Waving a big stick at teenagers

ANALYSIS
By Mike Baker

News just in: "A 17-year-old has become the first young person to be fined for failing to turn up to compulsory classes".

Will that be part of a news bulletin sometime in 2013?

Well, it could be if the Education and Skills Bill, which will make education or training compulsory for all young people in England to the age of 18, becomes law.

If it sounds far-fetched just remember the case of Patricia Amos. She was the first parent to be jailed for the persistent truancy of her daughters.

Just a few years earlier, when the new truancy laws were proposed, few people had thought these new powers would really be used to send a mother to prison.

But it happened. The big stick was not just waved - it was used.

Is it right to risk criminalising young people in this way for their refusal to learn?

For 16 to 18-year-olds, there is no plan for sanctions against parents, unless they are actively "part of the problem", for example by employing their children in jobs without training.

Instead, the onus will be on the young people themselves to attend classes or training courses.

The current proposal is for 16 to 18-year-olds who refuse to attend classes or training courses to be issued with an attendance notice, stating where and when they must turn up.

If they then breach that attendance notice they could be issued with a fixed penalty notice, a form of fine similar to that imposed for litter or graffiti offences.

If they refuse to pay the fixed penalty notice, they could be brought before the Youth Court and be issued with a further fine.

And if they refuse to pay this fine they could have the money taken from their wages or be given unpaid work to do.

So, is it right to risk criminalising young people in this way for their refusal to learn?

The government believes it is. Ministers could have simply stated a vague aspiration of getting all 17 and 18-year-olds to attend classes. Yet they decided that this would not provide sufficient impetus for change and opted for compulsion instead.

'Badge of honour'

Compulsion, it follows, has to be backed up by policing and sanctions for those who fail to comply.

However, the government has not had much support for sanctions from the public, or at least not from those people and organisations that responded to the consultation on the original proposals in the Green Paper.

Indeed, a mere 22% agreed with the proposed sanctions for fixed penalty notices, youth courts and fines. A further 31% were "not sure" and 48% opposed them.

One fear expressed by some respondents was that an attendance order might be seen as a "badge of honour" by some young people, in much the same way as an Asbo can be seen as a sign of toughness or street credibility.

Asked what sort of sanctions were appropriate, only 7% opted for criminal sanctions, 42% favoured administrative/civil sanctions, 20% were not sure and 32% felt neither option was right.

Interestingly, some parents and young people felt more comfortable with more imaginative penalties. These included community work, cleaning up litter and graffiti, cutting grass, and getting involved in their local area.

Other ideas included detention centres where young people would have to go to complete their courses or military/national service.

One option that did attract majority support was the option of penalising those who refuse to attend by stopping any financial befits they receive.

If this goes ahead, England will not be the first place to fine young people who refuse to participate in education and training.

In the Netherlands, full-time education is compulsory until the end of the year in which a young person is 16 and part-time attendance is compulsory until 17. Students aged over 15 can be fined.

However, most of those countries that have a better education participation rate amongst 17 and 18-year-olds have achieved this without compulsion, never mind sanctions.