Keeping young people in education or training
Barry Sheerman, chair of education and skills committee
Monday, 11, Jun 2007 12:00
Barry Sheerman, chair of the Commons education and skills select committee, says the current system does not help young people make the transition from school into work. Any new proposals must prioritise the worth of training or further education and not focus on bald targets.
The term NEET refers to someone who is "Not currently engaged in Employment, Education or Training". Between 2001 and 2004 it is estimated that 10 per cent of the UK's 16-18yr olds were classified as NEET and by 2005 this figure had risen to 11 per cent. I believe this represents one of the biggest problems facing society today in terms of costs both to the individual and society as a whole.
This is because the children most likely to be classified as NEET are among the most vulnerable in society. Not only does being classified as such greatly increase a child’s likelihood of committing a crime it is also likely to be detrimental to the individual’s life earnings. In addition to this, NEETs also create an enormous drain on the economy as a whole
The significance of keeping children in education or training of some kind has been acknowledged by Gordon Brown who has stated that by 2020, of the current 3.4 million unskilled jobs in the UK, only 600,000 will remain.
The importance of this is magnified when one considers that the transition to further education or work at the age of 16 will in all likelihood be one of the hardest and most significant steps any young person will have to make. The problem is that as a society the legislation we currently have in place does not do enough to assist children in this transition.
In response to this problem the government has pledged to make it compulsory for children to be involved in some form of education or training until the age of 18. This is significant not only in guaranteeing education or training to 16-18yr olds, but also in recognising the disparate nature of children's abilities. Rather than insisting that all children stay in school education until 18 which would in many cases be counter-productive, future legislation will allow children to develop those skills for which they have real aptitude. This in turn will help to foster both enthusiasm and confidence.
While I would commend the government for its work so far, I believe there is still an underlying problem which government proposals have not fully addressed. This is in trying to guarantee not just the formal existence of some form of education or training between 16 and 18, but in ensuring it's genuine worth for the participant.
My private members bill tackles this problem in a number of ways. The bill guarantees each child a holistic assessment of their accomplishments, aptitudes, goals and abilities upon leaving school. This can then be used in tandem with the second proposal of the bill, the provision of access to a mentor for each child. This mentor will be able to offer guidance to the child on how best to fulfil their potential and achieve their goals.
Thirdly the bill makes provision for a “community leadership programme”, enabling every young person to volunteer in the community and gain experience of leadership and practical skills for future employment. Finally, my bill also requests that Local Authorities ensure young disabled people and young people with special educational needs benefit from an effective transition though education into further education, training or employment. The bill received significant cross party support and I am continuing to campaign for these objectives.
Ultimately I am in favour of ensuring children remain in some form of education or training until the age of 18. However, more needs to be done to ensure this education or training is of a sufficiently personalised nature so as to guarantee its value.