Video summary

NYA Youth Work Curriculum Webinar session

Main summary

Key takeaways

Educational

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons

Why youth work needed a curriculum (and why it’s controversial)

  • There has been debate for 30+ years about whether youth work should have a curriculum.
  • Some youth workers worry curricula could undermine youth-led, person-centered, relational practice.
  • The webinar argues the curriculum is compatible with youth-led practice because youth work is inherently:
    • informal education
    • social pedagogy
    • relational

What the “youth work curriculum” is—and is not

  • Not a syllabus
    • It is not designed to be followed step-by-step or as a mandatory subject/strand checklist.
  • A framework
    • It is described as a tool that helps explain what youth work is and why it’s done, so practitioners can situate their work in a coherent model.
  • Process-led, not subject-led
    • The central claim: the curriculum should guide understanding and practice through process, not prescribe topics or ordering.

Core design principle: young people at the heart

The model is structured around young people’s needs, desires, interests, and concerns as they present them.

Youth work is framed as:

  • relationships: voluntary, trusting relationships between youth worker and young person
  • supporting personal/social/educational development
  • youth-led determination of themes locally (not predetermined nationally)

Underpinning values, ethics, and “cornerstones”

  • The curriculum organizes youth work into four cornerstones (broad aims):
    • Education
    • Empowerment
    • Equality
    • Participation
  • Values/principles and ethics guide youth workers’ professional decisions.
  • Youth work is described as delivered in many settings, including:
    • center-based work
    • digital youth work
    • work across different contexts (e.g., community settings, secure settings)

Professional recognition and equity

Having a youth work curriculum is presented as part of building:

  • professional identity
  • professional recognition
  • equity/parity with education and social care

During austerity, youth services (especially open access/targeted relational services) were often cut; the curriculum is positioned as support for arguing youth work’s value.

Autonomy and development approach

Development was supported by government funding (DCMS), but with:

  • complete autonomy
  • no direct involvement in content or shape

A collaborative learning group assembled perspectives from:

  • face-to-face practitioners
  • strategic/regional approaches
  • academia

The group worked intensely (a “day and a half” lock-in) to align on:

  • what youth work is
  • young people’s needs
  • what “curriculum” means in this context

Consultation was planned but affected by timing (March–May) and restrictions, so they used:

  • digital touchpoints
  • field feedback, including testing with different levels of staff and at different points of practice

Debate addressed during the panel (key tensions)

Futures/predetermined outcomes vs present-tense youth-led work

  • Some participants questioned whether youth work language (e.g., “transition to independent living” and “through adolescence/adulthood”) pushes youth work toward a prevention/early intervention and “future outcomes” mindset.
  • Panel responses:
    • Future-focused language is acceptable as long as young people lead what matters to them.
    • Youth work must bridge policy contexts where practitioners are pressured to deliver predetermined outcomes, while preserving youth-led decision-making.
    • Youth work is described as developmental and journey-based (in the moment, but always changing), so “present” support and “future” goals can coexist.

“Who counts as a youth worker?” and professionalization

  • Concern was raised that people without formal qualifications could claim youth worker status using the curriculum.
  • Panel consensus themes:
    • Professional status (e.g., qualification/registration) is different from professionalism (quality, ethics, competency, standards).
    • The curriculum supports raising quality across the board while still valuing volunteers and community-led practice.
    • There is an ongoing workforce development agenda (including workforce strategy and training pathways).

Evaluation and impact

  • Long-term impact is challenging to measure because it requires tracking beyond immediate outputs.
  • Panel responses emphasize:
    • strong anecdotal evidence of long-term outcomes
    • monitoring change along the way (small shifts that lead to longer change)
    • alignment with broader learning/measurement projects (documentary/diary/citizen inquiry approaches)

The webinar notes the curriculum supports evidence and quality standards, but also acknowledges the need for suitable evaluation resources and mechanisms.

Keeping the curriculum current

  • Themes are expected to evolve over time based on what young people say is important.
  • Ongoing field engagement will include:
    • regional units/networks
    • N=field feedback
    • staff training and follow-up reviews (e.g., feedback after training delivery)

Methodology / process described (detailed bullet points)

1) How the curriculum was created

  • Form a learning group bringing together:
    • face-to-face youth practitioners
    • strategic/regional leaders
    • academic perspectives
  • Run intensive collaborative development sessions:
    • “locked ourselves away” for about a day and a half
    • revisit foundational questions:
      • “What is youth work?”
      • “What are the needs of young people?”
      • “Are we all talking about the same thing?”
      • “What is curriculum in the youth work context?”
  • Decide collectively what the curriculum is:
    • explicitly not a syllabus
    • not subject-led
    • process-led
  • Build the curriculum model around a youth-centered structure:
    • young people at the heart
    • relationship-based youth work
  • Develop content areas (“cornerstones,” principles, values, ethics):
    • draw from concepts aligned with training and national occupational standards
  • Use an iterative consultation/testing approach:
    • send model back to the learning group for comments
    • consult with people across the field (including grassroots and part-time workers)
    • acknowledge limited consultation timeframes, so use:
      • digital testing
      • feedback from multiple practice levels

2) How youth workers are expected to use the curriculum (as framed)

  • Treat the curriculum as a flexible framework, not a checklist:
    • do not work through strands in a prescribed order
    • use it to explain what you do and why
  • Ensure themes are locally determined:
    • youth workers propose/plan, but young people decide locally what themes/issues are addressed
  • Use the values/principles/ethics to guide decisions:
    • help practitioners make professional choices about practice
  • Match delivery to context:
    • youth work may be delivered in center-based or digital formats (and across diverse settings)

3) How consultation and updates should continue

  • Keep it dynamic by:
    • returning to the field to re-check what young people are interested in
    • involving regional units/network organizations
    • using staff training cohorts to gather feedback after implementation
  • Planned evaluation cycle:
    • training rollout across the country (October)
    • collect practitioner feedback (around Dec–Jan)
    • feed findings into future revisions (including discussion of a “six month review” timeframe)

Speakers / sources featured (as named in subtitles)

Panel and speakers

  • Liz (appears multiple times; host/moderator-like role)
  • Esther (takes the helm briefly; part of the panel/working group)
  • Abby (major framing; references; working group/panel)
  • Graham (asks philosophical question about temporality/needs/futures)
  • Ruth (working group panel member; developmental journey and needs)
  • Kevin (workforce development / national workforce strategy role)
  • Julie (asks about who can claim youth worker status/qualifications)
  • Kaylee (UK Youth; perspective on volunteers and pathways)
  • Sir Kelly Wayne Wright (appears as “sir kelly wayne wright from uk youth”; introduced by Kaylee)
  • Andy (from Urban Devotion in Birmingham; asks about five-year future and consultation)

  • Alex (mentioned as “share the video” and thanks viewers afterward; video contributor voice)

  • DCMS (government department funding support: Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport) — mentioned as a source/funder (not a person)

Additional organizations mentioned as sources/contexts

  • National Youth Agency (NYA)
  • UK Youth
  • Institute for Youth Work
  • NPC (conference mentioned for webinars)
  • Children’s Society (“good childhood report” mentioned)
  • Center for Youth Impact (impact/measurement discussion)
  • University of Cumbria (Prof. Castillo mentioned)
  • King’s College (long-term impact study mentioned)
  • Youth Focus Northwest
  • Labour Party Conference (young people panel)
  • Youth England / Sectors / regional units / N= networks (general references)
  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  • Children’s Act
  • National Occupational Standards / qualifications like “JNC” (mentioned in context of levels)

Original video