#wecan

Tweets by @WEcan

Youth Allowance and IAP- Intensive Activity Programme

If you're 18 to 21 and want to claim Jobseekers' Allowance, you'll have to do a series of courses to get benefits. The government is calling it a "boot camp".
 It is unlikely though that this 71-hour programme at your local job centre will involve crawling through tyres or polishing boots.
Instead young people who want to claim JSA will have to attend classes to be given tips for interview techniques and help searching for vacancies.

These courses will be compulsory and if you want to claim £57.90 a week - the maximum 18-24 year-olds searching for work are entitled to - you'll need to complete these courses in the first three weeks of unemployment.
It's being called the Intensive Activity Programme (IAP) and was tried out in job centres in North East Yorkshire, Humber and West Yorkshire in March.
Politician Matt Hancock, who heads a government team called "Earn or Learn" which is rolling out these measures to end youth unemployment, told Newsbeat it will be "tough but fair".
This new programme, which will be classroom-based, will condense all the training into one block at the beginning of unemployment instead of having a more "piecemeal" approach, he says.
Although acknowledging that 71 hours was a long time, he added: "If you are young and unemployed what else should you be doing with your time? "You should be spending your time trying to get a job. The only alternative to that is living on the state."

What we know 71 hour programme over three weeks Called the Intensive Activity Programme (IAP), it's part of measures being rolled out by an Earn or Learn taskforce If you don't take part you'll lose your benefits: up to £57.90 a week Will be mainly classroom based Will help you with interview techniques and writing CVs as well as helping you search for jobs Comes into force everywhere in April 2017, but is already being trialled in parts of Yorkshire and Humber Mr Hancock told the BBC: "We are penalising nobody because nobody who does the right thing and plays by the rules will lose their benefits. "This is about giving young people more support. "It's about having a dedicated work coach that can give one-on-one support to young people so that they can get a job or apprenticeship. "After six months they are required to get a job or an apprenticeship or go into a work programme."

The plans are being criticised by the University and College Union as well as the Green Party and Labour. UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, describes the plans as another "attack on young people" and says they "fundamentally fail to deal with the reasons that so many of them are unable to find work or are not in education and training. " She also says they are just a "short-term gimmick".

Meanwhile Stephen Timms MP, Labour's Acting Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary says the government needed to make sure that there were jobs or apprenticeships at the end of the "bootcamp".
Young people aged 16-24 are nearly three times more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population. Amelia Womack, the Deputy leader of the Green Party says: "The measures announced today are a damaging short-termist attempt to bring down unemployment figures by forcing young people into some kind of work or work programme as quickly as possible, rather than recognising the diversity of career paths and the importance of ensuring that young people choose one that is right for them. " The idea of having to complete training to get unemployment benefits is nothing new.

You can already lose your benefits for a period of time if you turn down a job or training course or take part in any employment schemes.

The Conservatives have also promised to scrap Jobseekers' Allowance for 18 to 21-year-olds and replace it with a "youth allowance", requiring young people to do some form of community work if they are out of a job for more than six months.
These changes to youth benefits will come into force in April 2017. BBC Newsnight article

truancy facts-and figures

School Truancy
School Truancy remains an issue within the U.K
However the issue of child compliance issue isnt featured. Where a child fails to undertake the required attendance and follows his peers there seems little intervention

{The number of parents taken to court in England because of children skipping school rose sharply last year, official figures show.

In 2014 16,430 people were prosecuted for failing to ensure their children went to school, an increase of more than 3,000 - or 25% - on 2013.

Ministry of Justice figures, obtained by the Press Association, revealed more than three-quarters were found guilty.

Head teachers' leaders said good attendance was "absolutely critical".

Crackdown breakdown

The rise follows a crackdown on children missing school, including new rules on term time holidays which were introduced two years ago.

The 2014 figures, gathered in a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice, show:

• 12,479 people found guilty of truancy offences - up 22%
• 9,214 fines, averaging £172, issued by courts - up 30%
• 18 jail sentences in 2014 - compared with seven in 2013
• Ten of those jailed and more than half (58%) of those fined for a child missing school were women

Parents can be issued with on-the-spot penalty notices of £60 per child by schools, rising to £120 if unpaid after three weeks, if their child has an unauthorised absence.

Failure to pay, or incurring two or more fines, can lead to parents being referred to the local authority's education welfare service, which has the power to take them to court.

Courts can issue maximum fines of £2,500 or jail sentences of up to three months.

"Good attendance is absolutely critical to the education and future prospects of young people," according to Malcolm Trobe, deputy general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders.

"Schools have rightly responded to this overwhelming evidence by taking a strong line in identifying when children are absent without a valid reason, particularly where there is persistent truancy."

'Complicated issue'

But David Simmonds, of the Local Government Association, said the increase in fines reflected "tighter enforcement by schools that are under pressure from Ofsted to meet attendance targets", as well as a rising school population.

He called for more flexibility in the rules to allow heads to take account of family circumstances where absence was unavoidable.

They "should be trusted to make decisions about a child's absence from school without being forced to issue fines and start prosecutions in situations where they believe the absence is reasonable", he said.

Rachel Burrows, of the parenting website Netmums, said a fine or threat of jail could be enough to make parents understand the seriousness of their child missing school.

However, she warned: "Long-term truancy is a complicated issue and there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

"In many cases, the family may be in crisis or face issues such as a parent with mental health problems or addictions. In these cases, fines or jail won't help, as the mum or dad needs professional support to turn their lives around and be a better parent."

Mr Trobe advised parents struggling to stop their children playing truant "to talk to their school to work out a solution".

Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, which has produced guidance on truancy, said fines and sanctions should be a last resort.}
BBC

Guidance

Guidance on authorised absence in schools There is some debate about what ‘exceptional circumstances’ means when deciding whether to grant absence for students during term time. We believe it is valuable to have some guiding principles to back schools in their decisions and provide consistency. This guidance has no statutory authority and is not imposed upon schools.

 1. The decision to authorise absence is at the head teacher’s discretion based on their assessment of the situation. Circumstances vary from school to school and so there can be no absolute rules on this subject. 

2. Term times are for education. This is the priority. Children and families have 175 days off school to spend time together, including weekends and school holidays. Heads will rightly prioritise attendance. The default school policy should be that absences will not be granted during term time and will only be authorised in exceptional circumstances. 

3. If an event can reasonably be scheduled outside of term time then it would not be normal to authorise absence. 

4. Absence during term time for holidays/vacations is therefore not considered an exceptional circumstance. 

5. Absences to visit family members are also not normally granted during term time if they could be scheduled for holiday periods or outside school hours. Children may however need time to visit seriously ill relatives. 

6. Absence for a bereavement of a close family member is usually considered an exceptional circumstance but for the funeral service only, not extended leave.

 7. Absences for important religious observances are often taken into account but only for the ceremony and travelling time, not extended leave. This is intended for one off situations rather than regular or recurring events. 

8. Schools may wish to take the needs of the families of service personnel into account if they are returning from long operational tours that prevent contact during scheduled holiday time. 

9. Schools have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for students with special educational needs or disabilities.

 10. Families may need time together to recover from trauma or crisis.