16-19 Participation in education

Written Evidence Submitted by Barnardo’s

1. Introduction

1.1. Barnardo’s has been involved with education and training since 1867 and today runs about 30 services providing education and training for 16-19 year olds across the UK. We believe in the unique potential of education to break the cycle of poverty and contribute to social mobility. Our employment, training and skills services provide technical education, occupational training, social support and employability skills to bolster the ambitions and aspirations of young people whose potential was not unlocked at mainstream school.

1.2 Barnardo’s welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Inquiry and we draw on extensive research evidence and experience through working with vulnerable 16-19-year olds in training settings. We draw on this in considering what is needed to make raising the participation age (RPA) a success, especially for the hard to reach young people we know best. In particular we wish to comment on the probable detrimental effects of the loss of Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) to this group which we predict will increase the numbers of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET).

Background

1.3 Barnardo’s believes the measures to raise the participation age in the Education and Skills Act 2008 offer an important opportunity to improve provision, especially for young people who have previously disengaged from education or who face barriers to participation. With the right support and incentives, the young people that Barnardo’s works with will benefit from the chance to participate in education or training designed to improve their life chances. We continue to support the implementation of this legislation so long as it benefits the most disadvantaged.

1.4 Members of the Select Committee are warmly invited to visit our services working with 16-19 year olds to provide education, training and qualifications in a range of vocational areas. Despite a difficult start at school many of these young people go on to fulfil their ambitions, achieving positive destinations and improved outcomes as a result of their experiences at Barnardo’s. There is nothing better than hearing from young people themselves about the barriers they have overcome and the pride they feel in achieving skills and qualifications which they can relate to their ambitions to succeed in the workplace.

Summary

1.5 Barnardo’s is concerned that, although the replacement for EMA will be targeted at those who need it most, the funding available has been reduced too far. Although they would still wish to attend further education even without the EMA many students are unable to afford the costs associated with attending college and missing out on employment opportunities. The reduction in EMA will mean that many will need to work part time, unfairly limiting time to study. These young people need support to cover the costs of participating in education and training. The local discretions through colleges and training providers will lead to patchy provision affecting young people’s choices about what courses to apply to.

1.6 The potential negative impact of the decision to end EMA in 2011 together with the provision in clause 69 of the Education Bill to delay commencement of the enforcement mechanisms in the Education and Skills Act 2008 means that both carrot and stick have been removed from RPA.  Whilst we maintain reservations about the more punitive aspects of compulsion and its enforcement, we are concerned that the combined effect of these reversals will leave those most likely to become NEET without sufficient incentive or support, or appropriate provision, to continue in education and training.  Given that many have been disengaged from education since early in their secondary education, we are very concerned that the current provisions will actually increase the number of young people who are NEET, rather than bringing this number down.  

1.7 We illustrate the types of barriers faced by those most likely to become NEET and discuss some specific features of provision which are necessary to re-engaging those who may have already dropped out of school or college.

1.8 This submission focuses on the following:

Ø The impact of the EMA and the effectiveness of the discretionary Learner Support Fund

Ø Barriers to participation for hard to reach young people

Ø Enablers to participation for hard to reach young people

Ø Values that support successful participation

2. The impact of the EMA and the effectiveness of the discretionary Learner Support Fund

2.1 Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) helps to increase participation. Although originally intended as an incentive to attendance and effort, EMA has had the major additional benefit of levelling the playing field between poorer students and their better-off classmates, allowing them to spend more time studying and less time worrying about how to support themselves financially. The reduced budget and change of focus to purely covering disadvantaged students’ costs will limit the success of the discretionary Learner Support Fund (DLS) in replacing EMA.

2.2 Barnardo’s evidence on EMA covers the following:

Ø The amount of funds available

Ø Flexibility of payments

Ø Enabling choice

Ø Administration costs

The amount of funds available

2.3 Barnardo's believes that the amount of funding made available to further education providers will be fundamental to the success of the DLS in replacing EMA.

Indications are that the total fund will be drastically reduced to about £76 million, from the previous EMA budget of £540 million. [1] This money is intended to be focused on the most disadvantaged students - those that would be in receipt of £30 per week under the current system. However, initial suggestions are that eligible students will receive an average of just £20 per week of education support through the DLS. [2]

2.5 Young people told us that EMA did not cover the full costs associated with their course. Travel to college was a particular issue - even where travel for students is subsidised, like London, travel costs can be as much as £15 per week. The experience of hardship was worst amongst those living independently or in supported accommodation.

2.6 Evidence from interviews with service users during 2008, when administrative problems severely delayed the payment of EMA, shows many experienced considerable hardship, with some seriously considering whether to withdraw from recently started courses. [3] Any new system ought to be thoroughly tested before roll out to ensure that this unnecessary hardship does not occur again. However, the removal of EMA by the start of the forthcoming academic year allows no time to iron out any administrative teething problems.

2.7 Barnardo’s is concerned that DLS awards will not be enough to cover the cost of support to those most in need. To reduce the value of the support to the extent suggested would seriously undermine the ability of some young people to engage fully with their chosen course and is likely to increase the numbers of young people NEET, by deterring those already on the brink who could otherwise be turned around.

Flexibility of payments

2.8 EMA is paid directly to students, allowing them to decide how best to apply the support. Further education providers can restrict how money from DLS is spent. For example, colleges may just use DLS money to cover specified costs of course trips, textbooks or equipment. This looks likely to continue as a method of making payments. [4]

2.9 Students from the poorest families can be held back from participation through lack of basic living and travel costs, or a need to contribute to household expenses. Students must be given the flexibility to spend the money to cover their needs as they see fit. Therefore, the support offered should be in the form of direct weekly payments.

Enabling choice

2.10 Our experience shows that disadvantage young people make choices about their futures in constrained circumstances. EMA compensates for some of the differences between them and their better-off classmates by enabling them to defer earning a living in favour of the longer term benefits of further education or training. For many it reduces the need to work part time to support their studies, enabling a fuller level of engagement with learning. For these reasons EMA acts as a driver of social mobility.

2.11 Students with limited resources decide about courses by whether they will be able to manage financially. In a small-scale survey of our service users we found that receiving EMA influenced students’ decision to start a course. [5] In future, different providers will set their own eligibility and support rules leading to variation in the amounts of support across providers. This could further constrain the choices available to poorer students by limiting the colleges and courses they select to those offering better financial support.

2.12 Research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found EMA increased participation in post-16 education among eligible young people from 65% to 69% and the proportion of eligible 17-year-olds from 54% to 61%. [6]

Administration costs

2.13 If there is an added administration cost to further education providers this risks further reducing the monies available for the direct support to students. We recommend that the Department for Education should take these costs into account when the allocations are made, and cover them if necessary.

3. Re-engaging hard to reach young people with education and training

3.1 In order for the RPA to have the intended impact on numbers of young people NEET, provision needs to take into account the barriers they face and incorporate specific enablers to the participation of those that are likely to otherwise become persistently NEET. We also discuss the values that Barnardo’s finds are supportive of successful participation.

3.2 In 2009 Barnardo’s published research, (prompted by the Education and Skills Act 2008), on re-engaging young people with education and training. [7] In 2010 we followed up with research focusing on the educational needs of teenage mothers [8] . Altogether this research gave us a detailed insight into the barriers faced by over 110 young people at risk of disengagement, and we found out about enablers to reengagement through visits to 24 specialist services. As this research gave a valuable insight into what causes young people to disengage from education, and what is needed to re-engage them, the following two sections of our submission draw on the evidence from this research.

Barriers to participation for hard to reach young people

3.3The barriers faced by young people taking part in this research came under three main headings:

Ø poor experiences of school

Ø personal difficulties and life circumstances

Ø structural barriers

3.4 Poor experiences of school

The outstanding factors at school which caused young people to become alienated from learning were extremely poor relationships with teachers and other pupils, and not being able to keep up with academic work. Many had poor literacy and numeracy skills and gained few, if any, qualifications. Services working to re-engage those young people need to take small steps to increase their trust and confidence before they feel ready to learn again, especially in a group setting.

3.5 Personal difficulties and life circumstances

Although nearly all were under 18 years old, many of our research respondents were facing complex adult situations in their personal lives. These included being teen parents, being homeless, being a young carer, having mental health difficulties, learning disabilities, or having been a young offender. This is why several of our services focus on social support as well as providing vocational training. It is not possible for a young person to make the most of their training opportunity if they have housing, financial or childcare difficulties. These must be resolved first. At Barnardo’s this is helped by specialist support staff working alongside trainers and instructors. These workers might also set up additional training sessions which teach about the social skills and attitudes needed in the workplace - something which, in our experience, not all young people learn at home. A flexible approach can allow staff to respond to young people’s needs, as for example at one centre when the need arose to deal with homophobic bullying.

3.6 Structural barriers

The current economic downturn has worsened the structural barriers experienced by the young people we interviewed in 2008. The local economic context in which young people seek work and training can affect their opportunities, thwart their aspirations and constrain their choices. Most of the areas in which we conducted our research were regions of longstanding industrial depression which had never recovered from the decline of industries such as mining and manufacturing in the 1980s. In these areas, young people we interviewed were sometimes from the third generation to experience long term unemployment, and motivation turned to disaffection in the absence of suitable job opportunities.

3.7 It is important that those young people who face particular barriers to engaging with education and training do not miss out when the participation age is raised in stages over 2013-2015. They, more than most, need the opportunities afforded by carefully supported, flexible training provision of the kind discussed below.

Enablers to participation for hard to reach young people

3.8 To help young people overcome their barriers to engagement with education and training Barnardo’s runs two main types of services for young people NEET or at risk of becoming NEET:

Ø vocational training services

Ø support services

3.9 Vocational training services

Our vocational training services focus on those young people who are hardest to reach and most at risk of becoming NEET. Many disengaged from school so have no previous qualifications - presenting a barrier to entering typical college courses. Others may have learning disabilities, caring responsibilities or behaviour problems. These services provide training for a range of occupational qualifications delivered by skilled trades people working with small groups. Young people responded well to ‘being treated like an adult’. Important literacy and numeracy skills are taught, but our service users also need to gain the ‘soft’ social skills for employment. An instructor described these as ‘the generic elements that allow you to succeed, such as self-presentation, punctuality, personal hygiene, interview techniques, working out money’.

3.10 Support services

Our support services work with a more vulnerable group of young people; those often facing severe barriers to engaging with education and training, such as mental health problems, being teen mothers or homelessness. Our services offer more intensive support as well as the opportunity to gain Foundation Learning Tier and Level 1 qualifications. When ready, young people are signposted towards other educational programmes, including those run by our vocational services. Young people with multiple needs take longer to progress and take smaller steps towards achievement. For this reason extra time needs to be allowed to complete courses and ensure understanding.

4. A common set of values

4.1 Our research found that providers working with the hardest to reach young people succeed best if they understand and apply the importance of personal relationships and values of mutual understanding. The three most important values for success were:

Ø flexibility

Ø positive relationships

Ø belief

4.2 Flexibility - Vocational services with flexible start dates allow young people to start a course when they are ready. We know that if they have to wait too long they can lose momentum. Sometimes young people take longer to complete a course than the officially recommended (and funded) time. Barnardo’s, and other providers, can lever in additional funding to ensure these young people have the opportunity to succeed.

4.3 Positive relationships - Many of the young people we work with have experienced very poor relationships at school. Chances of success are improved if they can build a positive, supportive relationship with a key worker or a respected instructor, working one to one or with small groups. But understanding boundaries is important too: learning the rules of acceptable behaviour in a safe setting is a social skill that young people from chaotic backgrounds need to learn in order to progress and succeed in the workplace. As one tutor explained ‘A good relationship with the teacher is the key to learning. But you can’t be their mate. It’s a fine line; they need to know there’s a line they can’t cross and I let them know when we’re not getting on’.

4.4 Belief - Young people were offered second and even third chances to keep going at a course or make a change when a first choice had not worked out. Barnardo’s managers and staff are highly persistent in ensuring that even the most problematic young person is properly provided for and learning. A second chance is always on offer. Even where a young person has behaved badly or walked out, they are welcomed back when they are ready to improve their behaviour and show motivation.

4.5 Second chances –young people at risk of becoming NEET may follow chaotic trajectories towards employment and risk becoming demotivated. Providers that recognise the reasons for this and are prepared to take a flexible approach to engagement while providing focused and consistent support can succeed in reaching this group.

28th March 2011