Progression Post 16
Ofsted Survey 2010 / 2011
Key Findings
Joyce Deere HMI
PROGRESSION POST 16
BACKGROUND
1995 DDA (and subsequent Equalities Acts)
1996 Tomlinson Report
2006 LSC funding strategy
14-19 partnerships
2009: 30% of NEET young people with disabilities compared with 18% of their peers
2010 DCSF said it would not fund provision that did not lead to some kind of employment
DH: Valuing People initiatives; Getting a Life Project
PROGRESSION POST 16
BACKGROUND TO SURVEY
2003 select committee asked for review of SEND provision
2007 Ofsted acquired early years and learning and skills
2009/10 Ofsted survey of provision from early years to leaving school
2010/11 Ofsted survey to look at post compulsory provision
SCOPE
To evaluate the effectiveness of the transition arrangements from school to post 16 provision up to age 25
To look at the extent to which the arrangements enabled young people to articulate and achieve their main goals
PROGRESSION POST 16
EVIDENCE BASE
11 independent learning providers (E2E and / or apps)
5 ACL providers (1 WBL, 16-18 as well as trad ACL)
2 specialist agricultural colleges
2 independent specialist colleges (1 day, 1 res.)
12 general FE or tertiary colleges
111 Case Studies:
41 on mainstream programmes with ASL
49 on foundation learning programmes
21 apprentices
PROGRESSION POST 16
MAIN FINDINGS:
4 sections
1.Effectiveness of government arrangements
2.Quality of provision for learners in receipt of Additional Learning Support on Mainstream programmes at level 2 and above, including apprenticeships
3.Quality of provision for those on foundation learning programmes, mainly discrete/segregated provision
4.Other issues, including barriers to progression
PROGRESSION POST 16
GOVERNMENT ARRANGEMENTS:
Since 2008 Government had required LAs to:
carry out multi-agency learning difficulty assessments (LDAs) for those with statements S139s replacing 140s and ‘moving on’
develop a planned approach to post school education and training up to the age of 25
avoid the need for further assessments at each stage of progression post school
PROGRESSION POST 16
MAIN FINDINGS
Government arrangements not working effectively:
Significant inequities in post schools placements
Significantly lower levels of funding for WBL and ACL
LDAs poorly completed and not always available
WBL rarely mentioned or discussed in LDA
Very little local provision for those with the highest level of support needs/adjustments
Significant local variations in specialist support available
Very little planned provision available post 20 years
PROGRESSION POST 16
MAIN FINDINGS
Reasons for failures:
Post 16 providers not told of new arrangements
Significant reductions in numbers of specialist personal advisers (previously Connexions)
Lack of expertise of personal advisers and insufficient information from schools
No continuity of advice post school: no mentor or key worker to look at transition points.
No centrally held information about destinations/outcomes
PROGRESSION POST 16
MAIN FINDINGS:
Quality of Additional Learning Support good
Transition from school works well for the great majority
Learners achieve as well as their peers (exc. Apprenticeships)
Learners develop strategies to become more independent, as providers see their role as enabling & reducing dependence
Increasing use of technologies such as digital recorders and apps for lap-tops rather than 1-1 support
Post-16 provision offers effective ‘second chance’ opportunities
Variations in availability and quality of specialist support
PROGRESSION POST 16
MAIN FINDINGS
Foundation Learning: not effective
Learners gain in confidence and enjoy their programmes
BUT FL on it own does not enable staff to prepare learners adequately for employment or other outcomes such as greater independence or community engagement
Too much emphasis on low level, competence-based units and qualifications (cf Wolf Review). Increase in costs of accreditation.
QCF not developmental.
PROGRESSION POST 16
MAIN FINDINGS
Foundation Learning:
Insufficient realistic, practical activities available
Funding, complex and only sufficient for 3 days a week.
Teachers have to be ‘creative’ to provide suitable programmes
Most effective provision reliant on external sources of funding: Rose Project, Project Search and third sector funding. Some very effective external partnerships
Questionable use of accreditation at entry and pre-entry level
PROGRESSION POST 16
OTHER ISSUES
Good examples of partnership working to provide additionality:
ISCs and other providers to assist with specialisms
ISCs and social services to assist with travel training
LAs providing opportunities for independent living
Parents/carers need further guidance about the transition arrangements for transition from children’s to adult services, particularly around personalised budgets, benefits and different criteria for funding
PROGRESSION POST 16
OTHER ISSUES
Availability of transport
Very little and varied funding post 19. Even less post 25. What happens when leaving ISC? Mixed picture.
Benefits and funding: ‘active benefits’ still an issue at time of survey. Cuts in other parts of social services impact on adult provision. At least 30% reductions in available budget.
No-one looking at overall outcomes or effectiveness of different funding streams.
PROGRESSION POST 16
FINALLY
KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE SECTOR
What constitutes ‘outcomes’ and how should they be measured?
What is the purpose of qualifications below level1? Are they required? Meaningful? Who benefits?
