Progression Post 16 Ofsted Survey 2010 / 2011 Key Findings Joyce Deere HMI

1. Progression Post 16 Ofsted Survey 2010 / 2011 Key Findings Joyce Deere HMI

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. PROGRESSION POST 16 MAIN FINDINGS: 4 sections Effectiveness of government arrangements Quality of provision for learners in receipt of Additional Learning Support on Mainstream programmes at level 2 and above, including apprenticeships Quality of provision for those on foundation learning programmes, mainly discrete/segregated provision Other issues, including barriers to progression

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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?