1

Outcome Based Success Measures – The Next StageResponse formThe department may, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, make available, on public request, individual responses.

The closing date for this consultation is 2 December 2015.

Please return completed forms to:

Email: F ESuc c es s m e asu r es @ b i s. g s i . g o v .uk

Felicity MooreVocational Education DirectorateDepartment for Business, Innovation and Skills 1 Victoria StreetLondon SW1H 0ET

Tel: 020 7215 6313Fax: 020 7215 5155

When responding please state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation.

I am responding as an individual

I am responding on behalf of an organisation x

What is your name? Philip Connolly

What is your email address? Philip.connolly@disabilityrightsuk.org

What is the name of your organisat Disability Rights UK

What is your job title? Policy and Development Manager

Please tick a box from a list of options in the table below that best describes you as a respondent. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please make it clear who the organisation represents by selecting the appropriate interest group in the table below and, where applicable, how the views of members were assembled.

Business representative organisation/trade body

Business

LEP

FE sector representative organisation/trade body

FE College

FE private training provider

Other education (please describe)

Local Government

Trade union or staff association

X Charity or social enterprise

Student representative body

Individual

Other (please describe)

Full name: Philip Connolly

Job title: Policy and Development Manager

Organisation: Disability Rights UK

Contact address: Disability Rights UKCan Mezzanine49-51 East RoadLondon N1 6AH

Telephone number: 020 7250 8192

Email:Philip.connolly@disabilityrightsuk.org

About Disability Rights UKDisability Rights UK works for a society where everyone with lived experience of disability or health conditions can participate equally as full citizens. We are disabled people leading change. Disability Rights UK supports over 500,000 people annually through a range of services and information.

Disability Rights UK supports disabled people of all ages to achieve their potential in work, independent living and to participate in their communities. We support disabled young people and their families in their progression from school to further education, training, Apprenticeships, Higher Education, volunteering and into employment through adult life. We also support adults who experience disability for the first time while of working age. We are therefore experienced and qualified to comment on the likely impact on disabled people of the proposals for outcome based success measures for adult further education. This response is from the perspective of users of adult FE and not from a provider.

Disability Rights UK works in partnership with disabled people through our members and local disabled people’s organisations. Our evidence comes from our Helpline callers and members in disabled people’s organisations, FE, training providers, local authorities (LAs) and careers guidance practitioners.

Disability Rights UK welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposals in this consultation with a focus on the impact on disabled people.

Who do we mean by disabled learners? In this response we use the term disabled learners to mean those who meet the definition in the Equality Act (2010) and who disclose a learning difficulty and/or disability (LDD) on their application and enrolment form, or whose impairment and support needs are subsequently identified by college staff. These are recorded by FE providers on the Individual Learner Record (ILR). Most people who disclose their disability comply with the definition in the Equality Act (2010). Providers encourage disclosure of disability in order to assess and provide any support needs and reasonable adjustments.

16.0% of learners age 19+1 disclose a disability and are recorded on the ILR. It is likely there are others who prefer not to disclose their disability. This is a sizeable minority of learners, whose training needs should be met and safeguarded by accountability, quality and monitoring systems.

Why adult learning is critical for disabled adultsMost disabled people want to work and recognise the need to have appropriate work-related skills and accreditation to compete in the labour market. There are far more adults with a disability than young people2. Age is a factor. 6 percent (0.8 million) of children, 15 percent (5.4 million) of adults of working age …. are covered by the Equality Act (FRS 2010/11).Many people whose impairment first occurs or deteriorates during working age may need to change their occupation or employer, or retrain to return to work. Some impairments are fluctuating – they have a greater and unpredictable impact some days than others – some cause extreme fatigue. Medication can also adversely affect a learner’s ability to attend as regularly as other learners. Disability can mean progression in a prescribed timescale is more

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/learner-participation-outcomes-and-level-of-highest-qualification-heldStatistical first release 18 Nov 2015 for year 2014-15.2 Fulfilling Potential Building a deeper understanding of disability in the UK today ODI 2013

challenging than for other learners. Levels of employment of disabled people are significantly lower than for others3. ‘The employment rate gap between disabled and non-disabled people is 30 percentage points. This employment rate gap represents just over 2 million people and is particularly high for those with learning disabilities or with mental health conditions.’

Providers support learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities (LLDD) in a wide variety of ways. The key to removing barriers to achievement and progression are flexibilities in teaching, learning, assessment and support.

In addition the learning aims for some adults will include increasing self-confidence, and skills for independent living, not just employment or higher level study.Without adult learning opportunities disabled people would not be able to develop the skills they need for independent living, participation in their community, or a return to employment.

It is critical that the proposals in this consultation do not result in negative changes to provision, to programme availability and exclusion of disabled learners.

Key response issues This response is from users of adult FE and not providers

Measures used for funding drive provider behaviour

Contrary to your premise, your data shows that people with disabilities do have lower scores than other adult learners, which is a disincentive for providers to take learners with disabilities

We do not consider the ‘type of learning’ undertaken by disabled people to be separate or different from learning others have. Disabled people should have access to all types of learning and be included in the full curriculum offer as listed in the Minimum Standards Framework

It is essential that ILR data collection and reporting methods allow monitoring to continue and that Ofsted inspections, Minimum Standards, national summary data and Provider scorecards all allow this level of scrutiny

We strongly endorse the proposal for a core set of measures for local outcome agreements and expect to see data for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities within that core set, for example in the format of the provider scorecard in Annex 3. This would ensure there is data collected and a requirement to analyse it to check levels of participation at all levels 1,2, 3 and 4, as well as monitor positive outcomes levels for this group of learners

If a widget with standardised format goes ahead then it must be accessible for all users, including those with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. This means the format of the widget must enable people using access technology to use the widget

Comments on draft Equality Impact Assessment.

Question 1: Do you agree with the proposed new progression

3 Ibid

measure? (see paragraph 35)Yes X No

Comments:

We welcome the recognition that the new progression measure needs to capture progression to learning over a longer period of time, and that it is not constrained by the academic year.

We continue to have concerns that there is no recognition that some learners will progress to learning at the same level, which will enable them to return to employment and is a positive outcome for both the individual and the provider.

Example: Ian was a bus driver. His MS now means he is not able to drive. He has good customer service skills and wants to increase his computer skills in order to find work locally or on a self-employed basis. He attends a Level 2 business admin course and moves onto a Level 2 computer course.

We remain concerned that providers which recruit adult learners with recently acquired LDD may find a lower proportion of learners progress to learning at a higher level, even with the proposed increased flexibility on timescales. Some providers are risk-averse and may associate disabled learners with more uncertain outcome rates for both employment and learning that could lower their score against Minimum Standards. They may reduce opportunities for disabled people to mitigate that risk. Your data in Annexes A, B and C reinforce the evidence that people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities do currently have a lower positive outcome rate than others. (See pages 17 to 22 of Data report 2015 and our response to Question 5 of this consultation.)

Recommendations:1 Government policies aim to support disabled people into employment and to fulfil their potential. So to ensure there are no unintended consequence of the new Minimum Standards (and progression measure used) in the participation and progression rates of disabled people there should be ongoing analysis of the proportion of adult learners declaring a learning difficulty and/or disability (LDD) and of their outcomes as defined for outcome measures.

2 There is no data collated to know how many potential learners are actually turned away at enquiry or enrolment, and how many of them have LDD. So as part of the impact assessment DR UK would like an ongoing commitment to monitor enrolment data of people with a learning difficulty and/or disability (through ILR) – so this represents no new burden on providers or of data reporting.If the numbers of people declaring LDD decline, then there will need to be further analysis to establish whether in fact the new success measures and Minimum Standards do have the unintended consequence of reducing inclusion of disabled people. The cost to the

public purse of disabled people not able to compete in the labour market, or to live independently has been quantified by the NAO (2011)4 and is substantial.

Please see response to question 5.

Question 2: Do you agree with the principles and features underpinning the extended Minimum Standards framework? (see paragraphs 54-59)

Yes X No

Comments:

Paragraph 50 makes clear the expectation that the Minimum Standards Framework will have an impact on provider behaviour. It is important then to ensure there are no unintended consequences for identifiable groups of learners. Our comments relate to those with a learning difficulty and/or disability.

We agree in principle with the proposals for the extended Minimum Standards Framework, but there remain specific issues which we consider may have unintended consequences for disabled adults in FE.

Risk averse providers and perceptions of lower positive outcome scoresThe most important of those is explained in our answer to Question 5 (below). Contrary to the consultation document assertion that the positive outcome rates for LLDD are comparable to those of other learners, the data report shows learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities consistently score lower. We remain concerned that some providers will be risk averse and will associate the lower scores shown for LLDD as a risk to their own overall Minimum Standards score.

Community LearningThe consultation document refers to the possibility that Community Learning outcome measures may be broader based measures that reflect a wider range of outcomes. Many disabled people participate in Community Learning with the aim of rebuilding confidence with a view to progression to adult FE and work skills development. Others may participate in Community Learning to increase their independent living skills. We would like to work with BIS in the development of such measures.We also seek an assurance if Community Learning has different measures and Minimum Standards that disabled learners who may not achieve the positive outcomes in the timescales required for Adult FE are not simply offered a Community Learning Programme 4 http://www.nao.org.uk/report/oversight-of-special-education-for-young-people-aged-16-25/

instead, rather than a more stretching employment related adult FE course.

Maths and English GCSEWe and a number of other organisations with similar views emphasised in our 2014 responses the importance of other English and Maths qualifications, other than GCSEs. In particular functional skills for adults whose first language is not English, who have disabilities, and the very many adults who did not achieve GCSE level English or Maths at school years previously but who have years of relevant work experience. There is a risk that if GCSE English or Maths become a requirement for certain courses for Minimum Standards purposes then learners will be deterred from applying. In addition providers would require GCSEs at entry which would result in reduced participation by disadvantaged people including those with disabilities.

It is important to recognise that GCSEs as a qualification have less impact on employability and positive progression for adults with work experience than for young people straight from school, and so are less relevant within the adult learning Minimum Standards Framework.

Contextual informationParagraph 47 proposes that there is less relationship between local contextual information than expected eg unemployment levels, length of unemployment and pay and that there may not be benefit in giving local contextual information alongside the positive outcome data.However, paragraphs 42 to 44 of the 2015 data report contradict this information. ‘42. The characteristics and background of the learners will also have an impact on the outcome rates for each provider. For example, providers with a high proportion of benefit learners are likely to have lower sustained positive destination rates, in line with the national average, as would providers with high proportions of other disadvantaged groups.’

Disabled people are more likely to be in low-income households5 and are more highly represented in offender learners6. We know disabled people have lower employment rates nationally7. We urge the Department to ensure that what is a positive progression for these groups is recognised in the Minimum Standards and that relevant contextual data is taken into account. Eg local labour market conditions, local employment levels, additional time taken to achieve qualifications and to progress to work.

Accountability – The Minimum Standards framework is central to the three checks of financial health, Ofsted and Minimum Standards – the latter will also inform Ofsted inspection judgements. We welcome national accountability to reduce differences

5 Fulfilling Potential Building a deeper understanding of disability in the UK today ODI 20136 Talbot, J. (2008) Prisoners’ Voices: Experiences of the criminal justice system by prisoners with learning disabilities and difficulties, London: Prison Reform Trust, and Talbot, J, (2007) No One Knows: Identifying and supporting prisoners with learning difficulties and learning disabilities.7 Fulfilling Potential Building a deeper understanding of disability in the UK today ODI 2013

learners experience from one provider to another across the country and to raise standards. This is particularly important in the context of the localism agenda, where we expect LEPs, Local Authorities (LAs) and providers to become commissioners of adult skills learning. We are concerned that many of the good practices in supporting learners with disabilities may in future become a postcode lottery, depending on the priorities of local commissioners. Strong national accountability through the Minimum Standards that recognises local needs but requires benchmarking against minimum standards will strengthen local provision.

It is essential that the national accountability measures can track inclusion and positive outcomes of disabled people in adult skills FE. See response to Q1.

Question 3: Do you agree with the proposals for how the new Minimum Standards framework would be used? (see paragraphs 61-70)

Yes x No

Comments:

We welcome the proposal for assessment of Minimum Standards over several years to remove short term ‘blips’ in data before intervention.

We are concerned that risk averse providers will tend to avoid taking students who may achieve lower rates to avoid scrutiny and sanctions under the Minimum Standards Framework as outlined here (see Question 1).

We would like a reassurance that sufficient analysis of the reasons for lower scores would take place in relation to:

the percentage of learners with LDD meeting an expected threshold of LLDD and recognising good practice in learner support even where employment or learning

outcomes are lower than for other students.Equally where performance is poor on outcomes we expect scrutiny of the support available for LLDD and the Minimum Standards Framework to be a positive tool to support providers to deliver better support for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.

Question 4: Is the proposal for treating learning for the unemployed as a separate type of learning for the purposes of Minimum Standards a fair way of accounting for those learners?

(see paragraphs 71-72)Yes X No

Comments:We welcome the recognition that destination measures in the Minimum Standards must not penalise providers that offer opportunities to the unemployed or people with LDD. And we welcome the recognition that some providers may be discouraged from accepting those learners.

We also welcome the commitment to encourage positive outcomes for these groups.

Data over the 3 years shows a considerable change in the balance of adult learners, with significantly higher numbers of benefits learners in 2012-13 compared with 2010-11 and 2011-12. Data also shows the positive outcomes (as defined) for benefits learners are likely to be lower. The proposed breakdown to identify benefit learners provision as a separate type of learning in the Minimum Standards at Annex 1 prevents these learners having a negative impact on the provider’s score overall and gives recognition to the positives achieved to support these learners.

To ensure that all providers continue to offer opportunities in adult FE to benefits learners with LDD we also strongly support the Provider Score Card information at Annex 3 which identifies from the ILR learners with LDD for both qualification and outcome based success measures. The value of this is evident in the national summary analysis available in the Data report (2015) pages 17 to 22 Annexes A, B and C.

The inclusion of LLDD data is essential for providers to carry out equality monitoring and for the Equality Impact Assessment and its future monitoring.Please also see response to Question 10.

It is also essential for providers and commissioners to plan ahead to ensure there is appropriate provision and support for all adult learner including those with a disability.

Recommendations:1 To identify benefits learners as a separate type of learning in the Minimum Standards in order to encourage providers to maintain the level of provision open to them and to recognise the positive outcomes achieved beyond defined positive outcomes and qualifications eg re-engagement with learning and skills development; skills development for disabled people with newly acquired disabilities.

2 To continue to breakdown on the Provider Scorecard LLDD on both qualification and outcome based success measures as described in Appendix 3 as the basis for equality monitoring and impact assessment.

3 To provide national summary data that includes for each measure learners with learning

difficulties and/or disabilities.

Question 5: What is your view on whether we need to make any special allowance for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities in the destination measures Minimum Standards framework? (see paragraphs 73-74)Comments:

We welcome the recognition that destination measures in the Minimum Standards must not penalise providers that offer opportunities to people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities or to the unemployed. And we welcome the recognition that some providers may be discouraged from accepting those learners.

We also welcome the commitment to encourage positive outcomes for these groups.

‘Type of learning’We do not consider the ‘type of learning’ undertaken by disabled people to be separate or different from learning others have. Disabled people should have access to all types of learning and be included in the full curriculum offer as listed in the Minimum Standards Framework. Providers need to identify learners’ individual needs and tailor support and flexibilities in the curriculum and in implementing policies to make the necessary reasonable adjustments so that disabled people can reach their potential in learning and work.So we welcome the proposal not to have a separate ‘type of learning’ for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.

Data and monitoringHowever, the Equality Act requires all providers and government departments to monitor effective equality measures for people with protected characteristics, including levels of participation and outcomes. Learners choosing provision need this information and commissioners purchasing it need the data to ensure value for money.

Recommendations:It is essential that ILR data collection and reporting methods allow monitoring to continue and that Ofsted inspections, Minimum Standards, national summary data and Provider scorecards all allow this level of scrutiny.

National threshold for participation of learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilitiesWhen the data is refined over the next few years there should be analysis of participation by disabled people nationally and by provider, and national thresholds should be established against which providers could be measured, by Ofsted, SFA, for funding and equality monitoring.

Sanctions for providers with a lower participation rate of learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilitiesIf the data shows an adverse impact on the participation of disabled people there should be intervention to penalise those providers who fail to make the necessary provision for disabled people. For example if funding ultimately follows the success measures, then financial penalties could be imposed on providers who fail to meet an agreed threshold for the participation of disabled people. This would allow reward of those providers that exceeded the threshold. Sustained Destinations scores for LLDDParagraph 77 claims that the destinations scores for learners with LDD differ less from providers’ overall scores and as a result do not need to be shown separately in the Minimum Standards framework.This is not evidenced in the national summary data provided on pages 17 to 22 of the Data report (2015) for the Sustained destination rate – the measure to be included in the Minimum Standards.

i.e. for the most recent year available, 2012-2013, the sustained positive destination rate for those with LDD was 57% compared with 70% for those with no LDD. For 2011-2012 it was 60% for LLDD compared with 71% for those with no LDD.And in 2010-2011 it was 65% for LLDD compared with 75% for those with no LDD.

The sustained employment scores show an even greater gap between those of disabled people and those of others – in line with national employment data8.

The most recent figures show an increase to 13% difference between sustained destination rates for learners with LDD compared with those without (from 11% the previous year and 10% the first year).The data also shows a year on year drop over the 3 years in sustained positive destinations for those with LLDD from 65% to 57%.

These trends indicate that adult FE opportunities for disabled people are not delivering the outcomes we would want to ensure inclusion and progression in learning and work. More analysis is required at provider and national level to identify the reasons for the increasing gap between positive outcomes for disabled learners and others.

We remain concerned that the positive outcome measures in the Minimum Standards will further discourage some providers to accept learners with disabilities. The data shows that contrary to the consultation premise, sustained positive destination scores for learners with LDD are significantly lower than those for other learners without LDD. Although we do not support the idea of there being a discrete ‘type of learning’ for disabled learners, we do consider there is a strong case for monitoring equality of

8 Fulfilling Potential Building a deeper understanding of disability in the UK today ODI 2013

provision and outcomes for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities and challenging providers to share good practice to reduce the gap.We would like to meet with AoC, SFA and Natspec to agree steps to prevent negative impact on disabled learners and how to tackle the increasing gap in positive outcomes for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. Achievement rates for LLDDWe welcome the intention to ensure people with LDD are treated in an inclusive way. We agree that if a person with LDD has appropriate assessment of needs, support, aids and adjustments to the assessment process, we would expect similar achievement levels.However, we know from our members and enquiries to our student Helpline that not all providers do undertake that comprehensive assessment process, and do not always provide the necessary and appropriate support and assessment flexibilities.We know for example that a significant number of providers apply the same policies on attendance levels to those whose impairments make regular college attendance problematic as to other students – which all too frequently results in learners leaving the course before they count on the data.

Example:A provider has a policy that requires learners to attend on average 95%. But they expect a learner with mental health issues to attend to the same 95% level. The student is told that if her attendance level does not improve in the remaining 3 weeks of term, she will not be allowed to progress to the 2nd term. The poor attendance is triggered not only by her condition but largely by the medication prescribed to the learner, with particular impact on sessions taking place early in the day. Her attendance for later sessions is over 95%. She explains this to the tutor of those morning sessions, but her course manager does not take this into account in deciding at the end of term to discontinue the student.

We have had similar situations where learners are still waiting for the necessary support to be put in place, so have not attended some sessions as a result. This has lowered their attendance level to below the policy 95% level. The students were asked to leave the course.

This practice is usually discriminatory because a policy has been applied in a blanket way. But that makes no difference to the outcome for most learners – once they have been asked to leave the course, they do not appear on the provider data.

Without data to show applications/acceptance and drop-out rates for those with disabilities compared with others the achievement rates only show outcomes for those who remain on their course to completion. Whereas the fuller picture is required to judge the quality of provision for disabled people.

Other areas of concern that impact on positive outcomes for disabled students are lack of timely applications for reasonable adjustments to exams and assessments by providers,

and exam bodies that do not allow the necessary support and flexibilities for disabled candidates.

The October EASS report shows that nearly 10% of enquiries were by disabled people and of those a significant number related to education.9

There is still work to do to share the good practice of some providers with others.

Recommendations:1 We agree that learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities should not be considered as on other ‘types of learning’ than others, because disabled people should be included in all learning opportunities.

2 It is essential that ILR data collection and reporting methods allow the required monitoring of inclusion for disabled people under the Equality Act and that Ofsted inspections, Minimum Standards, national summary data and Provider scorecards all allow this level of scrutiny and challenge.

3 When the data is refined over the next few years there should be analysis of participation by disabled people and national thresholds should be established against which providers could be measured, by Ofsted, SFA, for funding and equality monitoring.

4 If the data shows an adverse impact on the participation of disabled people there should be intervention to penalise those providers who fail to make the necessary provision for disabled people. For example if funding ultimately follows the success measures, then financial penalties could be imposed on providers who fail to meet the threshold for the participation of disabled people. This would allow reward of those providers that exceeded the threshold. 5 The sustained destinations scores for leaners with LDD are consistently lower than those of other learners, with the gap widening over the last 3 years. Providers are likely to consider learners with LDD a risk to the provider overall score on the Minimum Standards Framework. Some will avoid taking these learners and/or will apply policies that mean some with LDD will leave the course before data collection. This is unacceptable – though understandable from the provider’s perspective. It was the basis of our response in 2014. Your data reinforces the evidence that such provider behaviour could occur. We would like to meet with AoC, SFA and Natspec to agree steps to prevent negative impact on disabled learners and how to tackle the increasing gap in positive outcomes for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.

6 There is still work to do to share the good practice of some provider with others – assessment of needs, making the necessary adjustments, use of aids, ensuring flexibilities for assessments are put in place in time, and that adjustments are made to policies where

9 EASS Newsletter October 2015 (EASS data) http://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com/

necessary.

Question 6: Do you agree that the outcome measures should form a core set of measures for local outcome agreements? (see paragraphs 76-78)

Yes X No

Comments:

We agree that outcome measures should inform a core set of measures for local outcome agreements. However we also expect to see other information of relevance for LEPs, commissioners, local authorities, employers and providers themselves.

Our stakeholder group meeting in March 2015 raised issues about possible lack of accountability for LEPs in the localism agenda to ensure that there is adequate provision within daily travelling distance for all learners including those with support needs.

We strongly endorse the proposal for a core set of measures for local outcome agreements and expect to see data for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities within that core set, for example in the format of the provider scorecard in Annex 3. This would ensure there is data collected and a requirement to analyse it to check levels of participation at all levels 1,2, 3 and 4, as well as monitor positive outcomes levels for this group of learners.

There is a need to ensure that opportunities for skills development in adult FE are not a postcode lottery – that adults age 19+ have equal access to quality provision wherever they live.

Question 7: In order to inform local outcome agreements, what other information is needed alongside the outcomes measures data? (see paragraphs 76-78)Comments:

1 We would expect to see local panels of residents with learning difficulties and/or disabilities working with their local authorities, LEPs, providers, employers and DWP Districts to monitor provision for adults (19+) with LDD. This would go some way to

making sure their local equality impact assessments include disabled people and organisations working with them.

2 We would expect there to be local equality impact assessments of local outcome agreements. Eg this should show where there is no appropriate provision within the local area.

3 There should be tracking, with local data on numbers of young people leaving school with known LDD – whether with EHCPs or not – and numbers progressing to adult FE (either post EHCP or post-19 without) – and their destinations and sustained destinations. This would inform understanding of progression after school, and provide data to allow partners to the local outcome agreement to plan ahead, to be able to meet the needs of the local population including those with LDD.

4 There should be analysis of the numbers/% NEET with LDD compared with those without, to inform policy makers of the support required to reduce NEET figures for people with disabilities and ensure appropriate training and skills development is available. This would also assist in the inspection of local authority support for these learners.

5 There is currently no local data on the numbers of adults with LDD applying to FE but not offered a place. This means Minimum Standards and local outcome agreements can only monitor outcomes for those in the adult FE system, not all those with disabilities in the area wanting adult learning opportunities. We have no way of knowing how many are excluded from the adult FE sector.

6 Local data of discontinuing students is essential to know whether those with disabilities are disproportionately leaving course before the end of their programme. This requires recording of the numbers with LDD discontinuing before completion of their course compared with the numbers of those discontinuing without LDD.

7 We would like to see a lead senior manager in each local area to champion people with LDD to ensure their access to adult FE, progression and sustained positive destinations are improving.

Question 8: Do you support the idea of a widget sitting on providers’ own websites with a consistent set and presentation of data? (see paragraphs 86-90)

Yes No

Comments:

We remain concerned that without explanation and contextual information users will struggle to interpret the data reliably.There are sources of information for potential applicants to adult FE, including provider websites, professional bodies and the National Careers Service. The key skill people need is how to analyse the information and data in relation to their personal strengths, preferences and employment ideas. Qualified and impartial careers guidance is essential to underpin sources of information and data.

It is particularly important for disabled people to have trained careers advisers knowledgeable about what disabled people can do, the support available and to assist people to make informed choices. The working group to develop a widget should include the National Careers Service as well as schools, FE and HE careers advisers.Recommendation: Include the National Careers Service or Career Development Institute on the working group.

If a widget with standardised format goes ahead then it must be accessible for all users, including those with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. This means the format of the widget must enable people using access technology to use the widget. Recommendation:The working group should include Jisc or other experts on access technology for disabled people.

We would like to see information relating to outcomes linked to local authority Local Offer websites so that young people still at school and their parents can understand the range of options available in adult FE as well as the 16-19 sector.

Question 9: Do you support the idea of an FE performance table focused on apprenticeships and higher levels of learning? (see paragraphs 91-92)

Yes No x

Comments:Performance tables can distort information and be too general for individuals. For example many FE providers typically have thousands of students, and tables at provider level may not equally reflect the outcomes of different departments within the same college.

DfE practices are not comparable in this respect because the range of qualifications offered is smaller and the age range limited to 16-19s. University tables again allow users to interrogate data on specific departments or courses, accommodation, student support, Student Union, research etc.

Someone with a learning difficulty or disability is likely to be interested in finding out about the range of support available and outcomes for others with similar impairments.

Overall we do not support the idea of FE performance tables for apprenticeships or higher levels of learning.

Question 10: Do you agree that individual scorecards will provide a useful tool for both providers and the key local stakeholders with whom they are working? (see paragraphs 96-101)

Yes x No

Comments:

We welcome the Annex 3 example of a more detailed provider scorecard breakdown of data – in particular the breakdown that allows providers and stakeholders to see the levels of outcomes for people with LDD compared with other learners.

This should be an essential element of self-assessment, identification of system developments and staff continuous professional development needs.

It should also inform equality impact assessment and monitoring.

If you have other comments about the consultation that do not fall within one of the questions, please include them here.Comments

Draft Equality Impact AssessmentThe Draft Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) states (paragraph 32) that it will be refined in response to comments from the consultation, but the consultation does not ask a question on the EIA. It is likely that there will be few comments on the EIA without a specific question.

We expect that the proposals will have a negative impact on disabled learners as a result of providers seeking to avoid taking learners who may find it more difficult to obtain and

keep work within the required timescales, or to progress to a higher level of learning.

The Draft EIA asserts at paragraph 30 that ‘Their (LLDD) destination scores differ less from providers’ overall scores.’This is not evidenced in the national summary data provided on pages 17 to 22 of the Data report (2015) for the Sustained destination rate – the measure to be included in the Minimum Standards.

i.e. for the most recent year available, 2012-2013, the sustained positive destination rate for those with LDD was 57% compared with 70% for those with no LDD. For 2011-2012 it was 60% for LLDD compared with 71% for those with no LDD.And in 2010-2011 it was 65% for LLDD compared with 75% for those with no LDD.

The sustained employment scores show an even greater gap between those of disabled people and those of others – in line with national employment data10.

The most recent figures show an increase to 13% difference between sustained destination rates for learners with LDD compared with those without (from 11% the previous year and 10% the first year).The data also shows a year on year drop over the 3 years in sustained positive destinations for those with LLDD from 65% to 57%.

These trends indicate that adult FE opportunities for disabled people are not delivering the outcomes we would want to ensure inclusion and progression in learning and work. More analysis is required at provider and national level to identify the reasons for the increasing gap between positive outcomes for disabled learners and others.

We remain concerned that the positive outcome measures in the Minimum Standards will further discourage some providers to accept learners with disabilities. The data shows that contrary to the consultation premise, sustained positive destination scores for learners with LDD are significantly lower than those for other learners without LDD.

Paragraph 31 of the Draft EIA states: ‘Our inclination at this time is that no allowance needs to be made in respect of sustained learning or sustained employment for learners in a new Minimum Standards framework.’This should not be a question of inclination. The evidence is in the data report 2015. Sustained destination data is consistently worse for disabled learners than others and the gap widening over the last 3 years.

We have also made reference to the draft EIA in our responses to the 10 questions above. Key points are summarised here:10 Ibid

Q1 Some providers are risk-averse and may associate disabled learners with more uncertain outcome rates for both employment and learning that could lower their score against Minimum Standards. They may reduce opportunities for disabled people to mitigate that risk. Your data in Annexes A, B and C reinforce the evidence that people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities do currently have a lower positive outcome rate than others. (See pages 17 to 22 of Data report 2015 and our response to Question 5 of this consultation.)

Government policies aim to support disabled people into employment and to fulfil their potential. So to ensure there are no unintended consequence of the new Minimum Standards (and progression measure used) in the participation and progression rates of disabled people there should be ongoing analysis of the proportion of adult learners declaring a learning difficulty and/or disability (LDD) and of their outcomes as defined for outcome measures.There is no data collated to know how many potential learners are actually turned away at enquiry or enrolment, and how many of them have LDD. So as part of the impact assessment DR UK would like an ongoing commitment to monitor enrolment data of people with a learning difficulty and/or disability (through ILR) – so this represents no new burden on providers or of data reporting.If the numbers of people declaring LDD decline, then there will need to be further analysis to establish whether in fact the new success measures and Minimum Standards do have the unintended consequence of reducing inclusion of disabled people. The cost to the public purse of disabled people not able to compete in the labour market, or to live independently has been quantified by the NAO (2011)11 and is substantial.

Q5Data and monitoringHowever, the Equality Act requires all providers and government departments to monitor effective equality measures for people with protected characteristics, including levels of participation and outcomes. Learners choosing provision need this information and commissioners purchasing it need the data to ensure value for money. Recommendations:It is essential that ILR data collection and reporting methods allow monitoring to continue and that Ofsted inspections, Minimum Standards, national summary data and Provider scorecards all allow this level of scrutiny.

National threshold for participation of learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilitiesWhen the data is refined over the next few years there should be analysis of participation by disabled people nationally and by provider and national thresholds should be 11 http://www.nao.org.uk/report/oversight-of-special-education-for-young-people-aged-16-25/

established against which providers could be measured, by Ofsted, SFA, for funding and equality monitoring.

Sustained Destinations scores for LLDDParagraph 77 claims that the destinations scores for learners with LDD differ less from providers’ overall scores and as a result do not need to be shown separately in the Minimum Standards framework.This is not evidenced in the national summary data provided on pages 17 to 22 of the Data report (2015) for the Sustained destination rate – the measure to be included in the Minimum Standards.

These trends indicate that adult FE opportunities for disabled people are not delivering the outcomes we would want to ensure inclusion and progression in learning and work. More analysis is required at provider and national level to identify the reasons for the increasing gap between positive outcomes for disabled learners and others.

We remain concerned that the positive outcome measures in the Minimum Standards will further discourage some providers to accept learners with disabilities. The data shows that contrary to the consultation premise, sustained positive destination scores for learners with LDD are significantly lower than those for other learners without LDD. Although we do not support the idea of there being a discrete ‘type of learning’ for disabled learners, we do consider there is a strong case for monitoring equality of provision and outcomes for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities and challenging providers to share good practice to reduce the gap.We would like to meet with AoC, SFA and Natspec to agree steps to prevent negative impact on disabled learners and how to tackle the increasing gap in positive outcomes for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.

Q71 We would expect to see local panels of residents with learning difficulties and/or disabilities working with their local authorities, LEPs, providers, employers and DWP Districts to monitor provision for adults (19+) with LDD. This would go some way to making sure their local equality impact assessments include disabled people and organisations working with them.

2 We would expect there to be local equality impact assessments of local outcome agreements. eg this should show where there is no appropriate provision within the local area.

Q8If a widget with standardised format goes ahead then it must be accessible for all users, including those with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.Recommendation:

The working group should include Jisc or other experts on access for disabled people and the access technology they use.

Q10The Provider scorecard should inform the provider equality impact assessment and monitoring.

Thank you for taking the time to let us have your views. We do not intend to acknowledge receipt of individual responses unless you tick the box below.

Please acknowledge this reply X

At BIS we carry out our research on many different topics and consultations. As your views are valuable to us, would it be okay if we were to contact you again from time to time either for research or to send through consultation documents?

X Yes No