Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Grade three providers to get an extra six months on reinspection deadline

Providers given a grade three rating by Ofsted will get an extra six months to improve as the education watchdog brings in a two-year reinspection deadline.

The timeframe for reinspection for providers with a grade three (‘requires improvement’) judgement was between a year and 18 months, but from September that will change to between one and two years. Providers inspected before September will remain subject to the 18-month deadline.

Ofsted national director for FE and skills Lorna Fitzjohn (pictured) told FE Week: “Many grade three providers will still be re-inspected within a 12 to 18-month timeframe.

“This change will allow us greater flexibility in taking into account evidence such as annually issued performance data. Ofsted uses this information when considering whether providers are making the necessary progress in raising standards.”

An Ofsted spokesperson said the change was not linked to staffing issues and inadequate (grade four) providers still faced reinspection within 15 months.

Stewart Segal (pictured right), AELP chief executive, said: “We welcome the more flexible timings for re-inspections so that specific issues can be factored into the timing of the inspection such as particular recruitments or completion patterns or the issue of up-to-date data.

“However, in some circumstances, a provider would be ready for an inspection at an earlier stage and this should be taken into account when timetabling inspections and re-inspections.”

Joy Mercer (pictured below left), director of education policy for the AoC, said: “Ofsted’s decision to extend the window of reinspection to two years for a providers judged to require improvement is sensible.

“It gives providers the time to develop their evidence base and embed systems. AoC encouraged Ofsted to take a more flexible approach to improvement timetables in 2012 so we are pleased that this practical approach is now in place for next year.”

James Kewin, SFCA deputy chief executive, said: “This flexibility is to be welcomed and will provide more opportunity for providers to use annual performance data to evidence the progress they are making.”

It comes as Ofsted prepares to give FE Commissioner Dr David Collins access to draft inspection reports as part of the changes.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “Ofsted and the FE Commissioner have an agreed Memorandum of Understanding outlining how they will co-operate and communicate effectively with one another when carrying out their independent roles.

“Included in this is Ofsted’s agreement to share draft inspection reports with the FE Commissioner.

“This is to ensure the FE Commissioner has all the relevant timely information and data necessary to make a judgement on the capacity and capability of a college.

“The communication between the FE Commissioner and Ofsted benefits all learners studying with providers that fall within the scope of the FE Commissioner.”

Merging Midland colleges’ second naming attempt wins approval from Skills Minister Nick Boles

Two Midland colleges set to merge next month have won approval for their new name from Skills Minister Nick Boles after a local MP said their first suggestion was “an aggressive act” towards nearby competitor colleges.

Worcester College of Technology and New (North East Worcestershire) College were turned down by Mr Boles’s predecessor, Matthew Hancock, who six weeks ago rejected their ‘Worcestershire College’ suggestion.

Conservative MP for Mid-Worcestershire Sir Peter Luff (pictured below right) had complained the name was “insensitive” to other colleges in the county, but he was happy with their ‘Heart of Worcestershire College’ proposal — and so was Mr Boles, a spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills told FE Week.

It comes with Worcester College of Technology principal Stuart Laverick (pictured above, bottom right) having been announced as the merged college’s first principal, from August 1.

He said: “We are extremely pleased that the new name has been approved by the Skills Minister. Although finding a suitable name has not been easy, we believe that this name truly reflects the values of the new organisation.

“We are fiercely loyal to the residents and businesses within Worcestershire and are dedicated to providing relevant education and training to meet their needs. Over the next few years, we will work tirelessly to make Worcestershire proud of the standard of education and training provided by Heart of Worcestershire College.”

Sir Peter had argued that ‘Worcestershire College’ potentially undermined South Worcestershire College and Warwickshire College, which has a campus in Pershore, Worcestershire.

He wrote a strongly-worded email to college bosses about their first suggestion, saying: “Sorry to be negative, but it is a grossly insensitive name when you are not the only FE college in the county, but one of three.

“South Worcestershire and Pershore [which is situated in Worcestershire, but part of Warwickshire College]… are excellent institutions that would be marginalised by the name chosen.

“This county-wide name for a college that only serves part of the county would make their marketing much more difficult and be confusing to potential students. Indeed, it looks a very aggressive act to me — I urge the governors to think again.”

And Mr Hancock’s subsequent rejection came with the BIS statement: “The request to change the name of North East Worcestershire College to Worcestershire College following the merger with Worcester College of Technology has been declined. All parties have been informed and the decision was taken in line with the department’s name-change guidance.

“The guidance states that a corporation name should not be confusing or misleading and as such should not wrongly suggest regional or national pre-eminence, or imply that a college serves a wider or different area than is the case. We are more than happy to consider a new name-change application.”

However, Mr Luff had already welcomed the second suggestion and today said: “This is a very sensible outcome. The previous name would have been very misleading and undermined the other colleges in the county. The new name is much better.”

The merged college will cater for around 10,000 students in total and employ around 1,000 staff. A spokesperson for the colleges said the new website address would be howcollege.ac.uk and added that new email addresses were yet to be finalised.

Nobody from South Worcestershire College was available for comment. Warwickshire College declined to comment.

BIS effort to boost FE Commissioner team with more advisers draws ‘significant’ response

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has received a “significant” response in its effort to boost the five-strong team of advisers to FE Commissioner Dr David Collins (pictured above from an FE Week cartoon story in November).

The application process for the part-time roles, which pay a daily rate of £600, closed on July 11 with appointments to the one-year contract posts expected by the end of the month.

A BIS spokesperson declined to reveal exactly how many applications had been received, but she said: “No appointments have yet been made, interviews are scheduled to take place in the next few weeks.

“It’s not appropriate to comment on the number of applications at this stage, but we have had a significant response to the recruitment of additional FE advisers.

“We are confident that with the significant number of applications, we will be able to recruit a number of additional FE advisers who have the necessary skills and expertise by the end of the summer.”

The spokesperson went on to say that the recruitment drive was not being carried out to replace advisers, but in a bid to add to the advisory team, which was first revealed in August having initially been planned as a seven-strong group.

She declined to say why the team, which has so far carried out 10 inspections, needed to be expanded nor by exactly how many advisers.

She said: “There are currently five FE advisers supporting the FE Commissioner. The decision to recruit additional FE advisers is not to replace existing ones but to further ensure that the FE Commissioner is able to be fully supported in his assessments wherever they happen across the country.

“The aim of the current recruitment is to identify more people who bring the right experience, credibility and expertise to become an FE adviser.”

Dr Collins’s team of advisers includes Marilyn Hawkins, chair of the 157 Group for 2011/12, and Malcolm Cooper, managing director and owner of MCA Cooper associates, which advises FE providers on finance and general management issues.

Lynn Forrester, director of Quality4fe, which is part of the FE Solutions confederation, and David Williams, director at education management consultancy W3 Advisory Limited, complete the team of FE Commissioner advisers along with Joanna Gaukroger, director of J2J Partnership Limited and former principal of Tower Hamlets College and Kensington and Chelsea College.

The latest FE Commissioner advisers job ad, carried by FE Week last month, read: “FE advisers are critical in tackling weak performance within the sector and supporting the work of the FE Commissioner.

“Recognising the range of assessments being undertaken by the FE Commissioner across the country, there is a need to increase this resource and as such BIS is looking to recruit a number of additional FE advisers.

“We are seeking high calibre individuals with a good knowledge and understanding of the education sector and a proven track record in change management and commercial skills. We are looking to appoint candidates who will bring excellent analytical skills and the ability to make recommendations based on complex evidence.

“These roles present an outstanding opportunity to help create a world class FE sector that will deliver benefits now and for generations to come.

“These are national roles that are being offered on one-year fixed term contracts, on a part time basis. The roles will be remunerated at up to £600 a day for circa 60-80 days.”

Are providers playing it too safe on work experience?

The importance of work experience in developing skills has been reinforcd by no less than Ofsted and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. But providers and employers often worry about the health and safety implications in allowing learners into the workplace, so Maureen Kirwan asks whether the sector is at risk of playing it too safe.

Introducing young people to the world of work is an invaluable part of their education. But what about ‘health and safety’?

Understanding risk and how to deal with it can be one of the biggest benefits offered by a work experience placement. Guidance from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) supports the provision of more and better-quality placement opportunities across the world of work, including in well-managed higher-hazard workplaces, where that fits the learner’s chosen vocational or career path.

The health and safety administration around work placements can be seen as over-bureaucratic and burdensome. That’s why HSE is tackling the misconceptions that stop young people benefiting from rewarding work experience.

Many employers have considerable experience of successfully employing young people or taking on work experience students. They should already be managing the risks in their workplaces and are best placed to assess whether or not they need to do anything additional for a new young person joining them.

But employers regularly face requests for additional paperwork, and see providers either duplicating their risk assessments, or coming into the workplace to do their own independently. This is unnecessary.

It’s important to emphasise that there is a degree of collaboration needed between providers and employers to make sure they get this right. Uncertainty about who should be doing what can lead providers to rely too heavily on paperwork and ‘box-ticking’ rather than asking the right, focused questions to ensure that the necessary protections are in place.

So how does a provider satisfy itself that an employer is doing what’s needed? Where an employer is new to taking on learners for work experience, talk through what they will be doing. It may be helpful to make a note of the conversation.

Checks should be kept in proportion to the environment. In a low risk environment, such as an office or shop with everyday risks that will mostly be familiar to the learner, simply speaking with any new employer to confirm this should be enough.

For higher-risk environments, or those with less familiar risks, the provider should talk to the employer and confirm the arrangements for managing risks. This will need to include induction, supervision and provision of any protective equipment that might be needed. A provider will want to satisfy itself that the instruction, training and supervisory arrangements have been properly thought through and that learners know how to raise any health and safety concerns.

A provider can rely on past experience, or pooled experience, for example within the local authority area. They do not need to do it all again for a new student where an employer is known to them, has a good track record, and the student’s needs are no different to those of students on past placements.

Providers should work with parents to ensure employers know in advance about learners who might be at greater risk, for example due to health conditions or learning difficulties, so they can take these properly into account.

Our work experience guidance lays out the legal requirements, explains what’s needed (and what’s not), and clarifies health and safety roles and responsibilities for those involved in taking on young people under 18 for work experience.

Following the guidance means you will meet the requirements of health and safety law in respect of young people. The principles can also be applied to taking on learners who are 18 and over, who are new to the workplace or who are inexperienced and lack awareness of risk.

Since we published guidance last year, a steady stream of cases have been added to our Myth Buster Challenge Panel, suggesting providers are still burdening themselves and employers with a ‘paper chase’ on this topic.

Check out what you need to do — and who knows? Maybe you’ll save yourself some time.

The HSE is carrying out a survey on its guidance on young people. Click here to take part.

Extra A-level funding ‘misleading’ and ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ says Sixth Form Colleges’ Association

A funding “pledge” from new Skills Minister Nick Boles (pictured) for learners taking on a fourth A-level, or baccalaureate programme, has been described as “misleading” and “robbing Peter to pay Paul”.

The Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA) criticised today’s announcement from the Department for Education (DfE) that an additional funding programme would be extended for learners taking on a fourth A-level, international baccalaureate or new technical baccalaureate programmes once funding protection ended in 2016.

At the moment, schools and colleges which have learners who want to take a fourth A-level subject or a larger technical qualification like the baccalaureate have their funding topped up through formula protection funding (FPF), which was established when the government moved for 2013/14 from funding per qualification to funding per learner.

But Mr Boles (pictured) has announced that from 2016, schools and colleges will receive between £400 and £800 more in their basic funding for learners who take on the extra qualifications. A DfE spokesperson told FE Week was expected to cost between £20m and £30m.

James Kewin (pictured right), SFCA deputy chief executive, told FE Week: “The long delay in making this announcement has been very politically convenient for ministers — for well over a year they have been able to suggest that good news for sixth form colleges was just around the corner in the form of a large programme premium.

“But the plans announced today will only benefit a very small number of students in a very small number of Sixth Form Colleges, and not until 2016. Describing this as a funding ‘pledge’ is misleading, there is no new money here, this is a redistribution of existing resources — the only winners will be highly selective sixth form providers, particularly grammar schools.

“To fund this initiative, the government is robbing Peter to pay Paul — it would have been more equitable to increase the basic rate of funding to help students of all abilities get the support they need to progress to higher education or employment.

“The government should focus on addressing the fundamental under-investment in sixth form education, rather than introducing a measure that will only benefit a small number of high flying students.”

It comes after Professor Alison Wolf called for a per-learner funding system in order to stop institutions pushing learners to take more qualifications than they need in her 2011 report on vocational education.

Announcing the extension of the policy Mr Boles said: “Our funding should support all young people to fulfil their potential. And it is vital that schools are encouraged to offer their brightest students the broadest possible range of qualifications at age 16.

“Alongside reforms to academic and technical qualifications, this announcement demonstrates our support for schools and colleges to stretch and challenge all their students.”

Julian Gravatt, assistant chief executive at the Association of Colleges (AoC), said: “DfE has acknowledged what we’ve known for a while that funding levels for large academic programmes are insufficient. This problem was identified just last week by Professor Nigel Thrift in his letter to DfE about changes to maths and language A-levels and AoC is pleased to see this response.

“However, today’s announcement will help less than one per cent of the thousands of sixth formers study A-levels or land-based courses. Colleges and schools will be starting to advise Year 11 students in September on their sixth form options for 2015 and have no firm information about their 2015-16 budgets and nothing at all about the second year.

“DfE needs to act quickly to resolve the uncertainty about future funding and formula protection grant.”

A government spokesperson said it was also securing funding for specialist land-based courses, such as agriculture, land-based engineering and environmental conservation, who also receive funding through FPF. From 2016, it will increase the funding premium that recognises the extra cost of such provision delivered in a specialist setting (known as the programme weighting) from its current 60 per cent premium to 75 per cent.

“The announcement that the specialist programme weighting is rising to 75 per cent is really helpful for colleges running much-needed specialist land-based education, though it is a little unclear how DfE takes decisions like this and what its process is for revising funding weightings up or down,” said Mr Gravatt.

Lynne Sedgmore, 157 Group executive director, said: “The principle of ensuring young people are stretched and able to achieve their full potential is one that everyone can agree with, and any announcement of additional funding to enable this to happen is of course welcome.

“We would like to see that principle applied to all young people through a fair and equitable funding system, rather than just to those whom today’s announcement refers to as ‘the brightest’.”

Barbara Spicer to leave the Skills Funding Agency as hunt for permanent chief goes on

Skills Funding Agency interim boss Barbara Spicer has announced she is to step down in September as officials at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) continue the search for a permanent chief executive.

Ms Spicer, who signed up to a nine-month contract for the post in November, is to set to become chief executive of Liverpool-based housing agency Plus Dane Group.

She told FE Week: “I leave the agency at the end of my interim contract, knowing that it is both sound and strong.

“The importance of the work that the agency does in terms of funding quality skills to help deliver real jobs, for real people, will continue and remain its focus.”

The hunt for Ms Spicer’s replacement began last month, when the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) advertised the role with a salary of £142,000 a year — £2,000 more than was paid in 2012-13. It also comes with a possible bonus of up to £17,500 after three years, plus annual payouts “in line with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ Senior Civil Service policy”.

Ms Spicer said: “I have enjoyed my time here at the agency enormously and been very impressed at the quality of work, the professionalism and dedication of the staff.”

“The process has begun to put in place a new chief executive for the agency; a move that I have already signalled as very positive. I wish my successor and the staff within the agency the very best for the future.”

The job of overseeing an annual sectoral budget of around £3.5bn was advertised by national press with the requirement that applicants “have a substantial track record of delivering structural and cultural change”.

The specifications for the 42-hour a-week job (including one-hour meal breaks) added: “Politically astute, you will quickly command the respect of government and the sector.

“Prior experience of FE and skills policy is not essential, but you must be able to demonstrate an understanding of the challenges associated with operating a dynamic and efficient skills system that changes lives through learning.”

A BIS spokesperson declined to comment on when the new agency chief executive would be announced, but said: “Ms Spicer has done an excellent job in her role as interim chief executive of the agency and we thank her for her commitment and hard work. We are now recruiting for a new chief executive for the agency.”

The move to the Merseyside and Cheshire landlord will mark the return to a role in the north of England for Ms Spicer, who joined the agency having quit as the £175,000 a-year chief executive at Salford City Council after eight years amid an alleged row with elected mayor Ian Stewart.

She was also chief executive of Greater Manchester Police Authority and is a member of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

“I am absolutely delighted to be joining the team at Plus Dane and to have been given the opportunity to lead the organisation as it further develops its already excellent work in neighbourhoods across Cheshire and Merseyside,” said Ms Spicer.

“I was excited by the fact that the chair and board are clear about their vision for the future; a vision I wholeheartedly buy into.

“Housing has been the one constant for me throughout what has been a varied career of public service, and this very much feels like coming back to my roots.”

Linda Minnis, chair of Plus Dane Group, said: “The Plus Dane board is delighted to have appointed Ms Spicer at an exciting time for the organisation. We feel her vision, values, experience and leadership qualities will be invaluable in delivering our future goals and aspirations.”

A good time for a bad ‘posh kids’ premium’ decision

One of the first in-post announcements of new Skills Minister Nick Boles, for “extra” funding, emerged today and within hours had come under fire from the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association. Mick Fletcher adds his voice to those to question the rationale behind Mr Boles’s announcement.

It was perhaps inevitable that the decision of the government to cave in to a pressure group of the privileged and abandon funding per student for 16 to 19-year-olds should be announced now. It was either a new minister, ‘bounced’ into a quick decision which his more experienced predecessors knew to duck; or a pre-planned strategy to let it out just before Parliament and most of the education world went on summer break. We’ll never know for sure, though we can be sure that to give extra funding for those pupils who are easiest to teach is a thoroughly retrograde step.

One of the key achievements of Professor Alison Wolf’s proposals to reform 16 to 19 education was to return the sector to funding students, not qualifications. It makes every sense to leave it to institutions to decide how big a programme a student can tackle, as they do at every other stage of schooling. This system worked well for decades in school sixth forms until the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) decided to harmonise the 16 to 18 system around a funding model better suited to adult FE.

The Wolf reforms to funding were intended to get rid of the perverse incentives inherent in the LSC model, but one perverse incentive had become deeply ingrained. Those institutions that select only the most able students found that the discredited qualification funding regime suited them financially; to put it crudely students doing four A-levels earn twice the cash of those who can only cope with two. Although therefore there had been scarcely a word of concern about large programmes before the LSC regime was introduced the prospect of its removal caused panic: institutions would no longer be able to offer large programmes it was claimed and able state students would no longer be stretched.

Investigation of these claims has shown them to be largely without foundation which is presumably why former Skills Minister Matthew Hancock wisely refused to give in to demands to introduce a sort of ‘posh kids premium’. In education policy however it is not the quality of evidence that matters but the quality of your contacts. This maxim is well illustrated by comparing the large programmes debate with the recent furore over cutting funding for 18-year-olds.

In this latter case it is clear that the 17.5 per cent reduction to the funding of 18-year-olds will damage the quality of programmes that institutions are able to offer to young people. It is also clear that the effect will fall hardest on the less advantaged; those who for whatever reason are taking longer than the presumed norm to reach level three standard. It will disproportionately affect those in FE colleges, those on vocational programmes and those from disadvantaged homes.

Despite a powerful public campaign, which has united organisations across the whole of the sector, the minister has so far refused to give way. Although the discriminatory effect of this cut could be avoided without additional cost (by for example applying a flat rate reduction to all 16 to 18 programmes) there has been no hint of compromise. Far from being concerned that 18-year-olds should be ‘stretched’ the government line is that these students have had their fill of enrichment activities and only deserve a year of ‘FE Lite’.

Schools and colleges will not discriminate in this way of course. They will manage the cuts across the whole of their budgets to make sure that as far as possible students’ programmes match their needs, and not the funding incentives that are no less perverse for being planned. That is of course what the selective sector would have done if it had been faced down; that is what it always did in the days before LSC. It is revealing however that government finds it easier to defend the privileges of the fortunate than to provide equal treatment for those who have fallen behind.

MPs to look into 16 to 19 apprenticeships and traineeships

Apprenticeships and traineeships for 16 to 19-year-olds are set to come under the spotlight of MPs, it has been announced.

The House of Commons Education Select Committee (pictured) has called for written evidence for its inquiry to be in by noon on Tuesday, September 30, although no date has been set for hearings.

The nine areas for which evidence has been invited [see below for full list] cover the effectiveness of apprenticeships and traineeships for 16 to 19-year-olds, including whether they meet employers’ needs and provide a “solid foundation” for employment.

It will also look at the range of courses available, employer engagement levels, the impact of recent changes to funding and whether government investment represents good value for money.

Further, the cross-party committee’s 11 member MPs will look at ways the government might encourage more businesses to offer apprenticeships and the factors which prevent more young people considering apprenticeships.

They will also ask whether young people are adequately prepared for apprenticeships and how the government could encourage more people to take on apprenticeships and traineeships.

The inquiry, which is understood to be the committee’s last before the general election, was first revealed by committee chair Graham Stuart earlier this month.

The Conservative MP (pictured), speaking at the Higher Ambitions Vocational Education Summit in London on Tuesday, July 8, said: “This country has traditionally struggled to give vocational education anything close to the status it enjoys in countries such as Austria and Germany, which both noticeably have far lower youth unemployment rates than we have in Britain.”

He added: “My committee, its last inquiry before the general election will be into vocational education.”

According to official archives, it will be the committee’s first inquiry on the subject since the predecessor education and skills committee examined post-16 skills in March 2007.

The inquiry has been welcomed by the Association of Colleges (AoC), where a spokesperson said: “It’s good to see apprenticeships for younger people coming under more scrutiny, as this will help to build a better scheme. We look forward to working with the committee on this inquiry.”

Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) chief executive Stewart Segal told FE Week: “The terms of reference for the inquiry suggest that the committee has identified some key issues for addressing by policymakers as we approach the general election.

“The Prime Minister has said that he wants school leavers during the next Parliament to have the choice of going to university or starting an apprenticeship and therefore it’s important that we engage more employers to offer more high quality apprenticeship opportunities for young people.

“We hope that the committee reviews the evidence from employers to ensure that the apprenticeship reforms are based on what businesses are saying. AELP also looks forward to sharing with the MPs our views on how the traineeship programme can be made more flexible so that more places with credible work experience opportunities are on offer.”

The nine areas on which the committee wants evidence:

1. The effectiveness of apprenticeships and traineeships for 16 to 19-year-olds, including in terms of meeting employer needs in various sectors, and providing young people with a solid foundation for employment in general or in particular occupations, or for further study

2. The range of apprenticeships and traineeships available to young people

3. Current levels of employer engagement in apprenticeships (including in providing places or defining standards and setting assessment), and what further steps the government could take to improve this

4. The impact of recent changes to the funding of apprenticeships and traineeships

5. Whether the government’s investment in apprenticeships represents value for money in terms of the future wage returns for young people and their employability

6. How the government could encourage businesses of all sizes and in all sectors to offer apprenticeships, including improved fiscal, regulatory and other measures

7. What factors prevent more young people considering apprenticeships and how these could be overcome

8. Whether young people are adequately prepared for apprenticeships and how that preparation should be improved

9. How the government could encourage more young people to consider apprenticeships and traineeships

NUS calls for ‘new and better’ EMA as report shows drop in sixth form teens after it was abolished

The National Union of Students (NUS) has called for a “new and better” Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) after a “conservative” report showed the number of teenagers in sixth form education dropped by thousands after it was scrapped.

The EMA was launched by Tony Blair’s Labour Government in 2004 in an effort to encourage more 16 to 19-year-olds to stay in full-time education, with means-tested weekly payments of between £10 and £30 dependant upon attendance.

But it was dropped by the Coalition and was replaced in 2011 by the 16 to 19 Bursary Fund, which handed responsibility to providers to decide whether students should receive up to £1,200-a-year.

The Institute of Education and Institute for Fiscal Studies were commissioned by the Department for Education (DfE) to research what impact the new policy had in 2011/2012, and the resulting report estimated there had been a 1.2 per cent fall in the number of full-time Year 12 (lower sixth form) students and a 1.8 per cent fall among Year 13 (upper sixth form) learners who would otherwise have been eligible for full EMA payments.

“Combining the estimated overall participation effects suggests that full-time Year 12 and Year 13 participation dropped by 8,100 individuals as a consequence of the policy change,” according to the report.

It added: “Importantly, it is likely that the overall impact estimates presented in this report are conservative, and may underestimatethe true impacts of the policy reform in question.”

Joe Vinson, NUS vice president for FE, used the report to call for the return of EMA in an updated form. He told FE Week: “For the majority of students who received EMA, the money they got kept them in education, and helped them succeed at college as well as sustain a decent, healthy life.

“We want politicians to commit to creating a new and better EMA so that disadvantaged students can thrive and reach their potential.”

Julian Gravatt, assistant chief executive at the Association of Colleges, said: “It is important to emphasise that the withdrawal of EMA did not happen in isolation. Colleges made strenuous efforts to retain and recruit students who could benefit from education and, in some cases, diverted funds from core budgets to provide financial support so that they could do so.

“The decision to end EMA was made for financial reasons. The financial impact has been to add to the reduction in the overall resources available to young people.”

The report says the EMA cost the taxpayer £560m a-year at the time it was abolished. The total budget for the 16 to 19 Bursary Fund for 2011/12 was just £180m a-year. These grants only go to students who are currently in or recently left care, receiving income support, employment support allowance or disability living allowance. However, providers can also hand out additional discretionary payments to worst-off students.

A DfE spokesperson said: “Our cost-effective bursary fund has replaced the wasteful and poorly-targeted EMA, which cost the taxpayer more than £500m a year. Almost half of young people in education received EMA yet nine in 10 recipients said they didn’t need it to stay on at school or college.”