Communities

Might try sneak this last post in...

A few weeks ago we were discussing communities and what they meant to everybody. Like many people, I associate community, in the first instance, with geographical location.

Just now, I'm renting a flat in Stockbridge, an area considered to be a sought after part of town. It is also where I lived from the ages of 10 to 18. It has always had a feel of being like a village, but located in the city centre. In my opinion, it has a strong community feel to it. People in Stockbridge get involved in local events and everybody seems to know each other. There is a real mixture of people that live in the area, from bohemian arty types to stockbrokers and elderly retired folk to poor students like me. Stockbridge is a good place to socialise, with endless bars, coffee shops and restaurants. It's a very family friendly place with low crime rates, good primary schools and green spaces. It's easy to see why people would like to live here.

There was a word that came up in class when discussing communities that I detest. Incomers. Many people told stories of how they had been shunned or not fitted into communities because they were seen as an incomer. Who sets the rules and decides who is an incomer? People already living in that community? If so, how long do you have had to live in the community before being in a position to decide if somebody fits into a community or not? To me this could be a form of racism, sectarianism or social prejudice.

Getting back to Stockbridge, there are some living in the area that feel they are being forced out by rich people moving into the area. To give you an idea, in 1990 when I moved to St Stephen Street, a 3 bedroom flat would cost around £40,000. Today a 3 bedroom flat will set you back around £300,000!!! But that is a price people are willing to pay for living in an area, as described above. The community is divided now between people being able to afford to move to an area with a good community and the original community members who feel they are being pushed out. All that is happening is that the community spirit is weakening, the very thing that makes it a desirable area is being broken because of money. Money is the problem, some people have it and can afford to live where they want, and others don't and resent the people that can buy whatever they want. Other than money, there is no real difference between these people, they all want the same thing. A good community.

I did some research (shock horror!!!), in 1991 a 2 bedroom flat in Pilton would have cost £9,000, today you could get one for around £85,000. Prices in Stockbridge have increased 7.5 times their value, prices in Pilton 9.5 times their value. My point is that it's not only the more salubrious areas that have gone up in value. What happens when the people that can no longer afford to live in Stockbridge start moving to Pilton? They become incomers!!! Vicious circle.

And what of rural communities, so often difficult for people to integrate themselves into. They don't take kindly to incomers moving who have maybe had enough of living in busy cities and want a more relaxed pace of life. Why does this sit so uneasily with rural communities? Does anyone in the city mind or bat an eyelid when someone moves from the countryside to the suburbs? So why can't people move freely where they want and be welcomed as humans, not incomers???

Answers on a postcard...

Which theory?

As it's getting close to the time this blog gets assessed, maybe it's time I wrote something on theory.

I was aware of some theories before doing the course. Well...I was aware of Matching Theories. From being on the course, what has struck me most has been the sheer breadth and variety of these theories. And I still don't know which is 'best'. What I do know is that it is almost impossible to create an objectively fair and comparative test of each theory due to the amount of variables that need to be taken into account.

I also think that there is evidence to suggest, from observing on placements and previous employment, that when careers advisers get a job in guidance, they just forget all about theory. The amount of times I asked somebody on placement "so what theories do you use?" Usually the answer was "...erm, person centred. Yeah, person centred, definitely..." And that's it!!! It's like they have just rooted around in their head and tried to remember something from when they were at uni doing the course that sounds vaguely like a theory. Person centred? The guy that phones me every night from my bank trying to save me money on my credit card could claim to using a person centred approach. The woman that cuts my hair could even claim to be person centred in her job! So I don't think people in guidance (not everyone) are aware of theory anymore. That could be for a number of reasons. Maybe they never fully understood it when they were doing the course (and I can appreciate that). Maybe their job and the organisation they are working for has no real emphasis on using theory. Maybe people have just simply forgot or don't see the need to keep up to date with the latest journals etc. Or maybe advisers are using theory and they just don't know it.

All that seems to matter is outcomes, not theories. Is this a good thing? What is a positive outcome? I'm not actually sure, but I do know that we live in this target driven world and I don't like that. Client gets a job...positive outcome...job done. Not really. Are they happy in the job, are they fulfilling their potential, do they have good prospects? Now to me, answering yes to those questions would equate to a positive outcome.

Anyway, back to theories.

I liked Collin's analogy of careers advisers being like jazz musicians, who just improvise, though not in an anarchic way. Instead they are ‘disciplined, skilled, creative, and intuitive…’, and their practice is conducted in ‘…relational, collaborative and non-hierarchical ways.’ To me she is suggesting is that careers advisers should use a variety of techniques and theories which can be co-opted into an overall approach which, once assembled, creates an ideal type model.

There are no good and bad theories, just good and bad ways of using them.

That's just me all over. I like to sit on the fence!

Eurovision

Just sat through the whole of Eurovision for the first time ever! For anyone that is interested I think there may be a big demand for career advisers in former Balkan & Soviet Union countries to provide guidance to a host of out of work singers and backing dancers!

My Careers organisation

When I rule the world...

My career guidance organisation will be talked about by Napier lecturers in the same way they talk about Carl Rogers, Bill Law & Ivan Illich. Its model will be copied by governments all over the world, from rich countries like America, to poor countries like Albania and even corrupt expense scamming governments like we have here in Britain!

Why will it be so good? Well, because I will have stole all the best ideas from the rest of the class. I thought the idea about a mobile careers service was excellent. In rural areas this could be a cost effective way to offer support and help to people that often have the least opportunities due to their geographical location. Not even just rural communities, but inner city suburbs and areas with high unemployment.

Another thing I would introduce is talks to groups by people who've been there and bought the t-shirt. For example, rather than somebody like me trying to convince a 16 year old to go on a training programme, why not get somebody who's already done it and can advise them on what to expect. People that youngsters can identify with. I'd also start bombarding footballers, actors and singers to come in and give talks. Young people look up to these people and I think lots of emotional blackmail should be put on celebrities to give something back. On the subject of young people I'd have a cool and funky website that people can identify with too.

I think it was said in jest, but someone suggested that companies should be forced to take apprentices on. Well I think they should! Your Royal Bank of Scotland's etc that have been bailed out with billions of £££££££££££££. The government should be telling these companies that they MUST employ a certain amount of school leavers as a condition.

Controversial, but I'd reintroduce job vacancies for young people into offices. Personally, I don't know why Careers Scotland got rid of them (well I do actually, to save money). When young people come into the office it is nice to be able to discuss something relevant with them, rather than saying "...yeah, remember to keep checking the newspapers and websites...." etc etc.

Having locally branded offices would be a priority too. I like the idea that clients feel more at 'home' and able to identify with their local careers office, because it is their office.

What theories would staff use? Whatever they felt worked for them, simple as that. There would still be follow up of clients because it is important that the organisation is seen to be working and not a burden on the taxpayer. Staff would have a lot of autonomy.

I'd trial a careers TV channel on one of those cable channels, like QVC....but with jobs! How good would it be to come home drunk at 3am and be able to turn on your TV and get careers advice!

An area of career advice and learning that needs improved is the stuff that's delivered in schools. At present, the amount of time spent on career education in schools PSE remit is tiny in comparison to other topics covered such as sexual health, drug and alcohol education. Pupils are usually only seen in a group setting by a careers adviser when making important decisions such as standard grade/higher subject choices and UCAS applications. In lots of schools group sessions are so sparse that a pupil could be off sick one or two days and miss their entire career education!!! Also, quite often career education classes are taken by teachers who don’t have a career guidance qualification!!! I don't think a few lessons here and there by an adviser is any good. There needs to be more input at school level.

I might add more later...I need to step away from the laptop before I turn into a megalomaniac!

When I rule the world...it will be brilliant

Age is no barrier

Yesterday (3rd May) I took part in the Edinburgh 10k. Had been training for weeks, which included a mixture of serious gym work, listening to power ballads and watching Rocky DVDs. However, 10 days ago I felt my hamstring go whilst at the gym. Ouch! I knew pretty much right away that the 53 min target I'd set myself was out the window. It was just about getting round the course with the minimum of damage.

So Sunday came, leg felt not too bad so I was quietly optimistic I could get round in under an hour. There was also the fact I wanted to beat my wife (not physically...but beat her time!) as she is very competitive. I covered myself in Tiger Balm and set off to the race.

The Edinburgh 10k brings out runners of all kinds. Elite athletes (like me), fundraisers and fun runners. As I stood at the start line I looked around at my fellow runners. There were people of all ages and it struck me that quite a number were well into their bus pass years. "What are they doing in my wave of runners?" I thought to myself. Then as I stood there getting crushed in what was a shambolic scene at the start, we were called forward. The nerves started to hit me and we were off. My plan was to run fast at the start and build up a good time as I knew my leg wouldn't hold up. The shambolic organisation (due to not starting from the Meadows this year) meant that after only a few hundred metres everyone was having to walk due to the amount of runners. That pretty much ended my race. After 3km my leg went completely and I pretty much had to limp the last 7km, whilst watching my wife jog off in the distance. And then it happened. All the "older" runners I mentioned at the start started overtaking me. I felt horrible. Men and women 65 years and older were running past me like I wasn't there. This annoyed me, so I staged a pathetic comeback. Inside I was saying, "how could someone that age beat me"?

Of course, this was completely the wrong attitude to have. Just last week I'd sat in on an interview at West Edinburgh Action with a guy in his 50's who couldn't get work. He was very employable, with a solid work experience in joinery. He'd come back from working abroad 2 years ago, and despite it still being 'boom time' in the construction trade, he'd been unable to secure work. He knew, I knew and the interviewer knew that it was down to his age. But why?

It has been proven that older and more experienced staff are more reliable, hard-working and loyal, so why do we as a society continue to overlook them? One of my own theories is that companies are afraid of the knowledge more experienced staff have on matters like working conditions, trade unions and often younger managers don't like dealing with people who are older than they are. It makes them feel uncomfortable.

Back to my race. I finished in a disappointing 65 mins flat, a whole 10 mins behind my original target, though only 37 mins behind the winner! Last night, when checking my own time, I decided to look at the times some of the older competitors completed the race in. I was blown away. There were people in their 70s and 80's that were running a 10k in 45minutes! I'll type that again. People in their 70's and 80's running a 10k in 45 mins!!!

I learned a valuable lesson yesterday (other than not to run a 10k with an injury). Age is no barrier, whether it is in employment or physical activity. The problem is that society is making older people believe that they have nothing to offer. This attitude has to change!

Final placement

"And now, the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
My friend, I'll say it clear
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain....."

Well here we are on our final placements. My current placement is at the West Edinburgh Action Centre based in Wester Hailes. That means I've had a very good variety in my placements (Careers Scotland, Glasgow University & West Edinburgh Action).

Today, I asked that question that everyone working in these placement organisations has dreaded. "So what theories do tend to use most here then...?" The answer at Careers Scotland from most advisers was along the lines of "whatever we can get away with". At Glasgow Uni I got blank looks from staff, many of whom had backgrounds in sales and marketing. Today the reply was "we use whatever we feel is most appropriate". Fair enough I thought. However, I've found out a lot more about West Edinburgh Action this week. They get £250 for each client that stays in sustained employment for more than 3 months. The way it was put to me today was "we just need to get folk into jobs, any job". This was the reply that shocked me the most. Not because I agreed or disagreed, but because it made me wonder what the hell I was spending an hour every night reading different theories for. When am I actually going to ever need to use them? Where do people actually use contemporary theories and narrative theories etc etc?

Has anyone seen good theory practice being used on placements (not trait & factor)? I'd genuinely be interested to know where. I think most of what we have been taught on this course could be applied to different clients. But where does it happen?

Careers Scotland and jobs after the course

I'll have to whisper this as it doesn't seem the in-thing to admit. The shame. I don't even know if I can bring myself to type it! OK, here goes. I wouldn't mind working for Careers Scotland (again). There, I've said it. I feel dirty now.

What has led me to such a crazy conclusion? Well, it wasn't the presentation we had on Monday, that's for sure. Didn't like it. Too slick. You get the feeling he'd done that hundreds of times, word for word. No feeling in it, no soul.

As an organisation Careers Scotland has many things about it that I dislike. Too many managers, though thankfully an issue currently being addressed. The need to push the Get Ready For Work programmes annoys me as I don't feel these offer young adults much in the way of experience or incentives. The admin work that is required to be done. Some of the language and terminology that is used by the organisation is cold and the staff are often overlooked despite doing, in the majority of cases, excellent work. There are other things that I can't think of just now, but you probably all know what they are since it's all we seem to talk about in class these days, even when we are getting CV lessons! The many problems of Careers Scotland. Sounds crap actually, why would I want to work there? What am I thinking about, saying that I'd gladly go back there?

Simple, I'm yet to see or hear of anything better. I'm yet to find out more about this mythical career guidance land of milk and honey, where advisers have an infinite amount of time to spend with individual clients. Where is this job where there are no targets and all the clients will have issues, problems and barriers that I will quite easily be able to understand and relate to? The job where the funding will never run out and where my performance will never be measured. The job where clients all want to participate in lengthy counselling sessions, there is no bureaucracy and I'm paid handsomely for my work.

Sounds fabulous, I can't wait to finish the course and get me one of those jobs. I've been looking in all the papers, all the websites etc, but haven't seen one yet. Maybe they aren't advertised yet. Or maybe it's because a job like that doesn't exist. I feel bad now. I feel like someone that has just broken the news to a 4 year old that santa doesn't exist.

My placement at Glasgow University showed me that these roles aren't to be found in University guidance. Not unless you enjoy spending large parts of your day phoning students that left 3 years ago to find out what they are doing now or cold calling organisations to see if they would be interested in taking part in careers events. Then there are local regeneration projects, often run by councils. These roles often don't require a formal qualification (so what am I doing here?) and are heavily targeted as they more than most have to justify their existence. To show that they are working and making a difference, because if they aren't it's bye bye funding. So what does that leave? Not much.

We've spent a lot of time in class recently talking about 'realities'. Well, this is my reality. I came on this course to gain the qualification that would allow me to practice as a careers adviser. My reality is that I can't financially afford to wait infinitely for the holy grail of career adviser posts, as described above, to come along. My reality is that I would like a job where I get to meet and help people of all ages and backgrounds. A job where I can help people in the best way I can, and when I meet someone that I can't help for whatever reason, I won't abandon them. I will find them someone who can help them. This job might not necessarily be with Careers Scotland, but immediately I've enhanced my options greatly by being realistic.

When setting my priorities for the kind of job I wanted after the course, one of the top ones was 'a job where I can help people and make a positive difference'. Well, there is no doubt I can make more difference to people's lives working somewhere like Careers Scotland...than I can by being on the dole waiting on a job that doesn't seem to exist.