Raising the Participation Age: Participation Without Inclusion?

This blog post is based on an article published in Social Policy and Society by Ben Collier.

It has been 10 years since the final instalment of the Education and Skills Act’s Raising the Participation Age (RPA) Policy in England, introduced under the Education and Skills Act (Department for Education), which requires young people to stay in education, apprenticeships or training until 18. This policy was introduced with the aim of reducing NEET (not in education, employment or training) figures, as highlighted in earlier policy debates, alongside the ambition of improving qualifications, with the overall outcome of making young people more skilled, and thus employable.

The past 10 years have been a period of change within both the UK and wider society. Within the UK, we have lived through the impact of years of austerity, alongside the consequences of the post-Covid landscape. Alongside this, we have become more self-aware, specifically in the field of neurodiversity and inclusivity. This has consequently increased the levels of diagnosed individuals according to NHS and policy reports on neurodiversity and diagnosis, alongside discussions about inclusive practice.

Alongside these key points, there have been more mental health challenges being faced post-Covid by all, according to global health evidence. This need for additional mental health/wellbeing support in education, alongside funding cuts and the long-term impact of austerity, has meant education has been a challenging field and ultimately impacted the RPA. However, was the RPA doomed to not impact in the way it had hoped because of its ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach?

Beyond the headline figures, there lies a more nuanced question: how has RPA impacted inclusion, particularly for young people who are neurodivergent or have additional learning needs? Policy that mandates staying in learning is only as good as how inclusive and adaptable it is to meet those diverse learners.

Current Landscape

What makes this discussion especially timely is that RPA not only affects the general youth cohort but also intersects directly with challenges faced by learners with disabilities, learning differences and neurodiversity. The policy clearly highlighted the importance of supporting those most vulnerable learners, alongside those who could end up NEET, upskilling them to develop our workforce. However, if young people who are neurodiverse, or with related challenges face additional barriers, then raising the leaving age to support educational development would only work if those barriers were addressed. Sadly, although the government implemented a three-step approach in the trial phase in the hope of mitigating these factors, recent research suggests these challenges persist 10 years later.

A main selling point of the Leitch report was the reduction of NEET figures. However, according to the Office for National Statistics data, the 2015 NEET figure for 16–24-year-olds was 13%, or 943,000, with the 2025 figure being 13.4%, or 948,000. This suggests that far from supporting the reduction in NEET figures, this has instead sadly worsened.

Current UK Developments

The UK government has launched an expert panel chaired by Amanda Kirby to advise on improving employment prospects and workplace inclusion for neurodivergent people. This shows a shift from policy on education and training, such as the RPA policy, into employment inclusion, emphasising that staying in learning is only part of the journey.

Recent reporting and analysis, including in the Financial Times, highlights that employers are increasingly recognising the competitive advantage of hiring neurodivergent workers. Job adverts referencing neurodiversity have increased six-fold since 2019. Yet employment rates remain low, with the Financial Times suggesting this is due to the gap between policy and lived reality for neurodiverse people.

Impact of the RPA Policy through an Inclusive Lens

Unfortunately, neurodiverse learners often still face a range of challenges. This includes difficulties with transitions, the need for tailored support, dealing with sensory or social demands of learning/training environments, or facing stigma. The RPA policy was implemented in a ‘one-size-fits-all’ manner, which meant it risked leaving behind those learners who require more flexible, inclusive pathways or those it specifically hoped to reach.

Moreover, in labour market terms, the policy may raise expectations of young people staying in learning until 18; but if neurodiverse individuals still face major employment barriers, the benefit may be limited. The recent briefing from the House of Commons Library on supporting neurodivergent people into employment notes that only about 30.2% of people with autism were in employment in 2023/24, compared with 82% of non‐autistic people.

Findings and Implications

While RPA has increased participation figures, recent studies suggest limited improvements in outcomes. Larger class sizes, underfunded FE colleges, and reduced pastoral support have eroded its benefits. Mental health issues among post-16 learners have grown, partly due to mandatory participation without adequate inclusion measures.

The structural issues, such as poor IAG, funding cuts, and economic inequality, undermine the policy’s effectiveness. The need for an inclusive revolution is essential, alongside additional research into why young people become NEET, rather than simply how to reduce the number. Policies must shift from learning for statistics to learning for life.

What Needs to Change?

While the RPA’s intentions – raising skills and reducing youth unemployment – were positive, its execution prioritised compliance over inclusion. Consequently, a focus should be on making participation meaningful. Our view of inclusive practice needs to change societally, with strong inclusive practice in schools, colleges, training providers and employers being a priority. Thus, meeting individual needs, offering reasonable adjustments, providing supportive mentoring, and recognising that neurodivergent young people may benefit from different approaches. Consequently, educational policy must: redefine what effective participation means beyond attendance, address mental health and social inequality, strengthen impartial guidance and holistic learner support, and ensure inclusive practices for students with additional or neurodiverse needs. Therefore, a reimagining of the RPA as a socially just policy – one that values inclusion, wellbeing, and lifelong engagement – not just economic output.

---

Reference

Collier, Ben. 2026. “Revisiting the Education Skills Act’s (2008) Raising the Participation Age (RPA) – Impact of the RPA within Further Education Health and Social Care, and Analysis of ‘Effective Participation.’” Social Policy and Society: 1–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746425101206.

About the Authors

Ben Collier works in Health and Society, Newcastle College, UK.