New Opportunities: fair chances for the future Cross government review of financial support for 16-18 year olds Evidence from the 157 Group

THE 157 GROUP

The 157 Group consists of 27 of the largest General FE Colleges in England all of whom are graded good or excellent for leadership. Together they have a combined turnover of over £1.5b; they educate 650,000 students and employ almost 40,000 staff. The group was formed following the recommendation of Sir Andrew Foster in his report on the future of FE that principals of large, successful colleges, with the capacity to do so, should have a greater influence in policy role in building the reputation of the sector. Current patrons include Sir Andrew Foster, Sir David Melville, Sir Mike Tomlinson, Baroness Sharp, Baroness Wall and Baroness Perry. The group meets regularly with ministers, civil servants, national agencies and key influencers to help shape and implement policy. It gives evidence to select committees and produces policy papers as well as acting as a peer network to disseminate excellent practice across the sector.

The 157 Group welcomes the opportunity to respond to this cross governmental review.

Review Questions

Q1. How does raising the participation age change the rationale and role for financial support and incentives? Does the current system fit with a changed rationale?

Raising the participation age to 18 affects both the rationale for financial incentives and the need for financial support. It can be argued that there should be no need for a financial incentive to meet a legal obligation; on the other hand the need for support may increase if the opportunity for paid employment is diminished.

We believe that this dilemma is readily resolved if one focuses on effective engagement with learning rather than simply participation. The aim of RPA is not simply that young people turn up but that they actively engage with learning and succeed. An allowance such as the EMA supports achievement by helping meet the principal opportunity cost of serious engagement – the need to limit the number of hours of paid employment during term time. The bonuses associated with the EMA further encourage success by incentivising appropriate performance.

If Government believes that raising the participation age is essential to the economy, some incentivisation of young people is needed so that they view ongoing education and training as an attractive option and not a penalty/restriction on their lives. Economic activity (i.e. being paid), particularly in times of high unemployment, is often a key consideration for low income families/families where unemployment is inherent.

EMA needs to continue for 16 – 18 yr olds as the school leaving age rises.  It should be subject to an annual review and linked to inflation rate.  Consideration should also be given to an independent living supplement for those in statutory education who live independently.

However, it is important that we strike a balance between seeing EMA as a necessity to support disadvantaged learners and a bargaining or incentive tool. The success of this scheme in raising aspirations and skill sets is reliant upon the fact that young people buy into their education and use it to better their lives, thus improving the economy over time.
Given that all young people will be expected to participate, consideration should be given to extending EMA to all young people rather than it being assessed on parental income. Many students have expressed the view that, even though their parents are above the financial threshold for EMA, they still receive no financial support from them. This often means they support themselves through part time work, the commitment to such often overtakes the commitment to their studies, thus reducing success rates.

Whilst EMA for all could be viewed as too costly, value for money/contribution to the economy would be secured as participation rates increase and success rates improve.

Universal EMA would inevitably raise questions as to eligibility for LSF (which we recognise is not a bottomless pot). Continuing LSF which is allocated on a discretionary basis, however, would allow educational professionals to make decisions about its most effective use whilst still working within guidelines and parental income thresholds for LSF eligibility.
Increasing the age of participation could also increase/impact upon the need for childcare provision funding for which will need to be considered.

Q2. Are the arguments any stronger or different for incentivising or supporting 16-18 year olds compared to younger students?

The arguments are stronger particularly in the transition period/early years of change when some 16-18 year olds and their families would have anticipated and often prefer to be in work – even if low paid and without training. Many 16 – 18 college students already consider themselves as having progressed/matured beyond the school environment

The RPA substantially diminishes the salience of the age of 16 in relation to education policy and in the context of planning for a coherent 14-19 phase it is difficult to justify the application of different principles to those over 16. There are however differences of degree. If one accepts the rationale that we propose for support – to make it less necessary for young people to engage in a high level of paid employment – it holds across the 14-19 phase for it is clear that by the age of 14 many young people have substantial part time jobs. The pressure to work and the opportunity to do so do appear to increase with age however suggesting that financial interventions should also increase with age.

Q3. We have said we must remove financial barriers to participation and choice. What are the key barriers?

In some areas of the country the cost of transport constrains student choice, currently colleges are not permitted to use LSF to support travel costs for this age group.  Many students travel from rural locations. This creates problems as colleges are not allowed to support 16-18’s with travel as this is considered the responsibility of the LA (as stated in LSF guidelines.) When the age of participation increases to 18 many more students may need financial support to travel to college, if guidelines are not changed barriers to their learning will be created. We would be concerned if arrangements to support students with transport costs resulted in a loss of choice over the type of institution they wished to attend.
In an important minority of cases the cost of childcare is a critical factor. The Care to Learn scheme does however seem to have been successful in tackling the latter barrier.

For certain courses essential equipment costs are incurred. In most cases LSF will cover these costs, but learners who do not fall into the eligibility criteria may not be able to participate in the course of their choice.

Training via an apprenticeship means that young people are not eligible for EMA or LSF. Although some apprentices receive £90 a week to counteract this they are not able to apply for support with any of their additional or emergency costs through LSF.

As our earlier comments indicate we would also highlight the pressure on young people in our society to finance a lifestyle that revolves around the acquisition of a range of consumer goods. The concept of relative poverty accepts that to have less than a certain proportion of median income can effectively exclude people from society even though they have the means to subsist. In the same way young people can be excluded by an inability to participate in contemporary youth culture and many respond by taking part time work to an extent that impairs their studies.

Q4. What conditions should be met in return for financial support or incentives?

We feel that the conditions attached to EMAs provide schools and colleges with a vehicle for reinforcing appropriate behaviour and that there is evidence that it has helped raise standards. In this respect the EMA model is preferable to that of child benefit where only nominal participation in education is required. Consideration should be given to a condition limiting the weekly hours of engagement with part time work during term time.

Measures can include: regular attendance, satisfactory attendance, satisfactory behaviour, commitment to completing course beyond 18 if started late (recognising the difficulties of enforcing this.)

Q5 Where the purpose of financial support is to provide an incentive, should it be provided to the parents in respect of 16-18s or – given that the duty to participate is on the young person – should support be directed to the young person?

We believe that the incentive should be directed towards the young person. Not only is that consistent with the rationale we propose but the evaluation of EMA pilots confirmed that this option was the more effective.

If ECM focuses on the importance of the Child and their ownership of their lives then we must acknowledge this in how we “reward them” and credit them with the responsibility of managing their lives and finances.  This would also avoid the danger that incentives to participate will be non existent if parents sequester money for other purposes/to contribute to family budget as can be the case where family income is tight.

Q6 How should existing anomalies in the system be addressed (for example the inconsistency in the provision of free school meals to post 16s in school sixth forms but not those in other forms of post-16 provision?

 All 16-18s should “enjoy” the same benefits of continued participation in education/training, irrespective of whether in School or FE.

The value of free school meals could readily be included in the value of any future allowance, thus removing any potential distortion of student choice.

Child benefit and tax credits are already linked to participation and available to all parents whose children are in full time education up until the age of 20. Raising the age of participation should allow parents who may have otherwise stopped receiving their child benefit or tax credit when their child reached 16 (due to their dependant seeking employment) to claim it till at least 18. At IAG events and enrolment many parents are pleasantly surprised to find out that they can retain these benefits and that their child will receive additional support (EMA & LSF) so reinforcing the Government’s desire to increase participation.

Q8 Do we need to focus initiatives on the more vulnerable groups that will need the most support for RPA to be delivered? How can we identify them?

It is not necessarily the most vulnerable groups who will need support in order to deliver RPA. The very vulnerable youngsters with special educational needs are probably fully engaged already for example whereas some very self reliant young people may be in jobs without training and represent a far greater challenge. Our proposed rationale recognises some of the concerns and motivations of this latter group.

Identification should be via well co-ordinated assessment processes for young people in transition from school to FE and continuous support throughout their journey through college. Initiatives shouldn’t necessarily be focussed on vulnerable groups to the exclusion of the needs of the less vulnerable – but resources may need to be tipped in favour of the vulnerable. Independent assessment e.g. via Connexions Service is important and good transition services working with schools, educational psychologists etc. All support already targets widening participation groups – this should be maintained and built on.

Q9 What support arrangements would be best for meeting the needs of young people living independently? For example is Jobseekers Allowance still an appropriate way of addressing the support needs of 16 and 17 year olds in hardship?

The RPA removes the rationale for dealing with serious hardship through JSA but at the same time the EMA and LSF arrangements are clearly inadequate for this purpose. We see the need for exceptional arrangements to be in place but would warn against distorting the overall pattern of learner support to deal with what is a small minority of cases.
16 -18 year olds do not ordinarily receive jobseekers allowance (this has an hours of education restriction), they receive Income Support/Housing Benefit/EMA and are required for benefit purposes to be in full time education (unless they are a young parent)  This would seem to be the most appropriate support.  Problems arise for students in this age group who are actually living independently and supporting themselves through employment.  These students do not get EMA as the EMA system can only recognise an independent 16 – 18 year old on benefits.

Q10 What is the evidence that financial incentives would be an effective way to influence and enhance choices and behaviour, versus other initiatives for engaging a diverse mix of young people?

There is a range of very high quality evidence which shows that both national schemes such as EMAs and Care to Learn, and locally managed discretionary learner support funds are effective in promoting participation and achievement. The evidence on EMAs is usefully summarised in ‘Should we end the EMA’ recently published by CfBT which concludes that they should be retained. It is however true that financial incentives, on their own, are insufficient to motivate all young people. To reach 100% participation we are convinced that it is necessary to give schools and colleges maximum freedom to offer programmes that young people wish to undertake rather than simply those that link to government targets. The Activity Agreement pilots have important messages to this effect.

Q11 How can the value for money of present arrangements be improved?

Our experience, and research by LSDA and others, confirms that college administered discretionary learner support funds represent a very cost effective element of the total learner support package. They have the advantage that they can be tailored more readily to individual need than national schemes, and administered alongside a range of other forms of support such as counselling and academic guidance. We would wish to see the very modest element of funding that is administered by schools and colleges to be increased and for the very detailed oversight of such funding by government agencies to be reduced.

It is vital that the bureaucracy surrounding the administration of funds for learners is reduced as far as possible to ensure that the limited resources available gets into the hands of learners. It is essential that we reduce the administrative burden on colleges whilst, at the same time, acknowledging the need for accountability.

A clear measure of value for money would be the progress a learner makes whist studying at college. RPA has huge potential to improve young people’s circumstances once they leave education at 18. However, there is much to be done in supporting young people through their extended education, both financially and emotionally. If we do not have the means to do this the impact of RPA could be diminished due to some young people struggling to support themselves because they are not able to work full time or not able to sign for benefits.

A major concern is that this could become more problematical if every Local Authority devises its own support guidance and monitoring requirements.

To discuss this paper further, or gain further information on the 157 Group, in the first instance please contact Kat Fletcher, 157 Director of Policy and Development on kat.fletcher@157group.co.uk