CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Conclusions
6.1 The evidence from this study confirms that of previous research with regards to the factors affecting involvement in post-16 education opportunities among the two groups - NEET and young care leavers. These include how prior low levels of attainment, health problems, additional support needs, housing difficulties, and negative experiences of school operate in complex ways to discourage re-entering education.
6.2 Young people from both groups face multiple barriers to re-engaging with post-compulsory education for which there is no 'one size fits all' solution.
6.3 Whilst the notion of a system of learning entitlement is generally considered valuable, few felt that it provided the answer to increased participation among the target groups.
6.4 Barriers to participation are not just a matter of finance, although tackling financial constraints is important, particularly for those faced with the additional costs of living independently. While this is mainly an issue for young care leavers, individuals within the wider NEET group are not exempt from facing this challenge. Of equal importance is the need to address other personal, circumstantial and institutional barriers facing both the NEET and care leaver groups.
6.5 Solutions to remove barriers to participation are multifaceted, complex and inevitably, resource intensive. Some of the areas highlighted have already been identified in previous research and some are being tackled through a range of differing policy areas (for example, the need for adequate careers advice and support through the Careers Scotland Inclusiveness and key worker service, a need for learner-led rather than demand-led provision and financial top-ups for young care leavers). Nevertheless, it is clear that strategies to remove barriers to participation cannot be tackled in isolation. There is a need to provide better joined-up services in order to more effectively recognise the diversity within and across these two groups of young people, and to be better placed to respond to needs, as they present themselves.
6.6 Despite the conclusion that participation in post-compulsory education is not likely to be increased if tuition and maintenance support was offered on an entitlement basis rather than a guaranteed or discretionary one, it is not suggested that the notion of learning entitlement be abandoned. There is a need for further clarification of the policy objectives behind learning entitlement for future research to be able to draw firm conclusions. This is explored further below.
Recommendations/Implications for policy
Structural Considerations for Learning Entitlement
6.7 Providing adequate support to assist these young people to re-enter education (for example, by improving Information, Advice and Guidance, ( IAG)) or to sustain their commitment to education (for example, by providing mentoring or life skills support) are areas which are already receiving significant focus and resource across Scotland. However, it would seem from the results of this study that much more would be required - resources, the skills and backgrounds of service providers and further infrastructural developments to make the systems more 'joined-up'. The idea of learning entitlement clearly does not exist in a vacuum and has considerable implications for how the surrounding 'support infrastructure' is defined and resourced.
Defining Policy Scope
6.8 Solutions to address the barriers facing young care leavers and the NEET group are complex, resource intensive and unlikely to be met by a single policy initiative (such as that proposed by learning entitlement, through increased tuition and maintenance support).
6.9 An additional challenge is that learning entitlement could be 'all things to all people'. This research scoping study has clarified that future research would require to test more clearly defined hypotheses about learning entitlement, in order to provide consultees with something more tangible to discuss. It is clear that learning entitlement could take on many different focuses and definitions and these need to be separated out and tested. In the longer term, this is likely to offer a significantly clearer policy scope of what is likely to 'work' and the implications of the various options.
6.10 As such, the parameters of learning entitlement in policy terms might benefit from clearer definition, as the 'answers' are very much dependent on the 'questions' which follow the policy scope.
6.11 In essence, this scoping study has attempted to test or explore two issues:
- the groups who would be eligible for entitlement; and
- what they might be eligible for
6.12 In this sense it is trying to address both macro and micro level issues at the same time. In order for future research to explore these issues more effectively there is a need to separate these out and then to redefine the scope of each by posing a series of questions, such as those set out below:
- Entitlement to learning by different target group - future questions for consideration could explore: Whether entitlement should be about promoting entitlement to lifelong learning for all? Whether IAG services are therefore effectively operating all-age 24? Could the supply-side cope? Are some groups more entitled than others? Should it be targeted? If targeted, how could the effective distribution of resources be ensured? Which sub-sets of NEET should be the focus? Is this confined to 16-21 year olds?
- Entitlement to learning on basis of type of entitlement - e.g. is it about additional support? What would be an appropriate number of credits? Does the level of credit needed vary for different target groups? Should there be preparatory courses before starting a course? Should entitlement extend to more informal types of learning, such as those provided in community settings?
6.13 However, before exploring the nature of any future research, there is a need to examine and articulate why learning entitlement merits this type of analysis - is the central objective to promote lifelong learning? Is it to change NEET to EET? Is it about inclusion and economic growth? There would be different policy responses for each of these objectives and they are not necessarily interchangeable.
6.14 From the above, it seems necessary to reflect further on the different possible iterations of 'learning entitlement' and to consider these from both the perspective of national objectives and the various hypotheses which merit 'testing' through further research.
Issues for Further Research
6.15 Finally, this research focused on a small number of young care leavers and young people not in education, employment or training. It also centred on individuals from within a pre-defined age-range, 16-21. Any future research on entitlement which continues to focus on young care leavers and the NEET group should consider:
- whether the responses towards learning entitlement are differential depending on the age of young people - Are the barriers to education different for different age cohorts and do the financial/economic constraints therefore differ?
- how have barriers to re-entering education been overcome by young care leavers or previously NEET young people who have had a successful re-engagement with learning? - What support did they receive? How did they remain committed to education in adverse circumstances? To what extent did they overcome financial barriers without a system of entitlement? What were or are their outcomes (educational attainment, labour market)?
- what would be the likely completion and attainment rates of these young people if they were successfully encouraged to engage?
Summary
6.16 In summary:
- the idea of learning entitlement was perceived positively by all but the nature of this entitlement requires further consideration
- the current definition of entitlement - as explored through this study - was perceived as being insufficient to address the many other barriers which exist to re-entering learning for the groups in question.