I decided, against my better judgement, to actually read past the headline 😉.
This follows on from some research that indicates kids are three times more likely to fall into unemployment after they leave school based on some indicators at an early age. So the idea is that these children get extra help to make sure they don’t end up in a lifetime of joblessness. Wouldn’t this be similar to spotting kids that are struggling with English or Maths at an early age to help them before it is too late?
The Department for Education would also be asked to refresh its pupil premium guidance to emphasise that the extra money schools in England receive for supporting the most disadvantaged children could be used for tutoring and mentoring schemes for those at risk of becoming Neet.
Those absolute monsters!
I think everyone’s just so conditioned to reading bad news headlines that they assumed this was something sinister, when it actually seems like quite positive news (in theory at least)
The point of school is supposed to be education, this is not prioritizing education. Schools should not be drone factories turning children into obedient workers for the corporations.
Without knowing what they plan to do with children that are identified it is hard to say much more. But the point of school, surely, should be to prepare children for their future such that they can function in a society.
Imagine what you would be doing if you’re later in life classed as being Not in Employment, Education, or Training for anything (what is known as NEET). That doesn’t sound like a very fulfilling life. Giving people extra help such that they can go onto further education, or training for a skill (even if you take umbridge to the word employment) is surely a good thing.
What would you have happen to these children? If you could identify clear markers at an early age?
The solution is more resources per child with constant evaluation and alteration of the system and what it offers, it really is that simple. You do not need to label children as unemployable and put them on some list, that will never end well even if the original intentions were purely benevolent.
Let’s not get fixated on the employment part. There’s also not being in further education. And also not being in training (like an apprenticeship for example).
If you could identify a child that would later on in life struggle to either be in further education or training you’d help them, right?
The solution is more resources per child with constant evaluation and alteration of the system and what it offers, it really is that simple.
That sounds like what this is aimed at doing. Did you read somewhere that all they are doing is putting kids on a naughty list?
Growing up undiagnosed autistic, I would have loved some intervention at school. I was a total nerd, so I was just pushed towards academic success. Go to uni, then get a PhD, great things await.
In reality, I burnt out by Year 13, my final grades only held up because I did well in Year 12. I ended up unemployed for a year. Struggled to even get minimum wage retail, until I got a job at a post office, £4.25 an hour, that no one else wanted because it was crap pay and only 2 days a week. Got taken hostage at gunpoint after 2 months, left, got offered a job at the charity shop I was volunteering at. Which my toxic ex then encouraged me to quit after a few months. Spent years unemployed again, got a retail job at 26, been working minimum wage ever since. Managed to blag a trainee bike mechanic job, only for the council to put my boss out of business after I was there less than a year. Currently living off my savings because I couldn’t take how toxic my last job was.
If someone had intervened in my school years and pushed me to towards learning a trade instead of pushing me to go for uni, and given me support with my social difficulties, I wonder how different my life would have turned out. Maybe I wouldn’t be the pathetic basket case I am now.
I decided, against my better judgement, to actually read past the headline 😉.
This follows on from some research that indicates kids are three times more likely to fall into unemployment after they leave school based on some indicators at an early age. So the idea is that these children get extra help to make sure they don’t end up in a lifetime of joblessness. Wouldn’t this be similar to spotting kids that are struggling with English or Maths at an early age to help them before it is too late?
Somehow according to Lemmy this is a bad thing 🤷
As an early childhood educator, I don’t think people should be evaluating children based on their future potential for employment.
If unemployment is an issue, focus on the workplaces that fail them don’t try to train children into being ideal workers.
This is backwards like banning children from social media rather than regulating the social media algorithms and holding the companies accountable.
Those absolute monsters!
I think everyone’s just so conditioned to reading bad news headlines that they assumed this was something sinister, when it actually seems like quite positive news (in theory at least)
The point of school is supposed to be education, this is not prioritizing education. Schools should not be drone factories turning children into obedient workers for the corporations.
Without knowing what they plan to do with children that are identified it is hard to say much more. But the point of school, surely, should be to prepare children for their future such that they can function in a society.
Imagine what you would be doing if you’re later in life classed as being Not in Employment, Education, or Training for anything (what is known as NEET). That doesn’t sound like a very fulfilling life. Giving people extra help such that they can go onto further education, or training for a skill (even if you take umbridge to the word employment) is surely a good thing.
What would you have happen to these children? If you could identify clear markers at an early age?
The solution is more resources per child with constant evaluation and alteration of the system and what it offers, it really is that simple. You do not need to label children as unemployable and put them on some list, that will never end well even if the original intentions were purely benevolent.
Let’s not get fixated on the employment part. There’s also not being in further education. And also not being in training (like an apprenticeship for example).
If you could identify a child that would later on in life struggle to either be in further education or training you’d help them, right?
That sounds like what this is aimed at doing. Did you read somewhere that all they are doing is putting kids on a naughty list?
Growing up undiagnosed autistic, I would have loved some intervention at school. I was a total nerd, so I was just pushed towards academic success. Go to uni, then get a PhD, great things await.
In reality, I burnt out by Year 13, my final grades only held up because I did well in Year 12. I ended up unemployed for a year. Struggled to even get minimum wage retail, until I got a job at a post office, £4.25 an hour, that no one else wanted because it was crap pay and only 2 days a week. Got taken hostage at gunpoint after 2 months, left, got offered a job at the charity shop I was volunteering at. Which my toxic ex then encouraged me to quit after a few months. Spent years unemployed again, got a retail job at 26, been working minimum wage ever since. Managed to blag a trainee bike mechanic job, only for the council to put my boss out of business after I was there less than a year. Currently living off my savings because I couldn’t take how toxic my last job was.
If someone had intervened in my school years and pushed me to towards learning a trade instead of pushing me to go for uni, and given me support with my social difficulties, I wonder how different my life would have turned out. Maybe I wouldn’t be the pathetic basket case I am now.