In search of a youth justice pedagogy? A commentary
| Date | 17 June 2011 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/17466661111149420 |
| Pages | 125-133 |
| Published date | 17 June 2011 |
| Author | Jo Phoenix |
| Subject Matter | Education,Health & social care,Sociology |
In search of a youth justice pedagogy?
A commentary
Jo Phoenix
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to look at youth justice (YJ) personnel training and education and the
recommendations about it made in Time for a Fresh Start.
Design/methodology/approach – The pedagogic tensions that currently shape YJ training are
described – particularly those around the question of instructionalism vs education and what
‘‘specialist’’ means in the context of YJ.
Findings – The paper suggests that the authors of Time for a Fresh Start missed the opportunity to
better serve the public and young people’s interests by neither acknowledgingthe pedagogic tensions
nor articulating what a ‘‘specialist’’ ‘‘YJ’ ’ professional training canmean in twenty-first century England
and Wales.
Originality/value – The paper highlights an urgent need for an open debate between academics,
practitioners and policy makers about YJ pedagogy.
Keywords Youth, Justice, Youth training, Education innovation
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Both Time for a Fresh Start (Independent Commission, 2010) and A New Response to Youth
Crime (Smith, 2010) make very few specific remarks or recommendations about youth justice
(YJ) personnel professional training and education. This is surprising given the scale of the
recommendations for training, but less so given the lack of published research or academic
writing on the professional training and education of those involved in delivering YJ in England
and Wales[1]. The commission recommend that personnel are provided with specialist,
high-level training that includes child and adolescent development and interpersonal and
communication skills and that all personnel, including those in privately run secure estates, lay
magistrates, lawyers, district judges, Crown Court judges and those working across the youth
conferencing service should receive this. Although thereis a lack of detail to the Commission’s
recommendations, they nevertheless raise a vital and timely question: what can and should
YJ professional training and education look like?
This paper describes the contours of training and education provided for current YJ personnel
before discussing some of the pedagogic tensions that reside at the heart of those training
arrangements, particularly in relation to YJ personnel working in youth offending teams (YOT)
or YJ services. Many of the arguments presented in this article apply to secure estate workers,
although when relevant, I draw out some of the differences. The paper moves on to assess the
recommendations in the commission’s report. It argues that while the commission glossed
over the degree and depth of contention that exists about what YJ education and/or training
should be, it has made an important intervention by suggesting two key principles that ought
to shape the training of all YJ personnel. Namely, that whatever the actual arrangements,
YJ training and education should:
DOI 10.1108/17466661111149420 VOL. 6 NO. 2 2011, pp. 125-133, QEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-6660
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES
j
PAGE 125
Jo Phoenix is based at
Durham University,
Durham, UK.
The author would like to
acknowledge the generosity of
both Richard Hester and Wayne
Taylor from the Open University
for sharing, as yet unpublished,
material and for their generosity
and stimulating discussion
about some of the difficulties of
running the Foundation Degree
in Youth Justice.
To continue reading
Request your trial