Has Vocational Education Helped Solve Problems of Youth Unemployment? A Sociological View

They were made so that they could reduce the differences between the classes and give working class students more chances of qualifications.

In 1986, YTS were introduced; it is the Youth Training Scheme that combines work experience with education in a two-year scheme. It was brought in to try to solve youth unemployment and give students a chance to gain qualifications. Finn (1987) argues that there is a hidden political agenda that is providing cheap labour for employers and reduces crime by removing young people from the streets. Critics such as Phil Cohen (1984) argued that the real purpose of vocational training is to create “good attitudes” and work discipline rather than actual job skills. Youth unemployment is the result of not a shortage of skills but of a shortage of jobs. Also critics say that the type of skills taught to the YTS trainees are only appropriate for jobs in the secondary labour market and this leads to low paid and unskilled work in the future. YTS trainees also often find themselves in supermarkets and department stores (Item B) and so they are only trained in a narrow range of skills that is mainly only useful in retail jobs. So by completing YTS training, young people are not being given the right skills so that they can gain medium-paid jobs and so this is not reducing social inequality.

New Deal for Young People (NDYP) was introduced in 1998. It was brought in with the aim of reducing youth unemployment and reducing social inequality between classes. It was designed for 18-24 year olds who had been claiming job seekers allowance for over 6 months. They were provided with personal advisors who were who would guide them through the options:

• Full time education/training for 12 months
• Work in environmental task force/voluntary work for 6 months
• Subsidized job and training
• Loss of benefits if they did not take part

By the end of the programme 46% of those leaving the programme entered employment although most of the jobs were short term. This shows that although it may have helped some people it did not help the majority. With most of the jobs as short term it has only caused the people to gain work and some extra money, rather than helping the getting into jobs permanently so that they can support themselves and their families in the future.

The Increased Flexibility Programme (IFP) was also introduced around the same time as NDYP and the aim was to help 14-16 year olds get more out of their education. The students were allowed to attend college for one/two days a week to study for vocational qualifications that were not available at school. Most schools used this to re-engage disaffected young people. Although IFP may have helped working class students it has also helped middle class and so it does not appear to have helped reduce social inequality but instead give students more choice over their education.

Although vocational education and training schemes do help some students and provided people with more qualifications they have not reduced social inequality. They have helped middle class students as well as working class ones but give few skills that can only be used in low paid/ unskilled work.