16-19 Participation in education

Peterborough Data

1. Data available from the Young Peoples Learning Agency shows that Peterborough Local Authority residents appear to have a greater need of learner support than other geographical areas. Some of this data demonstrating this is discussed below. Particularly the take up of EMA up to 18 demonstrates removal of EMA will have a more substantial impact on Peterborough RPA than other areas

a. EMA take up is higher in Peterborough than the average East of England region and nationally – 38% compared to 26%.

b. Peterborough had more growth in EMA claimants between 2009/10 to 2010/11 compared to regionally and nationally – 12% compared to 9%

c. More growth in EMA take up for young people in full time education – 15% compared to 10%

d. Much higher EMA take up at 16, 17 and 18 – 19% at 18 (421 youths) compared to 11% regionally and 14% nationally. 41% take up (903 youths) at 17 compared to 29% and 33% regionally and nationally. 36% take up at 16 (830 youths) compared to 26% and 30% regionally and nationally.

2. The YPLA Strategic Analysis Report for 2010 shows Peterborough has EMA stoppage rate of 25%, with five of the 17 Providers having a stoppage rate above 15%, indicating that more young people who apply for EMA are prevented from claiming compared to those in other areas, as a result of not meeting the eligibility criteria. This backs up paragraph 11.

3. The YPLA Raising the Participation Age Report for 2010 shows:

a. In 2007 16 year old participation was 87%, ranking us seventh out of ten within our closest statistical neighbours

b. In 2007, 17 year old participation was 73%, ranking us tenth out of ten within our closest statistical neighbours. LA Maintained schools significantly accounted for the largest 17 year old drop out, the complete opposite to local Colleges. This backs up paragraph 30, 31 and point e below.

c. Peterborough is on track to meet the 2010/11 target of 97% participation for 16 year olds

d. Peterborough needs to increase participation of 16 year olds by 13% to meet the 2013 participation target for 17 year olds, although due to the population decline, this doesn’t equate to an increase in volumes. It is estimated that there will be 200 less 16 year olds in Peterborough in 2013 than there were in 2008.

e. Peterborough had a high drop out rate of 13% between 16 and 17 year olds (2006 Y12 and 2007 Y13). For students attending LA maintained schools, the drop out rate was 18%. This is an area of continued focus for us, particularly in regard to A levels in the schools sector where drop out is highest.

What impact has EMA had on participation, achievement, and welfare of young people?

4. As a Local Authority with a very high take up of EMA (paragraphs 1 and 2), we expect the impact of the cessation of EMA on participation to be heavy.

5. Learner Support funding has a big impact on participation for those students who use the funding predominantly for travel to school/college costs that can not or are not provided by any other means.

6. The perception of our providers is that EMA was particularly effective when there was a bonus payment for young people staying on to a second year of education.

7. It is difficult to predict the precise impact of EMA but intelligence from providers who know their cohorts reveals those who will be most affected are those on Foundation Learning (FL) programmes or the sustained not in education, training or employment (NEET) group.

8. When the entitlement for EMA was removed following the demise of the Entry to Employment (E2E) programmes, the predecessor of FL, providers reported changes in young people’s patterns of engagement and a great deal more difficulty in recruiting new learners to Foundation Learning programmes.

9. Learners that have been out of learning for some time often require financial support and encouragement to re-enter a place of learning, and EMA certainly provided that opportunity.

10. Due to its high EMA take up levels, this LA expects to see a significant drop in participation when EMA ceases, which could render some post 16 providers and schools unviable. Smaller providers are put more at risk by such changes in learner numbers. In reality many other factors will impact on participation and it is impossible to assess the impact of the loss of EMA as a single factor.

11. However, one positive aspect of the removal of EMA means we are no longer artificially trying to construct provision that meets EMA criteria. Our most vulnerable learners often require flexible, short or small programmes to entice them in to learning. Only after their confidence grows will they commit to 12 hours a week or a programme spread over a number of weeks. EMA was often a barrier to being truly flexible to meet learner needs, as we had to try to get young people to attend larger programmes that did not meet their needs. EMA in these cases could have been perceived as a barrier to participation, as learners refused to or could not afford to attend programmes that did not qualify them for this support. See paragraph 2.

How effective will the Discretionary Learner Support Fund be in replacing EMA?

12. The shift to Discretionary Learner Support (DLS) means young people must have made the commitment to learning and be registered with a provider. The funds providers receive will enable them to support learners but they will be targeted at removing barriers rather than providing a financial incentive to participate. The main challenge here is that we are unclear how DLS will be allocated and targeted to support the most disadvantaged. We are also unclear what level of DLS individual providers will get, but we know it will be considerably less than has been available via EMA. Our concern would be that if is distributed on a national methodology we may be disadvantaged as we have been a higher than average user of EMA.

13. If DLS is allocated to LA’s based on arbitrary criteria of Free School Meal Eligibility or IMD data, it removes the provider’s ability to identify individual learner needs.

14. Also, Providers can only respond to needs that learners vocalise, and for many young people they prefer not to discuss their personal circumstances. Young carers, care leavers, or those with a history of youth offending etc might not divulge their circumstances and needs might go unmet. Young people did not stigmatise learners in receipt of EMA it was considered the norm and take up was encouraged.

15. DLS effectiveness in meeting the huge gap that EMA leaves will depend on the eligibility criteria set (for example currently DLS should only be given for ‘emergency transport’ not daily transport needs), the equity and transparency of the allocation for LAs or providers, and crucially how well providers and schools are set up to sensitively and fairly assess learner needs.

16. If allocations are made to schools they could be used to supplement critically pressured budgets, and the most vulnerable learners will be pushed out as they may be deemed too expensive to support, and in difficult times, the affluent learners not needing such support may be preferred.

17. There is already a large disparity in EMA claimants between our highest and lowest performing schools in our area (ranging from 14% to 65% claimant rates), so it is perceived that untargeted learner support will not narrow the gap for the disadvantaged.

There are a number of significant challenges with respect to raising the participation age, and this revolves around education policies that are still emerging, given the change in the political change. These challenges are described below.

18. Increased demand for Apprenticeships: places required in schools and FE are affected by the numbers choosing to go into Apprenticeships. Currently we have approximately 1 in 20 on apprenticeships and if we were to achieve the desired 1 in 5 we would need considerably less places in schools/ colleges. It is difficult to predict the future demand for Apprenticeships without clarity about vocational learning (wolf report) and progression to HE. In addition we face some challenges around employer engagement and ensuring that Information, Advice and Guidance given to young people is impartial and accurate. Unless there are vacancies for Apprenticeships we can not promote this pathway to young people successfully. We would want to be assured that the highest achievers in schools are not signposted purely to academic pathways.

19. Lack of Capital funds: Peterborough had plans to develop provision for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities (LLDD), but is unable to do so because of a lack of capital funding. Most of our LLDD learners travel outside the LA area, but if transport costs covered by that provider cease, we will not be able to meet those needs locally and those learners will drop out.

20. Our city-wide needs for post 16 are predominantly for Level 1, Level 2, and FE provision: it is difficult to maintain a city-wide strategic view if we only have access to data on the LA maintained sector. A successful RPA is not about overall places but takes into account location, learning environment, learner needs and the curriculum on offer. For example, we need to develop more Level 2 provision in order to meet learner needs at 16, due to current lower performance at Key Stage 4.

21. Lack of data or strategic considerations for Academies and their offers: We currently have four Academies out of 11 secondary schools, with one more converting in September 2011 and another with an application outstanding. This would leave five LA maintained schools, making it extremely difficult for the LA to ensure the right type of provision exists in the right place at the right time.

22. Agreed increases in Academies places without regard for local needs: our pressure point is FE places in suitable venues with appropriate programmes for the most vulnerable. However, we have restricted growth because providers are being funded on lagged learner numbers. By exception, Academies have seen growth.

23. Providers attracting out of area learners: Academy providers can spend their additional growth money on attracting out of area learners, which has no impact on our ability to meet local resident RPA.

24. Market place economy planning: We have a desperate need to grow Level 2 provision. This year we have growth above lagged learners but is funded in three Academies, who almost without exception provide only Level 3 provision. This doesn’t meet local needs and simply will displace provision elsewhere. Meanwhile our Level 1 and Level 2 provision can not be funded.

25. The funding squeeze on post 16 might also change the provider landscape as many will not survive the financial challenges. This uncertainty in the provider base makes it hard to engage in medium/longer term planning.

26. The impact of minimum levels of contract values (within work based learning providers) will limit smaller providers offering tailored provision.

27. Changing HE landscape: this will have an impact on the decision young people make at post 16 in terms of whether or not they stay on in school or college or enter the workplace.

28. Wolf report: the outcome of the Wolf report will be critical in planning, and will inevitably significantly alter the offer providers make, and substantially alter the local landscape. We can not predict the demand for vocational provision until we see what the Government vision is around this.

29. Schools ability to meet the demands of RPA for their own cohorts depends greatly on funding availability, and in times of financial hardship where more is demanded from less funding, they will not be incentivised to grow places for young people who fall outside their ‘comfort zone’ or existing resources/staff, such as in Level 1/L2 provision, where it is desperately needed.

30. FE Colleges are in a better position to respond to demand and put on courses that meet local needs, however the FE setting is not always the most appropriate venue for vulnerable learners.

31. There are too many changes currently to be able to predict with confidence the pattern of engagement. We have a high number of New Academies and this in itself changes patterns of engagement and historic data is not necessarily a good indicator of future trends. The outcomes of the Wolf report are significant in that the view of vocational learning by government will impact on learner demand and provider willingness of interest in delivering vocational learning. The financial challenges for post 16 providers will no doubt lead to further changes in the provider base. Equally the ability/willingness of employers to offer Apprenticeships will also be significant and whilst we continue to work hard with NAS and other stakeholders we can not be sure of future volumes with any level of accuracy. Further the access to HE will also have a significant impact on young peoples’ decision to stay on in learning.

32. Providers need to be considering their place in the new competitive market place and would think that their progress with this is variable. The tools on the DfE website around supporting schools to tightly embed their financial planning with other curriculum and workforce development planning is welcomed but on its own will not be sufficient, for some of our schools.

What impact will RPA have on academic achievement?

33. See Question 2 – if the appropriate provision and curriculum is available, RPA will eventually encourage greater participation. If the offer doesn’t meet the needs of young people, it will have no impact. The key to increased participation is having the right provision in the right place delivered to a high quality. Local Authorities will have little control over this as Academies and FE Colleges will have the freedom to deliver what they want irrespective of local area need. Providers will be looking to offer provision that they can deliver successfully, there is demand for and attracts funding. It may well be that in an area what is in the interest of providers to offer does not meet the local need. As the market place takes shape there will be gaps that appear and without capital or revenue funds to commission Local Authorities will face significant challenges. If all schools attempt to fair favourably in the delivery of the English baccalaureate for example we might find that the breadth of offer in other areas reduces and some young people disengage that would otherwise have stayed in the system. The balance between vocational and academic provision and Level 1 Level 2 and Level 3 provision will be heavily influenced by government policy. Young people attend where they see a benefit, they feel safe supported and they can clearly identify the benefit to them. Raising the age of participation will not in itself increase engagement. Young people might be persuaded to stay in learning because they are not able to secure a job or unemployment benefits but experience tells us these young people will not achieve as they will not be committed. The single biggest factor to greater participation at post 16 is a positive and enjoyable experience at pre 16. If young people see the benefits of learning and can see how further learning will improve their life then they will engage, provided they can afford to. For some young people their families will be reluctant to support them staying on at school/college for financial reasons.

What impact will RPA have on access to vocational education and training?

34. Vocational education and training is by definition more expensive to run than academic, class-based education. Unless this Government actively supports vocational education through a clear message in the Wolf Report, and backs this up with a funding model that really covers the costs of providing top quality, relevant, and engaging courses, RPA will not have the desired effect.

35. Peterborough City Council 8-19 Service and Connexions have done a great deal of work with local employers, business organisations (e.g. Chamber of Commerce and Urban Regeneration Companies), and the National Apprenticeship Service to make sure that schools have the right information to be able to competently and impartially advise young people on courses they should take to meet local employer opportunities and entry requirements for Apprenticeships. If young people are able to stay on in full time education and training longer, the increased Learner demand will stimulate the supply of vocational provision. We have found the key is ensuring that provision meets employer needs, as if it does employers are much more likely to work with schools and provide work related learning. More employer involvement will increase access.

What impact will RPA have on student attendance and behaviour?

36. Schools respond to funding and league tables. Unless RPA is backed by funding, there may not be significant incentive or punishment to follow up young people who are at risk of dropping out. Schools must be held accountable for the positive outcomes of all their students.

37. See also below, paragraph 38.

What impact will RPA have on alternative provision?

38. It is vital that there is sufficient and appropriate alternative provision that can engage and maintain interest for young people who do not do well in a mainstream environment, e.g. young offenders, those with emotional and behavioural difficulties, those with learning difficulties and/or disabilities, those needing practical tuition or more individual support than that offered in mainstream education. It should not be assumed that those young people described above are a minority in fact the numbers of vulnerable young people in Peterborough are high. Many young people remain in mainstream provision because they are offered a wide curriculum offer including vocational provision. If schools are encouraged down a more academic route then we may see an increase in young people going into alternative provision.