Is Raising the School Leavers Age the Answer to the Country’s NEET Problem?

Is raising the school leavers age the answer to the country’s NEET problem? Is keeping young people at school a good idea? Shouldn’t we be asking why they choose to leave at a young age instead?

This summer, millions of Year 11 students across England will now be required by law to stay in education or participate in training. The Government is increasing the age to which all young people in England must continue in education or training, requiring them to continue until the end of the academic year in which they turn 17 from 2013 and until their 18th birthday from 2015.

Critics argue that raising the participation age (RPA) is just a ploy to reduce youth unemployment figures without actually providing young people with jobs. However, Chancellor of the Exchequer argues that raising the school leaving age is “an economic and social no-brainer”, which will result in a better-qualified labor market. Furthermore, the Education Secretary has introduced new post-16 vocational courses as part of a curriculum shake-up, which he hopes will be appealing to students seeking a more practical route into work.

So, what will post-16 education now look like? Under the new law, 16-year-olds will have to choose from the following options:

• Full-time education, such as school, college, or home education.
• An apprenticeship.
• Part-time education or training if they are employed, self-employed, or volunteering full-time (which is defined as 20 hours or more a week).

A Clear Cut Solution for a Complex Problem?

The success of this law in reducing the number of young people not in education, employment, or training (NEET) depends on the support given to young people in finding suitable courses, training, and apprenticeships.

It is not enough to pass a law and expect the current NEET problem to simply vanish. Britain’s NEET problem is multifaceted, requiring effort not just on the part of young people but from the state, education institutions, and industry. Provisions must be made to ensure that there are enough quality apprenticeships, courses, and training opportunities and that those students who wish to continue in education receive the financial support they need. However, the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) has been scrapped in England in favor of the less inclusive 16 to 19 Bursary Fund, and low-wage jobs are now being rebranded as apprenticeships.

What Needs to Be Done?

Given that the law has been passed, it is now up to government and local authorities to uphold their end of the bargain and provide the support needed to allow all young people to participate fully in further education and training. One crucial area that needs to be addressed is transportation. Although concessionary fare schemes for young people exist, the discount awarded varies dramatically across the UK, making affordable transport a fallacy for many young people in parts of the country. A 2012 study by the Department of Education found that a third of young people who were NEET would have continued in education or training if it had not been for the high transport costs involved. Considering that transport policy is the responsibility of many different agents, it would be wise for the coalition to create a special provision outside of the 16-19 Bursary Fund, that will allow all young people irrespective of what part of the country they reside in, to have access to affordable public transport.

Would a Law by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet?

Given that many young people who already remain in education until 16 leave without any formal qualifications, the new leaving age doesn’t guarantee a more skilled workforce or an end to the NEET problem. The government needs to look at the reasons why young people are opting out of education, as you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink from the fountain of reforms.

What do you think is needed to solve the country’s NEET problem?