Hidden NEETs need help, not another college blame game

Last week’s publication of the Children’s Commissioner’s report, Hidden NEETs: The attendance of 16 and 17-year-olds in further education colleges in England, has shone a welcome spotlight on an issue that has received too little attention in education policy: post-16 attendance.

The report estimates that around 42,000 16 and 17-year-olds enrolled in further education are attending less than half of their expected sessions, effectively making them “hidden NEETs” (not in education, employment or training) who do not appear in official figures despite being largely disengaged from learning. It also suggests that more than half of college students would meet the school definition of persistent absence, with attendance of below 90 per cent.

These findings should concern policymakers. Strong attendance is closely linked to attainment, progression and future employment prospects. If significant numbers of young people are enrolled in education but missing huge chunks of learning, there is a clear risk that they will leave education without the qualifications, skills and confidence needed to succeed and potentially find themselves NEET.

The “hidden NEETs” data is particularly timely given that the final report of Alan Milburn’s review into young NEETs is expected imminently. As government considers how to reduce NEET numbers, the Children’s Commissioner’s analysis is a reminder that participation cannot simply be measured through enrolment data. We need a much more nuanced understanding of whether young people are genuinely engaging in education and training.

However, it is vital that this debate does not lead to colleges being unfairly blamed for attendance challenges – after all, attendance problems do not suddenly emerge at age 16. Further education colleges frequently enrol students who have not met the entry requirements for school sixth forms, alongside many young people with SEND, mental health needs, disrupted educational experiences or a history of poor attendance. In many cases, colleges are working with precisely those students who are most at risk of disengagement. Colleges are therefore often dealing with the consequences of longstanding barriers rather than creating them or failing to deal with emerging issues.

The report itself identifies a range of factors affecting attendance, including mental health difficulties, poverty, transport costs, caring responsibilities, paid work, difficult transitions and previous negative experiences of education. These are complex challenges which cannot be resolved simply through even tighter monitoring or accountability measures.

Beyond participation and attainment, post-16 attendance raises important safeguarding concerns, too. In the school sector, there are clear processes for identifying children who have disengaged from education completely. Having attempted to report post-16 students as ‘missing education’ to local authorities when I worked as a sixth form leader, I know that post-16 arrangements are much less robust, if not non-existent!

In practice, this means some vulnerable students can fall through the gaps while still being counted as participating. Better attendance data would therefore improve not only participation monitoring but also the visibility of young people who may require additional safeguarding and welfare support.

So, the problem is complex, but complexity should not be an excuse for inaction.

Better attendance data could help identify early signs of disengagement and allow support to be targeted more effectively. The key point is that data should be used primarily to help young people remain engaged rather than simply to create additional accountability pressures for providers.

There is also an important practical consideration. While ASCL supports efforts to improve post-16 attendance monitoring, this is inherently more complex than in schools.

Students follow a wide variety of programmes with different timetables, guided learning hours, work placements and study patterns. Attendance systems vary between providers because the nature of post-16 education is far more flexible than compulsory schooling. That is why our ASCL FE Advisory Group is working with the Department for Education on proposals in this area to help them to carefully design meaningful measures and ensure data is accurate and useful, without burdening the schools and colleges providing it with additional workload.

Any discussion about attendance must also acknowledge the financial reality facing colleges. The further education sector is being asked to support growing numbers of students with increasingly complex needs while operating under significant funding pressures. Analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that funding per student aged 16 to 18 in further education remains around 8% lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11.

This is why the debate about attendance cannot be separated from the wider challenge of participation. As ASCL has previously argued, England needs a coherent 14-24 participation strategy that brings together education, employment, health and support services. The rising number of NEETs is being driven by a combination of factors; attendance is one indicator of these wider problems, not the sole cause of them.

The Children’s Commissioner has brought much-needed attention to an issue that has remained largely invisible. The report should prompt support and action, not finger-pointing at colleges who are often supporting some of the most vulnerable and disengaged young people in the education system, despite sustained funding pressures.

If we are serious about tackling the hidden NEETs challenge, we need better data, stronger support services and a genuinely joined-up approach to participation from age 14 onwards. None of these will come without significantly increased, targeted funding. Only then will we address the causes of disengagement rather than simply measuring its consequences.