Rt Hon Anne Milton MP
Minister of State
Department for Education
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London, SW1P 3BT

7th September 2017

Dear Anne,

Underspend on education for 16 to 19 year olds

Thank you for your answer to my written question (PQ 1097) regarding spending on education for 16 to 19 year olds.  I also noted your subsequent answer to a related question from Nic Dakin (PQ 3811).

Now we are at the beginning of the new academic year, I should be grateful if you could further inform me of the underspend figure for the academic year 16/17. 

In the PQ answers provided to date, you acknowledge an underspend of £135 million in 14/15 and £132 million in 15/16.  Whilst I am aware that estimates of the numbers of students may be higher than actual student numbers, the original estimated amounts are badly needed by sixth form colleges and sixth forms, and would make a real difference to the education they are able to provide.  Cuts to education funding for 16 to 19 years olds introduced in 2011, 2013 and 2014, combined with ongoing cost increases, have had a negative impact on students and are turning sixth form education in England into a part time experience.

At a meeting in my constituency this Summer, school sixth form and college leaders reported to me that they face huge financial pressures, so it is difficult to understand why the £267 million (over two years) underspend in the sixth form education budget has not been delivered to the education frontline.

To illustrate how the underspend impacts upon BHASVIC and Varndean in my constituency, the two years of underspend revealed by the PQs referred to above equates to a total £793,837 (and this doesn’t even include the 16/17 figures I have requested in this letter):

14/15: underspend = extra £104 per student

BHASVIC: 2279 students = £237,016

Varndean: 1464 = £152,256  

15/16: underspend = extra £105 per student

BHASVIC: 2365 students = £248,325

Varndean: 1488 = £156,240  

The underspend issue also affects FE colleges, such as Brighton Metropolitan College (MET) in my constituency, and is a matter of serious concern as the following figures show:

14/15: underspend = extra £104 per student

City College Brighton and Hove: 2091 students = £217, 464

Northbrook College: 1511 students = £157,144   

15/16: underspend = extra £105 per student

City College Brighton and Hove: 2,135 students = £224,175

Northbrook College: 1492 = £156,660 

You may already be aware of two recent key recommendations from the Sixth Form Colleges Association – to which I strongly urge you to agree to.  Firstly, to introduce a £200 per student uplift in funding to improve the education and support offered to sixth form students.  This uplift is vital to address funding pressures and would help improve teaching on study skills, employability skills, careers advice, mental and physical health support, and the enrichment activities available to students – all of which are suffering in the current funding climate.  The estimated £244 million per year cost could be partly funded by using the underspend referred to above.

New money is justified on the basis that funding rates for sixth formers have been fixed since 2013, and a modest uplift would go some way to reflect the inflationary pressures and cost increases that schools and colleges have faced during that time.

Secondly, I urge you to support a review of sixth form funding to ensure it is linked to the realistic costs of delivering a rounded, high quality curriculum. At age 16, pupils face a 21% drop in education funding. This reduces the number of hours of teaching and support available, yet there is no educational basis for such a reduction.  It also runs entirely counter to the requirement to participate in education and training until the age of 18.

It is my understanding that Sixth formers in England are now only funded to receive half the tuition time (around 15 hours per week) of sixth formers in other leading economies. This is unacceptable.  A review is urgently needed to ensure we remain internationally competitive, and that we are giving young people the best possible education.

The scope of such a review is important. The recent commitment to invest £500 million in technical education is welcome, but will not impact on the vast majority of sixth form students who are pursuing academic or applied general qualifications. There remains a pressing need to address the chronic underfunding of mainstream sixth form education in England.   Without further investment, our young people will be at the sharp end of yet further cuts to courses (particularly STEM and languages), class sizes will continue to increase, and there is a very real concern that some school sixth forms will disappear.

I should be grateful to your response to this letter and I urge you to reimburse all those offering education to 16-19 tear olds, who have been affected by the underspend, without delay.

Best wishes,