Agenda item

 (1)      Cabinet noted that the Education & Skills Bill had been described as landmark legislation.  It builds on the aspiration first set out in the Fisher Education Act 1918 (which raised the school leaving age from 12 to 14) that young people should remain in at least part-time education until the age of 18 – a provision that was never enacted as a result of the post World War 1 austerity. 

(2)       The Education Skills Bill proposed the implementation of many of the key changes recommended in the 2006 Leitch Review of Skills Final Report: Prosperity for All in the Global Economy – World Class Skills.  That report made a series of recommendations, accepted by Government, that increased participation in learning by both young people and adults was essential to realise the Leitch ambition that the UK had achieved world class skills by 2020.  This would bring key benefits to young people and adults, employers, the UK economy and wider society. 

(3)       One of key Leitch recommendations was that once, the Government’s 14-19 diploma reforms were successfully on track, the law should be changed so that all young people must remain in full or part time education or workplace training up to the age of 18. 

(4)       At this stage it was very difficult for the County Council to estimate the likely cost implications for increased participation to the age of 18 for Kent.  This is because the detailed methodology used by the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) in estimating the national costs provided in the impact assessment was not clear.  The County Council’s best estimate was that the cost of increasing participation from the current 74% level of participation in education and training by 17 year olds in Kent (latest available data for 2005) compared to the 76% national level is that this cost could cost around £29m annually.

(5)       The County Council’s provisional cost estimate for increased participation by young people with Special Educational Needs (SEN) is that this would cost £623,000 annually (£515,000 for the cost of young people continuing to participate in special schools; £29,000 for those with severe and complex needs and an additional £79,000 for pupils in specialist units attached to mainstream schools).

(6)       The County Council’s provisional cost estimate for additional transport costs arising from the increased participation requirement was estimated this would cost £358,000 annually (£173,000 for young people continuing in school sixth forms or Further Education Colleges; £138,000 for those continuing in special schools and £47,000 for those with severe and complex needs or staying on in specialist units).

(7)       There would undoubtedly be significant transport costs for individual schools and colleges in transporting young people between schools and colleges to facilitate local access to the new 14-19 Diplomas being delivered by local consortia arrangements of providers.  The additional funding being allocated for the implementation to the new 14-19 Diplomas included the scarcity factor to recognise some of the additional costs of transport in rural areas, but this was likely to be significantly below the additional funding the institutions would need to find for additional minibuses to transport young people between institutions.

(8)       Cabinet noted that total additional annual cost for Kent could therefore amount to £30m.

(9)       Cabinet noted that the main provisions of the Bill, raising the participation age first to age 17 and then to 18 were expected to be implemented from 2013 and 2015 respectively.  Most of the other provisions in the Bill would be subject to recommencement orders where DSC Ministers would have a degree of discretion of over what particular provisions are implemented. 

(10)     Cabinet commented that the implications of the Education and Skills Bill could not be separated from the demise of the Learning Skills Council.

(11)     Cabinet noted the implications of the Education Skills Bill, including the significant likely future costs which the County Council would have to bear.