Differing Conceptions Of Contemporary Youth Policy

11 Pages 2728 Words

g people within education institutions. The White Paper’s (2002, p.2) mandate is for the implementation of strategies aimed at ensuring young people are engaged in education and training until they achieve set certification. These strategies are underpinned by a psych-social approach, which assumes that society’s institutions are both inherently natural and healthy. Wyn and White (1997, p.57) elucidate this approach is essentially functionalist as it considers normative practice to be positive. Consequentially, if undesirable results arise out of the institution/individual nexus, the onus of responsibility for the problem and subsequent change is placed at the individual level (Wyn and White, 1997 p.5,1; Griffin, 1993, p.34, Maver, 2001, 21 ). The ETRFA White Paper (2002) demonstrates its psych-social theoretical orientation when it privileges the position of educational institutions and problematises the experience of marginalised young people. For example, the use of the “at risk” discourse throughout the White Paper pathologises the experience of young people and provides a perspective that is uncritical of the role of education institutions in young people being disengaged. As a result, the paper endorses the use of mentors to re-socialise those deemed not to be adapting to the educational institution, as well as the development of alternative education sites for those considered not suited to traditional educational environments (Queensland Government, 2002, p.8). In so doing, the paper overlooks how the institution could better meet the needs of these young people. Hence, policy documents such as the ETRFA White Paper ensure that difficulties faced by young people within educational institutions are addressed at an individual level.

This individualisation of problems encountered within educational institutions over-simplifies the origins of such problems. A social reproduction analysis suggests the need to examine stru...