Getting teenagers ready to move on and up seems to be the topic du jour. The New Zealand Institute released a report last week More ladders, fewer snakes on this theme. While its conclusions were no surprise – we need more e-learning in low-decile schools; and somebody taking responsibility for youth transitions – its weight of independent conclusion is satisfying: we should be paying attention to the skills of young people. School-leaver readiness was also central to a Symposium hosted by the Centre for Studies in Multiple Pathways at Manukau Institute of Technology two weeks ago, and was a theme at the Industry Training Federation conference at SkyCity last week. Picking a school-exit “readiness” goal is pretty critical to Auckland’s economic planning; it will be no surprise to see it emerge as part of the consultations to start in the next month or so for the Auckland Plan.
But planning is getting a bad name. Yesterday’s opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald from Michael Barnett (The best plan, keep it simple) about the plethora of plans and why Auckland has to have them should remind us that the world of planning and social policy has to become grounded at some point. Only on-the-ground action can address the complexities of issues like school-leaver readiness in socially disadvantaged communities; and long-term unemployment and dependency for the poorly skilled.
For a long time now, we have in New Zealand shaken our heads at the growing disparity between those that have skills and those that do not – and it’s effect on incomes and economic opportunity; and have taken only baby-steps towards change. Emerging, though, are some practical innovations that have stepped past the bureaucratic barriers and into new territory, with promising results. The secondary-tertiary high school at the Manukau Institute of Technology is one such. Other schools describe innovative partnerships that bring learning closer to the work place; evidence of a policy direction with jobs in mind becoming translated into school practice.
Most of the practical innovations discussed at these conferences over the last two weeks are focused on the youth space. Because that’s important. What is not there, however, is consideration of the effect of disengagement many years after these youth have theoretically grown up. Successive tertiary education policies in New Zealand have left a legacy: a gaping void in learning opportunities for low-skill adults that translate into careers pathways, resulting in employability issues that doom them to long-term dependence on either the state or on poorly paid work which traps them in a cycle of poverty.
Like youth, these adults have economic potential; if only there were late-start entries into careers pipelines that helped them to grow their confidence in learning and to resurrect their ambitions for personal and family well-being. It’s like a ladder with the first rung missing: in Auckland we could pathway many Pacific people into jobs, for example in the health services, if only the pre-requisite learning was accessible to the adults.
Foundation learning services for adults in Auckland – literacy, numeracy and digital skills in particular – need to be reviewed. Michael Barnett’s argument for less planning and more doing has relevance in this way: if we leave planning for learning only to Wellington, we miss the opportunity to really affect the social dynamics of Auckland and get the best value for money from the government expenditure on education. Planning for learning won’t need a shiny document or a complex consultation process. I agree with Mr Barnett. We should keep it simple. We don’t need yet another plan for education in Auckland. What we must do is embed within the Auckland Plan a set of goals for education and skills and develop a framework in which stakeholders can meaningfully collaborate to make a difference.
