My opening gambit was that despite the evidence-based mantra of government, policy is rarely made on evidence alone. Instead it is also the product of political aspiration, and persuasion by lobby groups and individuals.
My accounts of youth policy development at a number of different levels produced a somewhat dispirited atmosphere in the room.
Shortly before the end of the session, I was asked if there were any "good-news" stories. My response was that there was a great deal of good news in the ways in which policy was formulated, in the process between conception and policy design. Within that space, there was, quite often, robust deliberation and consultation involving a diverse range of individuals.
The problem, or challenge, lay in the stages beyond design, between design and implementation, and between implementation and evaluation. The original design of policy is often corrupted by political interference derived from concerns about political impact rather than any preoccupation with rationality. Even when policy is rolled out and evaluation measures are put in place, the pace of change means things have moved on before evidence of effectiveness has been produced. Indeed, a colleague of mine said researchers delude themselves that they can have much influence on policy: the political momentum is, increasingly, faster than the research process.
The more than tweaking of the Tomlinson proposals is an excellent case in point. Apart from commentators on the far right, the Tomlinson review of 14 to 19 education has largely been welcomed across the board. It foreshadows a learning process for the 21st century, making yet another valiant attempt to establish parity of esteem between academic and vocational study. By and large it makes sense, producing wider learning pathways and promoting greater potential for social inclusion. But cherry picking the bits that appeal to the contemporary political agenda and discarding those that may produce hostility in Middle England means a coherent package disintegrates into a disjointed strategy. That may be the necessary outcome of considerations of realpolitik but, like other policy before it, it ends up serving the needs of the majority of young people much less well.
