarily those in the most disadvantaged, as often there is a lot of help, and finance in place to help these students. There are mid-line students in severe difficulties- due to many issues- who currently do not qualify for the EMA- but do need the help.

2. We have this year been allocating Hardship fund grants of £30 as and when required for students who need the help- these students gave in receipts for what was required- used appropriately, and ensured the students were using the EMA for college issues- trips/books/equipment

3. It was also unbalanced FT was a student doing 12 hours over 2 or 3 days in the week, yet some students were doing 25+ hours a week, over 5 days this is an unfair system

4. I think that tokens, or a similar arrangement to our hardship fund will be a far more useful, and appropriate arrangement, and over the students a fairer way to share the funds.

5. The EMA was a good motivator, as they knew if they turned up, they would receive their financial help- however this did not mean they valued the experience or participated when there. Often they can be disruptive to others in the class, as the "free money" was seen as just that, and the classes as a social network, rather than educational experience.

6. If a student misses a class, and as such loses their EMA for that week- this can mean they cannot attend the following week- or find it difficult, and as such lose their EMA again- which perpetuates the problem, and causes drop-out rates, not because of any reason for the student. If the college had the ability to top up, and use the funds in a discretionary way this would cancel out these problems, and ensure those who want to learn can, and there are no travel excuses for attendance.

7. In London 16-18 get free travel anyway, if they are doing a fulltime course- which is 12 hours for 14 weeks (as a minimum)- , and can travel by bus- so why the additional £30 – simply for equipment?- this is not used for the purposes stated by many students. However there are a number of students who live outside borough and attend our college- this means expensive travel- but a necessary expense for them to achieve education due to issues within their borough, or at the FE colleges/options in their borough.

8. The issue of £30.810 joint income per year- raises many issues (similar in my days of University and the grant system). This means many students because their parents are divorced- it does not take into account parental contributions from the divorced partner- or any other member within the household. This skews the eligibility criteria for the EMA.

9. Many want to do one or two retakes- and because this did not give them enough hours to be eligible for EMA, so they enrolled for something to make up the hours- had no interest in it, and as such did not put in the effort, messed around- and do not achieve- skewing colleges success rates.

10. I colleges, attendance and participation are different- also these do not count, it is success criteria which count- so, keeping youngsters in education in spurious courses, which hold no interest for them, and as such are not engaged, mean the students do not succeed, or achieve, this is turn perpetuates the NEET mindset of these youngsters. Tutors comment on the disruptive and detrimental mindset of some youngsters who are only on the course for EMA from those who genuinely want to learn- we almost look at segregation.

11. We added a PSD class for the students who needed hours- and they found this rewarding, and enjoyed it, as it meant another achievement for them- indeed over the year- they decided to change from an award to a certificate- making it a bigger amount of work- however they enjoyed achieving it.

12. Colleges need to ensure they have someone to target the students most in need- not simply by paperwork- this could be a Pastoral tutor, who knows all the students and their needs- not a computer system as with EMA.

13. It is very important o have a fund for students to access- however I feel that in the form of vouchers- or top-ups, or by return of receipt/ buying of tickets by the college/buying of equipment by the college, managed by the learning provider is a much more sensible remit- and will work better for those students it is supposed to be there for- the most needy.

14. Each college can measure what each student needs, and what for, it can act as a good motivator where needed, and help students with difficulties where needed.

· What preparations are necessary, for providers and Local Authorities, for the gradual raising of the participation age to 18 years old, and what is their current state of readiness

· 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.

This is a good idea- however not necessarily the best idea to keep them in a school situation- the FE colleges could really come into their own and take a vast number of students on to courses much more appropriate than staying in a school enviroment, and the subjects offered at school. If this occurs- which I do not think it will, as schools once have the students and the students’ budget, will keep as much as possible- even when at the detriment of the student- this is happening now. Unless a school has severe difficulties engaging a young learner, they tend to keep them and not release them or the monies allocate to them to other colleges- for more vocational courses, which may be much more appropriate for the student, and also set them up for their future in a more appropriate way.

25th March 2011