Primary schools to be told to identify children at risk of future unemployment

Comments

• tenebrisnox@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  So we’re now identifying:

  • children as young as 5 in case the could be terrorists
  • children as young as 5 in case they will be a NEET 15 years later

  Coming soon:

  • identifying children who question whether a sky god exists
  • identifying children who might have same-sex affections
  • identifying children who don’t cheer when they see a picture of a member of the royal family

  source
• danielquinn@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  The fuck is wrong with this country?

  source

  • nialv7@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    i don’t know, trying the get people help?

    source

    • danielquinn@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• LordMayor@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  This looks like the Ecological Fallacy.

  So, you’ve 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 doesn’t mean it’s true about any one individual. You can’t distinguish which individuals for which it is true. Furthermore, unemployment can be due to factors completely independent of the child. They can’t 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 “blame the victim” 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?

  source
• mannycalavera@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  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 🤷

  source

  • Quokka@quokk.au ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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 don’t try to train children into being workers.

    source
  • DillDough@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • mannycalavera@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • smeg@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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)

    source
• SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  This sounds suspiciously like predictive policing

  source
• nialv7@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• Hirom@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Give the list of every children enrolled at school. Everyone is at risk of unemployment if governments keep focus on people being at fault for being unemployed, rather than ensuring proper conditions and training are available to avoid unemployment.

  source