Differing Conceptions Of Contemporary Youth Policy

11 Pages 2728 Words

Contemporary approaches to youth policy can differ depending upon the theoretical underpinnings. For instance, the Queensland Government’s recent Education and Training Reform Agenda: White Paper (ETRFA White Paper, 2002) exhibits a pysch-social orientation in addressing the needs of young people. The paper imposes legislative reforms and strategies in order to increase the participation of young people in education and training. [In the following paper, education and training will be referred to as “education”]. The pysch-social approach of the paper is evident given these strategies and reforms are focussed on the deficit of the individual student, are economically driven and paternalistically determine the life pathways for young people. The Youth Affairs Network Queensland (YANQ, 2004) responds to this agenda in the document titled Lets Invite Everyone. As the title suggests, YANQ advocates for the inclusion of all students within mainstream education systems and critiques the Queensland government’s approach to disengaged youth. YANQ employs a social reproduction approach in its critique, as it emphasises the need to address structural inequalities within educational settings. YANQ (2004) opposes the Government’s focus on the deficit of the individual student. Instead, a maximal citizenship framework is employed to advocate for young people to be viewed as “whole” and valuable contributing members of society. The following paper will examine the contrasting approaches to young people of the ETRFA White Paper (2002) and YANQ’s Lets invite Everyone article (2004). It will outline how these documents are underpinned by either pysch-social or social-reproduction/ maximal citizenship approaches, and detail how youth are differently represented as a result.

The Queensland government’s ETRFA White Paper (2002) demonstrates the operation of a pysch-social approach, as it individualises difficulties encountered by youn...