Debate resumed on amendment to motion:

That this Assembly recognises the fundamental importance of education in enabling our children and young people to reach their full potential, develop their skills and prepare them for life; further recognises that the education system must support and accommodate the diverse needs, interests and potential of all children and young people; acknowledges the vital role that the Department of Education plays in opening career pathways for young people and the pivotal work done by our school staff to support this; expresses concern at the lack of progress of actions under the developing a more strategic approach to 14-19 education and training framework; 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 with the potential to help address identified skills gaps across the economy; and further calls on the Minister to work with the Minister for the Economy to provide a joint update on how they are collaborating to implement the 14-19 education and training framework and to outline what work they are doing to ensure that schools and further and higher education organisations are collaborating and not competing with each other and that academic and vocational pathways, including apprenticeships, will have parity of esteem. — [Mrs Mason.]

Which amendment was:

Leave out all after "Department of Education" and insert: "and Department for the Economy play in opening career pathways for young people and the pivotal work done by staff in our schools, colleges and universities to support this; calls on 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; and further calls on the Minister for the Economy to ensure that careers advice adequately supports all learning pathways with the potential to help address identified skills gaps across the economy." — [Mr Martin.]

I beg to move amendment No 2:

Leave out all after "support this" and insert: "expresses concern at the lack of progress of actions under the developing a more strategic approach to 14-19 education and training framework; 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 with the potential to help address identified skills gaps across the economy; and further calls on the Minister to work with the Minister for the Economy to provide a joint update on how they are collaborating to implement the 14-19 education and training framework and to outline what work they are doing to ensure that schools and further and higher education organisations are collaborating and not competing with each other and that academic and vocational pathways, including apprenticeships, will have parity of esteem."

The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion. We have tabled an amendment that broadens the motion's scope and acknowledges that this is another issue that requires Departments to work closely together. This should be an energising debate that focuses on giving young people the best opportunities that we can. We have the chance to do something transformational with learner pathways for our young people. Whilst I appreciate that the scale of transformation needed is unlikely to be completed in this mandate, the Education Minister and the Economy Minister have the chance to set us on that path. That requires vision and action.

The independent review of education made clear recommendations that outlined what that vision could be. It said:

"Every post-primary school should offer a broad range of academic and pre-vocational options and should collaborate with other schools and with colleges" in order to provide a wide range of choices. Some schools already do that, but if done at scale, it would be transformational: it would broaden the experience of all students to ensure that young people could make better-informed decisions on their future post 16 or post 18. The aspiration is to give our young people an awareness of and the option to follow academic, vocational or technical pathways or a mixture of pathways.

The motion references children and young people in general terms, but we should ensure that we acknowledge the specific needs of and challenges faced by young people with special educational needs (SEN). The cliff edge faced by young people with SEN post 19 is one aspect that requires urgent provision. The reforms needed would be challenging to deliver. They would mean changing the funding formula that results in colleges and schools competing for students, not through any fault on their part, I should add, but simply because they operate in a system that embeds that. It would require coordination, collaboration and a serious review of workforce needs but would go a long way to achieving parity of esteem between academic and vocational pathways, which has been spoken about for decades but is still very much lacking in our society, unlike in countries such as Switzerland or Germany.

The world has moved on. Our economy has changed, and employers' needs are different. The academic route will remain the right choice for many and essential for particular roles, but we all know that an academic qualification today in no way guarantees the job or career that someone wants. We need always to reiterate to our young people that a learning pathway that enables them to make a valuable contribution to society and allows them to pursue a life that they want is far more important than where that learning took place.

In this changing world, learning will continue throughout life. Those who responded in the aftermath of the storm last week and continue to do so are a perfect example of that: skilled professionals, some with academic qualifications and others having gone through traineeships and apprenticeships, working in essential roles, without whom the lights would not be on, our water supply would still be off and our roads would be blocked.

To see that transformation, we need action. Although many of the changes that we need were in the 14-19 framework that was published in 2022, little has happened. Take reforming careers advice, or even just one aspect of that: a careers portal. I found a recommendation that dated back to 2013. Twelve years later, from what I understand, the Department is still only scoping what that would look like.

I reiterate our appreciation to those who tabled the motion for giving us an opportunity to speak on the issue. I will highlight a few matters and would appreciate it if the Education Minister would consider them in his response. Is he considering changing the funding formula? Through the curriculum review work, will he make bold changes to ensure that our young people get a greater variety of choice and opportunity? How is he working alongside the Economy Minister so that our schools and colleges work in partnership?

In a world that is changing faster than ever, we owe it the next generation to provide them with the tools, opportunities and pathways that they need to succeed. Education and learning are the bedrock of progress. We must ensure that every young person in Northern Ireland has access to the opportunities that they deserve.

Northern Ireland is a place of immense talent, resilience and potential, yet too many of our young people face barriers to achieving their dreams, whether through lack of access to quality education, limited vocational training opportunities or the challenges of transitioning from school to work. We cannot ignore the fact that not every young person is being given a fair chance. The funding gap in schools across the United Kingdom is stark. Spend per pupil in Northern Ireland is barely on a par with that in England and Wales and is significantly lower than that in Scotland. That disparity underscores the need not only for increased funding but for more efficient resource utilisation in order to maximise the impact of every pound that is spent.

We live in a time of rapid technological advancement and economic transformation. The jobs of tomorrow will require new skills and creativity. If we fail to equip our young people with the necessary skills, we risk leaving an entire generation behind. It is not just an economic issue but a social justice one. An Open University (OU) report found that 44% of employers here face a skills shortage.

Last week, I met Members of the Northern Ireland Youth Assembly as they gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. They gave a youth perspective on the skills needs in Northern Ireland. Sadly, many of them were not even aware of the skills gaps in Northern Ireland's workforce. How can we expect young people to make informed decisions about their future career when they are unaware of the future needs of the economy? Northern Ireland has limited natural resources, and there is limited investment in our people's skills. It is therefore key that we stimulate economic growth and improve social equality. Substantial change is required in order to deliver the volume of skills needed now and in the future to support achieving the overarching economic vision for Northern Ireland.

Not every young person wants or needs to follow a traditional academic route. We must invest in high-quality vocational and technical education to ensure that apprenticeships, traineeships and skills-based learning are valued just as highly as university degrees. By partnering with local business and industry, we can create programmes that lead directly to meaningful employment.

Too many young people feel unprepared for the world of work. We need to strengthen career guidance services, provide more work experience opportunities and ensure that our curriculum is aligned with the needs of the modern economy. Let us give our young people the confidence and skills that they need in order to thrive. I say to any young people who may be listening today that their potential is limitless. They are the future leaders, innovators and change makers of this wee place that we call home. We believe in them and are committed to building a society that supports them every step of the way.

Let us remember that investing in our young people is not just an expense but an investment in our future. By supporting learning pathways for all, we can unlock Northern Ireland's potential and build a brighter, more prosperous tomorrow.

I support the motion, which, rightly, underscores the crucial role that education plays in shaping the future of our young people, and, by extension, our society and our economy. Education is about more than just academic achievement. It is about equipping our children and young people with the skills, confidence and opportunities that they need in order to thrive in life. It is about ensuring that no child is left behind, regardless of where they come from, their background or their beliefs.

The debate is about the importance of education to our young people, so hopefully the Minister can mention the education maintenance allowance (EMA) in his response. I am mindful of the fact that Wales has moved to increase EMA. The allowance was introduced in 2004, but I do not believe that it has been increased since 2013. It is around £30 at the minute. I know, Minister, that you think that it is important to have our children and young people in education until the age of 18, so we should look at EMA, given that it is an incentive that helps support our young people to deal with the financial pressures that they may face.

We have seen the impact of the cost of living and inflation on our students, particularly during the COVID crisis, so there needs to be a second look at and an increase in the rate of EMA. It would be brilliant if the Minister could detail whether he has had any discussions with the Economy Minister on that.

Education is the foundation of a prosperous and equitable society. It develops talent, nurtures ambition and opens doors to opportunities that might otherwise have remained closed. In the North, we pride ourselves on having a strong education system, but we must acknowledge, as we are doing today, that challenges remain. Our system must not only serve the high achievers but provide meaningful and accessible pathways for all students, academic and vocational alike.

In the North, across our homes and schools, there is often a tendency to lean in and fixate on the idea of university, which neglects the incredible opportunities that different pathways can offer our young people, particularly via apprenticeships. Every child is different. Every student has unique skills, interests and aspirations, and it is our duty to ensure that our education system reflects that diversity. For too long, there has been an overemphasis on traditional academic routes, while vocational and technical education has not been given the recognition or the investment that it so rightfully deserves.

We need an education system that values all forms of learning so that a young person pursuing a technical apprenticeship is given the same respect and support as a young person applying for university. We need a system in which our sixth-form pupils can really prosper. Recently, in my constituency, in Coleraine, we saw the opening of the brand new Northern Regional College building, with its incredible opportunities and resources and its staff, who offer so much to our young people. We really want to see our sixth-form colleges and further education colleges collaborating — working hand in hand rather than competing with each other — to ensure the prosperity of our young people.

On the role of our schools and educators, our teachers and school staff are at the heart of the system and of building up our young people. They work tirelessly to support our students, often going beyond their formal responsibilities to mentor, guide and inspire, but they cannot do that alone. We need proper funding, adequate resources and a fair per-pupil funding model that allows us to support every student, regardless of their need, particularly post-16, when many feel lost and pressured to choose a pathway. The South has a good approach to that dilemma, offering students the option of a transition year to learn by doing and going outside traditional education and into the world to try something new. It is important to include that point in the today's debate.

It is evident that we do not do enough to fund our sixth-form students and we need to do more. It is not just an education issue; it is an economic issue. We face significant skills shortages across key sectors from engineering and construction to digital technology and, of course, healthcare. If we do not address that, we will not only fail our young people but undermine our potential for further economic growth here.

My call to action today is that we must ensure that our education system prepares students for the real world and an evolving job market. That is why we call on the Minister of Education to look further into the funding model. We need a system that adequately supports all learning pathways, including apprenticeships and vocational training, and aligns with our economic needs. With that, we can ensure that every young person has a pathway to success.

Lastly, it is important for border communities that we look North and South to see how our schools can collaborate further, utilise one another's resources, learn from one another and gain new insights.

I welcome the support for the motion from the Members who have spoken so far. The motion is about a pupil-first approach. It is about strong opportunities for collaboration and sharing resources better. The motion is about how we can work together.

There has been a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) focus and an Economy focus on the issue. We have all identified that there are skills gaps and that we need to reform the Careers Service careers guidance. However, we have had that conversation for the last 20 years, and we could have it for another 20. The motion is about bringing forward a necessary prerequisite to a broader conversation on careers, which we would welcome very much.

We need to work to find a solution. This is about equity across all sectors. It is about a consistent approach. We have seen sixth-form numbers staying consistent over the last 15 years, but we have seen almost a 50% drop in enrolments in further education. As a teacher by profession, I recognise the work of our school staff and our Careers Service and their commitment to young people. This conversation is particularly pertinent, as budgets are tight in schools. We can all agree that all our Departments are underfunded because of a lack of support from the British Government. That means that schools are not only financially incentivised but are under a financial imperative to keep students in school.

A competitive environment can have benefits, but it also creates duplication in this context. There is clear delineation in the South between education and training boards (ETBs), colleges and schools, and there are clear focuses. For example, many schools here teach construction and motor vehicle studies, but our colleges often have a much greater wealth of equipment and resources than our schools. By fostering a closer working relationship, we can ensure that all students have access to state-of-the-art resources.

I welcome the fact that progress has been made on the 14-to-19 strategy, and, of course, that needs to continue. It is a golden opportunity, and it is one that we cannot miss if we are to ensure that there is collaborative working across all Departments and if we are to show a unified agenda and show that, in word and deed, we are all committed to developing a skills agenda. Our solutions must be caveated by the fact that, in calling for the review, it is imperative that schools, colleges and, most important, students have the most important voice in the room.

I thank the Member opposite for taking a question. I agree with a lot of what the Member has said, but will he agree that, given the fact that career pathways are mentioned in the motion, having the conversation without direct input from the Department for the Economy devalues the argument and that the Department for the Economy has a key role to play in those career pathways?

I was going to respond to both amendments, so I will do that now for clarity.

On the DUP amendment, I recognise the need for collaboration. I implore that, but it is important for us to look at a specific element of the broader careers conversation. While we very much welcome the broader conversation, I will not support the DUP amendment on the basis that the motion is about a specific element that is a necessary prerequisite. I will support the Alliance amendment, because, while we focused on one element, I recognise that it enhances the broader conversation. In this context, the DUP amendment fundamentally shifts the basis of it, but I am happy to have a broader conversation.

There are models across other countries that we can look at to enhance the model that we have here. There are models in Finland, Scotland, Australia and France that look at different national priorities. They focus on need by region, deprivation and other factors, which we do not have here. I mentioned a number of the positive educational elements to this approach, but the economic conversation will have a hugely transformative and positive impact on identifying the broader skills gaps that we have.

This approach is a win for schools, it is a win for colleges but, most important, it is a win for students. Fundamentally, the careers piece cannot move forward without this approach being looked at. It is a necessary prerequisite. I encourage members to support the motion.

My colleague Peter Martin has outlined our position on the motion and the amendment. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would disagree with the lion's share of the motion. There is not a great degree of difference across the Chamber. To paraphrase, the key point is the fundamental importance of education in establishing career pathways and choices for our young people to prepare them to begin those journeys. There is no doubt that the Department of Education has a key role to play in that, but our amendment outlines that it is not in isolation; indeed, the Department for the Economy is key for many of our young people who are aged 16-plus.

Education Committee colleagues will know that cross-departmental collaboration on issues that are so obviously cross-cutting and to the benefit of all is something that all members of the Committee have repeatedly focused on, including with the Department for the Economy on careers. Indeed, last year, we held a concurrent meeting with the Committee for the Economy to look at such issues, and, with the Speaker's blessing, that meeting took place in the Chamber. We will soon do likewise with the Committee for Health around a number of areas of concern. We know that work has been ongoing, and I believe that engagement has already taken place between the Minister of Education and his now former counterpart as Minister for the Economy around post-19 pathways for children with special educational needs, notably pushed up the agenda by, among others, Alma and Caleb from Caleb's Cause and the many supporters whom they have assembled through their worthy campaign.

It goes without saying that our sixth forms do wonderful work. For many, they are the launch pad into third level, particularly but not exclusively university education. A number of times at the Committee, including at the previously mentioned concurrent Committee, I have said that, in the modern era, pupils are and rightly should be more aware of the plethora of choices available to them in education and training. Many career pathways today rely on advanced apprenticeships or other courses delivered at further education colleges. Some involve training courses provided by private industry, with some firms valuing talent going through their specific training and apprenticeships as highly if not more highly than those with an degree.

In my opinion and without in any way denigrating the value of a traditional university education, which I am fortunate enough to have had, having progressed to it in the traditional way of A levels through my school's sixth form, university is a big choice. It comes with significant debt, albeit debt that is different from most and is thought of differently by those who take it on. While university education should retain its standing, it should no longer be seen, as my colleague Cara Hunter said, as more than or better than some of the other available choices. Indeed, the independent review notes that the current imbalance undermines our colleges and is deeply injurious to Northern Ireland's interests. Many of those other choices can equally lead to good careers and excellent salaries and in modern industries that are foundational to today's Northern Ireland economy.

Whilst sixth form is something that very many will and rightly should aspire to, it is not the path for every pupil. Nor should it be the aspiration of every school to have a sixth form. I agree with the independent review that it is understandable for post-primary schools to desire or aspire to a sixth form, but it is not realistic for all, and it is not desirable to have sixth forms that are unsustainable in their numbers or can offer only a limited range of subjects.

The review puts forward options to secure future sustainability. Some have been touched on today, and I am sure that the Minister and greater educational experts than I will review evidence in the round in considering the future in that regard. Pupils should have access to a range of pathways, but we should not be overly prescriptive about where and how.

One thing that I have expressed during Committee discussion on the area is support for the vision of a better balance of collaboration between schools and further education colleges to furnish our pupils with more and better choices to reach their potential, ensuring, I hope, the sustainability of both sixth forms and local colleges. It is not in the interests of our young people or the economy to have school sixth forms and colleges competing with each other as rivals rather than collaborating to deliver a broad choice and an education that is as tailored as possible. Learning on those —.

Time is up.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Thank you to those who tabled the motion. If we are serious about supporting the learning pathways of our children and young people, we have to be clear that there are so many options open to them for their future. The motion is a positive one, but, as our amendment sets out, we think that it would be more comprehensive with a reference to the Department for the Economy. While I was listening to the debate, it struck me that it is odd to be talking about supporting learning pathways for our children while not mentioning academic selection and how the very foundation on which this is built is so unfair.

Our children and young people are not all the same. They are diverse in their talents, skills and aspirations for the future, which is to be championed and celebrated. However, that diversity of aspiration is sometimes overlooked when it comes to the advice that they are given about their future. Academic and vocational pathways are absolutely, categorically of equal importance and must be respected, valued and treated with the parity of esteem that they deserve. That has been reaffirmed in review after review, including in the findings of the landmark independent review of education that were published in December 2023. It is not always the case, however, when it comes to the advice that our young people are given in schools.

In November, the Economy Committee heard evidence from Work+, from teachers and from an apprentice. Patrick English, who is head of careers at Wellington College, was really inspiring and is doing great work in that school to teach young people about their options. Reform and standardisation, so that every child has access to that sort of advice, are central if we are to create the cultural shift that is required to put academic and vocational pathways on an equal footing.

The independent review of education says:

"providing access to vocational training, apprenticeships, and work-based learning will help them expand their skills and knowledge, making them more attractive to future employers."

The Department for the Economy absolutely has a role to play in developing learning pathways to support our young people in finding the right career for them and in addressing the significant skills gaps in our economy. The 2022 employer skills survey found that there were about 39,500 job vacancies in our economy and that 35% of them were attributable to the lack of skills, experience or qualifications amongst applicants. Alternative pathways to the academic route are important levers to address those skills shortages, and the Department for the Economy and our further education system must be front and centre in those conversations.

The Audit Office has been clear that limited progress has been made in the implementation of a more strategic approach to education and training through the 14-19 framework. We need to hear from the Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Education what plans they have to address the deficiencies, which include a lack of objectives and limited movement from strategy to implementation.

It is appropriate that the debate is happening during Apprenticeship Week. We would like to have seen apprenticeships mentioned in the motion. Apprenticeships offer a mixed approach and can open up a world of opportunity for so many children and young people, allowing them to gain educational opportunities and qualifications at the same as they build real-world experience in paid employment. That Economy Committee meeting clearly had a huge impact on me, because, at that session, we heard evidence from a young man called Oscar Daly, who is a higher level software engineering apprentice. He said that he was doing his dream job debt-free and gaining invaluable experience. We need to talk about and promote that more.

We know that the previous Economy Minister was engaged in positive work on recruiting more young people into apprenticeships, but more needs to be done to ensure that small businesses and microbusinesses in our economy have the confidence and capacity to take them on. It has to be about supply and demand, ensuring that the opportunities are in the system for our young people to take advantage of.

When it comes to supporting learning pathways, every possible future option should be clearly communicated, openly explored and equally valued in discussion with our young people at home and in schools.

I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate. I call the Minister of Education to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion, which:

"recognises the fundamental importance of education in enabling our children and young people to reach their full potential, develop their skills, and prepare them for life" after school. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the amendments. They all have merit; it is a good example of a matter on which, maybe, MLAs could have got together and produced a motion that did not require amendments. I do not have any real difficulty with the motion or the amendments, and bringing them together would have made for a better motion. It would be strange not to include Economy in the debate, as that would mean its absence when we try to address the issues. The genuine interest in this area is to be welcomed, and hopefully, in future, a motion will be tabled that has that collective approach around this area.

Will the Minister give way?

Yes, I am happy to.

Minister, thank you for your response. The collegiate approach is exactly what we want. It is just that, on this specific element, it is the Department of Education. We have touched on this already: we did not want to broaden it out so much, because there needs to be an enabler and a necessary prerequisite to taking this conversation forward. Do you recognise, in that context, that the Department of Education is the primary Department in this specific instance?

Education has a key role — indeed, a primary role — but to have that discussion in the absence of recognising the overlap with Economy is mistaken. Post-16 provision, further education and higher education colleges are the domain of the Department for the Economy, not the Department of Education. We operate that way between officials and Ministers, and the motion could have reflected that. We have sought to enhance it, and the Alliance amendment similarly. The totality of them coming together probably would have been a better approach.

As I said yesterday, the Member brings forward helpful suggestions when it comes to education. He has met me on a number of occasions. He is not on the Education Committee; maybe that could be part of a wider reshuffle. I would certainly welcome the extra value that he would bring to the Sinn Féin Benches in that Committee — not that I am looking rid of anybody. I hope that Mr Baker's pen has survived from yesterday, because he will need it to write notes at the Committee tomorrow. However, I sincerely thank the Member, because he has a genuine interest in education.

The motion highlights the intrinsic importance of an excellent education, which can unlock opportunity and has the power to transform lives. The onus is on us to provide adequate support and resources to realise that opportunity. It also recognises that, to deliver excellence and equity in the system, we need to provide additional support to our learners who are at greatest risk of educational underachievement. This is how the per-pupil funding scheme works. It provides funding to reflect the characteristics and needs of learners, but the amount per pupil depends on the amount available in the pot. That is the aggregated schools budget. The independent review of education concluded that £155 million was needed annually to address the per-pupil funding gap in Northern Ireland compared with England and Wales. The report cited a figure of £9,000 per equivalent full-time student in our FE colleges. In the same year, the post-primary capita funding was less than £5,000. Clearly, the greatest challenge of the current funding model is the amount of funding per pupil. Michelle Guy spoke to that issue in respect of the common funding formula, and clearly related to investment in our schools is the funding method. I have discussed the funding formula with my officials. We planned to review it, and then COVID came and that process stopped. I am going to initiate a review of the common funding scheme to ensure that it distributes the available funding as effectively as possible for the benefit of all pupils. I am sure that that will be an area we will discuss at the Committee tomorrow.

I agree that post 16 is a critical phase of education and a key decision-making point for learners. However, work on preparing and supporting our learners for a variety of pathways starts earlier in the curriculum. Within our education system, opportunities currently exist for young people to explore a range of pathways from the age of 14. This happens through the curricular offer, work-related learning opportunities, the range of qualifications approved for teaching in our schools and the option for schools to collaborate with other education providers to deliver those courses. Through the entitlement framework, schools provide pupils with access to a minimum of 21 courses at Key Stage 4 and post 16. This means that learners have access to a wide range of courses to meet their interests and career aspirations. A minimum of one third of courses on offer to pupils must be general, and one third must be applied, ensuring that there is breadth and balance in the curricular offer.

What is key to the quality of qualifications available to our learners? They need to be accessible, comparable and fit for purpose. They need to support progression routes into further study, training or employment. I wish to begin a wide-ranging conversation on the future of our qualification system. I have already announced my intention to review the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment's suite of qualifications at Key Stage 4 and post 16. The increased choice of qualifications and pathways available to young people and projections that they will change jobs several times in their careers mean that it is more important than ever for young people to receive high-quality careers education, information, advice and guidance. We need to empower students to embrace and make informed choices about the expanded opportunities that are available to them.

I want to ensure that careers-related learning starts early in the curriculum and that there is consistency in the quality of advice and guidance. I also want to ensure that careers teachers receive appropriate training and, with the support of employers, ensure that there are opportunities for meaningful engagement with the world of work for all our learners, particularly those furthest from opportunity. Through one of the many actions that are being progressed as part of the 14-19 framework, my officials have been working with colleagues in the Department for the Economy to provide a joint careers action plan that will be published in the coming weeks.

We do not have sixth-form colleges in Northern Ireland. Our post-16 provision comprises sixth form in schools, FE colleges and training organisations. Every year, between 20,000 and 24,000 16-year-olds make choices about their next steps: whether to study A levels or applied qualifications, or a mix of both; whether to enter an apprenticeship or to prepare for a trade via a technical qualification; and whether to stay at school, go to a further education college or enter the workplace. It has been suggested that the per-pupil funding model encourages schools with sixth forms to hang on to learners, and our school census data shows that just over 60% of year 12 pupils carry on to post-16 provision in a school. The absolute numbers change because of demographics, but that proportion has been fairly static for a number of years. Learners enrolled in school sixth forms may have some courses delivered through collaborative arrangements with other schools or colleges. That means that, while learners may be registered at school, they may be taking a course in an FE college as part of a broader curriculum.

At this point, I want to reiterate a point that was made in the independent review of education, which is that learners in post-primary schools that do not have sixth forms should have a right of access to sixth-form provision in other schools. The admissions criteria for access to sixth forms should not work against learners transferring from schools that offer education up to age 16, and there are many factors that influence the decision on where to go next, including accessibility of settings, pupil and parental preference, perceptions of FE, the aspirations of learners and the outcomes historically achieved by learners in the respective settings. However, I emphasise that the best interests of learners, not those of the institutions, should be at the core of such decisions.

I can speak to that personally. I left school at the age of 16 and enrolled in an FE college to do mechanical and electrical engineering. After week 1, I realised that I was never going to be a mechanical and electrical engineer, despite having qualified for the EMA, which was what had incentivised me to do it. I thought, "Great. I'll get paid a few quid for going to the college". In late September, I went back to my school, Laurelhill Community College, and pleaded with the vice principal, Dr Crone, "Please take me back. I've made a big mistake. I've taken the wrong course in life". I am sure that all of you in here will say, "Yes, and you still are taking the wrong course". The school and the system were able to accommodate me and say, "That's not what Paul wanted to do. How do we change that?". The school was able to take me back, and I went in and started sixth form at Laurelhill. I was a pupil in the first sixth form at Laurelhill. A frustration that I hear from schools is, "How do we get a sixth form?". At Laurelhill, the number of pupils who created that sixth form was in the mid-teens, and that sixth form is now doing very well. I speak to that personal experience of how important it is that we put the interests of the child first, not those of the institution. That can be in a school, an FE college or a training-type facility, but we need to make sure that it is in the interests of the pupil. I certainly benefited from that approach.

Will the Minister give way?

Mr Honeyford, yes, I will give way.

I was going to say half-jokingly that the sixth form at Laurelhill has never been the same since the Minister was there. I agree with him on quite a bit of what he said about pathways, but we are talking about pathways for a child and how the focus should be on the child and what they are going to do. Our teaching staff do an incredible job, and I am not in any way saying that they do not, but how do the teaching staff in a school keep up to date with the latest jobs in the economy and the shaping of that economy?

What is happening in the Department that will allow staff in our schools to be trained in that area in order to keep them up to date with the latest jobs so that they are able to give the best advice to pupils?

That leads me on to my next point. The Member is right: pupils have to get the correct advice. The advice at school when I was there was, "Join the police", "Become a teacher" or, "Go into the health profession". It was not the kind of careers advice that we need to be providing to our young people. It is important that we support schools and those who provide that advice. Careers advisers and others should therefore have access to schools to discuss progression pathways with learners. There is an onus on the Careers Service to support learning pathways. I call on the Minister for the Economy to ensure that the service is appropriately resourced to provide up-to-date, relevant and timely advice to our pupils in schools.

It has also been suggested that schools are offering courses that would be better taught in FE colleges. In fact, there are several approval processes in place to ensure that the qualifications being offered in a school are appropriate for that setting. They include the carrying out of checks by the awarding organisations; legislation requiring that qualifications being taught in school be approved by the Department; and, for large-sized qualifications, an application from the school, by exception, to offer that course to particular learners. In providing funding to schools for sixth-form pupils, the Department expects them to support those learners at every stage of their two-year learning journey. Only in very exceptional circumstances should a school end a pupil's sixth-form placement at the end of year 13.

For some time, employers have been expressing concerns about a skills gap, which is the shortfall between what they expect and need from their recruits and the skill set with which those recruits come to them. The broadly based offer in sixth form has a key role to play in addressing the skills gap. In today's fast-changing, interdisciplinary, connected and collaborative world, we need breadth as well as depth: the ability to take learning from one context and apply it to another. The range of subjects on offer to post-16 students, the mix of academic and vocational options and the range of extracurricular choices equip learners with a more rounded set of skills and perspectives that are ideally suited to the flexible, evolving careers that will be inevitable over the next 10 years and beyond.

As our economy develops, the demand for higher levels of skills and knowledge will continue to grow. It is critical that we support as many young people as possible to reach the education and qualification levels that will offer viable and sustainable opportunities in our emerging labour market. If we want an education system in which all children have the chance to make the most of their abilities and become the best version of themselves, we need to invest in their learning. Investing in our schools is an investment in the future of Northern Ireland.

I call Nick Mathison to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. The Member has up to five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We could summarise what has happened in the debate by saying that there has been broad agreement in the Chamber, from the signatories to the motion — I thank them for tabling it — to the Members who spoke to the DUP amendment, as well as from the Minister. There is not a lot between everybody's contributions. We probably all want to get to the same place, where we are offering a genuinely broad range of pathways for our young people in order to give them the opportunity to succeed. We are therefore into questions of emphasis at this stage.

I understand from Sinn Féin's motion that it was keen to focus on one particular thing: how we fund provision at sixth-form age to ensure that schools are not incentivised to hang on to pupils, thus closing certain pathways for them. It was proposed as a first step in a process that we need to follow. The DUP amendment expands the motion to look at the Department for the Economy's role, which is absolutely essential.

I suggest that our amendment broadens the motion most fully. The motion and amendment No 1 do not reference the 14-19 framework. There is a real need for collaborative working and to get to grips with the task of how to deliver on the aspirations of the 14-19 framework. The funding model is part, but not all, of that. I therefore hope that our amendment will get support on that basis. We do not have any great desire to divide the House, but, on balance, we will not be supporting the DUP amendment, purely on the basis that we think that ours offers the broadest possible approach to the issue. It has been a refreshing debate. We are all on the same page, which is not something that we can say about every issue.

I will speak to the 14-19 education and training framework specifically, as that is the main focus of our amendment, which broadly aligns with everyone else's views on the other issues. That is crucial if we are going to deliver meaningful progress on offering a diverse range of educational and career pathways for our young people, but I think that everybody here would agree that progress on the delivery of that has been frustratingly slow. If we are going to deliver on it, we really need joint action from Education and Economy.

Looking at some of the objectives that are set out in the framework, we would probably all agree that, as was highlighted in the independent review, we have not delivered progress on them. Some of the key objectives that were set out include the need to address the lack of parity between academic and vocational qualifications; to agree clearly the role and purpose of post-16 provision; to create access to qualifications that facilitate progression; and to have access to quality careers advice, which has been referenced by nearly every contributor. It seems as though we are still struggling to see any real progress in that regard. Schools and FE, as has been referenced, often compete for scarce resource. The post-16 landscape is still, unfortunately, dominated by progression to A levels and university as the preferred pathway, with FE, apprenticeships and other options seen as the poor cousin. That is not a healthy ecosystem in which to find ourselves, or in which to place our young people. We need to ensure that we offer pathways that are right for our young people and our economy. We are not in that space right now.

The gateway review of the 14-19 framework came out in January 2024. Very clear issues were highlighted around ineffective governance, unclear objectives, misalignment between the programme and the stakeholders' objectives, the duplication of effort between Economy and Education, limited management of how we were going to monitor delivery — the list goes on. Things have improved — the situation has shifted from a red rating to an amber one — but we are still very far from where we need to be. The focus on the funding model is important, but that, on its own, is not going to be enough. Our call in our amendment is for the Economy and Education Ministers to take up the challenge together and set out a really clear vision, which the independent review called for, of what we actually want from our post-16 provision. It should be broad and ambitious. It should not be competitive. It should be collaborative. That is the space in which we need to end up. I hope that, on that basis, the House supports our amendment.

I call Phillip Brett to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. You, too, have five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the signatories to the motion and all Members who have spoken in the debate. It has been a useful discussion, particularly with Apprenticeship Week, which was ably namechecked by Ms Nicholl this morning during Members' statements, beginning yesterday. It is an important opportunity for us to highlight all the career and educational pathways that exist for our young people.

As Members have, rightly, articulated, the economy and education sectors of our world are vastly different and continue to change very quickly. It is vital that government policy keeps up so that we can upskill our young people for the future. Of course, our universities will continue to play a vital role in the economic and educational life of Northern Ireland. We are blessed to have three of the best providers of higher education here in Northern Ireland. However, university education is no guarantee of a successful career. I think that I may be the perfect example of that: I went to university, but many people will say that my career choice was not the most successful. It is important to recognise that choice for our young people is vital. We need to listen to what young people want to do, and think about how we can help them to ensure that they make the best decisions in life. It is not our role as policymakers to shut down or limit the opportunities that are open to our young people; in fact, we should give them the skills and ability to make the best choices.

As I said, there has been useful discussion across the House. I struggle with the justification from the party opposite as to why it does not want to include the Department for the Economy in the discussion. We are talking about reviewing the funding model for post-16 or sixth-form colleges, but what do we mean when we talk about reviewing the funding levels? Are we increasing them? If so, will the Finance Minister award the bids that the Education Minister continually makes for a whole range of sectors in his Department? Are we going to decrease funding levels? If so, why are we decreasing them, and what are we awarding that funding to? If we want to see fewer sixth forms across our schools, does that mean that we need an increase in the funding for our FE colleges? If so, how can we do that without having a discussion with the Department for the Economy?

The Alliance Party's amendment is an important addition. It recognises the important role of the Department for the Economy. As the true progressive party in the Chamber, we will not push our very good amendment to a Division, and we will support the Alliance amendment. That shows that the progressives are really on these Benches.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

I will turn to a few comments that Members made. First, I highlight Michelle Guy's contribution. Michelle represents Lagan Valley, not Strangford. I wrongly besmirched her when I said that last week. She rightly highlighted the vital work that is being done, particularly by Alma White and Caleb's Cause. It is vital that we recognise that in the Chamber.

I disagree with Ms Nicholl's point about her party's aversion to academic selection. I did not want to bring that into the debate, but I proudly stand with grammar schools in North Belfast and with parental choice in Northern Ireland. My party will continue to support young people's right to have that choice. Indeed, my politics teacher at school was an Alliance Party member who was active in East Belfast. When Ms Nicholl's party decided to be against academic selection, that teacher resigned from the party. Maybe that is why I ended up in the DUP.

[Laughter.]

The Minister made some important remarks. They showed his commitment to young people across Northern Ireland. As has rightly been highlighted, he is not in charge of FE colleges. From my perspective, I wish that the Minister of Education were in charge of FE colleges. I wish that Members who want to see additional funding in the Department of Education, as suggested in the motions that they continually table, would speak to their Executive colleagues to ensure that my Minister's bids are met, because no Minister makes better use of public funds than the Minister of Education.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

We will support the Alliance amendment, showing the true progressive nature of my party.

I call Pat Sheehan to conclude and wind on the motion. Pat, you have up to 10 minutes.

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I do not intend to detain the House for any longer than is necessary, so I will not go over comments that Members made in their contributions to the debate. However, I thank all Members who contributed today.

The discussion has made one thing clear. Our current per-pupil funding model for sixth-form colleges needs to be looked at. Our society and economy would be better served if we could get our young people on to pathways that are suitable for them and where they can learn, upskill, train and, ultimately, reach their full potential. We have heard compelling arguments about the pressures that schools face in trying to offer a broad and balanced curriculum. We need to get to the point where we can match the opportunities that are available to students with their ambitions, talents and potential. At the moment, we have system that is not designed for success. It often limits choice, restricts pathways and, in many cases, prioritises the system's needs over young people's needs.

One of the issues that was not touched on greatly today is careers advice. The Minister mentioned that he sort of took the wrong pathway when he was 16. If he had got the right careers advice, that might not have happened. If he had been made aware of what was actually involved in what he thought that he wanted to do, he might not have taken that route. Similarly, other people want to take certain career pathways, but they do not get the right advice, so they do not necessarily do the right subjects.

That is also an issue.

Having spoken to a lot of young people, as a member of the Education Committee, I find that careers advice has not greatly changed since I was at school, and that was not today or yesterday. It seems to be the case that if a teacher has a few free periods or free time in school, they are often assigned the role of a careers teacher when they are not properly trained and properly informed, and people from the workforce are not being brought in.

Competition between our schools and our further education colleges has been raised as an issue. We have heard, at various events, that further education colleges are not allowed to come into schools to speak to the students. That is competition coming in rather than what should be there, which is collaboration.

We must move towards a funding model that is fair, flexible and future-focused. We have seen from international examples that a better approach is possible: one that ensures that funding goes where the need is, recognises the value of vocational as well as academic pathways and supports collaboration between schools and FE colleges, rather than forcing them into competition. The Chair of the Committee mentioned that the gold standard is still that you go to upper sixth, finish your A levels and then go on to university and get a degree. There are large numbers of young people out there with degrees who do not necessarily get into the careers that they want.

Will the Member give way?

Certainly.

Does the Member agree that we need a cultural change? We need to acknowledge those young people who do not go on to university in the same way. They should have the same acknowledgement and recognition and the same passing out process, whatever that might be. We need to have something that recognises the hard work that they put in to achieve their potential.

Yes, I absolutely agree with that. The Chair of the Committee used a phrase that I have often used about the relationship between further and higher education: FE is often seen as the "poor cousin" within our education system. That really needs to change.

This is not just about numbers on a balance sheet. It is about real opportunities for young people and about ensuring that a young person, regardless of their background or postcode, can access the subjects and training that will positively shape their future. It is about giving our schools and colleges the resources that they need to do what they do best: educate, motivate, inspire and prepare the next generation. Our education system faces a multitude of challenges, but we cannot ignore this. If we are serious about addressing skills shortages, supporting our educators and giving our young people the best possible start in life, we must act.

The motion calls on the Minister of Education to assess the funding model, as an essential first step towards meaningful reform. I urge all Members to support the motion. Let us send a clear message that we are committed to having an education system that works for everyone, and let us ensure that every young person, whatever their chosen path, has the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Members, with that declared desire for cooperation still fresh in our minds, before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and negatived.

Question, That amendment No 2 be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly recognises the fundamental importance of education in enabling our children and young people to reach their full potential, develop their skills and prepare them for life; further recognises that the education system must support and accommodate the diverse needs, interests and potential of all children and young people; acknowledges the vital role that the Department of Education plays in opening career pathways for young people and the pivotal work done by our school staff to support this; expresses concern at the lack of progress of actions under the developing a more strategic approach to 14-19 education and training framework; 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 with the potential to help address identified skills gaps across the economy; and further calls on the Minister to work with the Minister for the Economy to provide a joint update on how they are collaborating to implement the 14-19 education and training framework and to outline what work they are doing to ensure that schools, and further and higher education organisations are collaborating and not competing with each other and that academic and vocational pathways, including apprenticeships, will have parity of esteem.

Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair).]