VECO Online Guests: Harris van Beek & Eric Sidoti
Bright Futures and You!

Bright Futures for young Australians
Summary 1 of 3: Harris van Beek
by Janine Bowes

summary 1 · summary 2 · summary 3
overview

This summary is adapted from the posting to the bright-futures discussion list on Friday May 12, 2000.

Harris' opening remarks on May 3 stressed that the ASTF really wants to find out if it has hit the mark with the "Bright Futures" document from a grass roots perspective. He outlined the consultation and processes that have led to the document. He also emphasised that money is not the only issue and that funding aside, there is other important work that needs to take place to bring about effective programs including
- cultural evolution at the local, state and national level
and
- community partnerships.

Leading change to address the funding chestnut
Andrea Meredith (May 3) asked who should lead the way in resolving the funding issue. Harris responded that the Bright Futures section on institutional arrangements deals with this area and recommends a cooperative approach through state or territory based business-education-community partnerships. While Bright Futures is advice to the Commonwealth Minister, its recommendations target a range of stakeholders.

Tony McDonald (May 5) outlined a concept that has statewide acceptance in Qld - a concept of "School-Industry Links Queensland" and raised the issues of how to progress the operational side of statewide coordination given the challenges of bringing all stakeholders on board and asked if the leadership and policy will really emerge from Bright Futures? Harris responded that the State Community Partnership groups as described on p14 of the Bright Futures summary would have a key role in addressing these matters and that the strong message is that institutional arrangements at State level must nurture community level activity. In targeting various stakeholders in the recommendations of Bright Futures, there is recognition of the importance of sharing the vision as well as providing scope for leaders to emerge by acting now since many of the policies are already in place.

Harris indicated that the ASTF's continuing role is to take actions aimed at influencing leaders and whilst this role is limited, he pointed out the dramatic changes in recent years and that there is now much more openness to debate these issues. 

Steve Berry (May 5) expressed doubt that the necessary changes would occur under the current system structures (at least in NSW) thus reiterating one of the Bright Futures imperatives of change. Harris pointed out that this is why leaders and change need to emerge not just at state level.

Bernie Fitzsimons (May 8) pointed out the implications and challenges for the non government school of the devolved funding model but recognised that it a truly collaborative state based partnership could be achieved then the model could work.

Harris (May 9) illustrated commitment to long term goals by telling the story of Dick Dusseldorp's life. One of the hallmarks of his success was that he "dared to do things differently and dared to work together with others". He went on to point out that a long term commitment to working together would be consistent with Dick Dusseldorp's life (see www.dsf.org.au for more information on his life).

WHO should pay- Industry or Government?
Andrea Meredith (May 3) asked who should lead the way in resolving the funding issue. Harris responded that the Bright Futures section on institutional arrangements deals with this area and recommends a cooperative approach through state or territory based business-education-community partnerships. While Bright Futures is advice to the Commonwealth Minister, its recommendations target a range of stakeholders.

A debate about industry involvement followed with polarised positions outlined by Andrew and Julian (May 3). Andrew suggested that we ought to accept that industry will not pay and put the onus back on systems to adequately fund this aspect of education as they do mainstream education. Julian argued that industry should not be let off the hook and suggested that we should
".....resolve to expand SWL as currently defined. Perhaps we need to expand the definition to recognise the interactions young people already have with the work place and legislate to ensure industry add structured learning to the work young people already access".

Kristine McConnell (May 4) suggested that "the reality is that the employer is the client and in fact the student is the product" and proposed that it is not about building sustainable business enterprises. She vouched for a funding planning cycle of 3-5 years from schools and other sources. Roy Rogers (May 5) also spoke about sustainability and argued (tongue in cheek?) for a new tax or levy later dubbed the 'Educare levy' by Margaret Stewart (May 5).

Harris pointed out for Australia to really make the vision reality we need to be realistic and accept that there is no simple one size fits all model. He went on to outline ASTF initiatives with industry (May 4) and later emphasised the interdependency of quality and sustainability. David Lymn pointed out the range of related funding sources and the need to avoid duplication and proposed a range of points for consideration.

Jude Nettleingham (Roper, May 6)called for a fundamental rethink and asked if SWL was delivering a commodity that industry should buy and that industry should only be expected to pay if there was a business reason pointing out that McDonalds and Woolworths already do - "Industry is not a monolith and should not be viewed as an obstacle to what 'you' want to achieve. Steve Berry gave his responses to these questions (May 6) and drew a contrast with the cost to an employer of a bad apprentice in terms of recruiting, training, negotiating and finally dismissing.

Harris (May 8) then shifted the debate from whether industry should pay or indeed are already paying to a focus on the nature of support required to encourage business participation. Refer to that thread below.

Judi Buckley (May 11) gave reasons why her cluster's Management Committee is not interested in exploring options about charging employers. This view was supported by Sharon Bray (May 11) who added that their focus is on quality so that employers are willing to take students.

The Commonwealth budget was announced on Tuesday May 9 and the next day, Harris posted an extract from a media release stating that $88.3 million would be available over the next four years to support the ASTF - comprising a continuation of base funding of almost $10 million a year and a new announcement of a continuation of funding for workplace learning coordination of $43.7 million. The sighs of relief were almost audible and there were many congratulatory messages including one from Roy Rogers and backed by many others, who commented that due consideration and credit be given to the bipartisan approach taken by our politicians. 

What is it we are on about and what about quality?
Annette Psereckis and Linda Farrington (May 3) both reminded us that the young person is the centre of this whole effort and that a key aspect of quality programs is the partnership between the learner, what is being learned and the learning environment
Harris (May 4) reminded us of the near unanimous agreement that preparing young people the from school must include learning in the classroom with other types of learning. A wide variety of learning opportunities including community based learning, are available and some are yet to be invented. 

Consequently, business and education need to work together to provide careers advice. This view of careers advice is also a key finding of industry in strategies to reduce skills shortages. 

Toby Prentice (May 5) later cited volunteering was one area highlighted as opportunity for community based learning and Harris agreed that such areas potentially re-engage young people not at school in the learning process.

Thus Bright Futures seeks to be inclusive of the range of learning
opportunities.

Community Partnerships
Jenny Russell (May 3) gave examples that outlined the wonderful energy and resources which result from partnerships and in acknowledging this, Harris pointed out that p8-9 of the Bright Futures summary identify characteristics of effective partnerships. He added that the better partnerships also recognise the individual stakeholder needs and endeavour to address them.

Steve Berry (May 5) applauded the diversity, energy and ingenuity of Vocational Education Ed programs and urged for genuine recognition cultural differences between local communities. He recognised that programs have accountability in terms of transition outcomes, cautioning that the evaluation of programs must take account of the environment surrounding the program.

Tony Harkness (May 11) referred to the social capital generated by
community partnerships, quoting from a keynote address by Kaye Schofield at the Networking 99 conference. Harris (May 12) agreed that this was an important area and cited the earlier work of Jim Cummings and Bob Carbines which highlighted that reform in schooling was happening as a result of workplace  learning. He suggested that it would be interesting to know more about
whether programs have  observed wider community outcomes from SWL given that many programs have ventured into wider community roles and others have developed out of community bodies.

Supporting Business Participation
As indicated above under "WHO should pay- Industry or Government?", Harris (May 8) then shifted the debate from whether industry should pay or indeed are already paying to a focus on the nature of support required to encourage business participation. 

Rosemary Potter (May 8) suggested Workplace Supervisor Training as a definite incentive. Harris asked (May 9)
- who should provide such support; 
- who should pay and other associated issues
Frank (MRSILS May 9) raised issues and challenges about out such training and thus the importance of business seeing benefits.

Roy Rogers (May 8) mentioned the importance of certainly of resources to which Harris  indicated the Bright Futures recommendation of a minimum 3 year funding cycle.

David Lymn (May 8) highlighted the issues of a user pays versus taxpayer funded models and suggested that we look more closely at what encourages industry to employ young people - suggesting the ice breaker role of VET to date as well as empowerment of young people to start their own business. He also referred to an overseas model at www.bced.gov.bc.ca/careers/

Julian Pocock (May 8) reiterated the need to define what it is we are trying to achieve, expanding on work of the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition (AYPAC) and concluded by pointing out that the AYPAC National Youth Support Scheme/DSF National Youth Commitment provide models for the support required to make it possible for business to participate as central partners in young people's development. Harris pointed out (May 9) that many of these issues are currently being considered by the Prime Minister's Youth Action Plan Task Force - report due June 30 and that the discussions happening here will help shape ASTF's contribution to this work.

Andrew Fitzsimons (May 8) cited the British model of Enterprise Councils and pointed out that the Area Consultative Committees set up by the Commonwealth Government are our closest parallel. He also warned that there were potential problems with such a system being uequivocally run by industry with schools, staff and students as clients. Harris (May 9) indicated that the ASTF study tour of Britain and Scandinavia later this year will include an examination of the Enterprise Councils and sought advice re particular examples.

Michael Smith (May 9) outlined a recently released report by the
Queensland chamber of Commerce titled "The Problems of Marginalised Youth in Australia - An Industry Perspective" which includes some proposed solutions. He emphasised that all of the proposed options need to be explored in terms of their potential and drawbacks and their relevance to the needs of the local community.

Mike Paton (May 9) gave a detailed proposal for a "Loyalty Kit" that could enable clusters to lift their profile, their income and assist in the move towards sustainability. Harris (May 10) said that he would pass the idea of the kit onto the ASTF Manager - Quality & Sustainability, for review. He  also raised the issue of whether education SHOULD need to be finding ways to raise money, when some other areas of public policy never seem to need to do fund raising (Ed: have you ever seen a chook raffle run for the purchase of a submarine?)

David Lymn (May 10) suggested tax relief as an incentive but also stressed the need for VET programs to be cost effective to the employer.

John Davidson and Dene Milner (May 11) referred to points raised in a paper presented to the ASTF in 1998 titled "Vocational Education and Training in Schools - an Overview of Structured Workplace Learning and Industry Partnerships" concluding that "The quality of our programs relies heavily on a committed response from industry that is centred around good corporate citizenship and good business management of training and recruitment needs."

Roy Rogers (May 10) framed some key questions to ask when addressing this issue - questions acknowledged by Harris as articulating well the crux of the matter. Roy asked:

"Some matters which are not entirely clear to me are these:
- What is industry expected to pay for?
- Is it expected that industry should financially support clusters?
- Is industry expected to pay for accepting a student into their business?
- Is any monetary contribution by industry to be the same in Broome as it is
in Melbourne?
- Should industry pay for supervisor training?
- Which industries and businesses should pay - only those businesses that
accept students or should they all have to pay regardless of participation?
- Who will calculate the formula and how will it be implemented?
- Why should industry pay when those businesses already participating believe they are making a worthwhile monetary contribution either in cash or kind right now?

He concluded that unless these could be answered, there is no point in even trying to get industry to pay if indeed they should, and further suggested that employers who participate in SWL are already making a huge financial contribution towards the success of SWL.

With the discussion now moving to a focus on these matters from a school Principal's perspective, new perspectives on these threads will no doubt emerge.

summary 1 · summary 2 · summary 3
overview

First published June 27, 2000. Last modified June 30, 2000.