Primary schools in England should be required to identify children at risk of leaving education at 16 without finding a job, a government review is to recommend.
How on earth are they supposed to do that?!
Alan Milburn, who is leading a review into Britain’s crisis in youth worklessness, said he would call for sweeping changes in education policy alongside a shake-up of the benefits system to address the problem. Speaking to the Guardian, he said ministers needed to “make somebody responsible” for identifying and supporting the children who risked becoming Neet (not in employment, education or training) after their GCSE year up to the age of 24.
I suppose you can't make the parents responsible for breeding the hopeless little shits in the first place, not if you want their votes, anyway,
“The warning signs are there from a very early, early age. You know, frankly from preschool,” he said.
Apart from obvious chavnames and ghetto monikers, I can’t see what else would be a predictor of future uselessness…
In an interview during a visit to Dublin this week, the former Labour health secretary said the recommendation would form part of his final report into Britain’s youth worklessness crisis, which is expected this autumn.Britain’s young adults are bearing the brunt of a rise in unemployment, with the number of 16 to 24-year-olds who are Neet surpassing a million earlier this year for the first time in more than a decade.
No shortage of unskilled jobs, but it seems they are all being filled by those imported to work for next to nothing by this and past governments!
5 comments:
I wonder at what age they can be deemed unemployable.
Children’s personalities change at puberty. It’s almost impossible to predict how a primary school child will turn out — unless they have serious physiological or developmental problems.
Any teacher will tell you (even those in primary schools) that some children are 'difficult' and likely to graduate to a life of petty crime. But who will be brave enough to draw attention to that fact when parents are likely to rock up and be 'difficult' themselves?
One way of potentially addressing the problem is to take the children away, far away, from their parents and gangs and raise them in a better environment. I can't see anyone willing to do that. It would be against their 'uman rights' innit.
In fact it would be quite doable in a broad-brush sort of way. If more than 50% (or whatever percentage is deemed the cutoff) of a school's pupils are unemployed after leaving at 16, then "all the school's pupils are at risk", otherwise not. Catchment area matters. Schools should not be doing this of course; it's a bureaucrat's job.
Then again, as we all know, the problem has a lot more to do with other factors: destruction of the economy in the name of net zero, the active encouragement of foreign criminals to come here and the deliberate demoralisation of boys being the obvious top three. Since the Government shows no sign of changing direction on those, we can assume this initiative is mere window dressing.
How are they going to cope with the fact that growing up without 2 biological parents at home is probably the single greatest predictor of who is going to end up being a NEET? Probably closely followed by being from certain ethnic backgrounds?
I bet no teacher is going to dare stick young Dashawn on the 'potential NEET' list, despite him being a natural thug without a father figure in his life. Far easier to stick some mild mannered middle class kid down, as he once suggested he might vote for Reform.
Post a Comment