16-19 Participation in education

Written Evidence Submitted by National Union of Students

1. Capacity and provision in advance of the raising of the education and training participation age.

2. Whilst NUS broadly supports the principles behind the raising of the participation age, we are concerned that the infrastructure to support this initiative is being eroded, including through the removal of the EMA and transport provision. Without a strong infrastructure, NUS is concerned about the possible effects on access, attendance, achievement and behaviour. Without adequate support, we are concerned that increasing numbers of young people could be classed as ‘NEETs’ or criminalized.

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

3. NUS challenges ministers’ assertions that 90% of EMA funding and recipients are ‘deadweight’ and would attend college even if they did not receive the allowance.

4. The National Foundation for Education Research (NFER) study from which this figure was derived was unrepresentative and its use as the sole evidence for this decision is subject to question. The NFER research was only undertaken in a small sample of schools using a small number of students from Year 10 and 11 only, excluding the 69% of students in receipt of EMA studying in further education colleges. By including young people in sixth form colleges who typically have higher qualifications than students in the majority of providers – further education colleges, the results are themselves likely to be unrepresentative.

5. The NFER research also failed to full assess the take-up of and impact of EMA on BME communities. 91% of the survey sample self-defined as ‘white’, whereas 84% of all Bangladeshi and 70% of Pakistani students receive EMA [1] .

6. NUS’ EMA Satisfaction Survey 2010 shows that the financial support was critical, with 55 per cent of all recipients – rising to 59%of those receiving the full £30 weekly allowance – stating that they could not continue in further education without EMA [2] .

7. A strong defense of the role of the EMA has been made by Mick Fletcher, in his report for the CfBT Educational Trust, ‘Should We End the EMA?’. [3] He argues in that document that the evidence is clear that EMA has had a positive impact on participation, and that it should be retained despite the raising of the education and training age (RPA) policy and the tightening of public finances. He believes that young people staying on in education or training will still require support to offset the costs of learning, and EMA payments will help ensure that learners do not work so many extra hours during term-time that this impacts on their attainment.

8. Even if Ministers’ arguments that 90% of EMA are deadweight were accepted, the costs of EMA are more than outweighed by its benefits. The government failed to consider econometric evidence by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), which found that the EMA significantly increased participation rates in post-16 education among young adults, and concluded that its impact was "substantial".

9. The December 2010 report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘An efficient education maintenance allowance?’ concluded that "the costs of providing EMA were likely to be exceeded in the long run by the higher wages that its recipients would go on to enjoy in future.’" The report states clearly ‘that even taking into account the level of deadweight that was found, the costs of EMA are completely offset’.

10. NUS believes EMA encourages attendance, retention and attainment, not simply participation. The research evidence shows that those in receipt of EMA not only stay on the course, but are more likely to achieve their learning outcomes. A 2007 IFS evaluation showed the EMA has had an impact on retention in two year courses, particularly in rural areas and amongst BME learners [4] .

11. The language used by the previous Government often indicated EMA was only ever an incentive payment intended to raise participation. It is true that this was an aim of the scheme, and one which it meets, by 7.3ppt for females and 5.5ppt for males in females who receive the allowance [5] .

12. EMA has an impact on attainment too. According to NUS’ EMA Satisfaction Survey some 76% of learners thought they would have to work more hours in part-time employment without it, rising to 78% amongst those on £30 per week and with 21 per cent of learners already working in excess of 15 hours per week this could only have a detrimental effect. Only 61% of respondents even believe the EMA fully covers their essential learning costs, such as travel, books and equipment, and food at college with the remainder reporting a shortfall.

13. The 157 Group of leading colleges more recently released its own study into the effectiveness of EMA, and some of the reports from individual colleges were equally impressive [6] . At one college there was a 15ppt difference in retention rate for those receiving the EMA and those who did not, and a 13ppt difference in pass rates between those receiving the EMA and those who did not. Attendance rates were also shown to be better for EMA recipients, and this is hardly surprising when the weekly payment is tied to attendance.

14. NUS believes that part of the reason for EMA's success is in ensuring that recipients do not try to maintain too many hours of part-time employment to supplement their income during college, which impact on attainment and possibly participation. Our own research in the NUS’ EMA Satisfaction Survey 2010 showed that 76% of recipients felt they would have to work more hours if they did not receive EMA. Indeed, at another college in the 157 survey, almost one in five students who dropped out in 2002 (before EMA was introduced) cited financial reasons – but by 2009 that figure was just one in 20.

15. The benefits of EMA extend to other, less obvious areas – one report suggests that the introduction of the EMA reduced crime in the community, with greater decline in burglary and theft convictions amongst young people recorded in a study of some of the pilot local authority areas in England [7] .

16. EMA created one, comparatively simple, national scheme. The benefits of this approach should not be lightly disregarded.

17. Of course, the Government argues that EMA is not being scrapped, merely replaced by more targeted, and thus more effective funding. The mechanism for doing so will be 'enhanced' discretionary learner support funds (DLSFs), pots of money administered by colleges and other learning providers within broad national guidelines.

18. The total funds available after the CSR announcement of a cut of "around £0.5 billion" will leave a tiny fraction of the present EMA budget - projected as £564m for 2010/201- to be allocated to 16 to 19 year old learners through whatever new method of "targeted support‟ emerges out of "locally managed discretionary funds" and/or local transport subsidies.

19. Current DLSFs are often exhausted early in the academic year, leaving those starting courses in the winter or later at risk of receiving less support than if they started in the autumn. Indeed, learners at smaller (often work-based) learning providers may receive next to nothing as their providers receive very little or choose not to administer these funds at all.

20. Critics of EMA like to paint it as an aberration, something which appeared like a mushroom in 2004 (or in 1999 when the pilots commenced) rather than placing it in its actual historical context. The Education Act of 1944 gave local authorities the power to make discretionary grants to young people in education. Fifty years later they were still doing so, but a 1998 DfEE report, New Arrangements for Effective Student Support in Further Education, or the Lane Report, identified just the problems that the new system could create - including variable funding from local authority to local authority, creating uncertainty and unfairness. It reported that "policies [were] not related to student need but mostly driven by resource availability," and the interaction between grants and benefits was unclear.

21. NUS is concerned that, within the DLSF scheme, learners will be placed at a disadvantage if their local authority or provider is not allocated adequate funds. Any new allocations model should take into account the number of students attending a provider, in addition to the level of social deprivation within the locality.

22. The fact that every provider could have a different policy to navigate will make the process more difficult for learners to understand, and will mean some in identical circumstances receiving different treatment. Learners will have no idea ahead of the course what their entitlement, if any, will be. Such confusion and unfairness deterring many from applying in the first place, or learners making decisions based on funding that might not materialise.

23. We may not even know the extent of the impact, as atomised budgets spread across individual learning providers will be difficult to monitor and it will be far from clear if the money is being targeted in the way the Government intended.

24. Even if it is accepted that only 1 in 10 learners 'need' EMA, it is not a simple task to identify who those learners are. Either providers make policies based on broad categories, and risk recreating or exacerbating the same problems the Government has with EMA, or there are in depth forms, but this then places greater administrative burdens on learning providers, who in some cases would have to make assessments of thousands of applications, check evidence and determine priorities.

25. Indeed, this picture is reflected today in the variation in the provision of 16-18 transport subsidies by local authorities. Authorities have a legal requirement to develop a policy in this area, but this varies from relatively generous provision in some areas to virtually nothing in others. The steep cuts to local government funding puts such provision at risk, so that learners face increased transport costs at the same time as EMA is abolished.

26. At present, the DLSF does not cover travel. The government do not have an estimate of how much it costs to travel to a post-16 course, the latest figures they have are from 2003. In many areas, especially rural ones, EMA is crucial in meeting travel costs. With local authority cuts impacting on young people’s travel subsidies, this will increasingly be important. Any financial support system must take into account the cost of physically attending college.

27. NUS believes that the eligibility criteria for DSLF should be set nationally. Providers and local authorities will be placed in an extremely vulnerable position if they are given responsibility for deciding which students or groups of students should qualify for the fund. Moreover, students themselves are at risk of dropping out of education if they are told part-way through a course that they do not qualify for support.

28. There are some benefits to EMA that also could be lost. EMA payments are made weekly, based on attendance whereas there is no guarantee that learning providers will do the same, impacting on learner's abilities to budget and reducing their incentives to go to their classes. If they do pay weekly they incur additional costs of making bank transfers, further increasing the administration costs of the scheme.

29. EMAs are also clearly disregarded for entitlement to social security benefits, whereas discretionary payments are often included. The rules are complex, and the new system risks reducing the learner or their family's benefit entitlement, creating a poverty trap and raising barriers to their participation.

30. NUS believes that the stability and transparency provided by a national system allows young people and their families to plan ahead. It means that young people know what they can expect if they attend college, are punctual and do their coursework. A hardship fund will not offer this stability. EMAs are relatively unusual as forms of state support in that payment is contingent not only on rules relating to residency and an income assessment, but also on continuing attendance at the learning provider. Students are given a level of financial independence but also responsible and accountable for their behaviour – including attendance, completion and performance.

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.

31. Local authorities will need to plan what education provision will be needed – including academic, vocational and work-based learning. These preparations will be based on the number of young people and the nature and demands of local labour markets, but will also need to take into account that further education colleges recruit from a wider area than their immediate local surroundings, including crossing local authority boundaries. They need accurate data to inform this work.

32. NUS is concerned that local authorities will not have the capacity to ensure that each and every 17 and 18 year old is participating in education or training. We are also concerned that local authorities will not be able to oversee the raising of the participation age in institutions not under local authority control.

33. The Department for Education or others will have to consider the impact of national policy on the demand for different course types given changes in both the further and higher education sectors in terms of funding and financial support for learners.

34. NUS is not of the belief that the duties placed on local authorities are strong enough and doubt the ability of local authorities, given the scale of cuts to their budgets, in being able to enforce their duties. Many authorities are issuing redundancies in the very departments that are needed here or simply not replacing staff when they leave. This will severely impact on local authority’s readiness.

35. There are also areas that may be missed if pure labour market demand and profitability of courses for an institution drives provision. Gaps in provision may arise as well as possible over supply in what may be seen as relatively ‘easy’ provision in terms of both student numbers and delivery.

36. It is also worth noting that with the abolition of Connexions, there must be adequate provision for information, advice and guidance (IAG) for all young people, especially with the requirement for them to participate in education or training with the increase in the participation age.

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.

37. Whilst NUS broadly supports the principles behind raising the participation age, we are concerned that the infrastructure to support this initiative is being eroded. The abolition of the EMA and the lack of transport provision for 16-19 year olds will prevent some young people from undertaking education or training. Without a strong infrastructure, young people will be unable to participate, and NUS is concerned that these young people will be classed as ‘NEETs’ or criminalised.

38. Raising the participation age in education and training will place constraints on the life choices of young people aged 16 and 17. Whilst NUS supports the idea that young people will remain in education or training beyond the age of 16, care should be taken to ensure that their personal and educational choices are respected.

39. Upon the raising of the participation age, teaching staff will be faced with a fresh set of challenges relating to increased class sizes, a different set of demands from learners, and may encounter increased discipline and behaviour issues. NUS is concerned about the effects of FE budget cuts on the resources put into teachers' CPD, at a time when they will need more intensive support and development to deal with changes to the learner demographic, and a potential increase in discipline and behaviour issues.

40. To ensure that learners are apprised of the complete range of education and training opportunities available at 16-19, including both vocational and academic routes, measures should be taken to ensure that learners under the age of 16 receive the highest standard of independent and impartial information, advice and guidance at school level.

41. With more people staying in education and training beyond the age of 16, it is vital that there exists a fair system of access to higher education. NUS is concerned about the effect of the abolition of Aimhigher on access to university for young people from underprivileged backgrounds.

42. NUS believes increasing the participation age for education and training whilst simultaneously removing funding for further education and financial support for learners is unlikely to lead to better results or tackle the well-documented unemployment issues currently faced by 18-24 year olds.

43. Given that more young people aged 16-18 are now expected to stay on in education following the raising of the participation age, it defies sense to cut the further education budget by 25% over the CSR period, amounting to more than £1 billion in reductions. Current cuts to FE budgets mean that institutions are already looking to cut courses and staff when they should looking to expand resourcing and provision.

44. Though NUS has long-supported reform of Connexions, the service had a central role to play in the raising of the participation age. Following the abolition of Connexions, there must in be adequate information, advice and guidance (IAG) provision in its stead. Although it is outside the remit of this Committee, abolition of outreach schemes such as Aimhigher and practical assistance through the Future Jobs Fund are likely to harm the opportunities and prospects of 16-19 year olds in the coming months and years.

45. Increased competition for places available in education and training should be expected as the participation age increases. It is unclear as to whether the further education sector and employers can meet the demand that will be placed on them, and they should be supported in order to do so. In particular, the number of apprenticeships needed and demanded far outstrips those that are supplied.

46. NUS is concerned that the lack of supply of apprenticeships and the ending NVQ entitlements will make it harder for those staying in education and training to find the courses and routes that are right for them. Greater investment is needed in vocational education that provides clear progression routes.

47. NUS is also deeply concerned that the removal of EMA without an adequate replacement will create a situation where it is more difficult for those compelled to stay in education and training to afford to do so.