Well said, and convincingly so! I think it’s telling that the enormous achievements of primary schools have been brushed aside as it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge them. And shifting the blame onto schools provides a rationale for education ministers to push notions of ‘vocational’ courses without setting up the necessary infrastructure to make sure that can work without undermining the progress that has been made.
The reasons for the rise in youth unemployment lies back in time. In the late 1940s and through the 1950s and 1960s and up to mid 1970s, youth unemployment was low averaging around 2 to 3 %. Most youngsters were in secondary modern schools and left at 15. In grammar schools only a third went on to do A levels. There were jobs aplenty for school leavers in these decades whether you had paper qualifications or not. Plus there were good apprenticeships to be had. These were recruited from school leavers possibly with O levels but you could get an apprenticeship in construction for example without any school qualifications. I left school in 1970 after A levels. Many of my peers had left after O levels and ended up in apprenticeships or in office/ admin work. H.E. wasn't viewed as a must have unless you were planning a career that required a degree. I had friends who went to art school and drama school. No paper qualifications required. I had a friend who'd done A level French with me and got a post at Crédit Lyonnais in London. The start of a great career for her. In the mid 1970s Britain's manufacturing industries began to decline. And have steadily continued so to do. Even if everyone in the UK had a degree there wouldn't be the jobs for them. The areas in which there are a shortage of workers are those that most UK citizens seem not to want to do such as social and health care. Construction needs more skilled workers but that's Catch 22 because it's practically impossible to get the training unless you have the proverbial 5 good passes at GCSE. I think part of the problem is that those in the government making policy have too little experience outside of school, university and politics.
Thanks for the article. I have heard that Alan Milburn has devised a revolutionary new strategy which involves primary schools identifying those youngsters who are vulnerable. Gosh I wish I'd thought of doing that during my 40 years in the game.
Primary schools to be told to identify children at risk of future unemployment | Youth unemployment | The Guardian https://share.google/YloRZ76ugr8oO4LC8
Great post! Thank you Daisy. I read Murdoch's article (always enjoy his data) but reading the comments section was unbelievable. Education is frequently used as a scapegoat - I rather think successive govs have passed the buck in terms of investment since the crash of 2007/08.
Another societal problem that is easy to throw back at schools as they can solve it, NEET, read obesity, AI, etc etc. I met a teacher from Switzerland last week, and she spoke about their system, dominated by students gaining apprenticeships as their success measure. Lots go on to university later, but the drive is into meaningful work for the majority. I obviously summarise here, and their system is far from perfect. What struck me was the commitment from employers in this system, and it feels that is what is missing from ours. Returning to a theme, there seem to be better systems out there, almost none with a cliff edge at 16. This enables them to be much more focused on relevant outcomes for students...or so it seems to me
Though I agree that schools could do much much better at careers advice (the careers education at the schools I have worked in has bordered on negligence) it doesn't surprise me that schools are being wacked again for something we aren't doing.
The school as an institution is now the one stop shop for all of societal ills. Children have no food at home? School food bank. No clothes? School Clothes bank. Clothes dirty and need washing? School washing machines. Parents cannot/will not get students to wake up and go to school? School mini buses who pick them up. Parent issues with other Parents? School, not police. Parents have no money for presents at Christmas. School. Family issues with the police? School. Being homeless? School. Mental health referrals? School. Never been on train, bus or seen the sea? School. That is on top of the extremely difficult job of getting students to pay attention long enough to learn new knowledge.
(Btw, for anyone thinking that list is ridiculous I have personally observed or been a part of actioning this issues in the last 5 years with my school.)
So why has this happened? It's relatively cheap to put everything in a school and then blame school leaders for the failure of government. Any funding increase we have seen has not kept up with the growing list of demands, but anyone seeing the increases of educational spending will be fooled into thinking the greedy teachers are feigning poverty again. If you simply consider schools as only child care for older children we are incredibly cheap child care. Government has realised it is much more cost efficient and politically safe to hand it over to schools and say job done. Imagine if they had to genuinely solve these problems in the community or to get parents to parent better (never a vote winner to tell parents they aren't doing their job).
What with the governments rush to put children with send into mainstream schools that are quite frankly not appropriate places for the care of such students (the extra funding is just not enough to do even a half way decent job), the new Ofsted framework creating even more anxiety and terror, schools to now run after-school clubs on Friday (again no mention of 1265 or additional funding) and this monstrosity it is no wonder the government fails to entice new teachers.
20 years in as a teacher and I sometimes wonder if the main reason I stay in education is I'm institutionalised like Brooks Hatien from the Shawshank redemption.
I'm aware I've made this comment before but not attaining 5 GCSEs including English and maths at L4 or above doesn't equate to being Illiterate or innumerate. For some youngsters it will mean that they are underachieving but for many the problem lies with the format of the assessment. This is particularly pertinent for English and maths, as currently, without a 'good' pass, youngsters have little chance of even passing go. Functional Skills Level 2 are a far better assessment for many than GCSE but are rarely offered in schools and some F.E. colleges still make those who didn't attain the golden ticket slog through endless GCSE resits in English and maths.
There’s no one straightforward answer, of course, but it’s worth pointing out that disadvantaged children and children with SEND (which are heavily overlapping categories) are still performing way behind their peers; and that the jobs are there - in construction, in healthcare, in child development. There is definitely a mismatch between the young people emerging from education and the available employment opportunities. There is also a strong link between underperformance as early as Reception and later failure to attain 4 in English and Maths. Disadvantaged children are quickly told they’re failing, opening a vicious circle of challenging behaviour, poor attendance, SEND intervention, disaffection, disengagement - resulting for a significsnt number at 16 or 18 in a mental health diagnosis which keeps them out of the workplace.
Hi Daisy for me personally knowledge meant gaining a better life. I know schools aren’t to blame but they can provide a pathway out of poverty and this I know because I’ve lived it.
Well said, and convincingly so! I think it’s telling that the enormous achievements of primary schools have been brushed aside as it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge them. And shifting the blame onto schools provides a rationale for education ministers to push notions of ‘vocational’ courses without setting up the necessary infrastructure to make sure that can work without undermining the progress that has been made.
The reasons for the rise in youth unemployment lies back in time. In the late 1940s and through the 1950s and 1960s and up to mid 1970s, youth unemployment was low averaging around 2 to 3 %. Most youngsters were in secondary modern schools and left at 15. In grammar schools only a third went on to do A levels. There were jobs aplenty for school leavers in these decades whether you had paper qualifications or not. Plus there were good apprenticeships to be had. These were recruited from school leavers possibly with O levels but you could get an apprenticeship in construction for example without any school qualifications. I left school in 1970 after A levels. Many of my peers had left after O levels and ended up in apprenticeships or in office/ admin work. H.E. wasn't viewed as a must have unless you were planning a career that required a degree. I had friends who went to art school and drama school. No paper qualifications required. I had a friend who'd done A level French with me and got a post at Crédit Lyonnais in London. The start of a great career for her. In the mid 1970s Britain's manufacturing industries began to decline. And have steadily continued so to do. Even if everyone in the UK had a degree there wouldn't be the jobs for them. The areas in which there are a shortage of workers are those that most UK citizens seem not to want to do such as social and health care. Construction needs more skilled workers but that's Catch 22 because it's practically impossible to get the training unless you have the proverbial 5 good passes at GCSE. I think part of the problem is that those in the government making policy have too little experience outside of school, university and politics.
Thanks for the article. I have heard that Alan Milburn has devised a revolutionary new strategy which involves primary schools identifying those youngsters who are vulnerable. Gosh I wish I'd thought of doing that during my 40 years in the game.
Primary schools to be told to identify children at risk of future unemployment | Youth unemployment | The Guardian https://share.google/YloRZ76ugr8oO4LC8
Great post! Thank you Daisy. I read Murdoch's article (always enjoy his data) but reading the comments section was unbelievable. Education is frequently used as a scapegoat - I rather think successive govs have passed the buck in terms of investment since the crash of 2007/08.
Another societal problem that is easy to throw back at schools as they can solve it, NEET, read obesity, AI, etc etc. I met a teacher from Switzerland last week, and she spoke about their system, dominated by students gaining apprenticeships as their success measure. Lots go on to university later, but the drive is into meaningful work for the majority. I obviously summarise here, and their system is far from perfect. What struck me was the commitment from employers in this system, and it feels that is what is missing from ours. Returning to a theme, there seem to be better systems out there, almost none with a cliff edge at 16. This enables them to be much more focused on relevant outcomes for students...or so it seems to me
Though I agree that schools could do much much better at careers advice (the careers education at the schools I have worked in has bordered on negligence) it doesn't surprise me that schools are being wacked again for something we aren't doing.
The school as an institution is now the one stop shop for all of societal ills. Children have no food at home? School food bank. No clothes? School Clothes bank. Clothes dirty and need washing? School washing machines. Parents cannot/will not get students to wake up and go to school? School mini buses who pick them up. Parent issues with other Parents? School, not police. Parents have no money for presents at Christmas. School. Family issues with the police? School. Being homeless? School. Mental health referrals? School. Never been on train, bus or seen the sea? School. That is on top of the extremely difficult job of getting students to pay attention long enough to learn new knowledge.
(Btw, for anyone thinking that list is ridiculous I have personally observed or been a part of actioning this issues in the last 5 years with my school.)
So why has this happened? It's relatively cheap to put everything in a school and then blame school leaders for the failure of government. Any funding increase we have seen has not kept up with the growing list of demands, but anyone seeing the increases of educational spending will be fooled into thinking the greedy teachers are feigning poverty again. If you simply consider schools as only child care for older children we are incredibly cheap child care. Government has realised it is much more cost efficient and politically safe to hand it over to schools and say job done. Imagine if they had to genuinely solve these problems in the community or to get parents to parent better (never a vote winner to tell parents they aren't doing their job).
What with the governments rush to put children with send into mainstream schools that are quite frankly not appropriate places for the care of such students (the extra funding is just not enough to do even a half way decent job), the new Ofsted framework creating even more anxiety and terror, schools to now run after-school clubs on Friday (again no mention of 1265 or additional funding) and this monstrosity it is no wonder the government fails to entice new teachers.
20 years in as a teacher and I sometimes wonder if the main reason I stay in education is I'm institutionalised like Brooks Hatien from the Shawshank redemption.
I'm aware I've made this comment before but not attaining 5 GCSEs including English and maths at L4 or above doesn't equate to being Illiterate or innumerate. For some youngsters it will mean that they are underachieving but for many the problem lies with the format of the assessment. This is particularly pertinent for English and maths, as currently, without a 'good' pass, youngsters have little chance of even passing go. Functional Skills Level 2 are a far better assessment for many than GCSE but are rarely offered in schools and some F.E. colleges still make those who didn't attain the golden ticket slog through endless GCSE resits in English and maths.
There’s no one straightforward answer, of course, but it’s worth pointing out that disadvantaged children and children with SEND (which are heavily overlapping categories) are still performing way behind their peers; and that the jobs are there - in construction, in healthcare, in child development. There is definitely a mismatch between the young people emerging from education and the available employment opportunities. There is also a strong link between underperformance as early as Reception and later failure to attain 4 in English and Maths. Disadvantaged children are quickly told they’re failing, opening a vicious circle of challenging behaviour, poor attendance, SEND intervention, disaffection, disengagement - resulting for a significsnt number at 16 or 18 in a mental health diagnosis which keeps them out of the workplace.
commented on LinkedIn, though I couldn’t find the post there.
Hi Daisy for me personally knowledge meant gaining a better life. I know schools aren’t to blame but they can provide a pathway out of poverty and this I know because I’ve lived it.