Agenda item

Holly Toft, Head of Play, Youth and Post-16, made a presentation to the Committee providing an introduction to the council’s work in supporting the Post-16 education, employment and training of young people. The presentation summarised the council’s legal obligations, services, recent performance and areas for improvement.

 The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The council was required to ensure that all young people participated in learning until at least the age of 18. This included through college, sixth form, an apprenticeship, or a job or volunteering opportunity with a structured training programme. Requirements extended to age 25 for those with special educational needs or disabilities. Employment services for those wishing to access apprenticeships were also available for the mainstream cohort aged 18 – 24 through the iWork service.

·         The council worked with schools to identify pupils at risk of dropping out post-16, or those who had already left. It was noted that these pupils often had vulnerabilities and barriers to engaging with education. Around 100 young people were classified as NEET; although this was a relatively small proportion of the total cohort, they required a significant amount of attention. Services were focused on the most vulnerable.

·         The council worked to provide the ‘September Guarantee’ which required every Year 11 pupil at Islington schools, and every Year 12 resident in the borough, with a named educational offer. Officers commented that this was a significant annual task.

·         Services were divided into those for young people aged 16-19 and those aged 19-24.  The Progress Team worked with the most vulnerable young people aged 16-19, including those in the youth justice system or alternative provision. Intensive work was carried out with those who dropped out, including contact by email, text message, and social media.

·         The Council provided a specialist vocational advisor. This post was introduced following feedback from schools that they were not as confident in offering advice on vocational pathways. Advisors provided independent support and guidance to enable young people to make their own decisions.

·         Officers commented that those who engaged with services earlier, particularly those seeking employment, tended to have better outcomes.

·         Although the service had detailed data for those aged 16 – 18, data was sparse for those aged over 18. It was possible to evaluate the number of people claiming Jobseekers Allowance, however this was not an accurate measure.

·         Islington’s NEET rate had significantly reduced in recent years, from an average of 8.3% in 2011/12, to 2.2% in 2015/16. However, young people ending participation at age 17 was still a challenge and further work was required to identify how best to support young people before they disengaged.

·         Officers suggested that the council’s own employment practices could be improved to better support young people. Although a number of apprenticeships were offered, it was thought that easing selection processes and offering ‘traineeships’ as a bridge to apprenticeships would benefit the most vulnerable young people.

·         It was noted that some young people struggled with transitions to post-16 education and to the labour market. Officers advised that functional skills qualifications, which were previously available in a range of settings, were now primarily provided by colleges. Some young people classified as NEET found a college environment overwhelming and it was suggested that alternative pathways were required for young people in need of improving their literacy and numeracy.

·         It was queried how many pupils who disengaged at age 17 re-engaged at a later date. Officers did not have figures available at the meeting however advised that this would be investigated.

·         Colleges were obliged to let the council know when pupils disengaged from education. Following a referral, the pupil would be contacted by an advisor, either by phone or in person.

·         A member queried if schools were doing enough to support pupils in preparing for further education and employment. Officers advised that schools had a responsibility to provide information, advice and guidance, however schools had different approaches and as a result the impact of their support varied. It was commented that there was no longer a statutory requirement to provide work experience, however some schools provided other services, such as mentoring.

·         It was noted that young people classified as NEET often had multiple vulnerabilities, including health problems, behavioural problems, involvement of the criminal justice system, and being from a workless household.

·         Officers advised that they would seek to provide a demographic breakdown of young people classified as NEET to a future meeting.

·         It was queried how many young people NEET had mental health issues and how many had an Education, Health and Care Plan. Officers did not have figures available at the meeting however advised that this would be investigated.  It was commented that mental health issues were recorded as a health issues, and few would have EHCPs.

·         Following a query, officers advised they would report back on how many young people aged 19 – 24 had presented themselves for support.

·         The Committee welcomed recent performance improvements, including that Islington performed better than the Central London, London and England averages. In response to a question, officers suggested that service improvements had been secured by improving the accuracy of data, which allowed officers to provide an effective and focused service.

·         The Committee queried the approach of the council’s services. It was commented that working with young people NEET was delicate and time-consuming work which required skill, trust, and tact. The council’s support services were solution-based and focused on what young people could do, rather than focusing on barriers and what they could not do.

·         It was confirmed that all apprenticeships were paid. The council’s apprenticeships lasted for a minimum of a year. 

·         A member of the public queried how many young people NEET would have been eligible for the Education Maintenance Allowance. Officers advised that this would be investigated.

·         The Committee noted the Witness Evidence Plan. Members with any comments or suggestions for witnesses were invited to contact Democratic Services.

The Committee thanked Holly Toft for her attendance.