Sixty-one per cent of colleges found providing students with 40 additional learning hours “helpful” with education recovery following Covid – but researchers say there is no way of accurately measuring compliance with the policy.
An evaluation, published late last week, also revealed the biggest constraints to the scheme included a lack of staff resource and physical space.
Commissioned by the government, the Institute for Employment Studies and BMG Research surveyed 308 college and sixth form educators as well as almost 800 students between May and July 2023 on their perceptions of the extra 40 hours of learning policy.
A feasibility for impact study was also released on Friday which used data from the National Pupil Database (NPD) and the Individualised Learner Record (ILR) to further analyse its impact.
Here’s what you need to know.
Recap: Minimum planned hours rose to 580
In 2022, the Department for Education committed £800 million across the next three academic years to fund 40 additional learning hours to 16- to 19-year-olds as part of a post-Covid recovery plan to compensate for lost time in education.
This typically meant that minimum hour requirements for funding was increased from 540 to 580 for students in funding bands 5 to 9 (and lower bandings on a pro-rata basis).
In its guidance, the government suggested institutions prioritise maths and English for struggling learners as well as supporting them with mental health, wellbeing or study skills.
The funding rate per 16 to 19 student in 2022 was £4,188 and has risen each year, partly to reflect the 40 additional hours policy. The rate currently sits at £4,843.
How the funding was used
Out of the total 308 institutions that replied to the survey, 73 were from post-16 colleges.
More than four in five (82 per cent) of FE providers used funding for activities related to qualifications, compared to 59 per cent of schools.
Instead, nearly three-quarters (74 per cent) of schools used the funding for support with study skills, while 55 per cent of post-16 institutions had provision for teaching learning techniques.
Additionally, only 31 per cent out of all responders provided maths teaching and over a quarter (26 per cent) used the additional hours for English teaching.
Nearly a third (32 per cent) said they used the funding to provide study skills for support learners with high needs, a further 29 per cent provided wellbeing/mental health support and a quarter supported them for employability skills/work placements and personal and social development time.
‘Often constrained’ by staff resources
The report found providers were “often constrained” by timetabling and staff resources to carry out academic activities.
Nearly half of respondents (45 per cent) said internal availability and financial pressures had made additional hours delivery more challenging.
Over four in ten (42 per cent) said finding space for delivery was an issue and some providers complained that the funding did not take this into account.
Meanwhile, 31 per cent said they struggled with student engagement. “Many faced initial challenges including student resistance to additions to their timetable, but these were usually resolved over time as learners became used to the change and saw the value of the provision,” the report added. For those using the additional hours for maths and English teaching, 37 per cent said recruiting additional staff was a problem.
‘Not possible’ to attribute policy to outcomes
Three in five (61 per cent) of all institutions surveyed said additional hours were helpful with education recovery following the disruption of the pandemic, while a third (33 per cent) said the policy was unhelpful.
FE learners were more likely (24 per cent) than those in school sixth forms (9 per cent) to say that the support had made no difference.
Most education providers claimed the additional hours had a positive impact on student outcomes. Sixty-eight per cent said they recorded positive outcomes in progress, attainment (61 per cent), engagement (59 per cent) and mental health/wellbeing (55 per cent).
Almost nine in 10 (89 per cent) providing English teaching with additional hours said it was positive on student outcomes. Eighty-eight per cent said as such for maths teaching.
However, the feasibility study said it was “problematic” to conclude that there was a causal effect of the changed funding and additional hours on outcomes.
“It will not be possible to attribute the effect specifically to the policy so is a step down from assigning causality,” the report said.
Compliance unknown
When the policy was announced in 2022 the government said it would “monitor” providers’ implementation of the 40 additional hours.
Friday’s report noted how the additional hours feasibility for impact study suggested that “many institutions were not delivering an average of 40 additional hours per student at an institution level”.
According to data from the NPD and ILR on provider level average planned hours provided by the Department for Education, there was a “mean increase of 43 hours across band 5 students from 2020/21 to 2022/23, with 55 per cent of providers seeing average planned hours increase by at least 40, and 79 per cent seeing some increase in hours”.
However, 1 per cent saw no change in average planned hours and 20 per cent saw planned hours fall.
The report claimed this does not necessarily indicate non-compliance with the policy, as the “policy allowed for flexibilities which enabled institutions to be compliant without reaching an average increase of 40 additional hours”.
For example, some colleges and sixth forms used the funding to “enhance their general provision, rather than delivering discrete activities”, which made it “difficult to record how they were using the hours”.
In addition, those institutions already delivering more than 580 hours prior to the extra hours policy “found it difficult to deliver an additional 40 hours due to constraints around timetabling, space and internal resources”.
The diversity of delivery methods and contexts “makes it hard to identify compliance with the policy, and an impact evaluation has not been recommended for this reason”, the report said.
Future funding questions
Most institutions that were case studied said they wanted to continue the 40 extra hours as they felt “the activities met the essential needs of learners”.
But “most” said that without the current level of funding, provision would cease.
Julian Gravatt, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “There won’t be information on any part of government funding until the budget but it’s not surprising that colleges assume this money will continue in 2025-26 because they are already providing information and advice to the current cohort of year 11 students about next year’s options.”
Funding for 16 to 19 education from April 2025 onwards is being currently considered as part of the government’s spending review.
Your thoughts