Download this article 119.75 Kb
Back to new Transitions - Re-Engagement Edition

Barbara Eccles is the coordinator of the Sunshine Coast Flexi school.  In this interview she shares her views on what needs to be done to ensure all young people get a fair go in education.

Q. What are we doing now with individual young people out of school that is or is not working? Why does/doesn't it work?

A. The difference between flexible learning centres and mainstream institutes is that Flexi School models are able to offer more flexibilty with consideration for issues impacting on young people's lives. Mainstream systems catering for large numbers of youne people are not able to build that degree of flexibility into their programs e.g.set programs run at set times, with a set course and duration. Disengaged young people may require allowances to be made to take more time when required to complete courses. Some students miss out on key learnings and can't pick up where they left off because of impacting social issues. External learning provides more flexibility for young people to work at own pace, select suitable study times, takes into consideration young carers, parenting, part-time employment to support themselves, mental health issues, homelessness, high mobility in housing etc. Economic constraints are not considered when implementing training and education for disengaged young people such as accessibility to computers for the more flexible on-line courses. The difficulty with on-line courses is the lack of immediate on-site support and the costs involved are often out of reach of marginalised/dis-engaged young people.

There is never one issue that creates disengagement. What does work is a multi-faceted approach that supports the needs of the young people and includes educators, youth services and workers across a range of services and programs.

Mainstream systems with set structures often struggle with providing a holistic service delivery.

Q. If we know what works, why aren't we doing it everywhere? And should youth workers & youth services get more involved in advocacy to make sure that ‘what works' is available to young people everywhere?

A. It could be argued that there is a fear factor surrounding the move away from traditional structures because outcomes within the Flexi School models are not necessarily measured only in the traditional sense of education and training outcomes. The impact of social issues need to be fully appreciated and addressed within the traditional educational and training sphere

The Youth work sector do advocate, however education and training is not seen as the Youth Worker's role and is still sits within the domain of trainers and educators. Funding for training and educating is not controlled by the community sector. Funding criteria is set by education and training and funding restrictions are not holistic.

Over the last ten years, a partnership and holistic approach within the Sunshine Coast Flexi School model has proven that a multi-faceted approach to support and learning increases opportunities for disengaged young people to continue to be engaged and achieve their individual goals and outcomes.

Q. Are our expectations of what disengaged young people can do too low? And if so, how does this affect our practice?

A. There is an assumption that young people who are not attending mainstream schools have low literacy levels, and either do not have the ability or the desire to continue into higher education. The provision of literacy and numeracy programs, non-accredited training or basic certificate levels are often provided as the answer for disengaged young people. There is also an assumption that disengaged young people are a homogenous group with similar needs. There is no one answer and there needs to be a broad range of programs to meet the various needs of this diverse group. The complex issues of these young people need to be addressed and assumptions that disengaged young people are the problem should be demystified. Disengaged young people require flexibility in supporting their situations and the social implications that impact heavily on their abilities to learn and achieve.

Q. What are the structural forces that push or pull young people out of education too early and, more importantly, what can we do to overcome them?

A. When young people are dealing with a diverse range of issues e.g. domestic violence , lack of sleep and food, poverty, homelessness it is an unrealistic expectation of mainstream institutes to expect that they will be able to function and adhere to a rigid structure when more importantly the need for flexibility should be a key factor in supporting them. Young people do not verbalise their issues very well especially when confront with a perceived authoritarian structure.

Sometimes these social issues are so overwhelming that they are simply unable to meet the requirements of the mainstream systems.

Q. Are ‘flexi schools' the answer? If so, how do we avoid creating a ‘2nd best' system for marginalised young people? And how do they relate to ‘mainstream schools'?

A. Flexi schools are one answer in addressing the needs of marginalised young people. However, flexi schools are a broad term for a variety of alternative learning programs. To avoid a second best system Flexi Schools need to be legitimised and recognised as a suitable option in recognising the diversity of needs of young people. There will never be a system that suits everyone therefore alternative option need to be able to provide quality services. If flexi schools were seen as a true alternative and not as an inferior program they would not be a 2nd best system.

Q. What role do mainstreams schools play in disengagement? What role should they play in re-engagement?

A. There is sometimes a difficulty in transferring a young person from a mainstream program to an alternative learning environment with the expectation that they will re-engage in mainstream learning. The reality is that very few dis-engaged young people return to mainstreams schools. However, the ultimate goal of most alternative learning sites is to re-engage these young people back into mainstream education and training opportunities.

Mainstream systems view behavioural management quite differently to the community/youth sector e.g. suspension for inappropriate behaviour' to some young people is viewed as a ‘reward' and is often a relief for the young person involved and exacerbates the disassociation from peers and schools. These young people can miss vital learnings that impact on their ongoing education, increasing the likelihood of and assisting the cycle of repetitive failure to learn. Mainstream schools policies have encouraged young people to be promoted from Year level to Year level without the necessity to have achieved certain learnings. Advancing young people through year levels where the learnings are increasingly more difficult when key basic learnings have been missed encourages disengagement, discouragement and disenchantment with learning and their systems.

Q. Are we focussing on the wrong topoc? Is 'disengagement' a red herring that diverts our attention from more fundamental injustices?

A. There is an assumption that dis-engaged young people are 'trouble' and incapable of learning or behaving. It's their fault. The injustice is the failure to respect and respond to the issues that are impacting on young people. Because of age there is an assumption that we, as adults in the community know better, that they should conform and do what their told. We often strip young people of their power to negotiate and operate from a reactive perspective rather than being proactive in working alongside young people to support their identified achievements.

---

Share this Page!