Debate contribution: Supporting Learning Pathways for our Young People

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 4 February 2025.

MLA

Mr Peter Martin

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

4 February 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Supporting Learning Pathways for our Young People

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4779303

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I fully welcome the debate. I thank the proposers of the motion for tabling it. As you will note, our amendment accepts over half the original motion. My colleagues will pick up on that point in their speeches. The original motion misses a key aspect that is important when we look at those areas, and that is the role of the Department for the Economy. When I speak to some of the key aspects of our amendment, it may be worth laying out how schools are funded and the mechanisms for delivering that. The Member opposite touched on that in her speech. Grant-aided schools are funded using the common funding scheme (CFS), which is more commonly known as the common funding formula (CFF). That is the Department's mechanism for allocating school budgets across the system. In effect, the mechanism distributes a quantum of money, and some of the factors that it considers are the overall enrolment and pupils' needs. Post-primary education, which we are examining today, is made up of a whole range of factors — there are some 17 — and those are fairly detailed and complex. The CFF distributes the money that sits in what we call the aggregated schools budget. There is also — I am sure that it will be talked about today — the age-weighted pupil unit (AWPU), and that factor distributes the most significant portion of what we know as the delegated budget to schools. We also know that, in the use of that formula, a sixth-form pupil attracts more funding than a pupil in years 8 to 10. Therefore, it naturally follows that schools want to keep pupils where they can. I am sure that the Members opposite will address this in their speeches. I feel that the original motion is a little vague. The motion:

"calls on the Minister of Education to assess the current per-pupil funding model for sixth-form colleges to consider whether it adequately supports all learning pathways".

When I read that, I was not completely clear whether those who tabled it wanted DE funding to be reduced to incentivise pupils to go to FE, whether they wanted it to be raised to place more funding into sixth forms in schools or, possibly, whether they wanted funding reconfigured out of Education and into Economy, which also holds some responsibility for careers. Equally, to be fair to them, it might just be that the motion is suggesting that the CFF be revised. To a degree, as we look at sixth-form centres and their competitors, such as colleges around the country, the economic theory of what we call competitive advantage comes into play. That simply means that, whether you are a country, a business or an individual, you are best to focus on the things that you do best and leave others to do the things that they do best. In operative terms, that means, in the area that we are looking at today, that, for example, where there is a local college offering a level 3 extended diploma in music technology and it has a state-of-the-art suite to support that qualification, it makes little sense for a school to try to replicate that qualification within its offering. Conversely, if sixth forms are offering a wide range of A levels, as most of them do, it does not make very much sense to me for colleges to offer the same, other than picking up some students who are repeating their A levels. To be fair, the Alliance amendment touches quite comprehensively on the point that, as we look at how careers are configured and who stays in school, who goes off to college and who goes to work, a pupil-centred approach is needed and also that, at that age range, there is a range of qualifications that pupils can study and where they go is where the best offering that can be provided is. I accept that, for some students, that is in school and that, for others, that might be at their local college. Returning to our amendment, we cannot have a conversation about, as the motion puts it, "career pathways" without having input from the Department for the Economy. That is not referenced in the original motion, and I admit that I found that a little surprising.

I thank the Member opposite for that very useful intervention. I agree with him, as, I think, everyone in the House will, that we want the best for children. We also want them to be studying in the right environment that gives the right opportunities for their career in the future. The Department for the Economy holds a pivotal role with the careers services that it provides, and that is reflected in our amendment. For example, it hosts a careers service for 11- to 19-year-olds, including a separate section on year 10 career choices. I happen to have someone in year 10, and they are considering their options, mainly under the guidance of their mother. A careers service offering has to include Economy. I agree with the Member opposite: it is collaborative work and both Departments have a role to play. The thrust of the motion is sixth-formers and sixth-form colleges, which, I accept, the Member clarified. That is a little narrow and a little late, however, considering that the Department for the Economy already provides careers guidance to students in year 10 — third form in old money — on the subjects that they should take for GCSE and on the degree, apprenticeship or career that they might embark on. We have to look at that at an earlier stage. Our amendment seeks to address that — I will, keeping an eye on the time, quote from it — as it:

"further calls on the Minister for the Economy to ensure careers advice adequately supports all learning pathways with the potential to help address identified skills gaps across the economy."

That is really important. The Department for the Economy holds supply information on where the jobs will be in five to 10 years' time. Economy knows that. Our macroeconomy is always changing, and jobs are always changing, but, hopefully, the collaborative piece that is reflected in our amendment addresses that. Economy knows where we will need future apprentices and future degrees as part of a changing, dynamic workforce. We ask the Minister of Education:

"to assess options to increase per-pupil funding across our education system, as well as review the operation of the common funding scheme, particularly with respect to sixth-form colleges."

I know that, if additional funding —

Thank you very much. I concur with the Chair of the Education Committee that the 14-19 framework is important, and it was useful to include that in his party's amendment. How am I doing? Twenty seconds. If additional funding is provided to the Minister of Education, we can look at flexibility for the CFF. I encourage and support that. We want to get the maximum money directly into schools, and I ask Members to support our amendment.

1,174 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:52 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification