A 'neet' problem
Rarely has an acronym been less appropriate. It is not neat to be NEET. Very far from it. Talking about NEETs though is very cool in Westminster just now. Today it was the turn of the prime minister and his Children's Secretary Ed Balls.
NEETs are those kids who are Not in Education, Employment or Training - what some would in the past would have dismissed as "dropouts". Clearly, being a NEET is a problem if not a looming tragedy for the individuals themselves. What's changed is that politicians increasingly see it as a incipient crisis for Britain as well.
NEETs often go on to be the long term unemployed and unemployable. The Tories regard them as one of the foundations of what David Cameron calls "the broken society". What's more, the more NEETs Britain has the more immigrants Britain needs to do the jobs which need doing but which Brits are not able or ready to do themselves.
Britain has more NEETs than most of our global competitors. The figure often used is 10% i.e. one in ten of 16 to 18 year olds - or 200,000 - are NEET. This is slightly misleading, however, as it includes those who are between course or jobs. The figures for long term NEETs is much lower -1% or 20,000.
The government's answer outlined today to this is part carrot, part stick. Young people will get more help - financial as well as personal - to take suitable qualifications (diplomas, apprenticeships or training more often than traditional school routes) and will face fines if they resist all these tempting offers.
Though this group cannot claim benefits this fits neatly into a growing political debate about welfare reform.Yesterday Peter Hain re-defined Gordon Brown's controversial promise pledging to help "British benefit claimants" to become "British workers with British jobs". He is determined to answer the Tories promise of a more radical shake-up by promoting the government's own plans to cut the numbers on Incapacity Benefit.
The Conservatives have yet to unveil their detailed plans. They may draw on the ideas outlined in a pamphlet published today by the Adam Smith Institute which draw on what happened in the American state of Wisconsin in the 1990s. Similar ideas are, interestingly, been advocated by Labour's Frank Field who was made minister for welfare reform by Tony Blair a decade ago with a remit to "think the unthinkable".
Ten years after Tony Blair pledged to cut the cost of failure the parties are battling about who knows best how to do it.
UPDATE 07:00 PM: I have just seen for myself the NEET problem and possible solutions on a visit to South Yardley in Birmingham.
On a playing field where I was planning to film a piece to camera I stumbled across a group of kids who'd been kicked out of or dropped out of school. The mother of one of them had, they said, been sent to prison because her child refused to go to school. Nothing would persaude these kids that they should have stayed in school. Asked about possible fines for being NEET they laughed before claiming that most kids in their area were like them.
Earlier, I met kids who prove that there is some hope. They had been helped by youth workers paid for by Birmingham City Council. A group of them had built a sports car from a kit and, in the process, become convinced that there was more to life than simply hanging around.
One thing's clear - it's going to be quite a challenge.
I'm 
Comments
Isn't the most obvious common sense way of dealing with those teenagers who refuse to sign up to the learning ethic, to keep them down a year if they do not reach the minimum standards for that age group?
Additional individual coaching could be offered once the individual has decided that being kept down 'ain't cool' and they want to work their out of their predicament. Or am I just being naive or politically incorrect or whatever???
The 'Governments answer' for four decades has been the 'comprehensive education experiment'.
David Blunkett told us that it had 'clearly failed', producing equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity as intended, so some might wonder why it is being continued and even extended (in Brighton).
This is one of the root causes of NEETs.
Yet, politicians, trapped by their own failing dogma, continue to insist on imposing this on English people.
Educationalists also point out that the seeds of failure occur at infant level, so one might expect some effort to be expended there.
Fundamentally, I believe that parents
know what is best for their children, but the tax system ensures that only the wealthy can arrange quality education for their children, the vast majority of the English people are stuck with the Governments virtual monopoly.
It's a great idea in principle.
I'd go further though. I wouldn't allow any child to leave education until they've got some qualifications or have learnt a trade. Once they get the message, they'll knuckle down and get on with.
Possibly naive, but something needs to be done to stop them drifting through these two years like the rest of their school life.
Basing tax credits on attendance and behaviour may bang a few heads together.
How it would all fit in with teenage pregnancies would need to be addressed as well.
We have to break the cycle in this country. Now we are in a situation where certain sections of society now have second or even third generations of families where no-one has worked and they have survived off the state.
To break this, we have to isolate those individuals who "want" to work but don't have the academic qualifications some employers insist on. We can help these people by bringing back the prestige which always used to go with "having a trade" - so they can feel they can acheive and succeed in areas other than those we typically recognise.
For those who are quite content to do nothing and live of the state - a process they themselves no term "getting paid" - we really need to consider making it impossible for them to do so. One way would be to decrease their benefits by a percentage in proportion to the length they have gone without any real commitment to holding down a job. The end point being that after 2-3 years, their benefits stop. Another way would be to "employ" these people truly by the state in a community service type atmosphere where they get their benefits, but they actually contribute something back to society in order to do so - after all, I get my salary, but a decent enough chunk of it goes back to the wider population.
To use a business term, it's time we saw some return on our investment. This does put politicians in a difficult position. Low turn outs at local elections would soon be reversed by "benefit lifers" if any government ever suggested stopping those benefits.
When oh when are we going to get a set of people in charge prepared to make the right decisions - rather than those which get them the most votes (or don't lose them the most votes)?
I would assume that NEETs have a low income so fining them is probably a lost cause 'Can't pay won't pay'
I heard this on the radio this morning together with a suggested £30 weekly payment for agreeing to attend this additional training.
Why is it those who are NEET get this payment and not the vast majority of kids who are busy working hard to get the grades they realise they need for the future.
I know very few children who actively like studying and most would relish £30 a week if they threatened to stay at home rather than go to school.
Can't we for once get our priorities right, stop policy formation on the hoof (the CGT foul up is a spectacular example of how to get it wrong) and start rewarding those who are actively trying to improve their & their countries lot.
"the view from here" raises a good point for disruptive teenaagers but not necessarily all "NEETs". Some may have not achieved certain standards due other factors apart from being disruptive. The effect of keeping undisruptive students behind can have terrible pshcological effects on kids and leave them socially excluded for simply struggling.
The other issue s what the certain standard is and whether it is prescriptive i.e. at leat b in maths and english. If certain children have problems with maths and english but flourish at art and more creative subjects the action of keeping the student in that year group is unfair and prescriptive of how each person has to be and will produce hundreds of clone students not allowed to adapt to their own niche or carry on with subjects they are good at or professions they have a future in.
As a keen armchair economist and social commentator, I see the problem lying solely with this country's socialist policies.
In my humble opinion, the solution is not to raise the school-leaving age, but to abolish the regulation altogether. Raising the school-leaving age is like the introduction of the "hoodie" law... a regulation aimed at a section of society known to disregard most of the other "social norms".
No institution in history has successfully enforced innovation; this only occurs when those willing to innovate are allowed to do so of their own accord. Raising the school-leaving age and "incentivising" continued education solves nothing. The solution: alter the curriculum to attract more customers and remove social welfare to potential NEETs.
And prescribe 'Anything That's Peaceful', by Leonard E. Read.
Being NEET isn't something that happens the day a person leaves school, it's a process of gradual disengagement from Education that often starts during the transition from Primary to Secondary schools. If the Government decided to spend more on treating the causes of disengagement then there would be significantly less people in this most unfortunate category.
There will always be some people for whom, whatever the incentives, the idea of not participating and 'just hanging around' proves much stronger. This 20,000 strong army of young people (the 'long term NEETS' as you put in Nick) won't respond to carrots, and will probably ignore (or laugh at) sticks. So the best solution must be to ignore them, but cut all benefits and assistance to them.
What we need to do is to ensure that information, advice, guidance and above all direction help move the 180,000 other NEETS more quickly into employment or education, and then work to keep them there. There is no point in wasting more time (and money) on that small proportion of the population of working age that is - and I hate to used the hackneyed phrase, but it is accurate here - work-shy (whether the work be training, education or daily labour).
Nick,
This is a typical New Labour approach to a problem, don't look at what's causing it just deal with its effects.
Balls should be trying to find why we have more NEETs than other countries not coming up with things he hopes will get him headlines.
What's also typical about it is that after ten years in power they are only now deling with it, or is this yet another reannounced policy?
I'm not sure how raising the school leaving age would solve the problem.
In doing this the government will remove a number of potential tax payers (i.e the 16-18 year old non NEETS), reducing the tax take. In turn they somehow need to find the extra money needed for extra sixth form college places and apprenticeships.
The "compulsion" element of the policy will be unenforcible. Those not willing to learn up to the age of sixteen won't suddenly change their ways because the school leaving age has increased.
If I was being cynical I'd think this was a good way of taking a chunk of people out of the unemployment figures, leaving the rest of us to pick up the bill.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and misapplying the wrong remedies".
Groucho Marx
Why not: Training, Education, Employment/ No Sir! or TEENS!
I dispute the implication that an able bodied person is unemployable. Are we saying that there are actually people out there who cannot carry materials around a building site? Since when do supermarkets require qualifications to stack shelves? Exactly what kind of A-levels does one take if one wishes to empty peoples garbage bins?
As far as I can see this is a case of managing peoples expectations, if you tell all the kids they can be astronauts when they grow up of course you will have a problem getting them to do any of the less glamarous jobs. At the same time, tell the kids that they are stupid and worthless (hi mum) and they'll lack the confidence required to succeed. It seems to me that society is forgetting that 60 years ago bringing up children was a lot of hard work and effort for not a lot of return, however modern parenting seems to be much more of the "plug'n'play" variety. Perhaps the government should stop blaming kids and start chasing parents.
How can a "NEET" afford to pay a fine?
This shouldn't be about financial incentives, it should be about showing people how much better their lives can be with the right training, qualifications etc.
Whilst it's very hard to get "in with the kids", I think it's quite possible...
Don't pay them for going to school. Threaten them with national service!
Its a good idea, but once again I expect to see it enacted along tired ideological lines (left *and* right) using 'common sense' approaches so as not to be too upsetting to voters, rather than using an evidence-based approach.
Such a shame when there are so many studies focused in these areas with novel ideas and significant results.
Ok. I'm going to break it to you. I'm a teenager I'm afraid. Even worse. I do some stereotypical eenage things - go to parties, have a laugh with friends (without casuig trouble i hasten to add), etc. I have 2 jobs and am in full time education. Frankly, I find it a shame that this 20000 core of long term NEETS seem to be tarnishing the hardwork of the other 99% (by your own statistics) who are either in education, employment and training, or in between one of these stages.
No matter how the government or any other parties try, these 1% are, mostly, making up the bottom 1% - the lowest contibutors, the laziest, the most unemployable. Since the 1980's when the Conservatives BROKE society in the first place, when the bottom 10% of incomes dropped by a fifth while others increased with inflation, alienating them from society, it has been hard to get these earners and hard workers back on track. Although largely this has been the case, there are a small percentage of what I like to call "untouchables". Through countless initiatives they have not imroved, despite good financial backing, etc. The carrot is already there - if you're parents earn under £30k a year, then you get £30 a week - as long as you turn up to all your lessons.
Pretty good deal if you ask me.....
Don't get me wrong, the untouchables need to be dealt with, but it is clear to me, and it seems everybody else, that they need a proper kick up the backside - although sending some kids back to school is, at times, the wrong option.
As someone who's worked with youngsters who are "NEET" for years I can say that the vast majority of young people will do something if it's attractive and interesting and is at the right sort of level for them. School wasn't, and that's why they haven't achieved there. The problem- or to look at it another way, the solution- is about making sure there is attractive, well run provision ( courses, training, jobs etc). Unfortunately, that costs money...and years of experience have taught me that provision never gets the money thrown at it that it needs. Ho Hum
So, the government's latest plan is to fine young unemployed people for... being unemployed?
Sure, it's not exactly that, but you can see what I mean, yes? Fining these people (who I would tend to think are from deprived background anyway), who have no income, would surely turn them away from government initiatives?
That, and with things such as University fees to take into account, how could a fine help get people into further education? By providing the government with the money to go around fining more people?
That, and should said NEETs be able to afford said fines (I can't imagine the government forcing overly large fines on NEETs - although it is the UK government...) how can these fines discourage them?
Watch out people, the playground bully's got bored of stealing your dinner money - they're going to fine you for leaving school perfectly legally now.
Nick,
Thank you so much for drawing attention to what for me is one of the key answers to dealing with the NEET issue, youth work. Having spent most of my working life in youth work (I left teaching because I was interested in learning!) I have seen just how effective good youth work can be in re-engaging young people in learning, yet I watched in my career my service decimated under Thatcher, then marginalised under Blair.
To criminalise young people who are thoroughly turned off by an education system which may meet the needs of the many but further marginalises the few, is obscene. We don't put lime loving plants in acid soil and blame the plants, but we do it with our children. This government has come up with various gimmicks but never ever really understood the real world. As the mother of a child who really had problems at school, dropped out of his A levels half way through I had to hold my nerve and let him have a year out. Now at 19 he is back, clear about what he wants to do, committed to learning and even studying his mum's favourite subject, politics! I dread to think of what would have happened had he been forced to stay on against his will. Learning is an vital and life enhancing process, but it can never ever be forced.
Perhaps 'we' are also part of the problem, in that British society seems to place relatively little value on qualifications other than university degrees. If we don't value apprenticeships, diplomas, etc, then we can't expect potential NEETs to value them either.
Possibly this is part of the difference between Britain and other countries where, it seems, non academic qualifications are still well respected.
As some children are educated outside any school system will they be forced into either a state or private school/training sceme/paid work?
I hope that exceptions will be made where on inspection youngsters are purposeful but do not fit into the NEET categories.
My 20 year old son was being forced to undergo a course which took his only lie in of the week in the cause of orienting him to regular work.
As he had given up a very successful career of full time work for college and part time work this showed excessive zeal on the part of his college.
Exceptions do occur and shoud be allowed for.
But there are many more who will benefit from having some sort of structure imposed, sadly.
Nothing motivates youngsters more than success in it's various forms.
If they are being taught a trade they should be working, at some stage, with others on a genuine project so that they can see the end result and that they have helped to produce something of value to society.
Unfortunately there will always be the work-shy. In an advanced society they cannot be allowed to starve. However they should be obliged to visit a Local Government office, on a daily basis, to collect maintenance paid out of Local Government Tax. The local community should be kept informed of the running total of the cost of each individual.
Well I know I don't like it but if we don't find some incentive for the NEETs other than the negative one of reducing benefits what happens then?
Many I suspect will then turn to crime, or perhaps I should say even more crime, to fund their "lifestyle" which will almost certainly cost society far more than the current incentives.
I suspect it may actually be more cost effective and long term beneficial to offer even greater incentives linked to some form of attendance and achievement. Perhaps not linked to conventional aspirational goals but to at least give them some sense of involvement and achievement.
Longer term Dan Russell (comment 9) makes a valuable point but as I've said before until government gets the money it spends, £5,500 per secondary school pupil, to the schools rather than as now the LEA spending most of it running themselves and only circa £2,500 reaching the headmasters to run their schools then there is little chance of achieving what is needed.
A fundamental rethink of the administrative structure of State Education, now that would be a vision worth seeing in the Queens Speech!
"Young people will get more help - financial as well as personal - to take suitable qualifications (diplomas, apprenticeships or training more often than traditional school routes)"
You're having a laugh, Nick. The diplomas and apprenticeships are both taught mostly in classrooms - there is little or no workplace training, despite the grand titles. Labour simply do not understand what vocational education means, and their desperation to 'academise' vocational subjects is destroying any value they might have.
Some interesting comments there, Nick. Again, this blog topic is a good follow on from the earlier ones. I like your identification of the problem, solutions, and generally positive attitude towards change over the long haul.
My take on this is quite simple. Ability and opportunity are what make success. If people have something to take an interest in and a supportive environment, they tend to be motivated and part of things. The risk averse nature of employers and society doesn't help. If the government can narrow the gap I believe things will improve.
Better work, education, and apprenticeship opportunities are sound. More investment and interest will help but in tough cases some enforcement of take-up or moving to a new area may be necessary. Sometimes, people need a gentle kick or removing from their existing peer group, but the focus on developing quality and consensus must remain the primary goal.
Effort tends to follow the focus. Gordon Brown's leadership is beginning to develop ideas, and as these are picked up by authorities, business, and the media, so momentum will develop. As long as interference is kept to a minimum and dialogue maintained between stakeholders, I don't see why this problem couldn't be considered solved.
Ironic, isn't it Nick, that in contrast to the NEETs you interviewed near the top of the news last night was the story of a veteran who went to the trenches of the Great War aged just 16 years.
Get over the obsession of reading and writing being the only thing valuable in education. And start wondering where those two tools integrate into the most effective learning mechanisms of children from birth to adulthood......(it won't be the same for all children, you can be sure of that......)
I knew a semi-literate dyslexic once who was head-hunted by Cambridge University because he was one of the best researchers in semiconductors in the UK. He was a technician without a degree, who was confident that he would be 'awarded a PhD by research' (he had about 35 papers at the time to his name), once he managed to get an Open University degree by correspondence (he was at that time about 35). That was proving a challenge to him.....
Note than many kids like building things. Dyslexics among them. Let them build things. They probably use books to back up their practically gained experience rather than innocent wide-eyed trust. Given the propensity for lying in the media (I can't remember the last time I considered a journalist trustworthy - probably when John Cole retired?), this is an eminently sensible life strategy.
If politicians would get out of their self-absorbed anally-retentive 'everyone should be more like us' catechisms and assume that they are freakish tossers rather than pillars of society, then this country's problems would probably get sorted within 5 years.
Especially if you head-hunted Ron Dennis of McLaren to be Secretary of State for Boys' Education for 2 years to instil some sense of real-life experience to the fruitcakes who've never known a life outside politics......might cost you a bit to pay him properly though, mightn't it?
Not going to happen, though, is it?