Why we should get rid of the NEET measure and look at participation in education instead

By Jerry White, Principal and Chief Executive of City College Norwich, Paston College and Easton College

It’s now almost 15 years since the post-16 education sector was asked to contribute to the implementation of the 'Raising the Participation Age' (RPA). It was brought in surrounded by optimistic assertions about 'full participation' and the impact that it would have on young people’s educational attainment and job prospects. However, here we are with the numbers of young people not participating in post-16 education and training rising across much of the country, low levels of 16-18 apprenticeships and many attributing the lack of skills in our economy as holding back productivity and economic growth. With the prospect of a white paper on post-16 education and skills, I want to suggest it is time to learn the lessons from the implementation of RPA and to finally embed the notion that compulsory education lasts until the end of Year 13.

RPA was a weak 'fudge' of a legislative implementation which has led to over a decade of misinformation and 'greyness'. Just review the guidance on participation that has six pages of different definitions about what constitutes 'participation' and you will get a sense of how complicated we have made it.

So much of our current RPA approach seems designed to make it as difficult as possible to interpret and enforce. Take the age rules; whoever thought participation to age 18 (i.e. your 18^th birthday) was the logical expression of the RPA 'rules'? Surely anyone who knows just a little about education and training would have suggested that participation should be mandated to the end of year 13 (i.e. two years after GCSEs).

But from the start, one of the biggest failings of the current RPA approach is the lack of commitment shown by successive governments to tackle low skilled, low paid employment without training for young people. Despite all the rhetoric (and the fact that the 2008 Education Bill allows for them), there are no 'sanctions' associated with RPA at all for employers who employ young people without any regard for supporting them to engage in RPA compliant training or education (defined as either an apprenticeship or 280 hours per annum of accredited training). Currently in my county of Norfolk, an area working incredibly hard to tackle an economy with too much low skilled, low waged employment, 6% (over 1,200) of our young people are employed without training and are therefore not compliant with the RPA rules. The attraction of the wages from full time work without training is one of the key reasons young people leave educational courses at our college and I know that is mirrored up and down the county.

There are simply no consequences for RPA non-compliance for young people, their families or the employers. Indeed, with respect to employers, the DfE guidance on participation notes “The duties on employers in the Education and Skills Act 2008 have not been brought into force at this stage. The possibility of commencing them will be kept under review”. If rising numbers of young people not participating, historically low levels of 16-18 apprenticeships and a government committed to a “youth guarantee” isn’t enough to think now might be the time to review this, then I’m not sure we will ever grasp the nettle to create a society where employers have a clear and explicit legal requirement to invest in young employees training.

And of course, we have continued to use a language that also confuses and makes 'grey' the issue of RPA. The acronym NEET (not in education, employment or training) continues to be a go to phrase, indicating whether young people are either 'doing the right thing' or being a 'cause for concern'. But NEET as a definition places young people in employment without training in the 'doing the right thing' category. So, if we continue to use the phrase NEET and see this as some sort of key performance indicator for regions, we are tacitly seeing employment without training as a good thing, something I would suggest is not the case for a vast majority of young people or the wider economy.

So, if I was drafting the White Paper of Post-16 Education and Skills, what would I do?

Firstly, I would make it clear that every young person must participate in either full time education or an apprenticeship until they are at the end of Year 13. I know we’d have to work out how to allow for apprenticeships that successfully finish before the end of in Year 13, but I am sure we could do that.

Secondly, I would scrap the notion of NEET being a measure of any kind. Instead, young people are either in education or an apprenticeship or they are 'not in education or an apprenticeship' (NEA). Hold local authorities responsible for this measure only. Only talk about the NEA measure in policy discussions and get rid of NEET forever.

Thirdly, I would use HMRC records or other data sources to publish at local authority and Local Skills Improvement Plan level, the proportions of young people in employment without training (i.e. who were NEA). I would require the employer representative bodies (ERBs) responsible for the development of the LSIP to include in every plan across the country a clear target and action plan for the reduction of the numbers of young people in employment without training in their area. Their continued funding as an ERB should be contingent on improvements on this measure.

Finally, I would publish annually a list of the top 500 employers employing young people without training, similar to the approach taken for employers not paying the national minimum wage. There must be a consequence for knowingly failing to 'do your bit' to invest in the next generation.

I believe we have a once in a generation opportunity to close loopholes and create clarity for young people, their families and our wider society. Let’s hope we take it.