Recent Department for Education data shows that the single strongest predictor of a young person not being in education, employment or training (NEET) is having an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) at 16. Being an EHCP-holder tops the list of NEET predictors for both 17 to 19 and 20 to 24-year-olds, ranking above persistence absence, low GCSE attainment, exclusion from school, and experience of the care system. Even after controlling for all other factors, having an EHCP remains associated with a 16% increase in NEET risk at ages 17–19, rising to 20% at ages 20–24.
On the face of it, that feels entirely counterintuitive. While all the other predictors are types of disadvantage, EHCPs ought to be the exact opposite. These plans are intended to mitigate the disadvantage of having a special educational need or disability (SEND) by giving young people a statutory guarantee of appropriate education and support, designed to prepare them for a successful adulthood, up to the age of 25 if necessary.
Possession of an EHCP in and of itself cannot be causing young people to become NEET. But the DfE data suggests that something is going badly wrong for the diverse set of young people whose high level of SEND makes them eligible for an EHCP. As we highlighted in evidence submitted to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Work and Pensions Select Committee earlier this year, there is a complex web of inter-related causes sitting behind this headline finding and rather than a single silver bullet, a diverse set of solutions will be needed.
So what factors are contributing to the over-representation of young people with EHCPs in the NEET cohort?
Local authorities (LAs) are sometimes ceasing EHCPs too soon, against the wishes of the young person and their family and the advice of the provider, often in a drive to cut costs. Learners with SEND who need extra time in education to gain the knowledge, skills and behaviours to make a positive progression are being cast out before they are ready to take the next step to employment or further study.
Some LAs are misusing the duty to admit to direct learners into unsuitable post-school placements. Short-term financial considerations are being put ahead of learner needs increasing the chance of placement breakdown which can results in extended periods without any provision in place or young people exiting education altogether.
LAs are sometimes reluctant to give special school sixth form leavers the opportunity of post-19 FE especially where a young person will have a lifelong need for social care. These decisions to ration FE, either for financial reasons or because of a lack of understanding of the value of education for independence, turn would-be learners into NEET statistics.
Young people with EHCPs do not always know enough about their post-school options to identify an appropriate next step, despite a SEND Code of Practice requirement for annual review from year 9 onwards to focus on preparing for adulthood. Two-thirds of families of young people with EHCPs responding to a Natspec survey rated the overall quality of the information, advice or guidance that they or their young person received as poor, increasing their chances of making an ill-informed choice and potential disengagement as a result.
Lack of transport support sometimes prevents learners with EHCPs from accessing post-16 education. Unlike pre-16 learners, there is no statutory guarantee of free transport, and increasing financial pressures have led some LAs to reduce or withdraw post-16 transport support. As a result, some young people are unable to physically access college, putting them at greater risk of becoming NEET, despite having secured a suitable education placement.
Young people with social, emotional, mental health needs are not getting the mental health support required to help them sustain their education. Too often support is delayed because children’s mental health services are overwhelmed, or thresholds are too high for adult services, leaving some young people to fall into a gap where they are receiving no support and as a result are not well enough to engage in education, employment or training.
Employers are sometimes reluctant to recruit young disabled people or lack inclusive recruitment practices. The disability employment gap remains stubbornly high, with people with learning disabilities particularly disadvantaged. High quality education and training alone is not sufficient to ensure positive outcomes for young people with SEND. Too often young disabled people have a successful education only to encounter a set of closed doors when it comes to employment.
What is more there is a real risk that some of the proposed SEND reforms could exacerbate the NEET challenge for young people with a higher level of need. For example, setting high thresholds for specialist provision packages could deny some young people access to the specialist placement they need in order to engage in post-school education. Taking mental health out of the scope of SEND may reduce funding for the relational practices that are currently making education manageable for some young people with SEMH needs. In order to achieve the planned large-scale reduction in EHCPs, LAs may target 19 to 25-year-olds, pushing them out of education before they are ready to make a positive progression.
Government has to guard against the SEND reforms creating unintended consequences that work against its ambitions to reduce youth disengagement. It must treat reform of the SEND system and solving the NEET challenge as two sides of the same coin, with a significant reduction in the number of EHCP-holders in the NEET cohort as a shared goal.