Agenda item

Witnesses

Councillor Chris Barnham, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People

Pinaki Ghoshal, Executive Director for Children and Young People
Ruth Griffiths, Head of Access, Inclusion and Participation
Spike van der Vleit-Firth, Programme Lead for Jobs & Skills

Simon Spearman, Deputy Principal Vocational and Quality – CTK Acquinas Sixth Form

Susan Rowe, Lewisham Education Group and Lewisham Black Parent Forum

Key points from discussion

4.1.    A Youtube video entitled Post 16 options in Lewisham, in which Lewisham students gave an overview of A Levels, BTECs, Apprenticeships and NVQS, and T Levels, was shown.

4.2.    The Head of Access, Inclusion and Participation highlighted Lewisham’s low NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training figures). About 40 per cent of young residents stayed in the borough for Sixth Form.

4.3.    Simon Spearman noted CTK Acquinas was in its second year of delivering T Levels. It had expanded its offer that year and was to expand it further in the next year.

4.4.    It was important to promote T Levels as BTECS were to be phased out.

4.5.    The Lewisham T Level Forum enabled collaboration between providers to collectively offer a good range of subjects. The Council had facilitated meetings with employers such as the NHS, which had been helpful as employers were not yet sufficiently familiar with T Levels and the required 45-day placement.

4.6.    The Programme Lead for Jobs and Skills noted the Council received a lot of referrals for employment support. Lewisham Works was to promote options to 18-25 year olds in the Autumn and aimed to support 100 young people into EET by the end of the year. There were no formal eligibility criteria for support.

4.7.    The Council’s apprenticeship programme was performing well. Sixty-seven of the four-year 250 apprenticeships target had been delivered to date.

4.8.    The Council was to invest in Care Leaver internships and commission specialist Care Leaver employment support.

The Committee and its guests put questions to the witnesses. Key points raised included:

4.9.    The Council was to invest in Care Leaver internships and commission specialist Care Leaver employment support.

4.10. The NEET figures were accurate. The Access, Inclusion and Participation Service tracked the 6,500-person cohort throughout the academic year. Year 8 to 10 census data were monitored and attendance was tracked at Year 11. The Service had a good relationship with local providers to ensure it was familiar with those who were at risk of dropping out. Providers were good at providing data and information was shared between local authorities and out-of-borough colleges. The data were cleansed regularly ahead of submissions to the Department for Education. The Council usually met its annual targets in respect of the number of young people whose EET status was unknown.

4.11. Ten 16-17 year olds were receiving universal credit.

4.12. As the Council was expanding pre-16 educational provision for young people with additional needs, there was a need to expand post-16 provision. There was also specific provision for learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder in non-specialist settings and out-of-borough options.

4.13. The Council tracked electively home educated residents’ participation and offered them the same post-16 support and opportunities. Further, there was a specific pre-16 GCSE programme at Lewisham College to encourage home educated young people to progress into further education at post-16.

4.14. T Levels were rigorous academic courses with exams and vocational placements. While more needed to be done to promote T Levels nationally, students who were well-supported by their provider would progress on to higher education or employment smoothly.

4.15. The statutory duty to provide impartial careers and education information, advice and guidance sat with education settings, unlike historically. The Council provided settings with the full range of information, but it could not guarantee it was passed on, and was encouraging young people to be remain in borough for their post-16 education, as it was for secondary education.

4.16. Schools could offer T Levels but infrastructure costs could be prohibitive, as the courses required the creation of professional environments, such as mock hospital wards, which were hard to install in school buildings.

4.17. The government was providing capital funding for education settings to introduce the facilities required for T Levels, but it was unclear for how long that would be provided.

4.18. It was noted that the Lewisham Challenge was broader than the Oxbridge programme and offered exposure to a range of sectors and apprenticeships. Schools and Goldsmiths University funded Lewisham Challenge and the Council was seeking partner funding.

4.19. While the Council did not have responsibility for promoting apprenticeships and other alternative opportunities, it promoted them through a number of avenues.

4.20. A lack of education and training options relating to emerging sectors – such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing and green technologies – was noted.

4.21. There were pockets of opportunity for mentoring in Lewisham, but the challenge was to bring it together with limited resource.

4.22. The Baseline Service advised education settings on accommodating young people’s employment. Realism was needed regarding the extent to which learners could undertake employment while in full-time education.

4.23. The amount of maintenance support provided for further education learners was lower than historically and was provided to education settings, which could choose how it was spent, which was not monitored.

Standing orders were suspended for 15 minutes at 9.24pm.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.