Vulnerable Young People

Background

With record numbers of young people unemployed, a reluctance by some employers to take on apprentices, curriculum changes, changesin the arrangements for careers education, information, advice and guidance (CEIAG) and the Raising of the Participation Age (RPA), the necessity to ensure that the limited financial resources of local authorities is targeted towardssupporting and improving the aspirations, achievement and well being of our most vulnerable young people has become even more critical.

In a recent consultation with Greater Manchester’s post-16 providers, 67% of them reported a reduction in enrolments compared to the same period last year. 97% have linked this reduction to the removal of the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA).

In order to best focus our future activity it is essential to secure a vision, which is shared by all stakeholders and prioritises the narrowing of the achievement gap forour most vulnerable learners.

What is a vulnerable young person?

The Department for Education (DfE) has been reluctant to define what a ‘vulnerable young person is,suggesting that this should be a local decision. However, in the ‘Understanding Vulnerable Young People: Analysis from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England’(DfE May 2011), the following six groups of disadvantage were identified amongst 16/17 year olds:

  • Low attainment (19% of young people included in the study)
  • Definition: Young person did not gain any GCSEsor equivalent qualifications at grades A*-C
  • Being Not in Employment Education or Training (8%)
  • Definition: Young person was not in education, employment or training (NEET) for at least 6 of the previous 12 months
  • Teenage parenthood (1%)
  • Definition: Young person was a parent and had at least one of their child/ren living with them
  • Emotional health concerns (22%)
  • Definition: Young person had a score of 4 or more on the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)
  • Criminal activity (9%)
  • Definition: Young person was involved in two or more of acts of vandalism, graffiti, shoplifting, fighting and carrying a knife
  • Substance misuse (15%)
  • Definition: Young person drank alcohol on most days, or, smoked at least 6 cigarettes per week and had tried cannabis

The study also recognised that many of these young people suffered from multiple indicators of deprivation, which would increase the likelihood of poor outcomes.

As part of the Raising Participation (RPA) trials some local authorities have produced an ‘At Risk of NEET Indicator’ (RONI) that seeks to define the characteristics which might lead to a young person becoming NEET.

Various reasons for non participation have been identified including;

  • Location of learners (borough)
  • Looked After Children;
  • Severe disabilities and learning difficulties
  • Teenage pregnancy
  • Offending
  • Lower than expected achievement at Key Stage 4.

As part of AGMA’s governance arrangements for 14-19, a Vulnerable Young People’s Subgroup is also debating a definition of what constitutes a vulnerable learner. Whilst it is useful to debate and agree some common characteristics for the sub- region (e.g. LLDD, NEET, low attendance),it is also recognised thateach local authority should be responsible for producing an individual definition, which allows for local issues to be addressed,wheredesirable.

In addition, it is also useful to separate and assess young people by whether they are pre or post 16.For pre-16 young people,the indicatorsoften relate to whether they are on track to achieve their potential post 16. This includes indicators such as:

  • Special Educational Needs (SEN)
  • Free School Meals (FSM)*
  • English as an Additional Language (EAL)
  • Persistent absence/exclusion
  • Looked After Children (LAC)

*Data analysis and collection that has been undertaken in preparation for RPA suggests that in Salford schools, where the catchment area does not demonstrate significant indicators of depravation FSM seems to be a reliable indicator of vulnerability i.e. a child in receipt of FSM is significantly less likely to achieve to their potential than their non FSM peers in the same school.

However in schools where there are significant issues of deprivation in the catchment area there is much less of an achievement gap between FSM young people and their peers suggesting that more complex cultural factors may be at play e.g. aspiration and motivation. This suggests that ‘a one size fits all’ definition may not be the most effective solution and more work needs to be done by the Participation Team to inform the Partnership and future planning.