It’s the economy, stupid!1
Reflective essay on the type of success we are educating young people for.
By David Wemel
Introduction
Youth studies are about “the study of youth within the life course as well as youth ‘in and for itself’”. 2
For sure is that education plays an important role in the lives, biographies and transitions of young
people. Both formal as informal education, with both intentional as incidental learning. A question one
could ask, is: “what are we educating young people for?” During the short course MA European Youth
Studies, I focused on the concept of success that was emerging from the articles on education and
employment from both Harriet Bradley3 as Katariina Koskinen4. With my colleague students (or
participants) from the education and employment group, we decided to focus our WIKI entry on this
notion and ended with the challenging question: What kind of success are we educating young people
for? It is exactly on this question that I would like to elaborate in my reflective essay. Based on the
findings of my case study and some further thinking and reading, I develop this essay around three
questions:
1. How do we define success?
2. How do we measure success?
3. How do we educate for success? (And what kind of success are we educating for)?
This essay will be concluded with some suggestions for further reflection and some ideas and
challenges for practice, policy and research in the youth field, also known as the three corners of the
magic triangle.
How do we define success?
The question on how to define success is a very difficult and broad question to answer. Extensive
Sociological, Economical and Philosophical works have been written on it. The scope of this short
course and of this reflective essay does not allow me to go in very deep detail on this question, but
based on the insights that occurred during the course, some elements of an answer could be
provided.
First of all, we have the way Harriet Bradley is using the notion of success in her article on winners
and losers in the new economy5. We found that she is using success in various ways and that she is
conscious about the fact that the definition of success can differ depending on who is defining it. One
1
Quote by Bill Clinton used during his successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H. W. Bush
Chisholm, L. (2006), ‘European youth research: Development, debates, demands’, in M. du Bois-Reymond and
L. Chisholm (eds), The Modernisation of Youth Transitions in Europe, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.11-21
3
Bradley, H. (2005), ‘Winners and losers: young people in the ‘new economy’, in H. Bradley and J. van Hoof
(eds), Young People in Europe: Labour markets and citizenship, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp.99-113.
4
Koskinen, K. (2010), ‘Labour market success of young European graduates’, in J. Evans and W. Shen (eds),
Youth employment and the future of work, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
5
Bradley, H. (2005), ‘Winners and losers: young people in the ‘new economy’, in H. Bradley and J. van Hoof
(eds), Young People in Europe: Labour markets and citizenship, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp.99-113.
2
of the interesting things she found in her Bristol study is that “when we asked ( …) young people that
question [what constitutes success], ‘just being happy’ was a common answer.”6 On the contrary,
Bradley also points out that “judgments on what is ‘success’ and ‘failure’ are typically made in a topdown way and reflect white middle-class norms and values of achievement.”7 In the rest of her article,
Bradley tends to use mainly labour market driven and economical criteria to define success 8. This
goes even more for Koskinen, who in her article limits the parameters for success (for methodological
reasons) to two, being salary and the correspondence between education and work. 9
This discrepancy between the definition of success by some young people and the definitions based
on so called white middle-class norms and values of achievement were also found in the case study I
conducted, studying different sources such as policy documents, interviews with young people and an
opinion article from a youth representative. The case study was completed by an open interview with
two practitioners, a youth worker and an educational worker, working with young people with fewer
opportunities. How success, failure, winning or losing are defined really depends on the stance from
which you are looking at things. From the individual, young persons’ point of view, ‘just being happy’
as a definition for success, as it was found in Bradley’s Bristol survey, seems to be confirmed by the
former president of the European youth forum and by the youth worker from my local case study.
When we look at it from a transition point of view, financial independence and autonomous living are
seen as key factors for successful transition to adulthood.
It seems as if the economy driven rhetoric always appears somewhere, when we are talking about
success and about successful transitions from young people to adulthood. It is often about financial
independence and (owning) a safe place to live. Later on in this essay we will see how Willy
Wielemans calls this hidden ideology economism, a third important ideology next to social-democracy
and neo-liberalism10.
How do we measure success?
The question on how to measure success is of course dependent on how we define success. What I
will try to do in this paragraph is to show how some extra elements and reflections should be taken
into consideration when talking about how to measure success. Because it is important that your
measurements reflects nowadays realities and that you use accurate criteria to measure what you call
success. I will again start from Bradley’s article11 as an example.
Bradley’s statement is that the so called new economy produces more losers than winners. Next to
the traditional losers (young unemployed for example), also traditional winners seem to suffer from
6
Ibid. p. 104
Ibid. p. 104
8 In the text itself, this is what is linked with the notion ‘success’: high status jobs, stable employment, successful
transition to adulthood and settling into a secure career. Following links are made with ‘successful transition to
adulthood’: financial independence, starting family life and securing decent acoomodation. Linked to ‘failure’ we
find: unemployment, taking part in delinquent or criminal inner-city subcultures, low income, unqualified and
‘churning’.
9 Koskinen, K. (2010), ‘Labour market success of young European graduates’, in J. Evans and W. Shen (eds),
Youth employment and the future of work, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
10 Wielemans, W. (1997). Onderwijsbeleid tussen sociaal-democratie en neoliberalisme. Tijdschrift voor
onderwijsrecht en onderwijsbeleid, 5. P. 347-354.
11 Bradley, H. (2005), ‘Winners and losers: young people in the ‘new economy’, in H. Bradley and J. van Hoof
(eds), Young People in Europe: Labour markets and citizenship, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp.99-113.
7
nowadays economical and labour market realities. They have precarious labour conditions, low
wages and insecure jobs; and that way turn into losers. When we now look at the characteristics of
this so called ‘new economy’, the disappearance of the ‘job for life’ concept is one of the most
tangible. Having said that in the new economy a job for life is no longer the norm, it is a bit strange to
use criteria as ‘stable careers’ and ‘secure jobs’ as criteria for success. Especially when the same
author states that “our young adult respondents (…) seemed to embrace flexibility for the freedom
and dynamism it offered, despite the barriers it placed in the way of ‘settling down’.” 12
A same kind of remark can be found with Lynne Chisholm (2006) when talking about European youth
studies as a field of research. “In reflecting on just how much young people’s lives have changed
since the beginning of the 1990s, European youth studies are now approaching a conceptual
watershed. The normative reference points to which empirical patterns of youth transitions have been
related, no longer play a theoretically useful function.”13 And talking about transitions, one could ask
the question: “transition to what?” Since “the very and point of the trajectory, adulthood, has lost its
self evidence.”14
One should therefore be careful using old concepts, norms and criteria to measure nowadays
realities.
How do we educate for success? (And what kind of success are we educating for?)
In answering the question on how we educate for success, it is important to point out that we should
not only focus on the formal side of education. Of course this is an important aspect since it is the way
in which society institutionalized education, but also non-formal education (and youth work more in
particular) plays an important role in the life paths of young people. Therefore in this paragraph, we
will consider both formal as well as non-formal education.
Formal education
It is important to realize that education and educational policy are never ideologically neutral.
According to the Belgian professor emeritus Willy Wielemans “educational policy is an expression of
political options (…) and is situated on a continuum with social-democracy on the one side and
neoliberalism on the other.”15
And of course the choices made by educational policy influence
(formal) education practice. For example, from a social-democratic point of view; “schools must
contribute to the equality of social, cultural, economical and political opportunities, no matter what
differences in social, religious, ideological, sexual and racial background of the pupils and students.”16
Social democrats prefer looking at schools as public goods, whilst neoliberals tend to think of schools
as private goods. Wielemans based his findings on a comparative research of the educational policies
12
Ibid. p.112.
Chisholm, L. (2006), ‘European youth research: Development, debates, demands’, in M. du Bois-Reymond and
L. Chisholm (eds), The Modernisation of Youth Transitions in Europe, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 17
13
14
Taken from a powerpoint presentation from Carmen Leccardi for the M.A. European Youth Studies Short
Course. Budapest, February 11, 2011.
15
Wielemans, W. (1997). Onderwijsbeleid tussen sociaal-democratie en neoliberalisme. Tijdschrift voor
onderwijsrecht en onderwijsbeleid, 5. p. 347. (own translation)
16 Ibid. p. 348 (own tanslation)
of the EU member states in 1997.17 As a result of the same comparative analysis, Wielemans states
that formal education is more and more being dictated by financial and economical reasoning.
Educational policy should for example aim at the reduction of unemployment. He calls this ‘new’
ideology economism and states that a twofold consensus about education is being questioned ever
since this economism appeared. The first one is that education should be valued as an intrinsic good,
the second one is about education always being … (rendabel) as an investment. “This new dominant
[economism] is not yet recognized as an ideology by many. Economical necessity seems to be
ideologically neutral, and value-free.”18 Wielemans warns for the hidden character of this ideology. “In
the perspective of the increasing orientation of education towards the market and the direct link that is
made between education and economical utility, representatives from the now dominant ideology
have a big interest in keeping it under the surface. This way, formal education might again become
indoctrination.”19 Finally Wielemans, in 1997, warns for the increasing influence of the EU rhetoric
(which is an economical one) on educational policy.
Saying the what Wielemans was warning for was visionary might be a bridge to far, but if we look at
nowadays rhetoric from the European Comission about education, one could hardly say that the
economism isn’t present. If we for example look at the EU 2020 strategy, education is seen as a key
instrument to help the EU achieve its goals of smart, sustainable and inclusive (economic) growth. 20
If formal education is –at least in its policy rhetoric- more and more about employability of young
people, the question that emerges is: is employability the only criterion to measure successful
education of young people? Is labour market success the only success that is valued by the way we
organize our formal education?
Non-formal education and youth work in particular
Another discourse is found when we look at the non-formal field. Although one can certainly find some
elements of economism in the debate about the recognition of non-formal learning (and youth work),
the recently published pathways 2.0 towards recognition of non-formal learning /education and of
youth work in Europe seems to offer a different perspective. “All learning in the youth field enables
young people to aquire essential skills and competences and contributes to their personal
development, to social inclusion and to active citizenship, thereby improving their employments
prospects.”21 The employment prospects (employability) are still there, but it is seen as a positive side
effect, rather than as the mere purpose of education. In non-formal education and youth work in
particular, the emphasis seems to be on the personal development, social inclusion and active
citizenship of young people. “In this respect, any hierarchisation of youth work activities must be
avoided, nor can a functionalisation of learning outcomes only for purposes of the labour market, the
17
Referentie invoegen
18
Wielemans, W. (1997). Onderwijsbeleid tussen sociaal-democratie en neoliberalisme. Tijdschrift voor
onderwijsrecht en onderwijsbeleid, 5. p. 353. (own translation)
19
Ibid. p. 354 (own translation)
Ref EU 2020 invoegen
21
Partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of Youth. Pathways
2.0 towards recognition of non-formal learning / education and of youth work in Europe. Strasbourg and
Brussels, 2011. P.5.
20
educational system or the social system be accepted, (…) On the contrary, it must be made clear that
youth work enriches other policies only if it maintains its particular identity and strength; only then
other sectors can benefit from youth work. Youth work stand for itself, it has its own self-worth (…)”22
It seems as if the consensus that formal education is losing according to Wielemans (the intrinsic
value of formal education), is now being claimed by the non-formal field, stressing the need for an
independent position and the fear of being instrumentalised.
The best of both worlds
I guess in this discussion it is not about either / or, but about combining the best of both worlds. Both
the formal as well as the non-formal education field can learn from one another. Peter Lauritzen once
said in an interview “We know very well that you can’t teach democracy at school. Where schools
themselves are not democratic organizations, the message cannot be understood” 23 In my opinion
there are two ways to deal with this issue. One way is to look for places outside formal education to
teach democracy. The other way is to keep fighting for schools as good practices for democracy,
being democratic organizations themselves. This might need some serious educational reforms,
which is not easy at all, as history of education teaches us,24 but it might also be worth it striving for.
Where does this lead us to? Some reflections for the three corners of the magic triangle.
To conclude this reflective essay, I would like to focus on the three corners of the magic triangle and
the role each of them could play in this discussion. The basic idea I wanted to communicate in this
essay is that education of young people, in whatever form, is never value free. For me, the biggest
task for policy, research and practice is to be aware of this and to reflect upon the (hidden) ideologies
and rhetoric that are the drivers for our actions.
From this perspective –and in the scope of this essay- a big challenge for policy makers in youth
policy as well as in educational policy is to be aware of ‘economism’ as a hidden ideology which is not
neutral at all. Policy makers should offer place and provide resources for education (both formal and
informal) that works towards the full emancipation of young people, focusing on both personal as well
as professional development.
Youth (work) practice could keep exchanging good practices and as a real (European) community
develop knowledge and practice. In that respect, the first European convention of youth workers, held
in Ghent, Belgium during the Belgian EU presidency in July 2010, was a nice example of how this
European Community can function. The declaration25 that was the result of this convention sets the
agenda for youth (work) policy the upcoming years and lists the challenges youth work practitioners
are facing in nowadays political and economical climate. It is up to the European community of Youth
workers to provide the necessary follow-up and up to policy makers to make this possible.
22
Ibid. p. 14
Chisholm, L. (1995) The Council of Europe’s Youth Centre Past, Present and Future: an interview with Peter
Lauritzen. Ch 2.2 in CYRCE (Ed.) The Puzzle of Integration. European Yearbook on Youth Policy and Research
Vol. 1 Walter de Gruyter: Berlin/New York; reprinted in Eggs in a pan – Speeches, Writings and Reflections by
Peter Lauritzen. Coucil of Europe Publications: Strasbourg: 2008.
23
24
25
Referentie Depaepe.
Referentie declaration invoegen
From researchers side, we could expect that they value this kind of creating knowledge and practice,
although it does not really follow the rules of academic knowledge building and sharing. Next to this
and maybe even more important, it is in my opinion crucial that (academic) research in the youth field
keeps unveiling hidden rhetoric and ideologies (like Wielemans’ concept of economism) and that they
warn both policy and practice for the risk of indoctrination. Just providing a different pair of glasses for
policy makers and practitioners to look at things, is already a big achievement from researchers’ side.
Because “it is more realistic to expect research simply to inform policy than to expect policy to be
stringently research based.”26
26
Chisholm, L. (2006). Youth research and the youth sector in Europe: perspectives, partnerships and promise.
Pp 23-38 in Marianne Milmeister and Howard J. Williamson (Eds.) Dialogues and Networks: organizing
exchanges between youth field actors. Scientiphic-Editions PHI: Luxembourg.