Tonje Brenna, our Minister for Employment and Inclusion (Ap), writes in a debate post published in Aftenposten on 14 November: “Young people who are left out of work and education often have complex challenges and an extensive need for help. We need to do more to help this group.”
She is, of course, absolutely right. Absenteeism is a structural societal problem and we must work to ensure that more people get into work and on the “inside” of society.
Our work areas belong to preventive and health-promoting work with children and young people. As professionals with employment relationships with or working in municipalities that top the statistics for outsiders, what Tonje Brenna points to are familiar issues for us.
Holistic solutions are required where access to education and work are real opportunities for everyone, regardless of where they live. If we want to work with this problem, it may be crucial that we offer adapted support and resources for pupils who live in vulnerable areas.
This could, for example, involve a strengthening of the school structure locally, an increased focus on vocational subjects and apprenticeship schemes, and an increased presence of advisers and support staff.
How does Tonje Brenna think that the closure of upper secondary schools in Norway, in the districts that top the statistics for outsiders, will make a positive contribution to this work?
The school often functions as a gathering point in the local community and closure can weaken the sense of community.
We know that longer journeys can lead to lower motivation and higher dropouts. The school often functions as a gathering point in the local environment and closure can weaken the sense of community and loss of belonging.
Larger schools do not necessarily mean better follow-up, and we know that pupils who need extra follow-up can fail in a school with a higher number of pupils.
When a community school closes down, it often creates significant challenges for the local environment and young people who may already have a difficult entry into education.
School structure cannot be seen as an isolated matter. It is necessary to assess the social consequences a school closure may have.
When national politicians do not intervene in such matters, it is perceived as a waiver of responsibility.
Several central politicians have not dared to interfere in the school structure debate in the interior, and justify this by saying that secondary education is a county municipality’s responsibility.
Stay updated. Get a daily newsletter from Dagsavisen
We don’t understand that they dare to let go to interfere. Isn’t it part of the government’s responsibility to ensure that as many people as possible enter education and work?
When national politicians do not intervene in such matters, it is perceived as an abdication of responsibility, especially when decisions affect their own policies for inclusion and employment.
Ignoring this debate can be risky for both the government and the local communities affected. Perhaps it is time for both national and local authorities to look at how they can work together better – to avoid school closures having unintended consequences.
The last thing municipalities that top statistics on outsiders and those on disability benefits need is to lose their school. It is the arena that gives our young people the opportunity to get the support they need on their way into adulthood.