Around 2010, when the Youth+ Flexible Learning Centres were at the height of being established across Australia, I had a conversation with Dale Murray, Director of Edmund Rice Education Australia—Youth+. Dale recounted that a lack of empirical evidence concerning the value of flexible learning options (FLOs) compromised his efforts to convince governments, city councils and private benefactors of the returns on their investments. Such evidence would need to be both qualitative and quantitative. Thus, the seed was sown for our Australian Research Council Linkage Project (LP130100344), “The value of Flexible Learning Options for disenfranchised young people and the Australian community”. This book is among the results of that endeavour.
Engagement in schooling is a key factor in producing equitable social and employment outcomes for all Australian young people. Through the Melbourne Declaration, Australian state and territory governments have committed to greater equity and excellence in schooling with an emphasis on improving outcomes for disadvantaged young Australians, particularly Indigenous youth and those from low socioeconomic circumstances (MCEETYA, 2008). This was reinforced by The National Partnership on Youth Attainment and Transitions, which included specific targets to increase young people’s educational participation and attainment (CoAG, 2009), as the consequences of disengagement from education are seen to be significant.
The current political and economic climate has seen growth in both the demand for and provision of FLOs. According to a report commissioned by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum, at least 33,000 of Australia’s most severely disenfranchised young people are currently being catered for by FLOs (Te Riele, 2012). On-going research by te Riele suggests the true figure is likely to be at least twice as high. Catering to a diverse clientele across the nation, the flexible learning sector has developed as a broad kaleidoscope of programs concentrated in areas of recognised social, economic and geographical disadvantage. As the sector burgeons, an increasing amount of research has been directed at mapping the extent, nature and reach of flexible learning provision. What remains missing from the research literature is a reliable measure of the impact of flexible learning options in relation to lifetime outcomes for the most disadvantaged groups of young people in Australia.
The primary aim of this research, then, was to determine if the flexible learning intervention has a measurable, discernible impact on individual life trajectories in relation to economic and social outcomes (e.g., employment, welfare dependency, wellbeing, disconnection and disengagement).
The research questions that drove this project were:
What life trajectories (and their associated individual and societal outcomes) do disengaged young people traverse in the Australian context?
What changes to these life trajectories (and associated changes to individual and societal outcomes) can be expected as a result of participation in Flexible Learning Options?
What mechanisms are at work in Flexible Learning Options that facilitate the reshaping of life trajectories of disengaged Australian young people?
There is high demand for quality FLOs to cater for the growing number of young people disengaging from the schooling system (Wilson, Stemp, & McGinty, 2011; Te Riele, 2012). Meeting this need is contingent upon government support, which is enhanced by sound evidence of the economic and social benefits of such educational interventions. Prior to this study, there was little empirical data to substantiate and quantify the value of this type of educational intervention for both the students who re-engage and the wider community. While it is a complex task to narrow down the economic and social benefits of student participation in FLOs, requisite financial and societal support of these programs requires evidence of how these programs benefit young people and strengthen Australia’s social and economic fabric.
This study utilized a mixed-method approach, with three primary components:
A qualitative component examining the impact of FLOs on young people’s life experiences (Chapters 3–6);
A quantitative component utilising a matching estimators technique (Chapter 7);
A social return on investment (SROI) analysis (not included in this volume).
With the support of our research partners—EREA Youth+; Catholic Education of Western Australia; Northern Territory Government; the Brotherhood of St Laurence; the Victorian Government; and Centacare North Queensland—we chose eight FLO sites as case studies according to the following criteria:
The program supported the attainment of credentialed formal education;
Attendance was by choice (that is, the FLO did not serve as a behaviour management centre);
The program’s core functions were to educate and support disenfranchised young people aged 12 to 20 years.
As part of the qualitative component, 157 teachers, parents, young people and other staff from the partner sites were interviewed. Of these, 61 were young people. This data formed the basis of the analysis conducted for Chapters 1 and 3–6. The data used for the quantitative analysis is outlined in Chapter 7.
This book is divided into three sections. Part One, comprising the first three chapters, explains the context in which FLOs operate in Australia. In Chapter 1, Kitty te Riele introduces the reader to the young people at the centre of our research. Although mainstream education has not worked for them, they are keen to learn with the assistance of wraparound support services. Many of these young people come from backgrounds of poverty and disenfranchisement. Te Riele then explores the context of Australian policy with regard to keeping young people engaged in schooling. In Chapter 2, Joseph Thomas delves into the neoliberal pushes and pulls driving educational policy in Australia, including a national and international emphasis on standardised assessment. Thomas recounts how these pressures have reinforced disparate educational outcomes, exacerbated socioeconomic divisions and pushed many of the country’s most disadvantaged young people to seek refuge in FLOs. In Chapter 3, George Myconos enumerates the defining features of FLO programs, including: an inclusive ethos and corresponding approach to governance; tailored, flexible pedagogy and curriculum; and youth wellbeing and relationship building at the core of operations. Myconos emphasises the pivotal role played by wellbeing support in fostering the stability students require if they are to renew their education.
FLO sites
| Name | Region | Status/governance | Years established | Enrolments (2015)* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blue Gum | Victoria, outer urban | non-government program | <5 | <100 |
| Waratah | Victoria, inner urban | government auspice | <5 | <100 |
| Bottle Brush | Victoria, inner urban | non-government school | >5 | >300 |
| Acacia | Queensland, regional | non-government | >5 | >100 |
| Grevillea | Western Australia, urban | non-government school | >5 | <50 |
| Wattle | Western Australia, urban | non-government school | >5 | <200 |
| Desert Rose | Northern Territory urban | Government auspice | <5 | <50 |
| Sturt Pea | Northern Territory, regional | non-government school | <5 | <150 |
According to data published on the My School website (2015)
In Part Two, the authors of Chapters 4-6 analyse the interviews conducted across Australia to unpack the value of flexible learning from the perspectives of FLO participants and staff. In Chapter 4, Valda Wallace describes how Australian educational policy and practice have long disenfranchised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Wallace demonstrates that education does not occur in a vacuum—sustenance, shelter and support are integral to a young person’s wellbeing and ability to learn. Through the voices of Indigenous participants and staff, she advocates the holistic approach to schooling offered in FLOs as a way to foster improved educational access for Indigenous Australian young people. In Chapter 5, Sue McGinty, Suzanne Bursey and Hurriyet Babacan investigate what young people say they value in their educational experiences. Most young people interviewed emphasise having the right staff to work with them. That is, educators able to show them a future, take care of their current needs, and provide learning that meets their particular circumstances. The young people greatly appreciate such care in the context of gaining an education. In Chapter 6, Kimberley Wilson frames her reading of what FLO staff value about this type of education through the theoretical lens of Gert Biesta’s work, namely, obtaining a qualification, socialisation (in particular, coming to feel as though one belongs), and subjectification (i.e., the process by which a young person develops a particular sense of self and social being). Although subjectification has received little attention in the research literature, Wilson’s analysis of staff interviews shows the vital importance of this concept to the FLO experience.
Part Three comprises the quantitative aspect of our research. In Chapter 7, Joseph Thomas and Riccardo Welters use a matching estimators methodology to elucidate the impact of young people’s educational experiences over a ten-year period. Using data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Youth (LSAY), they show that young people who experience a weak sense of belonging at school at age 15–16 tend to report lower levels of life-satisfaction and wellbeing as young adults. As pointed out, belonging is one of the cornerstone mechanisms at work in FLOs.
In Chapter 8, Brian Lewthwaite, Hurriyet Babacan, Kitty te Riele, Dale Murray and Joseph Thomas conclude our effort to gauge the value of FLOs by outlining the study’s broader implications for policy and practice. The overwhelming evidence, supported both qualitatively and quantitatively, is that investment in flexible learning provides enormous value to the lives of disenfranchised young people and the wider Australian community.
It is with pride that I present to our partners and community this significant and necessary compendium of empirical evidence on the value of FLOs.
References
CoAG. (2009). National partnership agreement on youth attainment and transitions. Canberra: AGPS.
MCEETYA. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne: MCEETYA.
My School Website: Retrieved from https://www.myschool.edu.au/
Te Riele, K. (2012). Learning choices: A map for the future. Report to the Dusseldorp Skills Forum. Melbourne: Victoria Institute for Education, Diversity and Lifelong Learning.
Wilson, K., Stemp, K., & McGinty, S. (2011). Re-engaging young people with education and training: What are the alternatives? Youth Studies Australia, 30(4), 32–39.