Primary schools to be told to identify children at risk of future unemployment
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/aug/07/english-primary-schools-to-be-told-to-identify-children-at-risk-of-future-unemployment
24 points · 17 comments · view on lemmy.world
17 Comments
tenebrisnox@feddit.uk · 13 pts · 32d
So we're now identifying:
Coming soon:
danielquinn@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 32d
The fuck is wrong with this country?
nialv7@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
i don't know, trying the get people help?
danielquinn@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 32d
Evaluating a six year old based on their likelihood to perform as a worker is deeply fucked up, and identifying them for "help" to become employable is not what they need.
It's addressing a problem from a backward position. Underemployment is objectively a problem with availability of work paying livable wages, so a reasonable solution would be addressing that fault, not pigeonholing children based on their likelihood to contribute to GDP.
nialv7@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
i feel like you need to untangle two things: work itself, work being exploited for financial gain. there is nothing wrong with work itself, in fact if i cannot work and have to loitering around doing nothing all day, that will destroy me. on the other hand i despise the exploitation of labour for financial gain of the employer. that's why i think exactly how this evaluation is conducted is very important, and it could identify children who genuinely need help (i.e. not in a becoming "a productive member of the society" kind of way).
so i'd prefer to wait and see what they come up with, instead of immediately jumping on it without further information.
danielquinn@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 32d
I think you and I are on the same page, but everything I know about this country and government has stripped me of your optimism.
mannycalavera@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 32d
I decided, against my better judgement, to actually read past the headline đ.
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 đ¤ˇ
Quokka@quokk.au · 14 pts · 32d
As an early childhood educator, I donât 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 donât 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.
smeg@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 32d
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)
DillDough@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 32d
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.
mannycalavera@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 31d
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?
DillDough@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 31d
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.
mannycalavera@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 31d
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?
DakRalter@thelemmy.club · 2 pts · 31d
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, ÂŁ4.25 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.
LordMayor@piefed.social · 6 pts · 32d
This looks like the Ecological Fallacy.
So, youâve got statistics that say children with exhibiting certain characteristics or associated with certain factors are statistically more likely to be unemployed later in life. This might true about the whole cohort.
That doesnât mean itâs true about any one individual. You canât distinguish which individuals for which it is true. Furthermore, unemployment can be due to factors completely independent of the child. They canât control for that.
Interventions on the individual level are a crap shoot. If they address the underlying societal issues, more of the children will end up employed. But, that means social change especially to the distribution of wealth because we already know that poor people get a worse education and less educated people are less employable.
This is just a weird mix of âblame the victimâ and Minority Report. Superficially, it looks like they are helping children. How many of these kids are going to find out the adults think they are already unemployable?
yakko@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 31d
SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 32d
This sounds suspiciously like predictive policing
nialv7@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
seems like a lot of missing information here. like what's the methodology and what they are gonna do once they identified those at risk.
but in theory this can be a good thing if this means people are getting help early.