What do you feel has caused the rise in numbers of students going into post 16 education?
You have got three issues. The main one actually is a demographic one. That’s been predicted for a while and we are just starting to see that. This year is probably the first year we are starting to see the increases. Two years ago it was around 1.1 million 16-19 year olds. We think by 2028/29 you are talking about 1.4 million.
So, it’s a substantial demographic increase. But we are also seeing other kind of stresses on the numbers. One of them is the decrease in 16 and 17 year olds going on to apprenticeships and then you probably have got a slight impact from grade inflation (we don’t like the term grade inflation) but centre-assessed and teacher-assessed grades over the last two years have meant more young people have thought ‘I can now access my college course or my sixth form course and stay on because of that.’
Surely, it’s a positive that more students are choosing to stay on into post-16 education?
Absolutely! We fully support that, it’s the right option for most people. If they are work ready then going on to an apprenticeship or training position is absolutely fine, of course. However the increases in student post-16 becomes a problem if the quantum of funding is not there to support the increased numbers.
Currently, the funding system is ‘per student’, but the promises being made are about more money going into the 16-19 system. The words ‘per student’ aren’t there. In other words, the size of the cake may increase, but with more people the end result could be smaller pieces all round.
There are also some streams of funding e.g. hypothecated pots (the government will give you this if you do something in return for it) that are not built into the funding system and so may not even reappear in this spending review. Areas like the maths premium, increased cost weighting for high value courses, and extra money for STEM subjects
So, per head funding and further funding for STEM subjects need to be set in stone; what else about funding needs to change for post-16 education?
The figure usually used for 16-19 funding is £4,000 per student, which is actually the 2013 figure. It was raised last year to £4,188, so the very minimum is for that £4,188, along with the additional hypothecated pots, and cost of living rises, to become permanent parts of the system. In our views, £4,760 per student is the minimum amount necessary to offer a world class 16-19 experience.
The 16-19 formula is a very clever piece of methodology which works, there just isn’t enough core funding.
My other point concerns the impact of demographic increases on infrastructure. Some institutions are using facilities that aren’t fit for purpose. Increased numbers mean that you start needing to utilise them or rooms that are meant for a different purpose. Take science labs, for example. If you’ve got 20 workstations, having 24 students is a major problem because you have students who haven’t got access to sinks or gas burners or other equipment, diminishing the learning experience.
Capital needs to increase; increasing student numbers cannot continually be kept being squeezed into the same space.
Why is it that we haven’t seen similar rises in numbers going into apprenticeships?
On the one hand there are issues regarding careers advice and guidance, we are naïve if we don’t accept that. Different parts of the education sector blame each other e.g. further education colleges saying schools aren’t letting them in to discuss non-academic options, despite the Baker Clause and other government initiatives which are “big stick” attempts to try and broaden careers information in schools.
Unfortunately schools cannot give the level of advice needed because there aren’t enough careers specialists available. The funding for this was cut in 2012/13 and has not been replaced. There have been various initiatives but no coherent national funding to help schools explain the opportunities that apprenticeships offer.
On the other hand, the employer levy has failed dramatically in terms of the numbers of opportunities available to young people. The levy has resulted in lots of firms trying to reclaim payments by forgetting about 16-17 year olds and focusing on older workers and often at higher levels of training e.g. those doing “apprenticeship MBAs” where firms can reclaim larger sums - that is a real problem.
Going forward, what will be the impact on post-16 education if these funding issues aren’t addressed?
If you need to take on more students and funding doesn’t increase, two things happen.
Firstly, you can take them and then the class sizes get bigger, or you only run the classes that allow a lot of students, thereby cutting the smaller subjects e.g. foreign languages. You are then directly or indirectly pushing young people to take the subjects that you’ve got available, which might not always be in the young person’s interest. That is the first consequence of not increasing the funding.
Unfortunately schools cannot give the level of advice needed because there aren’t enough careers specialists available
Alternatively, some institutions will say “we’re not going to take you”. Without apprenticeships, there is nowhere for those young people to go, and we’ll have an increase in NEETs (Not in Education, Employment, or Training). Because of cuts to local authority funding, the wrap-around support services to pick up and work with those NEETs - social care, mental health support, housing and welfare - are often no longer there.
When do you expect the pressure extra numbers of students brings to lift?
Looking at numbers coming through the school system - the numbers appearing in years 7 to 11 - we think it’s a good 5 to 6 years away.
There is no magic solution for sorting this out without extra money. Otherwise we are going to have to just accept very large class sizes in the 16-19 sector, studying a reduced choice of subjects in school sixth forms and colleges.
The only real alternative to this is for the head or college principal to reduce the number of taught hours per student. At the moment on average 16-19 year olds might get 14-15 hours a week (the independent sector is often closer to around 20 hours of contact time). Schools and colleges can cut that to 12 or 13 hours by reducing the time per subject e.g. from 5 hours per subject to 4 hours. But we must remember that we are competing with other high performing jurisdictions with 20-25 hours per week such as Canada, Singapore, Shanghai, Finland etc.
The simple hard reality is that the 16-19 sector needs significantly more funding or these pressures will only get worse.