A fear of turning a primary-school judgement into a life sentence carried the day: No won nearly two to one. The verdict was less a rejection of support than of prediction — and of asking a school to forecast a child's employability before childhood has properly unfolded.
The floor's highest-respected objections focused on stigma and development. “Go ahead and tell a child they would never get a job,” said the strongest No voice, while another insisted that “Education is not one size fits all”; others questioned whether teachers had “the expertise or the time to even attempt this”, and warned that children develop at different rates.
The lone Yes argument offered a clear moral appeal: “If the system can reverse expected outcomes like this it's a win win for everyone including the child.” But that promise ran into the fear that an intervention intended to unlock help would instead fix an identity in place, with one voter imagining children marked by red and green armbands and another comparing the proposal to an old selection exam in reverse.
The disagreement also exposed two different diagnoses of youth unemployment. Some No voters argued that primary schools could identify only immediate educational problems — “the kid can't read, write or do sums” — while others said ministers were ignoring labour-market causes, including “red tape, high taxes, minimal wages” and the wider demand for entry-level jobs.
The room did not reject help; it rejected the idea that help should begin with a forecast of failure.
8 Opinions
For many years the 11+ exam was seen as elitist and done away with. Having an 11+ in reverse to highlight those likely to become Neet would not be a positive lable to add to a youngster at that age and likely to be self fulfilling
Seems to me of this is actually possible (I'm not sure it is btw) it's obviously the right thing to do It's in everyone's intereststs to identify & give extra support to the child, in the hope the child's future can be changed so they become a useful tax paying member of society. If the system can reverse expected outcomes like this it's a win win for everyone including the child
This would be overreach. Children develop at different rates, peer groups can have an influence as can many other factors. Sometimes it can be youthful rebellion. Schools can, and should highlight issues with a child's learning and look to help strengthen any weaknesses, including any shortcomings their teaching is playing in that. Education is not one size fits all. To say a child is at high risk of unemployment at such a young age risks labelling & stigmatising them.
Ew. Horrible over-reaching idea. All a primary school can say is the kid can't read, write or do sums, which will probably not help their futures. But that's the primary school's fault.
How, children develop at all different rates, constantly develop new skills and thrive through different stages. Are we going to wire them up to machines and test their neural pathways for development standards. Who will decide, Janet from Social Services, with her clip board and set of standard questions. Children who pass wear green armbands, children who fail wear red
Again and again governments are ignoring reasons for the youth unemployment. Probably because they created this problem. There is demand side of the issue and supply issue. Red tape, high taxes, minimal wages makes demand for entry positions (mainly within SME) smaller. Tide money also puts all new hire on hold. As for supply, years of mass immigration gave companies alternative - instead cheap young Brit they can hire similarly cheap immigrant: mature and experienced.
Go ahead and tell a child they would never get a job. They sure as hell wont then.
Richard Branson Albert Einstein Curtis Mayfield John Lennon David Bowie Michael Caine Jeremy Clarkson Stephen Fry Winston Churchill Roald Dahl Simon Cowell Alan Sugar Eminem Steven Spielberg Whoopi Goldberg Tom Cruise Henry Ford Agatha Christie Cher Sylvester Stallone Teachers don't have the expertise or the time to even attempt this.