KEY POINTS:
When the Prime Minister heard her National counterpart's "state of the nation" speech on Tuesday she suggested it had been revised over the previous few days. Laden as it was with programmes to tackle youth crime, it could have been a rapid response to public concern and laudable for that. But in fact Mr Key's proposals were accompanied by extensive referencing and policy research. It was the Prime Minister's address yesterday that seemed to have been spiced at the last minute.
It featured a proposal to require every child to remain in formal education or training courses until the age of 18. This sounds like a drastic increase in the age of compulsory schooling and seems to mean that 16- and 17-year-olds could no longer leave for fulltime work. But Helen Clark says it is not a simple lifting of the leaving age and young people would still be able to start work from age 16 so long as they were enrolled in some sort of "structured learning". Enrolment sounded more important than terms of attendance.
Under questioning yesterday she seemed not very sure of several implications and concedes that it is an idea that still needs refinement. In other words it is a long way short of a workable policy worth putting to the electorate. Nobody else in the Government seems to know much about it. Probably it was quickly conceived in response to National's proposal to offer free tertiary training to 16- and 17-year-old school leavers and deny them benefits unless they take the offer.
National's plan leaves them the option of quitting education if they can find work without a certified skill and Helen Clark concedes that in conditions of full employment young people without qualifications can find work. "But a low skills base stops us growing the value of our economy and lifting our living standards to their full potential," she said.
To that end she is contemplating compulsion. However much she prefers not to call it so, a proposal to keep everyone enrolled in some form of education to the age of 18 is an extension of compulsory education. And while universal compulsion might be a good thing for those in ethnic groups whose education and employment skills remain below par, it threatens to unduly restrict the choices of others.
Many a business creator admits to leaving school early, without qualifications or subsequent regrets. The education system tends to produce employees, pointing people towards professions and trades, and struggles to instil the qualities that enable certain people to spot business opportunities and take calculated risks.
These are generally not qualities shared or even valued by education professionals and are probably unable to be taught in any case. But the country could do with more people with those qualities probably more than it needs a higher-skilled workforce, though it needs both.
Policy makers must not elevate the most worthy economic aims above the interests of the individual. While education overall serves the greater good, its primary responsibility is to serve the individual, allowing every person to reach their potential. Compulsory education is for children. The age at which they can begin taking responsibility for their own development may be open to debate, but 16 seems reasonable.
Helen Clark talks of offering them a range of training "paths" that would satisfy the requirement to be enrolled in education to 18 and she envisages employers, polytechs and private training centres helping in some way. But the proposal is vague, the purpose dubious and the implications disturbing. Give the young incentives to learn, not compulsion.
