It could be argued that the barriers* which this group of learners face fall into two broad (but interrelated) categories:

i)  those related to the attitudes of policy makers, education and other sector professionals, and post-16 funders about the purpose of learning for this group, and

ii)  those related to or arising from the political or structural processes which govern or influence post-16 education, including the sometimes conflicting Government priorities and interdepartmental debates about the best way to support young people and adults with learning difficulties and/or disabilities in our 21st century society.

*Some of the most widely accepted and documented "barriers" to ensuring that people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities, access the provision they want and need are listed below.

  As part of our commitment to learning for its own intrinsic value we have agreed a safeguarded budget for learning for personal and community development (PCDL) of £210 million pa in 2006-07 and 2007-08. This comprises part of the old Adult Continuing Learning budget but also some funds from mainstream FE. Our objectives are to ensure a range of good quality opportunities in every area and to widen participation in this type of learning. This is why we have commissioned the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education to develop a toolkit of good practice in ensuring such opportunities are attractive to learners with learning difficulties and disabilities. However we must ensure that we do not distort the purposes of PCDL with a move away from properly funding courses for these learners through FE. In PCDL funding rates will generally be lower and without the funds for learner support that these learners need.

SPECIFIC BARRIERS TO LEARNING

—  Cultural expectations: low expectations/aspirations and assumptions about people's (lack of) potential for learning and working; this includes parental views on where and how young people should be educated.

—  Inadequate and inappropriate provision—particularly for those with more severe or complex needs: often this provision is discrete, segregated and focuses on stereotypical "life skills" or "work preparation" which does not meet the interests or desires of the individual.

—  Lack of appropriate support services for people with high support needs living at home (particularly in non-term time).

—  Lack of staff awareness and/or training: staff often do not understand how to measure progress on non-accredited programmes making Individual Learning Plans difficult to review (Ofsted 2007); some staff simply lack awareness of how to support people with specific impairments.

—  Poor transition planning: schools often do not think about the whole life needs of the individual young person beyond 16/18; colleges often do not receive the information given on statements of special education need or other documentation about the existing levels of skills and knowledge, and conversely where this may be received is not implemented adequately (Ofsted, 2007).

—  Lack of real work experience opportunities or real-life situations of learning (proven to be most effective for people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities).

—  Narrow or restrictive assessment methodologies (particularly on accredited programmes) which exclude many people from getting any credit or recognition for the things they can do.

—  Lack of person-centred approaches at transition to FE and beyond.

—  "Systems of support" (at transition and other times) which are overly bureaucratic and complex: this includes the way that funding support is allocated to individuals wanting to enter the workforce.

—  Lack of co-ordination or shared responsibility between different agencies involved in decisions around funding placements.

20 July 2007