Overall, the transition target for IFP partnerships had been successfully met, as around 90 per cent of young people who had been involved in the first cohort
of IFP had continued into further education or training post-16. Furthermore, students who had taken a GCSE in a vocational subject through IFP were more likely to have continued into further learning than students who had taken other qualifications, even when other student and school characteristics had been controlled for.
Most of the young people were positive about what they were doing post-16. However, a minority were not satisfied with their post-16 destination and these young people were more likely to be those who were in a job without training. In contrast, those in an Apprenticeship post-16 were more positive about their current destination than young people overall. This difference highlights the importance of supporting young people to make a successful transition into the work-based route after finishing Year 11, and ensuring that they choose the most appropriate work-based option for them. There also appears to be a need to ensure that young people receive guidance from an appropriate person, as young people who were in work without training post-16 were more likely to have spoken to an employer, or another person in work, and they were more likely to say that these people had been influential on their post-16 choice. This suggests that these young people had sought guidance on their choice of post-16 destination, but were also more likely not to be satisfied with their current activity. This may indicate that the advice they received was not always appropriate.
A minority of young people had changed from their initial post-16 destination and, in most cases, this was due to young people’s expectations of their course or job not being met. Again, this highlights the importance of ensuring that these individuals receive appropriate advice and guidance on their choices post-16, so that they can make fully informed decisions about their post-16 destinations. The finding that nearly half (46 per cent) of respondents to the post-16 survey would have liked more guidance in choosing what to do after finishing Year 11, particularly in relation to exploring which careers might suit their skills, abilities and interests, reinforces this conclusion.
The majority of young people who were undertaking a course post-16 were pursuing a qualification that was at a higher level than the level of the course they had undertaken through IFP. However, young people did not always choose to take a course or employment in the same vocational area as their IFP course. Some appeared to have a continuing commitment to the vocational area they studied through IFP, although, for others, this vocational area was not a lifelong career choice.
IFP participants who had continued into further learning were studying a range of types of qualifications post-16, at a range of locations, including the work- based route, the ‘vocational’ FE college route, and the traditional ‘academic’ A-level route. This suggests that the IFP cohort was not a homogenous group of students, and also indicates that participating in the IFP did not limit their
future options, but enabled them to progress onto a range of destinations post- 16.
There appeared to be some continuity of routes from pre-16 to post-16, as students who had taken NVQs or other vocational qualifications through IFP were more likely to be taking these types of qualifications post-16. This suggests that participation in IFP, therefore, may have given young people the opportunity to find out more about the qualification pathways they could follow post-16. There was some indication that this transition into further education and training would be sustained, as most young people planned to remain in education and training for two years or more, and around a third were considering continuing on to higher education.
A range of variables emerged as influencing young people’s choices of post- 16 destination, including their experience pre-16, through IFP. The IFP had been an influence on the post-16 choice of two in five IFP participants, and, for eight per cent, the IFP had been the most influential factor on their post-16 destination. Furthermore, a notable minority of young people felt that they would have made an alternative post-16 choice if they had not participated in IFP. The programme appeared to have been particularly influential on certain sub-groups of young people. For example, those who had taken an NVQ or GNVQ through IFP, and those with lower levels of attainment at key stage 3, were significantly more likely to have found IFP helpful in supporting their transition. Furthermore, IFP appeared to have been particularly influential on those young people who were taking a course at college post-16, especially in relation to deciding what to do after finishing Year 11 and where to study. This is supported by the finding that those who studied their IFP course off- site were more likely to be taking a post-16 course at an FE college or training provider.