Policy history – the why

In 2007–08, the world was gripped by a financial crisis, which impacted the financial landscape in the UK (Mandilaras, Reference Mandilaras2017). Chivers (Reference Chivers2015) and Mandilaras (Reference Mandilaras2017) both discussed the major impact this had on the jobs market and unemployment levels. This lead to an increase in unemployment levels, recruitment halts, a decrease in pay against inflation, alongside the freezing of bonuses and overtime (Johnstone et al., Reference Johnstone, Saridakis and Wilkinson2019; Bell and Blanchflower, Reference Bell and Blanchflower2011). These widespread economic repercussions significantly shaped both public policy responses and economies in the years that followed. This coincided with the significant ‘underemployment’ of staff, especially younger workers, meaning they could not get full-time hours, leading to longer-term economic challenges alongside negative mental health and wellbeing impacts (Heyes et al., Reference Heyes, Tomlinson and Whitworth2016). Beatty and Fothergill (Reference Beatty and Fothergill2017) also suggested that the poorer areas of the UK, northeast England being one of these (MHCLG, 2019), were hit harder by austerity measures, generating a greater gulf between those who have and those who have not. They further argued the need for policy makers to recognise the geographical dimension of welfare issues, especially those former industrial regions when implementing new policy.

In 2015, the UK government implemented the final stage of the RPA policy as part of the Legislation.gov (2012) and Department for Education (2007). The RPA meant that all young people up to the age of eighteen must be in some form of education, training, or employment. This was initially suggested and put in place by the Labour government in 2007 and by the green paper called ‘Raising the Expectations’ (DfES, 2007), implementing the findings from the Leitch Report (Leitch, 2006). Leitch found that the landscape of businesses and the skills needed by them had changed a lot within the prior ten years, and that the UK workforce was not up to task to support this. He found that the UK was seventeenth out of thirty countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tables with low skills. Alongside five million adults with poor literacy were seventeen million with poor numeracy, and there were limited people with medium- or high-level skills available to perform skilled professions (Knell et al., Reference Knell, Oakley and O’leary2007). In addition to this Leitch (2006) and Knell et al. (Reference Knell, Oakley and O’leary2007) reported that UK businesses were under-investing in training, which in turn impacted their productivity and growth, leading to a mismatch between economic needs and workforce capabilities. Leitch (2006) suggested this could mean that the UK would be outperformed by nations with better skilled and adaptable workforces. As such, this limited national workforce would not be up to standard to engage in skilled jobs roles. This would impact their employability within these jobs, needing these roles to be undertaken by skilled migrant workers. This would further erode our ability to be seen as a world-leading country, and our standing on OECD tables (Leitch, 2006).

The Labour government’s implementation of the RPA suggested that the age of participation should be first increased to seventeen in 2013 and finally to eighteen in 2015. This was undertaken and implemented by the coalition government in 2010 and became UK law. It was suggested in the Leitch Report (2006) that the main driver behind this policy was upskilling the UK workforce. To undertake this, the government suggested increasing the participation age in education, as increasing people’s skill levels would help society (Leitch, 2006; DfE, 2013). Leitch (2006) and Day et al. (Reference Day, Sandals, Kettlewell, Easton and Durbin2012) all highlighted that by increasing this age of education, people would have higher wages over their lives, improved educational outcomes, decreased likelihood of offending behaviour and crime, increased life satisfaction, and increased health benefits. However, it is felt that another driver was behind this, too. Seager (Reference Seager2009), and Mandilaras (Reference Mandilaras2017) highlighted that at the time of this new policy being implemented, unemployment figures had risen by around a quarter of a million that year with predictions suggesting this could potentially rise to over a million. Understandably the government at the time was concerned, especially because within the rest of Europe, unemployment figures were reducing, unlike in the UK where unemployment was increasing (Powell, Reference Powell2018).

Hinds (Reference Hinds2009) followed by suggesting that the government’s real rationale behind this implementation was to decrease the United Kingdom’s Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) figures for sixteen to eighteen year olds. Our figures in 2013, around the time of the first stage of implementation of the RPA, stood at a participation rate of 78 per cent, with the OECD average being 84 per cent (OECD, 2021).

These NEET figures allow a country to analyse its workforce, the jobs available, and where potential support might be needed. Also, it allows the government to understand who they need to focus on, especially those who have fallen through the cracks. These NEET figures are international statistics employed by the OECD, which put thirty-seven different countries in a league table against other democracies with market-based economies, allowing countries to compare against foreign counterparts (OECD, n,d). Ball (Reference Ball2003) underscored the influence that OECD statistics can exert, particularly in prompting governments to adjust policies to meet externally visible benchmarks or to ‘save face’ on the international stage. These comparative data points can drive policy shifts aimed more at achieving targets than addressing underlying issues. Woodin et al. (Reference Woodin, McCulloch and Cowan2012) highlighted that at the time of the RPA policy being implemented, the UK had one of the biggest youth unemployment figures in the developed world at 21 per cent, 4.7 per cent higher than the OECD average with this having increased over the ten years from 1999–2009 (ONS, 2021). The initial bill for the Education and Skills Act (2008) focused on the need for sixteen to eighteen year olds to remain in education before discussing the potential positive reasons behind why they should.

Context of influence – an overview of the stages before the roll-out

After the initial discussions around the need to change the age of compulsory education on the back of the Leitch Report (2006), the policy was slowly implemented through a combination of government reports, trial phases, and academic research. Phase one undertook a trial run and assessed the effectiveness of the implementation in ten Local Authorities (LA), whilst highlighting expected challenges (DfE, 2010). The DfE (2010) reinforced the importance of impartial information advice and guidance (IAG) for all, further clarity on financial support, and better support provisions for disadvantaged learners, alongside those who have learning difficulties or disabilities. Also, highlighting the policy could marginalise those who it aimed to help most, if the above was not effectively implemented.

Phase two (DfE, 2011) then assessed how well certain LAs were implementing the areas it raised as a concern from phase one with specific LA focusing on one of the following: IAG, re-engagement (NEET), and local solutions – meaning a flexible approach to ensure effective implementation. Again, this was heralded as a success; however, it did highlight struggles in evaluating the positive impact of the RPA policy. This was due to challenges in receiving effective compliance data from local authorities, alongside the fact that participation rates within FE had increased prior to the policy being implemented, meaning they were unable to identify how impactful the RPA policy was (DfE, 2016).

Phase three (DfE, 2012) amplified the focus on local bespoke initiatives to encourage confidence in the national roll-out of the policy. Unfortunately, again, this phase struggled to clearly identify the positive impact this new policy hadwhile also highlighting the challenges in effectively supporting the most vulnerable – NEET, Looked After Children, learners with learning difficulties, or disabilities, and those hard-to-reach leaners – whilst also stressing the challenges in delivering effective IAG. The challenges faced by LAs in meeting the needs of learners were largely due to the limited time available for implementation, compounded by the complex and varied barriers to education faced by young people. They suggested the use of improved partnership work between all key stakeholders, targeted support for vulnerable groups, alongside greater use of tracking systems, and bespoke localised support to ensure all learners were effectively supported (DfE, 2016).

Phase four (DfE, 2013) was the final wave, prior to the national deployment of the policy. This phase highlighted a lot of positive responses to the mixed-method evaluation process. However, again the same challenges faced throughout were highlighted, in that IAG was ineffective, but that this was due to time constraints, alongside the challenges faced in understanding; and ultimately meeting the needs, of the most vulnerable learners, as mentioned in phase three.

Although the trial phases consistently highlighted challenges, the UK government hoped to mitigate these by improving IAG, focusing on interventions for vulnerable learners, increasing support for T-levels and apprenticeship pathways, and collaborating over cross-sectors (DfE, 2016).

Further understanding key themes within the policy – effective participation

One of the main points of contention within the RPA is the concept of effective participation in education. This term is quite ambiguous. The Participation of Young People in Education, Employment, and Training – Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities (DfE, 2013) explained that ‘Where a young person is attending full-time education at a school, they will be meeting their duty to participate’, therefore suggesting that a person must be physically present to participate. Biesta (Reference Biesta2004) explains that educational establishments, as overseen by government departments, view accountability as a tool to highlight positive outcomes in education, further suggesting our focus is on measuring what is easy to measure and therefore give value to, not measuring the things we value. Therefore, participation, or attendance as the policy suggests, is easy to measure, meaning if more people attend, then the outcomes must be good. McLaughlin and Rhim (Reference McLaughlin and Rhim2007) further feel that the UK’s concept of participation is solely an outcomes-based measure, whereby it focuses on those who are attending, the number of people who are NEET, and what can be done to change this. This highlights a broader issue within policy, specifically the RPA policy, where participation is treated as a measurable outcome rather than a meaningful educational experience.

Bergmark and Western (Reference Bergmark and Westman2018), however, argue that participation is more active, with learners engaging in learning and feeling a sense of community. Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory (Reference Vygotsky1978) describes learning as the need for learners’ active involvement within their education as a means of their ability to learn and, as such, participate. In addition to this, the participation of young people in education, employment, and training statutory guidance for local authorities (2016) suggests that participation is within either education or training, with no mention of employment. However, the DfE (2016) specified it meant to be in an apprenticeship, full-time study, or full-time work or volunteering of twenty hours or more, combined with part-time education or training to improve their academic level to a level three. This suggests ambiguity between the main stakeholders engaging with this policy.

Evaluation of the evidence base behind the policy

As discussed earlier, the idea around RPA was created on the back of an investigation by Leitch (2006), which assessed the UK’s workforce and skill base, and how this was to develop in the hope of the UK as an economic power, increasing our economic prosperity and improving us societally. Charles Clarke and Gordon Brown believed that the UK lacked the skills for a changing job market, requiring a new strategy (Lambert et al., Reference Lambert, Maylor and Coughlin2015). Leitch (2006) felt that we needed to increase the participation age in education to allow us to have a more skilled labour force to meet these demographic, technological, and global changes.

Leitch (2006) also found that the UK had social disparities, namely ‘High levels of child poverty, poor employment rates for the disadvantaged, regional disparities and relatively high-income inequality’. Leitch (2006) and Pearce et al. (Reference Pearce, Mason, Fleming, Taylor-Robinson and Whitehead2020) highlighted that by increasing this age of compulsory education, people would have higher wages over their lives, improved educational outcomes, decreased likelihood of offending behaviour and crime, positive societal involvement, lower chances of teenage pregnancy, increased life satisfaction, and increased health benefits.

Although Leitch (2006) and DfE (2007) highlighted the above, it could be argued that they attempted a blanket approach rather than looking into the root cause of these people who are NEET, which I will explore later. Coles (Reference Coles2014) looked at some of the flaws of the term NEET, explaining that it does not consider those without a fixed abode, those in prison, or those within the care system, thus highlighting the inaccuracy of the figures reported. In addition to this, although the term NEET is simplistic, the understanding behind why someone is NEET is complex. Habitus (Bourdieu, Reference Bourdieu2020) is not innate, but is a socially constructed set of dispositions, shaped from experiences, socialisations, individual and family academic capacity, socio-economic status, social haunting, and social contexts, to name a few, thus highlighting the complexities around why someone is NEET. However, within policy this is rarely delved into to be understood, and therefore effectively reduced (Dickson, Reference Dickson2023). DfES (2007) and MacCagnan et al. (Reference MacCagnan, Wren-Lewis, Brown and Taylor2018) all highlighted the positive impact the RPA policy would have on offending behaviour; however, Dickson (Reference Dickson2023) suggested that no positive or negative change has occurred since this implementation, further emphasising the need to understand the rationale behind offending behaviours and the habitus of NEET to be able to effectively support them.

Although Spielhofer et al. (Reference Spielhofer, Walker, Gagg, Schagen and O’donnell2007) suggested that this was another driver behind the RPA, the outcomes behind this are not as clear cut as they suggested. Within the Wales study, raising the age of participation in education or training to eighteen in Wales, Dickson and Maguire (2022) and the WCPP (2022) found that the implementation of RPA showed a small positive impact on potential unemployment rates, achieving qualifications and increases in their future earning, with overall limited benefits for young people, but with a large cost to the country. The OECD (2011), and Dickson and Maguire (2022), suggested that engagement in education post-sixteen is likely to be impacted by experiences in primary education, highlighting a need to focus on addressing issues with disengagement in education at this young age. WCPP (2022) also suggested a focus on early prevention of NEET, supporting those struggling with education and offering additional support to disadvantaged learners to help mitigate low educations levels.

Leitch’s (2006) claims that there is a positive impact on mental health and retention in additional education are also contested. Avendano et al. (Reference Avendano, de Coulon and Nafilyan2020) suggest that there is no positive impact on mental health, with this potentially having a negative effect on the people it is meant to be supporting most, those low-achieving learners, whereas Crespo et al. (Reference Crespo, Lopes-Naval and Mira2014) contradicted this, suggesting additional education does positively impact mental health. Numerous studies found that those who were NEET were more likely to report poor mental health by the age of twenty-one (SEU, 1999; Gariépy et al., Reference Gariépy, Danna, Hawke, Henderson and Iyer2021). However, this could be due to socioeconomic factors rather than poor educational attainment. Another study by Aldrige and Lavender (Reference Aldridge and Lavender2000), however, found positive results around additional education and mental health but did also find an increase in 39 per cent of stress and anxiety levels due to this learning. Further highlighting the complexity of relying on overly simplistic, generalised statements that portray policies as universally beneficial, when in reality the evidence is often nuanced, revealing both advantages and drawbacks.

Within my experience of lecturing within FE, I have found a large range of struggles around mental health, with this taking up a lot of time within my role, which has been echoed by my colleagues during discussions. This could, however, be a consequence of the impact of COVID-19, with mental health being talked about more, and larger class sizes. Within these classes are often students with a wide range of personal and educational support needs; in my classes, this year (2024–2025) being around half, with limited pastoral support or supportive equipment to allow effective inclusive education. In addition to this, due to the large cohorts being taught, lecturers may not be able to holistically support these learners as they would like. Chingos and Whitehurst (Reference Chingos and Whitehurst2011) and Russell (Reference Russell2020) highlighted the positive impact smaller class sizes can have for these learners. Abrahamsen et al. (Reference Abrahamsen, Moen and Asche2024) found that larger class sizes affect mental wellbeing and increase drop-out rates from college due to reduced active learning and limited one-to-one time, which in turn impacts student wellbeing. Campbell et al. (Reference Campbell, Blank, Cantrell, Baxter, Blackmore, Dixon and Goyder2022) found that smaller class sizes promote better engagement and attendance, as well as improved one-to-one time with lecturers, suggesting that larger classes undermine these protective factors. However, by implementing an RPA-type policy, the benefits of smaller class sizes (Wang and Calvano, Reference Wang and Calvano2022) become a moot point, as colleges need to make money due to the funding challenges they have faced (Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Bolton and Hubble2021). Often colleges have had to minimise an increase in staff levels to facilitate larger cohorts of students due to limited funding (especially against the rate of inflation), pay constraints for teachers, increased general running costs, reduced adult education funding, and the pressure to deliver government priorities (such as T-levels), (Senior and Barnes, Reference Senior and Barnes2023; Camden, Reference Camden2025).

These findings may be further exacerbated by the impact of Covid-19, as noted by Thompson et al. (Reference Thompson, Pawson, Delfino, Saunders and Parker2021). Marquez et al. (Reference Marquez, Katsantonis, Sellers and Knies2022) highlighted that the ages seventeen to twenty-one represent a critical period during which mental wellbeing can influence long-term life satisfaction, underlining the potential impact the RPA could have on students lacking strong educational connections. Steiner et al. (Reference Steiner, Sheremenko, Lesesne, Dittus, Sieving and Ethier2019) reported that those with positive family relationships and academic engagement were less likely to experience emotional distress, suicidal thoughts, violent behaviour, or substance abuse in adulthood. Consequently, the changes resulting from the implementation of the RPA have disproportionately impacted the very individuals it was intended to assist.

Leitch (2006) identified that NEET figures were rising; with this being particularly prevalent within the sixteen to eighteen range, alongside, the number of students staying in post-sixteen education was below OECD averages. In comparison with the rest of Europe, our NEET levels were increasing, whereas Europe’s were generally reducing (Day et al., Reference Day, Sandals, Kettlewell, Easton and Durbin2012; DfE, 2016). The aim of the RPA policy was to improve people’s prospects, whilst reducing these figures. However, concerns were raised continually throughout the trial phases (DfE, 2013), which reflected a lack of understanding of the complex habitus of a NEET individual (Bourdieu, Reference Bourdieu2020).

Day et al. (Reference Day, Sandals, Kettlewell, Easton and Durbin2012) and Maguire and Newton (Reference Maguire and Newton2013) highlighted that the withdrawal of funding at LA level has had a negative impact on the implementation of the policy, and those on whom it was trying to support. Cuts to LA budgets meant that career advice was then moved into schools, which lead to the impartiality of advice with schools having clear financial incentives to place students within their sixth forms (Day et al., Reference Day, Sandals, Kettlewell, Easton and Durbin2012; Camden, Reference Camden2025). Alongside this Maguire and Newton (Reference Maguire and Newton2013) suggested this meant young people were often misplaced or placed in unsuitable programmes. Inadequate IAG, coupled with an institutional focus on retention rates driven by financial incentives rather than student welfare, ultimately deepened the sense of isolation among those the policy intended to support and left many learners feeling increasingly confused (Woodin et al., Reference Woodin, McCulloch and Cowan2012). This focus on retainment figures, rather than impartial advice for the students benefit, is something my colleagues and I have discussed in detail throughout my employment in education, due to the hyperfocus on retainment numbers, and ultimately finances, and not what is best for the learner. Holtom et al. (Reference Holtom, Pells, Bowen and Preece2024) argued that to change these NEET figures, there are numerous barriers that first need to be addressed, highlighting a need to undertake early intervention around IAG, to challenge low aspiration, and to give learners a greater understanding of what is available to them and how they can achieve this.

Another suggestion around how to increase educational levels could be that the government could also lower the cost of university education, which is astronomically higher than most European nations. The current fee to study in the UK per year is £9225 (Playdon, Reference Playdon2018), whereas in Europe it is often free, a minimal fee, or can reach £2594 in some countries (Collier, Reference Collier2018). Wales is currently exploring how to implement a policy like the RPA policy. According to Universities Wales (2025), one of the primary barriers to accessing higher education is financial, both in terms of upfront affordability and the long-term negative financial impact of student loans. These financial concerns discourage individuals from pursuing courses aligned with further study or career progression. Additionally, certain subject areas were found to carry stigma, particularly among individuals from low-income backgrounds, further deterring participation in FE. As a result, there is a growing segment of the population entering adulthood without being adequately prepared for the workforce (Universities Wales, 2025).

However, it would be prudent to suggest that another focus, alongside increased education levels, was also around the UK’s standing within league tables against other developed countries. Leitch (2006) and Seager (Reference Seager2009) highlighted that at the time of RPA the UK had one of the biggest youth unemployment figures in the developed world, with this having increased over the ten years from 1999–2009 (ONS, 2021). It is, therefore, suggested that the UK did not wish to fall behind any further and by implementing mandatory attendance in some form of education, or training between sixteen to eighteen, created a quick win scenario, reducing these problem figures with the hope it would also help improve the skills shortage within the UK (Leitch, 2006). However, Égert et al. (Reference Égert, Botev and Turner2020) found that this focus on OECD tables led to those who are disadvantaged being further left behind, meaning unequal quality and access to education because of the one-sized fits all approach often employed to improve figures, as mentioned previously. Égert et al. (Reference Égert, Botev and Turner2020) instead suggested a focus on lower student-to-teacher ratios, lower barriers to funding for students, alongside greater spending on education to improve outcomes, alongside figures.

The role of theory within the RPA policy

The concept for the RPA policy was originally pitched by Leitch in 2006 (Leitch, 2006). This report was conducted at the bequest of the UK government to look at what our long-term goal should be in developing the skills of our workforce to meet the ever-changing nature of the labour market. There is an argument that the creation of the RPA envelops a few political ideologies in addition to the perspectives of non-traditional learners. This coincides with the population of learners, which the RPA policy is really looking at getting into education between sixteen to eighteen, i.e. the NEET learners, which would improve their standings in OECD tables (OECD, 2007), alongside the outcomes for those who are NEET (Leitch, 2006). NEET people within the sixteen to eighteen background are often from a poor socio-economic background, have struggled in mainstream education, and have left education not achieving grades four or above (Gov.uk, 2023).

Thompson (Reference Thompson2009) suggested that social class can have an impact on educational engagement, especially advancement into the FE sector, with Thompson encouraging an analysis around college attendance levels, due what they felt was the levels of social inequality widening and the negative impact this has on attending education and achievement levels. The 2023 UK government (gov.uk, 2023) highlighted that the greatest level of sixteen to twenty four year lds who are NEET are within the Northeast of England at 17.8 per cent, with the UK average being 12.3 per cent. In addition, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that the region with the lowest level of level four and above qualifications to be the Northeast of England, with 28.6 per cent, and the highest level of no qualification being the West Midlands, with 21.1 per cent (ONS, 2021) both being areas of poor socioeconomic status. It could be suggested that part of the rationale behind this could be due to the historical employment opportunities of the areas and the impact of social haunting (Robinson, Reference Robinson2021).

Often overlooked within educational policy and government initiatives is the importance of holistic development. Gordon (Reference Gordon2022), and Miseliunaite et al. (Reference Miseliunaite, Kliziene and Cibulskas2022) explain that holistic development refers to the focus on an individual’s growth in all aspects of their life, not just academic, with the aim of supporting them effectively to become a well-rounded individual who is capable, compassionate, and adaptable. It understands that external factors can have impact on a person’s development and, as such, looks at a person from all angles to find areas to support. Nussbaum (Reference Nussbaum2011) suggests a shift away from economic, or standardised, achievement, instead allowing humans to flourish away from these barriers. Sen (Reference Sen2009) also outline the importance of achieving what they call the ‘central human capabilities’, which are ten key capabilities to support individuals, rather than the current broadstroke approach, highlighting a need to move away from narrow test-focused models of education to emphasise the importance of individual substantive freedoms to achieve what is valuable to them. Nussbaum (Reference Nussbaum2011) suggests that this is done by holistically developing learners to develop critically and empathetically, with the inclusion of the arts and emotional awareness into education, rather than the current hyper-focus on STEM or vocational subjects, which reinforce capitalist ideals and impacts on the implementation of an inclusive, or holistic, curriculum.

By not employing a holistic and inclusive approach, this results in students attending college as they are required to by law, with sparse options available to them. Alongside poor IAG (Thompson, Reference Thompson2019; Agasisti and Maragkou, Reference Agasisti and Maragkou2022), resulting in limited scope of what they want to do or what is achievable to them, this then leads to a cohort of disinterested learners, alongside larger class sizes, often with high levels of students with additional educational needs, without the appropriate support in place to give them the opportunities to achieve.

Bourdieu and Passeron’s work (Reference Bourdieu and Passeron1990) highlights how the education system reproduces social inequality, being that your social background often aligns more smoothly in education if you are from an upper- or middle-class upbringing. It discussed how there is less chance of you achieving in education due to it not aligning with your values, which are based on your societal class and experiences, highlighting the need to look at the implementation of this policy and how it can more widely support disengaged learners (Parsons, Reference Parsons2014). Mascherini et al. (Reference Mascherini, Salvatori, Meierkord and Jungblut2012) and Mascherini and Leidermeier (Reference Mascherini and Leidermaier2016) further highlighted that the most significant factor for someone to become NEET then is their educational level, linked with the low educational level of their parents. Other factors such as divorced parents, low family income, disadvantaged background, and additional family responsibilities (carer) also play a significant part in the likelihood of someone becoming NEET.

The above would align with Bourdieu’s (Reference Bourdieu2020) notion of habitus as the processes of socialisation (learning from an early age) and contingencies or conditions that predispose people. Morantes-Africano (Reference Morantes-Africano2023) explains habitus as a socially constructed set of dispositions, shaped through early socialisation and internalised experiences within specific social contexts. This means that habitus is not innate but rather formed by the environments and interactions individuals are exposed to from a young age. In the case of NEET, a range of factors can influence this. Rahmani et al. (Reference Rahmani, Groot and Rahmani2024) and Veldman et al. (Reference Veldman, Zon and Bültmann2024) suggest that educational attachment, familys education levels, mental health, social haunting (Robinson and Clark, Reference Robinson and Clark2024), disability, teen pregnancy, criminal record, and the characteristics of the local area, are a few factors that could impact NEET status. Emphasising the habitus of a NEET person is highlight complex and, as such, requires an in-depth understanding of how to improve this.

Leitch (2006) and Lochner (Reference Lochner2011) highlight how implementing the RPA policy has positive social benefits for society, especially those engaging with this and not being NEET. It explains how those who are educated are less likely to impact society negatively; there is less chance of teenage pregnancy, anti-social behaviours, or spending time in jail, therefore being able to effectively follow societal norms. In addition, it could be suggested this stance on challenging NEET is due to policymakers wanting to disrupt cycles of communities being on social welfare, by having more young people engaged in education, employment, or training. This coincides with Bandura (Reference Bandura1977) and Vygotsky’s (Reference Vygotsky1978) social learning theories that argue how we learn from others, especially one more knowledgeable around what constitutes appropriate behaviours, which once learned are hopefully followed throughout life and passed down to the next generation.

Finally, the RPA discusses how some of the other favourable outcomes are the financial impacts it has for those engaging in education post-sixteen. OECD (2022) explained how the further you go through the educational tiers, the better off financially you will be. Leitch (2006) agreed highlighting the hope for better educating the masses with the implementation of the RPA, the better the ability to bridge the gap between the economic rift between classes within the UK. This focus on money, and the importance of a free market, is a neo-liberalist concept. Although it suggested that this gap would decrease, Lambert et al. (Reference Lambert, Maylor and Coughlin2015) found that this was inaccurate and has widened further. However, this could be due to the 2008 financial crisis, the following years of austerity, and a right-winged capitalist conservative government further widening this gap.

Indrayani and Suhendra (Reference Indriyani and Suhendra2014) agree with the OECD’s view on the importance of education in developing a nation. However, continuing to work as we are currently, focusing on high statistics rather than on the holistic development of a person, means many, often the most vulnerable, will be lost along the way. Ozga (Reference Ozga2012) critiques the ‘learnification’ of education and the obsession with outcomes and statistics, highlighting that this misses the importance of human engagement and holistic development of people. Sellar and Lingard (Reference Sellar and Lingard2013) further discuss how this drive to rise in rankings is often at the expense of (Sellar and Lingard, Reference Sellar and Lingard2013) disadvantaged learners, the ones that policies are often trying to support. Currently we look at developing a person to meet criteria and pass tests (Ball, Reference Ball2003); however, this is limited in scope, not developing a person entirely but only looking at what can be made into a statistic, such as achievement grades or attendance. By employing a holistic approach, however, you are supporting a person to develop in all aspects of their lives – educationally, emotionally, mentally, physically, and spiritually, which is essential for a person’s total development (Sutherland, Reference Sutherland2018), hopefully making them more flexible to not become NEET.