We also tried to work with schools in the area to provide school-to-wor transitions as part of the ‘structured work learning environment [SWLE]‘ (or whatever the actual buzz word is) and couldn’t do it for commercial reasons. Are you aware of the amount of paperwork and limitations to allow the work they do (which they get paid wages) to count as a SWLE? It makes employing even 3 or 4 of them uneconomic, let alone just 1 or 2.

In the end the only school we are able to work with is Hutt Valley High School. You know why? Because as a high decile school, they can run a work transition programme with out the students having to be in a SWLE – go figure – something about the average wealth in their area means they don’t deserved to be “helped” as much as those from the lower decile schools. More interestingly, the schools that the students need a SWLE have a lot of difficulty placing their students (most don’t get placed in a workplace) but Hutt Valley High School are able to place most of their students, and as a result, we’ve employed 1 or 2 students every year, and quite a few have become permanent staff members, with a full time job and career prospects. The other students miss out.

Over buearucrat rules basically stuff it up for everyone. Don’t tell me that the students we employ don’t learn skills – at the very least they learn the valuable life skill that if you don’t turn up to work you don’t get paid – all other skills flow on from that. But as we can’t deal with the hopeless rules/limitations on what they are allow/not allowed to do and the endless forms/assessments/reports they, apparently, are not learning anything so it doesn’t count. That’s the current policy for you – and the students are not working or learning anything.

“Still, it is a bold step into social engineering from the leader of a party that has generally chosen to abdicate responsibility for everything to the private sector.”

“Of course, I reiterate the fact that I am happy that the National Party has finally begun to embrace social engineering policies”

Hate to say it Charlie, but you have lost the plot. Neither of these comments has the slightest grounding in reality.

During the term of the past National government (you know, the ‘far right’ one), the overwhelming majority of government expenditure was on health, social welfare and education. Same for the previous National government (the ‘interventionist’ one). And the one before that.

You may or may not think this is a good thing, but is is indisputably true. To suggest that there has been any NZ government in living memory that has not had active social policies is simply ludicrous, no matter what you might think of the policies in question.

“National used to have a different policy. Build more prisons.”

For much of 2007, Labour ministers were boasting about the bigger/newer/better prisons they were building. National spent the time carping about the cost of the landscaping. Somehow I don’t recall you flooding the blogosphere with complaints.

How does it work? Prisons are bad when National builds them, and good when Labour builds them?

cbuti9f: My fear is that those calling for the return of such schemes don’t realise that simply putting all the difficult socially deprived people in a heap and hoping that some poor junior NCO is going to sort them out is just not aware of the realities.

That is a valid concern. My understanding might be flawed, but from what I’ve read the LSV approach is comprised in part (70%) of professional civilians assisting and offering their guidance. As it looks that is not the entirety of National’s suggestion, but it does use the LSV scheme as a point of reference.

In fact, all John Key’s statements about it has indicated that they’re taking a militaristic approach to the discipline and authority. It seems like a small distinction, but a clear enough one from being a form of involuntary conscription.

Reading about what they do currently it sounds a lot like the Boy Scouts or my image of what Summer Camp must be like in the States. (Too many movies *laughs*) It sounds like a remarkably positive experience.

Ha ha, and that’s because the sun and moon dont have a lot of common sense.

I always thought annette king was a standout (not for policies, but for handling of things) but if she keeps saying things like this then sheeesh, that’s just der-brain stuff.

National used to have a different policy. Build more prisons.

“It’s good that John Key and the National Party provides options and alternatives for the youth in their policy.

Yes, and as I said, there is much in National’s policy that I agree with. My problems with his speech are 1) it conflates two separate issues (youth crime and education); and 2) doesn’t address problems surrounding upskilling the workforce. Labour’s scheme lets people work, but only if it allows them to acquire skills.

Apart from that the two schemes aren’t really that different, as I have said. Well done John Key for setting out a scheme that is mostly Labouristic.

Meanwhile Annette King states that the sun and moon are to blame for the horrific youth violence incidents this summer.

It has nothing to do with the rise in youth violent offending of 47% since 1999.

It has nothing to do with the youth offending team at the Justice Ministry being unable to cope.

It has nothing to do with the collapse of the Reducing Youth Offending Programme run in conjunction with CYF and Corrections.

It has nothing to do with fact that the Labour Ministers Group on the Youth Offending Strategy did not meet for 3 years.

It has nothing to do with the National Truancy Register promised in 1999 and 2002 still not being implemented.

Nope, it’s all the Sun and Moon’s fault.

A little bit of enlitlement on CMT, National Service or conscription. The reason for these activities carried out by the military was tp produce trained manpower for Military Service requirements. The personal qualities gained by the conscripts were a bye product of the training not an end in themselves.

The greatest method of giving these young men some social and personal skills was of course guided by the military staff but most was gained from having a vertical slice of society thrown in the deep end together and learning very quickly that they all had something to offer and all would learn a lot from each others life experience. The “silver spoon” from Fendalton had to mix with the “bottom of the heap” from (you know, one of the so called depressed areas).

My fear is that those calling for the return of such schemes don’t realise that simply putting all the difficult socially deprived people in a heap and hoping that some poor junior NCO is going to sort them out is just not aware of the realities.

I don’t think the upper and middle class supporters of such schemes envisage their sonsd and daughters being dragged into these schemes to provide the balance that a vertical slice of society provides.

You can also bet that unless there is a military imperative to the scheme there will be no great interest from the professional military to becoming baby – sitters, parents, teachers and guidance counsellors for those people where all of the above mentioned have failed. They have more important things to do with their professional time.

That comment does you no justice. Any party serious about fixing the social problems that plagues New Zealand currently will need to have a social policy. There is no need to try and paint it as somehow negative or against the grain for a particular party.

It’s good that John Key and the National Party provides options and alternatives for the youth in their policy. Well worth a read, because the actual policy backgrounder reads differently to the media releases and image that has been painted on Kiwiblog by some dissatisfied commentators.

However, I am curious. What do you believe is the answer for repeat youth offenders?

Should we not try to instill a sense of self worth in them and provide them with the tools necessary to function well in society and to take advantage of their opportunities?

Or is the answer that rather vacuous policy release from Labour that suggests they should stay in school or training until 18 years of age, but where they have no clue as to what to measure, approve or how to manage this process?

Anyway, as to the LSV’s, I’m sure these work very well. However, they work very well because the people who are on them actually acknowledge that there is a need to improve their lives. They are not on them because they want to collect the dole. That’s what JK’s scheme is proposing. How do I know they won’t work. Well *laughs softly* I’m happy to take the advice of the guy who actually runs the schemes. See link above.

Where do you get the foreign correspondant theme from? Confusing me with someone else? I am resident in New Zealand, own property here, work here, got married here. I’m a Kiwi mate.

Oh wait! You read foreign concept and thought that implied the concept came from overseas? *laughs softly* No, it is an English phrase used to indicate the concept is a strange / different one or one that the listener is unaccustomed to. Hopefully that clears it up.

I do believe that your understanding of John Key’s suggested policy is a bit flawed, as flawed as you pointed out others’ understanding of Helen Clark’s policy is.

For example, what you call a “bootcamp” is utilizing a scheme that has been in place for a long time. They are called LSV’s and are part of Work and Income’s employment training alternatives. Currently however they are under utilized and they are one example of where National believes the existing schemes can be improved to help our disaffected youth.

Read the policy backgrounder on it and then read what Work and Income has to say on them. By all accounts they are remarkably successfull vehicles for providing better opportunities to our youth and more importantly – they are existing schemes that are already running.

So you can keep on calling them “bootcamps” and blabbering on about the US and your publishing overseas. My advice though – go and read the actual documentation on these and see what they’re about.

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NationalNews/KeysaysLabourideologicallyopposedtobootcamps/tabid/184/articleID/44669/cat/64/Default.aspx

So excuse me for thinking that this *is* a cynical ploy to appeal to middle New Zealand’s inner redneck. Just like DB’s racist winging a few years back.

Bullshit. Helen said that the stipulation was that you had to be in structured education until you were 18. You could work, but there had to be some sort of formal assessment component to your work to make sure you were learning on the job. And other educational institutions are, of course, not off the table. Read the speech.

As for JK’s plan, it’s just “let them work if they want”. No hint of tackling issues around upskilling. Still, it is a bold step into social engineering from the leader of a party that has generally chosen to abdicate responsibility for everything to the private sector. Good on him. What a fine left-leaning individual he is.

Well, when the policy is so badly thought out you are. I suppose our defence force – among other institutions ill equiped to handle troubled youths – could be used as babysitters, but I’d rather not see that happen. There is a reason this proposal is being labelled a boot camp. And quite honestly, I think there are many people who support this policy who don’t give a flying fuck about what happens to these kids.

Apart from that, as I said, the differences between the two policies are subtle. I applaud John Key for adopting a “social engineering” approach. Doesn’t mean I’ll vote for the ugly little bugger though.

I wonder why your position as a “foreign correspondant” gives you greater insight on this, Pascal. In your stories, do you have a special interest on crime issues overseas? I’ve published overseas on policy matters in both mainstream media and academic journals and I have lived overseas while doing it. Does that make me a “foreign correspondant”? If so, can I run around claiming I know about everything too?

All the detractors seem to have missed one really important point with National’s policy – YOU CAN STILL LEAVE SCHOOL AT 16 ! No one is being forced, coerced, compleled (call it what you want). THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE – NO COMPULSION !

Once they’ve left school they have to deal with the consequence of their decision – get a job if they want, it’s okay! Have a ‘gap year’ and do an OE, great, no problem. The just have to deal with the fact that WINZ will not fund their choice to do nothing.

The whole “boot camp” that the lefties have latched on to is a red herring. The real argument is the choice between solution A) compulsion – you must do what we want you to do, even if there is a better solution. OR B) do what you want, just remember some choices have fairly large negative consequences.

I think it preferable that all those under 18 are in education (of whatever form), and also, that all those udner 18 be connected (ie having the technical training facilitated by the school) to a high school and all the community and pastoral care that entails.

However, I don’t think it’s workable. I’m fresh out of high school, and can’t imagine schools being able to facilitate the flexible pathways labour’s imagining. Clark herself concedes the policy needs refinement and hasn’t been though through in detail. Ie, it’s a new jerk response attempting to ourbold National. I don’t feel it’s workable policy.
H be that in school or elsewhere, I don’t think it’s workable. Labour’s talking about flexible pathways…having only just left high school, I can’t imagine schools being able to provide for numerous other polytech and apprenticeship. courses