Someone needs to go back to Junior School himself.

Quite. There is a big difference between identifying a child who needs extra support and effectively predicting their future at five or six. Many children struggle early on and then do perfectly well later and it sounds as though they need to be careful about how these labels are used.

Another attempt to discredit and polarise views on a government research project that seeks to identify and assist children in need.

Never mind teachers identifying those at risk of falling behind. I imagine health visitors and experienced social or early years workers could identify them as infants. Sure Start and L.A Early Years provision were focussed on assisting, improving, enhancing parenting skills. Research shows positive results until Austerity closed so many.

I recall spending time with a young mum, encouraging her to make eye contact, sing and talk to her baby. What’s the point she asked, she doesn’t understand me.

FranP

My son was 7 when his teacher said that he was not academic enough for Uni and too bright for sweeping streets or slinging burgers.
She recommended him switching to the Welsh speaking stream so that he would get a better push education (the very best secondary school was Welsh speaking) and a chance of perhaps engineering. He now runs a welding/fabrication shop.

The technical schools that some education authorities introduced were the best compromise for pupils who weren't going to university, but weren't destined for low skill, dead end jobs. Although only some LEAs introduced technical schools due to cost grounds and the lack of suitable staff, those that did found they were the best schools for pupils who were going to be engineers or craftsmen. While technical schools generally didn't teach subjects like languages, art or music, they offered a wide range of O levels and CSEs in sciences, craft subjects, maths and English.
I do recall a family friend who spent 2 years in a grammar school, wasn't really suited to the academic subjects, and a housemaster suggested he transfer to the new technical school. He did far better at this school and entered the RAF as an apprentice technician at 17. He made a full career of the RAF, leaving as chief technician and then setting up an electrical business with his retirement lump sum.

My son was 7 when his teacher said that he was not academic enough for Uni and too bright for sweeping streets or slinging burgers.
She recommended him switching to the Welsh speaking stream so that he would get a better push education (the very best secondary school was Welsh speaking) and a chance of perhaps engineering. He now runs a welding/fabrication shop.

4allweknow I do agree, it does appear that a lot of parents shirk their responsibilities with regard to parenting and helping their children be ready for school.
We can’t keep piling more and more work and responsibilities on teachers.
Should children be assessed for readiness prior to starting school.

knspol I is not about drawing up a list with names on. It is about identifying those children who are falling behind before they even start school and ensuring they get the extra help to enable them to catch up with their peers in their first 2 years at school. Bringing back SureStart and having more Sure Start centres in areas where these problems are worst would be a start, also identifying such families earlier and getting the children into nursery school early.

Some years ago the area I lived in had a voluntary scheme linking suitable volunteers with individual families helping and encouraging them through friendly visits, an ear to listen and advise and play with the children and pass on parenting skills.

4allweknow sending people on a course is no guarantee they will learn anything. Some will be on drugs, some will be illiterate, some will have been traumatised at school by bullying and find any learning situation troubling. For others it will just go in one ear and out the other without ever being heard

Wyllow3

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.

Yes, I agree.

M0nica

knspol

I just wonder what they intend to do once they have this list of prospective neets? If the children concerned discover at a later stage that they have been assigned to this group then they may just give up.
Children develop at different stages of life and once in school they are introduced to a different environment, a variety of people and hopefully knowledge which surely affects future prospects - and if not why not?!

Why should they give up? On the contrary being chosen for special help, when being part of a group can often engender a feeling of group specialism and of having access to resources and facilities not available to other children.

My DGC attended a primary school with a high proportion of children on free school meals. As a result the school had access to all kinds of opportunities not available to schools in more affluent areas. When national theatre groups came to the local theatre, they would do out reach work with schools, and usually with schools like the one DGC attended, with a high proportion of disadvantaged children. They made farm visits and had access to all sorts of extras that enriched the minds of all children, but especially those of the most disadvantaged, kept them in school and helped learning.

As I said. "I just wonder what they intend to do once they have this list of prospective neets"
Is this an exercise where they are going to wait until these children leave school to evaluate whether their predictions are correct and then spend considerable time quibbling over what to do to help or are they going to provide interventions now.
No way did I infer that they would not benefit from help or that they did not deserve it!

Why not be totally radical and insist that anyone about to produce a child should be obliged to attend parenting courses. Failure could result in benefit withdrawal or if in employment a higher tax rate with no compensation for reduced income. Parents should be educated in child-rearing skills. Some people are shocked when having to cope with a baby taking up so much of their time. So fed up with everything blamed on poverty. I was brought up in poverty, housing estate was awful, but there was very little crime and a lot of the young folk went on to have skilled careers. Some went to Uni, some to technical colleges, some started as trainees with professional companies eg architects, accountants and many worked in factories, mines, stores. Poverty produced dentists, pharmacists, pilots, engineers, nurses, teachers, social workers and many skilled trades peoples, some going on to build their own business. All the families I knew of and there were loads, everyone in my primary classes, were interested in their family and all going on at school. Why is poverty the basis of all educational woes nowadays?

Graphite

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

Yet my mother was told I’d never get a job, three businesses later.

I can remember a teacher telling me after I left school that boys in the 13-16 age group often lose interest in school, particularly subjects that don't interest them. The desire not to be seen as the class swot, wanting to hang out with your peer group, and a growing interest in girls, tends to make teenage boys less interested in school work. I could vouch for this, but don't know how widespread this is in the modern world.

knspol

I just wonder what they intend to do once they have this list of prospective neets? If the children concerned discover at a later stage that they have been assigned to this group then they may just give up.
Children develop at different stages of life and once in school they are introduced to a different environment, a variety of people and hopefully knowledge which surely affects future prospects - and if not why not?!

Why should they give up? On the contrary being chosen for special help, when being part of a group can often engender a feeling of group specialism and of having access to resources and facilities not available to other children.

My DGC attended a primary school with a high proportion of children on free school meals. As a result the school had access to all kinds of opportunities not available to schools in more affluent areas. When national theatre groups came to the local theatre, they would do out reach work with schools, and usually with schools like the one DGC attended, with a high proportion of disadvantaged children. They made farm visits and had access to all sorts of extras that enriched the minds of all children, but especially those of the most disadvantaged, kept them in school and helped learning.

I just wonder what they intend to do once they have this list of prospective neets? If the children concerned discover at a later stage that they have been assigned to this group then they may just give up.
Children develop at different stages of life and once in school they are introduced to a different environment, a variety of people and hopefully knowledge which surely affects future prospects - and if not why not?!

.

St Ignacius and/or Aristotle ....

"Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man"
.

Let’s just hope and believe that good measures are put into place to support both pupils and teachers, as well as their families.

We simply cannot continue as we are and see our children and young people growing up with the chances, help and support they require and starting off their adult lives on welfare. Once in this cycle it’s so much harder to break it.

Graphite

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

It isn't sarcastic. But you are redeemed - it's only Monday after all.

lucasfischer

The focus should definitely be on early intervention rather than "damning" a child's future. Spotting early risk factors—like persistent absenteeism—allows schools to step in with support before a child falls completely behind. Keeping a close eye on attendance trends, even with a basic attendance calculator, helps staff track attendance percentages early on to catch subtle drop-offs and offer extra support to families who need it most.

I think it was about thirty years ago that we had very sound research that the biggest inhibitor of pupil progress was poor attendance. The measures put in place were not always popular with parents though!

The focus should definitely be on early intervention rather than "damning" a child's future. Spotting early risk factors—like persistent absenteeism—allows schools to step in with support before a child falls completely behind. Keeping a close eye on attendance trends, even with a basic attendance calculator, helps staff track attendance percentages early on to catch subtle drop-offs and offer extra support to families who need it most.

If you do not identify those children needing help. How else do you make sure that those children most in need of help get it?

I think it would be wise to understand Graphite's post from 07/08. I suggest this from having been a SENCO/Behaviour Manager & Safeguarding Lead at a Secondary School in a deprived catchment for a few decades.

SueDonim

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.

Agree. They're statistically at risk & so you put in extra compensation, BUT they're not personally at risk as individuals & I don't think this is labelling them as such.

Lathyrus3 I absolutely agree that the early years ie nursery and reception, should have no formal testing and this years should be spent in full enjoyment of learning through fun and play.

Our DD worked in a day nursery with the older classes ie pre school for one academic year after graduating, before moving into her NQT year (she was lucky just to do one year, I understand new teachers now effectively had two NQT years)

She loves teaching and as she’s only just coming up to 29 at the end of this month, I hope she continues to do so.

It’s a minefield. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

I do still support the joined up approach between all the services and do support early intervention, where appropriate

No, I didn’t see that, Lathyrus. Sounds fun! Children take no prisoners - if they want a story read to them, they’ll demand it! I was visiting a friend in a different care home recently where they had a nursery group in. Adults and children were gathered round tables, doing jigsaws, colouring, painting, having tea/juice and biscuits. It was so peaceful, with just the low murmer of voices chatting.

Is there anything wrong with leaving school at 16?, I did and have worked till retired my DH left at 15, then got an apprenticeship the following year. The problem now is there are no jobs for these youngsters to leave school for , unfortunately that is the same if they stay in Education till they are 18 and also go onto university.

Peers! Autocorrect again!