Alan Milburn’s interim report on young people not in education, employment and training (NEET) landed with a bang on Thursday last week. With NEET numbers rising and predicted to worsen, the report warns us of a “lost generation”. Behind the increase lies a complex web of factors: labour market shifts, stretched health services, shortcomings in education and skills preparation, and a welfare system not working as it should. The system designed to prevent disengagement has become so fragmented that it now exacerbates the problem. We support Milburn’s conclusion that only radical, systemic change across the piste will shift the dial.
Disabled young people are hit hardest
It’s disappointing, however, that the report gives so little attention to the inter-relation between being NEET and having a special educational need or disability (SEND). Milburn reveals that young people with SEND are around 80% more likely to be NEET and are the group where least progress has been made over the last decade. And it’s those with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) at 16 that face the highest risk of becoming NEET according to recent Department for Education data. As we have already pointed out an EHCP does not in itself cause young people to be NEET. Instead, wider systemic factors are hindering the plan’s original purpose: to level the playing field for disabled young people. Let’s hope that the final report due later this summer addresses this central issue in the wider NEET crisis, rather than treating it as a niche SEND concern.
The SEND reforms as they stand are not the answer
The report puts a lot of faith in the proposed SEND reforms as the means of improving engagement for young people with SEND. But the planned approach to specialist support could actually exacerbate the NEET challenge for young people with a higher level of need. Higher thresholds for specialist provision could deny access to placements young people need to remain in post-16 education. Plans to remove mental health from the scope of SEND may strip funding from the relational practices that currently make education possible for learners with SEMH needs. Meanwhile, pressure to reduce EHCP numbers may lead local authorities to turn their attention to 19–25‑year‑olds, pushing some out of education before they are ready to progress. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education must bring these two reform agendas together as a matter of urgency. If they don’t, they risk undermining each other.
Disabled young people want to work but the door often closes at hiring
We are pleased to see the report pushing back against the “snowflake generation” trope and highlighting the lengths to which young people go to find work. Disabled young people face a further layer of barriers to employment, regularly shut out by inflexible recruitment and poor disability confidence among employers. We look forward to seeing a clear set of deliverable measures to boost disability employment in the final report.
Young people do not become NEET overnight
Milburn is right to point out that disengagement starts early for some learners. This is particularly true for learners with SEND who do not feel they belong at school and where their needs have gone unmet. 67% of young people who are NEET say the national curriculum fails to prepare them for work. The NEET crisis must not be seen as a post-16 issue. If we are serious about preventing young people from becoming NEET, we have to shift the focus upstream and build a school system – from classroom to curriculum – that works for all, especially those most at risk.
FE is asked to do more, with less
We welcome the recognition that further education (FE) is seeking to provide a solution – but with its hands tied behind its back. Demand for FE is up, yet real‑terms FE funding remains below early‑2010s levels. Colleges are being asked to get young people who have been out of school for long periods back on track without adequate resources. The funding system makes taking on NEET learners a high-risk prospect, given that allocations fall when learners do not complete their courses on time. Against a backdrop of overstretched mental health services, FE staff are taking on pastoral responsibilities beyond what might be expected of an education provider – without recognition or funding. If FE is to fulfil its vital role in reengaging young people, funding levels and systems must be appropriate to the job.
Transitions that don’t make the leap
Milburn rightly identifies transitions as a risk point but does not get down into the detail of what’s going wrong for young people with EHCPs, despite their being a high-risk group. For many young people with EHCPs, the move from school to college is particularly vulnerable to breakdown. Despite annual reviews and statutory deadlines, some still reach September without a confirmed place because of delays in local authority decisions, disputes over placements, or unresolved transport. Others are placed in mainstream colleges which cannot meet their needs, leading to placement breakdown. The final report must include a detailed set of recommendations on how transition can be improved for this learner group.
In summary
Milburn’s assessment of the causes behind the rising numbers of young people who are NEET is strong, not least because he has taken the time to listen to the voices of the young people themselves. However, without a full analysis of the reasons why those with EHCPs are at highest risk of becoming NEET, it is incomplete. We urge the review team to include a strong focus on this learner group in the final report, setting out cross-departmental solutions to tackle the specific barriers faced by disabled young people. They might start by looking again at our evidence submission where we highlight how specialist colleges are successfully reintegrating into education young people with SEND who have previously been NEET, and determine what government support would enable these practices to be more widely adopted.