Policy to keep teens in education until 18 has limited impact, study finds

A decade after the government raised the participation age in England to 18, a new study from the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath finds the policy has had limited impact—with only modest gains in education and training, and persistent gaps in support for the most vulnerable 16–18-year-olds.

The Raising of the Participation Age (RPA), introduced in 2013, aimed to keep more young people in education or training. But this first in-depth evaluation of the policy reveals a mixed and often disappointing picture.

Key findings include:

• Small and short-lived gains in participation: Year 12 engagement rose slightly after the policy was introduced but then actually fell, with participation in Year 13 also lower after the policy.
• Rising dropout rates, particularly in Further Education (FE).
• Some benefits for low attainers, including modest improvements in staying in school and entering work.
• Slight increases in GCSE English attainment and early-career earnings but limited overall labor market impact.

Fieldwork in six local authorities (Blackpool, Bristol, Norfolk, Sunderland, Wandsworth, and Worcestershire) revealed widespread challenges in delivering RPA on the ground:

• Many young people drop out of learning and reappear only when they reach the benefits system at 18.
• Careers advice is inconsistent, particularly around vocational routes.
• Local authorities lack the resources and data needed to track and support disengaged young people.
• Math and English resits remain a major barrier, especially in FE and for students who would benefit more from functional skills pathways.
• Youth poverty causes students to choose school or college courses simply to retain access to Child Benefit.

Professor Matt Dickson, from the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, said, “RPA was conceived with good intentions, but by the time it was introduced the supporting policies and systems were removed, leaving only the legal duty on young people to participate. Without strong local support, flexible learning routes and effective careers guidance, too many young people are currently falling through the cracks.”

We repeatedly heard from young people who wanted to work or take vocational routes, but either couldn’t access the right opportunities or didn’t know they existed.

The research team is calling for a fundamental reset in how RPA is delivered, including:

• Statutory responsibility for Strategic Authorities to track 16–18-year-olds.
• Increased funding for Local Authorities to identify and re-engage young people who drop out.
• A full review of the English and math resit policy, particularly for learners in FE.
• Better data sharing on post-16 destinations to enable earlier intervention.
• An extension of Child Benefit to all under-18s, regardless of education or employment status, to reduce financial pressure on families.

Professor Dickson added, “The minority of young people who don’t continue in education and training post-16 are being failed by the system. The RPA still has great potential but to make it work we need better coordination, proper funding and more inclusive, flexible pathways.”

Dr. Emily Tanner, Programme Head at the Nuffield Foundation said, “In the context of worryingly high NEET rates, this research provides important new insights about the cross-governmental actions needed to support young people’s engagement in meaningful post-16 education and training.”