'Lost generation’: why can’t young people get jobs? What should be done?

twaddle

butterandjam

@twaddle No! Do not bring back woodwork and domestic science! Skills needed in life and in the workplace don't need domestic science and woodwork. They need to be more generic.

Learning to use everyday tools, make a meal or simple items, ARE very generic lifeskills. Attention to verbal or written instructions ( a recipe; or a demonstration) ARE skills needed in life and the workplace, sought by every employer.

Since when did every pupil (male and female) ever do woodwork and domestic science at school? I studied neither when I was at school, but can still cook nutritious meals on a budget and can even do basic DIY. Fortunately, I was taught how to read and follow instructions in online videos.

Doing woodwork and domestic science is not going to help young people find jobs. They might as well be taught how to knit socks. There are never going to be a million jobs for carpenters.

I was taught at school how to knit, cook, hand and machine sew and make nets. ( A jolly useful skill to have when the football goal needed repair.)

My sons all learned to knit (for Actionman) in Primary school, and passed their "Sewing Machine Driving Test" in High School.These were presented to pupils as a tricky skill requiring some patience, concentration. Struggles mistakes and trying again led to success, in a skill recognised and practised by adults, M and F.

Handicraft wasn't the only point. They were all learning that persistent effort, care and precision pays off. That new interests and skills increase self esteem and confidence. A valuable mindset to acquire, for life.

That's an outlook that does help young people into employment.

There are always jobs for handy(wo)men, anybody with a can-do attitude, willing to take their time and do it well

twaddle

butterandjam

@twaddle No! Do not bring back woodwork and domestic science! Skills needed in life and in the workplace don't need domestic science and woodwork. They need to be more generic.

Learning to use everyday tools, make a meal or simple items, ARE very generic lifeskills. Attention to verbal or written instructions ( a recipe; or a demonstration) ARE skills needed in life and the workplace, sought by every employer.

Since when did every pupil (male and female) ever do woodwork and domestic science at school? I studied neither when I was at school, but can still cook nutritious meals on a budget and can even do basic DIY. Fortunately, I was taught how to read and follow instructions in online videos.

Doing woodwork and domestic science is not going to help young people find jobs. They might as well be taught how to knit socks. There are never going to be a million jobs for carpenters.

So carpentry is not a skill used by builders, and cooking is not a skill used in Food Service, there are many that are going to be doing exactly those practical jobs to earn a living. Being able to use basic tools and equipment with reasonable skill is a valuable asset and you only aquire that from practice not from a book.It's not going to be for everyone but the less academic students do need something that they can be creative, enjoy and achieve.

It's not

Interestingly, other SM sites have posters calling for the reinstatement of practical subjects like domestic science, food technology, woodwork, metalwork and technical drawing. I did all at high school, but only domestic science, food tech and woodwork have been useful.

Nowadays, being able to follow instructions is also taught through coding and html, python etc. If you make an error in an algorithm, your app won’t work. But how many people go on to use those skills?

Although my gs is only 17 he has a weekend job and also school has arranged a week of work experience with a large company.
When my daughter did the same she was offered a job with the company and has never looked back.
I know things are harder now but I hope this experience will help gs on his way.

I think there is a very clear case for domestic science to be taught to children, it really is a basic life skill, which not all of them learn at home. Rather than technical subjects, maybe basic home cleaning and maintenance could be included in domestic science, things like using tools safely, problem solving common faults, how to put up a shelf, construct flatpack furniture, change different kinds of lightbulbs etc. sounds so basic I know, but skills everybody needs.

I think that there are serious flaws in our education system, especially the national curriculum and SATs, both of which encourage schools to follow a narrow academic curriculum and value these skills above all else.

Where does this leave non-academic children? - feeling like rejects I think.

I have GC who are going through or have been through the GCSE system and I follow some of the threads on Mumsnet and what is clear is that parents are frantic to try and get their children as many GCSEs as possible and that this aim comes to rule family life for several years.

But we have to ask what this is for? They give it their all (or get fed up with it all and stop engaging) and then find that it is to no purpose as they cannot get employment.

What does the employment market actually need? It needs a few academic high flyers to design software, computer systems, AI, engineering projects, brain surgery etc. It needs people to man supermarkets, care for the elderly, nurse the sick, create music and art, empty the bins, mend the roads, sell stuff, work in offices etc?

Do all those people need to go down the narrow academic funnel that our education system demands? This was the principle behind grammars and secondary modern school and I am not advocating a return to this, but I do think comprehensive schools need to have the freedom to be more flexible. The reason that they have lost this is the fact that they are judged on academics - their OfSted rating and their SATs results depend on a certain number of children achieving certain academic goals by a certain age. And these are goals that might be wholly inappropriate to the child and also to the job market.

This creates a scramble to collect GCSEs like charms on a bracelet and the need for 4 GCSEs to clean toilets! - an exaggeration I know but you get the idea. The lives of teenagers are ruled by these blessed exams, and for many it is a huge struggle and stops them developing the pother sides of their characters.

Another spin off is the decline in music and art education in schools - unless a child is academic enough to take say GCSE music they get virtually nothing of this character and confidence building activity, which incidentally is known to enhance academic results.

SATs need to go - they are wholly unnecessary - they put children under stress for no purpose whatsoever as the teachers know which children are struggling and need help; they know their pupils and want to be free to tailor their education appropriately rather than push them towards an test that they are going to struggle with. Why do we put the children and the schools through this stress? And parents get on board sometimes and for some unknown reason put pressure on their children to do well at SATs, when we know they have no purpose.

The bottom line is that children get a warped idea of what matters about them. No-one seems to care if they are imaginative, caring, artistic, wise, skilled with their hands, a good peacekeeper/negotiator/organiser. They are all fuinnelled down the same route and many just shrug their shoulders and decide none of it is for them so become disruptive or totally disengaged from the process.

The whole system needs to be reviewed.

Rant over!

Casdon

I think there is a very clear case for domestic science to be taught to children, it really is a basic life skill, which not all of them learn at home. Rather than technical subjects, maybe basic home cleaning and maintenance could be included in domestic science, things like using tools safely, problem solving common faults, how to put up a shelf, construct flatpack furniture, change different kinds of lightbulbs etc. sounds so basic I know, but skills everybody needs.

I prefer the idea of constructing (and adapting) flat pack furniture etc to traditional domestic science. I would also include financial literacy - especially understanding how interest rates work and what to expect from rental agreements.

There needs to be a complete rethink about how students are measured.

However, the problem of youth unemployment is much bigger than schools. There is a shortage of jobs, which is caused by a weak economy - and it isn't a new problem. The trends have been there since 2015, at least.

Mollygo

Interestingly, other SM sites have posters calling for the reinstatement of practical subjects like domestic science, food technology, woodwork, metalwork and technical drawing. I did all at high school, but only domestic science, food tech and woodwork have been useful.

Nowadays, being able to follow instructions is also taught through coding and html, python etc. If you make an error in an algorithm, your app won’t work. But how many people go on to use those skills?

Being able to follow instructions is a skill which should start to be taught in nursery school and developed throughout life in a variety of contexts.

Following instructions is a basic life skill that everybody needs. My grandson is 4. He likes building Lego with his dad. Now he can’t read the instructions himself at 4 but can and does follow instructions from his dad. Dad is also a builder/ renovator and my little grandson loves being given an easy task to do by dad. A lot depends on home life, the interest of the parents in the child, being taught these skills whether at home or school.

If there’s no interest from the parents then many children will not develop. Schools can only do so much.

I don't usually cut and paste, here is a piece from our local newspaper from our local Grammar School headmaster.

"Schools have always been asked to do more than teach mathematics and geography, but in the last decade responsibilities have increasingly been dropped upon them to compensate for an ever-widening set of social and economic challenges.

The range of these responsibilities is striking. Schools are now expected to act as frontline welfare providers, ensuring that children are fed, clothed and ready to learn. They are required to deliver ever more complex provision, absorbing responsibilities that once sat more clearly, and rightly, with the health and care systems. They are asked to address poor mental health and rising levels of anxiety in young people (which is beyond their expertise) linked to factors such as digital technology, family circumstances or wider societal change (which are beyond their control). Alongside this, schools are increasingly held accountable for online safety, even in a climate of limited national regulation and inconsistent parental oversight.

Meanwhile, they are called upon to address national priorities such as tackling childhood obesity or providing effective careers guidance to match the rapidly changing realities of the labour market. And then there is the urgent need for schools to foster greater cohesion in an ever more polarised society by promoting values such as inclusion, empathy and citizenship. Individually, each of these expectations is understandable. Taken together, they represent a profound and, to my mind, worryingly ill-considered expansion of the role of schools."

He is completely and utterly spot on. Schools have always been part of the safeguarding/ social care system as their daily contact with children makes them effective partners in children's welfare. However their expanding role in the last few years is untenable in my view. There are a number of additional issues/responsibilities that the head has omitted, he is in fact being cautious in his criticism.

I think schools have been doing much of what the headteacher writes about for a very long time.

Speaking as an employer, things will not change until such time as the incentives talked about by this government actually filter down to businesses.

I'm just not convinced a Grammar school would though. I doubt they deal with the complex issues that comprehensive schools do. They aren't inclusive for a start. But inclusion is often misunderstood in mainstream settings ime

GrannyGravy13

Speaking as an employer, things will not change until such time as the incentives talked about by this government actually filter down to businesses.

What do you mean by that please?

Galaxy

He is completely and utterly spot on. Schools have always been part of the safeguarding/ social care system as their daily contact with children makes them effective partners in children's welfare. However their expanding role in the last few years is untenable in my view. There are a number of additional issues/responsibilities that the head has omitted, he is in fact being cautious in his criticism.

I agree.

But I also think that there were some definite things lacking in schools in some decades previously.

Special education needs for example - schools were very slow to deal with this. In my opinion.
Ditto bully. Which is now under the heading of safeguarding.
There were probably more safeguarding issues that I was unaware of back then to, that needed better handling.

For sure, the pupils at that school are probably the top 5% it's incredibly difficult to get a place, Most will have been tutored

Yes that is true in terms of SEND but the 'solutions' have frequently been disastrous for children with additional needs.

Training places available for young people (see the post about colleges not providing a complete brick laying course)

Apprenticeship incentives, not sure why I should pay for a college space and training with no guarantees of the person remaining in the training or up and leaving on completion.

That’s just for starters fancythat

Having to pay NI contributions on a salary of over £5,000, minimum wage whilst training, on top of all the costs and insurance of taking in a trainee.

Galaxy

Yes that is true in terms of SEND but the 'solutions' have frequently been disastrous for children with additional needs.

part of the reason is because people thin inclusion means putting a child with SEND in a class inside a mainstream school, the meeting of their needs is often an afterthought and the SEND white paper isn't going to improve this

For lots of children with SEND being in a specialist provision or special school IS more inclusive

It all just comes down to money

sorry my k and full stop have decided to stop working unless I really push them down hard - it is really quite annoying

They currently seem to think inclusion involves putting children with SEND in a completely separate area of a mainstream school without many of the facilities/support that exist within a specialist school.
I need to retire, my cynicism is reaching its peak i think.

one of my friends son spent every day of mainstream in the corridor and I don't think is unusual

When I was younger there were Further Education courses that were very inexpensive. The subjects were very varied and gave students the opportunity to decide on what they were really interested in. Many young people who had suffered from inadequate schooling were able to go to classes with encouraging tutors who treated them as adults and thus increase their CV profile. Young people lack opportunities now. If a child comes from an insecure background it is difficult to catch up on the education lost once they leave school.