A recent suggestion by Alan Milburn that primary schools should identify children at risk of future unemployment has prompted discussion among readers. The proposal, made on 7 August, focuses on early intervention to support children who may later struggle to find work.
While early intervention is seen as beneficial, some readers express concern about labelling children. One reader, Emad Rehman, highlighted the difference between identifying a child's needs and pre-determining their future, warning against attaching labels like “likely future Neet” to 11-year-olds based on factors such as poverty or absence.
Other suggestions for addressing the issue include systematic nursery provision. Simon Gibbs, an emeritus professor, noted US studies from the 1970s indicating that children attending certain nursery settings were significantly more likely to have good health and employment 50 years later. Jane Berridge, a secondary school teacher, proposed bringing back Sure Start, describing it as a highly effective provision for supporting families in the crucial early years.
Stephanie Garrett suggested that adopting a system similar to the Netherlands' secondary education, which offers different pathways for children, could provide a more holistic approach to solving the problem of young people not in education, employment or training (Neets).