Someone needs to go back to Junior School himself.

Why the sarcastic title and opening post when there is data to back up what Milburn is saying?

Risk of not being in employment, education or training (NEET) in late adolescence is signalled by school readiness measures at 4–5 years

link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-024-18851-w

You can download the full report from that link.

Extract:

Results

School readiness was significantly associated with NEET status. A larger proportion of young people who were not school ready were later NEET (11%) compared to those who were school ready (4%). Most of this effect was attributable to shared relationships with academic attainment, but there was also a direct effect. Measures of deprivation and Special Educational Needs were also strong predictors of NEET status.

Conclusions

NEET risk factors occur early in life. School readiness measures could be used as early indicators of risk, with interventions targeted to prevent the long-term physical and mental health problems associated with NEET, especially in disadvantaged areas. Primary schools are therefore well placed to be public health partners in early intervention strategies.

www.theguardian.com/society/2026/aug/07/english-primary-schools-to-be-told-to-identify-children-at-risk-of-future-unemployment

Sorry, but the sarcastic opening post was lifted dircectly from the very link you offer.

The cynical title is because I am against anyone predicting - and writing off - a child's ability to get a job at primary school age. Talk about damning their future.

And it's not just to do with identifying children with NEET risk factors. The way things are going with AI, it will be the academic scholars at Oxbridge who will be at risk of unemployment, 10 years after leaving Junior School, so maybe they should be identified as future unemployed too?

I am not and never have been a teacher.

I have been heavily involved with a local primary school for the last 29 years.

I agree with MartavTaurus that mapping out a child’s future at reception through to year 2, is quiet frankly ridiculous.

Who knows what is going to happen in any child’s life? Who can say if they are going to have a sudden breakthrough moment in maths, reading, art or any subject. Who can predict if a child is going to become disenchanted and troublesome at the inset of puberty.

I am beginning to groan each time a report/article on education comes out…

I was considered very intelligent at junior school and the headmistress even suggested we try for a bursary for the local independent school, which even with a bursary was too expensive. I also hated the idea that living in a rented house I;d be picked on constantly by wealthy kids at the school, and told my parents this. Therefore, this fell through, but my first two years in a state secondary school, I had good grades in most subjects and was considered university material.
Then I became rather lazy and lost interest in a lot of subjects, seeing my grades plummet for a time. I just seemed to lose interest and seemed more interested in watching television, hanging out with other teens, and riding my bike than a lot of subjects at school. This meant 3 resits at O level time, although this brought my tally up to 7, and enabled me to stay in the 5th form to do my A levels. Bucked my idead up a lot and passed my A levels with no problems.

I just think its a good idea to look for early indicators of difficulties at home so there is every chance possible of putting it right.

The predictive stats just show how important the deprivation and risk factors are in terms of no job no future etc etc so they can be addressed not damn youngsters.

Definitely look for indicators where support will be necessary, but not say that certain children will be unemployed/unemployable a decade from now. No one knows that.

And this is what the clever clogs Milburn stated, The warning signs are there from a very early, early age. You know, frankly from preschool,” he said. hmmm.

As you can see, I dislike damning from the start and have seen many so called failing children go on to great things.

His fellow MP and Minister Alan Johnson would be a prime example if those criteria had been applied to him in Reception year, and probably Milburn himself.

Would they have been labelled age 4 as those who would be potentially jobless at 16 I wonder?

I was a teacher, Advisory Teacher and Inspector in state schools, frquently working in areas of social deprivation and with vulnerable children.
We always said, "it is what you do that counts".
I don't think for one minute that anyone is suggesting that you identify lack of school readiness in a child, stick on a label and do nothing.
I worked with Primary schools who put in multiple strategies for the support of pupils and their families. Their progress data by the end of Key Stage 2 was outstanding.

About twenty years ago we were asked to identify the Gifted and Talented, for what reason I am not sure, as nothing was ever done with the findings, and extra resources were reserved for those identified as 'underperforming.'

Very often, especially in younger children, their potential is way above their attainment. Given time, and encouragement, they might well grow from reluctant learners at the bottom of the class into an all-round successful young adults.
If you waited for these children to be "ready" to learn, it may well be 2036 before they even "wake up", but that doesn't mean they need labelling as the forevermore unemployed. As Mamie advises, get on and do something positive.

Isn't the saying, "give a dog a good name and it will live up to it" very true? Lots of praise from the start, don't even point out the bads as being no hopers, because things change. No one knows 12 years on from the day they're sat on the carpet in pre-school what their working future might hold.

If the identification is based on arbitrary ideas of what academic attainment should be in the early years I think it would be disastrous.

More and more pressure to get to a certain level by a certain time or be judged a failure - there’s enough of that going on already.

If however, in the early years, it could identify children whose needs are not being met, who are hungry, unclean, not toilet trained, hardly spoken to and who lack basic learning experiences that would be a step forward.

And then there would need to be a recognition that those children need extra adult attention and input that can’t be provided in a class of 30.

Early years education has always been the poor relation, receiving least funding per pupil. That would have to change if this is a serious endeavour.

I don’t see identifying young children who are at risk of becoming Neets as labelling them as the future unemployed. Surely it’s the same process as social workers who can identify babies/children who are at risk of neglect or abuse by their carers. Measures can be put in place to ameliorate the risk and hopefully improve their life chances.

Lathyrus3

If the identification is based on arbitrary ideas of what academic attainment should be in the early years I think it would be disastrous.

More and more pressure to get to a certain level by a certain time or be judged a failure - there’s enough of that going on already.

If however, in the early years, it could identify children whose needs are not being met, who are hungry, unclean, not toilet trained, hardly spoken to and who lack basic learning experiences that would be a step forward.

And then there would need to be a recognition that those children need extra adult attention and input that can’t be provided in a class of 30.

Early years education has always been the poor relation, receiving least funding per pupil. That would have to change if this is a serious endeavour.

That's the kind of early years thing at the foremost of my mind. I think it also determines future behaviour, as in being able to socialise and learn.
But I see no harm in looking at the big picture just benefit in order to identify key factors as long as we don't forget these basics.

GrannyGravy13

I am not and never have been a teacher.

I have been heavily involved with a local primary school for the last 29 years.

I agree with MartavTaurus that mapping out a child’s future at reception through to year 2, is quiet frankly ridiculous.

Who knows what is going to happen in any child’s life? Who can say if they are going to have a sudden breakthrough moment in maths, reading, art or any subject. Who can predict if a child is going to become disenchanted and troublesome at the inset of puberty.

I am beginning to groan each time a report/article on education comes out…

I was a primary school governor for 14+ years and hands on in the school with volunteering, in a school in a quite deprived area, with a massive cross section of pupils.

I also worked alongside family workers in outreach for four years under the “troubled families” agenda in 2010.

It really is quite easy to pinpoint those children, not just via their progress and behaviour, but from knowing their families well and siblings.

This isn't about “writing off” young children, it’s about identifying their needs and risks at an early age and putting in as much early interventions as soon as possible.

We already know by the links which existed between the old Sure Start children’s centres, nursery schools, infant schools and family workers what a massive difference these measures can help.

It’s not a science, it’s not 100% accurate, but believe me, it’s a very good starting point.

MartavTaurus

Sorry, but the sarcastic opening post was lifted dircectly from the very link you offer.

The cynical title is because I am against anyone predicting - and writing off - a child's ability to get a job at primary school age. Talk about damning their future.

And it's not just to do with identifying children with NEET risk factors. The way things are going with AI, it will be the academic scholars at Oxbridge who will be at risk of unemployment, 10 years after leaving Junior School, so maybe they should be identified as future unemployed too?

It has got nothing to do with 'writing children off'. It is quite the opposite. It is recognising children that are already falling behind their peers in attainment when they starts school and then focussing resources to help these children catch up with other children.

My MiL was an infant school teacher for nearly 40 years. In her later teaching years the houses around her school were bought up by the local council and used to house their poorest families.

My MiL used to talk about children starting school who had been talked at, talked over and talked through, but never talked to, so started school with very poor linguistic skills and a limited vocabulary

Many of these children had never been read to, or held a pen and done any drawing. Many had never seen or held a book. They also could not recognise shapes. Unable to tell a triangle from a circle or a square. She told me that often she had to do preliminary work with these children for 2 terms before she could even start on letter and number recognition 1and reading. As well as dealing with children starting school who can already read and understand numbers.

These children never catch up unless they have a lot of extra help in every aspect of their lives. These children rarely catch up, by secondary school they are truanting and they soon slip out of education completely and from their to being effectively jobless.

My MiL's experience was in the 1970s before the added complications of screens and mobile phones.

I quite inadvertently employed 2 NEETS to do a couple of days work in my garden just before I moved house. I chatted to them and over a couple of days because one of them looked at most 14/15, even though the third and eldest may have been the student he said he was, the picture I put together was boys whose connection with education had always been fragile. One used to work on building sites with his father. Both of them were lovely friendly lads and worked hard. The youngest, was clearly bright and jsut took over managing the work and telling the older boys what to do and keeping them all at work.

I asked the two youngest (the eldest and gone AWO), to come back for another day, they said they would but I never saw them again. I suspect the were beginning to worry about the questions I was trying to ask as casually as possible.

These are the children who need to be recognised at 5, or preferably at 3, to give them the enrichment before they start school that other children are getting at home. so they all start school on an equal basis.

HMI (remember them) advocated the four pronged approach of

Concepts
Skills
Knowledge
Attitudes

Concepts and especially Attitudes were the key factors of Early Years, laying the foundations for all subsequent education.

Curiosity, motivation, concentration, application, exploration-a zest for learning. A feeling of success and achievement. This is what needs to be identified and fostered.

Today’s early years curriculum is just tedious and focuses on what children can’t do. An alarming rise in children who at 5 are not meeting required standards!

Maybe they are the wrong standards.

M0nica 13:33 In my opinion, you are spot on! 👏👏👏

GrannyGravy13

I am not and never have been a teacher.

I have been heavily involved with a local primary school for the last 29 years.

I agree with MartavTaurus that mapping out a child’s future at reception through to year 2, is quiet frankly ridiculous.

Who knows what is going to happen in any child’s life? Who can say if they are going to have a sudden breakthrough moment in maths, reading, art or any subject. Who can predict if a child is going to become disenchanted and troublesome at the inset of puberty.

I am beginning to groan each time a report/article on education comes out…

I agree with you and MarthavTaurus too.Teachers are there to teach and recognising the ones who seem at risk of falling behind is what teachers have already been doing for years.
But if there’s a big class to teach and only a TA to help with a couple of say, neurodiverse children it’s a hard nut to crack.
Also challenging life events can occur a bit later and affect even children who were previously doing well.

Lathyrus3

HMI (remember them) advocated the four pronged approach of

Concepts
Skills
Knowledge
Attitudes

Concepts and especially Attitudes were the key factors of Early Years, laying the foundations for all subsequent education.

Curiosity, motivation, concentration, application, exploration-a zest for learning. A feeling of success and achievement. This is what needs to be identified and fostered.

Today’s early years curriculum is just tedious and focuses on what children can’t do. An alarming rise in children who at 5 are not meeting required standards!

Maybe they are the wrong standards.

Are you an infant school teacher, now or ever?

I’m not being rude, simply curious.

I absolutely get what you’re saying about how boring the curriculum may seem, or actually is.

My daughter of 28 teaches infants, year 1 and year 2, and uses the curriculum creatively (as encouraged by their Academy Trust and Head).

It’s a large four form entry primary in a deprived area.

Her emphasis is on reading and number work, and naturally has to meet basic targets in these and phonics.

However, lessons can still be creative, fun and interesting for children, if you have a creative, fun and interesting teacher.

If children don’t grasp the very basics then they can never progress.

Last academic year she had a class of 34, one full time LSA, and access to the in-house school nurture hub and behavioural unit.

So many children, so many chaotic families, so many SEN pupils, such poverty, many children live in the awful high rise overlooking her school, the curriculum is often the least of her and their issues.

I worked in nursery and infants for a number of years.

My opinion is that the Early Years curriculum is stifling, especially in Nurseries and what used to be playgroups. Three year olds being set targets measured by knowledge and skills, funding dependent on those targets being met so that educators are left with no choice but to cram in a narrow set of achievement markers,

I’m glad your daughter is enjoying teaching. I enjoyed the more structured education of Years 1 and 2 too.

I’ve seen some really fun phonics lessons delivered to 3 and 4 yea olds.whose speech is limited to a few key words and two or three word phrases and who have never experienced print. They liked the actions and the songs. But that teaching was many steps on from the “basics” that they needed.

I disagree with the “hurry up” curriculum. The idea that the sooner we start something the better. Too many steps ahead of what a child understands and it becomes meaningless.

If we are honest that applies to us as adults too when we have to learn something new. Who hasn’t been floored and turned off by a techie delving into all the things your phone can do and leaving you feeling like a total idiot.

Coincidentally, there’s an article on the BBC today about preparing for school readiness. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrklg8krqlo

It seems extraordinary to me that a child might begin school without even knowing their own name, but if that’s the case, then that child needs extra attention asap, otherwise they don’t stand a chance in life. 😥

In my GC’s primary schools, and even nursery, it’s pretty obvious some children will need intervention. It’s hard to not know in some cases when there are families with six adults, not one of whom has ever worked. The youngest child is a sweet little thing but what future lies ahead for them?

Unfortunately, here, the system for supporting such children means that other children with learning issues but who don’t have the social problems don’t get the extra resources they also need, unless the parents fight tooth and nail for them.

I’m sorry to hear that, Lathyrus. To my eye, my GC’s nursery schools have been rich and rewarding environments and provide them with things ordinary parents couldn’t possibly do. An old bus to play on, a donkey and chickens, forest school learning, visits to care homes*, outings to museums, and points of interest, outdoor trike/bike sessions, ‘small critter’ visits, local charity coffee mornings and other things I’ve forgotten.

* I often think care homes should copy more nursery activities, to provide enrichment for their residents.

I agree children should be given appropriate support to reach their potential, early- not waiting ( or worse) until they are approaching adulthood. 34 little children in a class is not the best way to educate all children of mixed ability and school readiness - many will need additional support however good the teacher-and the first part of that (as resources are likely to be limited) is to identify those who would most benefit from added support. I don’t think this is labelling for future failure. Surely the plan is improve future outcomes for children. Is this new initiative in addition to the present support systems ( EHCPs etc)? Will it be able to help quickly and appropriately?
I’m the parent of a now adult child with moderate learning disability- so have experience of a education system that took years ( in a lovely but inappropriate main stream school) jumping through hoops before my child could attend a special school and start to thrive at his level. In that case having to wait years for a diagnosis ( a type of label) all added to the years of delays.
That early school also had to fight on our child’s behalf. At age 4 child was turned down for the then statement assessment because he was just under 3 years behind his 4 year old pears- non verbal and clearly not ready for school. Not all parents can fight against the system as we had to. There has to be a better way.

SueDonim

I’m sorry to hear that, Lathyrus. To my eye, my GC’s nursery schools have been rich and rewarding environments and provide them with things ordinary parents couldn’t possibly do. An old bus to play on, a donkey and chickens, forest school learning, visits to care homes*, outings to museums, and points of interest, outdoor trike/bike sessions, ‘small critter’ visits, local charity coffee mornings and other things I’ve forgotten.

* I often think care homes should copy more nursery activities, to provide enrichment for their residents.

Sounds lovely 😀 Did you see the tv programme a couple of years ago when they brought 3 year olds to play each week with residents in a nursing home.

It was so funny because the 3 year olds wouldn’t take no for an answer. “ Now you are the shopkeeper and you must….”

One lady who had had a fall some months previously hadn’t walked unaided since and sat in her chair. The three year old insisted she got to her feet to join in with a song and the demands went on from there. About three months later the camera showed said lady taking part in a little sports day with her tormenter holding her hand on the track🤣🤣

It was a marvellous programme. I wish I could remember more about it.

(Diverges from thread😳)