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  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, 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?