I thought I’d generate a debate..

Learn how to create a CV, be educated on how to conduct yourself in an interview, embrace the cult of positivism and you’re on the way to securing yourself a job. Unfortunately most of the education sector in Britain doesn’t teach the kids these vital skills and that’s why so many of them end up in the dole queue. The solution of course is to provide employability training in schools so that unemployment will be driven out of existence for good.

This could become a reality thanks to Hayley Taylor of channel fours Fairy Jobmother fame been awarded "The Yorkshire Woman of Achievement for Education 2012” at a big event earlier this year. Via her personal blog she used this opportunity to “[i[url=http://www.hayleytaylor.co.uk/posts/2012/may/wow!.aspxstick two fingers up to all those that have underestimated her over the years and thought she would never achieve anything in life[/url[/i”. She certainly puts Alan Partridge to shame when it comes to been dignified in celebration.

In all seriousness though, the education sector is been unfairly demonised by an industry looking for an easy scapegoat for its own failings. For example take a look at this [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/15/youth-unemployment-generation-on-scrapheap?newsfeed=trueguardian article[/url where the deluded Tim Thomas claims that “[iyoung people coming out of schools are ill-prepared for the workplace[/i”. The reality of course is that the economy is ill-prepared to equip young people with jobs when they come out of this countries education system.

Time and time again I read and listen to antidotes that employability needs to get into schools. This would be all fine and dandy for the employability brigade because it would mean more work for them but would it really improve things?

For me the schools, colleges and universities of this country are a lot more successful at equipping young people for the working world than these employability type companies. So why does the government keep insisting on funding the likes of A4e and other providers?

PS – I have a job and waiting for a start date so let’s not make this debate personal please!

I was taught how to write a CV in school and we also had practice interviews with real employers and given feedback to help better ourselves for the real thing. Don't really know what your trying to say. Does every school not do this?

I think the lack of jobs is the reason for long queue's at the dole office rather than the amount of people being unable to write a CV.

Likewise I was taught the basics in school which was enough. The CV that I did at school and later improved at college was only to be ‘dumbed down’ by a government employability provider. What I’m trying to say is that these government employability providers are scapegoating schools for their own failings to get people into work. This country would be better off without the likes of them.

I agree that lack of jobs is the reason for the long queues at the dole office. I’m sure we’ll get someone in the debate soon who doesn’t agree.

When I left school (in 1974) I didn't know what a CV was, and neither did anyone else for that matter for the phrase had yet to be invented.

It sufficed for employers that they put a job advert in the local newspaper and it was assumed that those who applied were actually interested enough to hand write a letter, stick a stamp on it and walk to the post box - you didn't do that just to satisfy some form-filler down at the job centre, which wasn't called a job centre by the way, it was the labour exchange.

You also didn't have to reel off a long list of qualifications for as a school leaver it was generally accepted that your first employer would handle your training regime, indeed it was generally accepted that if you employed a 16 year old you were getting the raw material from which to mould someone who would become valuable to your organisation in three to four years time during which you'd be expected to train them yourself and to pay for their further education fees - for that commitment it was generally accepted by school leavers that they'd stay in the job until they were old enough to apply elsewhere with some worthwhile experience, didn't always work that way of course but generally thats what happened, you took a job, you stuck at it and neither you nor your employer expected you to be MD of the company anytime soon.

I can't help thinking that it was a better way to perform in that school leavers actually had a value to a company and that value was one that would be recouped several years down the line and to that end most company's would recruit school leavers on a regular basis to ensure a through put of trainees in the organisation.

And thats all without mentioning trade apprenticeships which had legally binding (often five year) indentures.

Yes its down to a lack of demand in the economy that there are so many long queues at the dole office. Yes there is always a pool of people that have had a very poor education and seriously lack skills and so are unemployable, but the skills situation did not suddenly change in 2008, and the UK had relatively low unemployment from around 1996 to 2008 and now it has spiked up again, and if demand picked up it would probably drop back down to the levels it was before 2008.

Me too, i still remember one comment

[iSuit too big[/i

I wore my dads suit because i didn't have one, even though we were the same height i was 11 stone and he was 17

I love it when you talk about the olden days, Mr Chicken.



But it's extraordinary, isn't it, how there has been an increasing expectation that education would deliver young people ready-trained into the workplace, instead of employers taking responsibility for the appropriate on-the-job training.

Let's not forget the role that parents should play in ensuring that their children are ready for the big bad world once they leave school.

I work at an FE college in Hull and deal specifically with 14-16 students. By the time they have completed their 2 years study with us, alongside their normal schooling, the vast majority are ready for the workplace and progress into apprenticeships. The ones who tend to struggle are the students who have been molly coddled by their parents who are picked up and dropped off at college and workplacements and never have to do anything for themselves.

That's another thing: we didn't have work placements in my day, any more than we had school 'proms'.

Manchester College does some very good stuff with young people in terms of training (went around several of the sites last year when doing some research). They've turned around a few lads (in particular) who had dropped out of academic education.

Part of the problem is in insisting that young people stay in the education system for so long, Many really are not suited to it and not only do they not benefit themselves, they can end up hindering others.

The entire obsession with tertiary education is a newish one – and very much, as Ha-Joon Chang makes clear in [i23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism[/i, an aspect of neo-liberalism. Even in Switzerland, which had historically had very low levels of tertiary education – which clearly had not damaged its economic situation – there has been a trend in recent years to vastly boost tertiary education.

Of course, when you have high unemployment – particularly among young people – it's quite handy to keep them in education.

I'm glad that Damo has not got himself another job.
I hope it is a meaningful one and that it works out OK Damo

To most of the original question: good points. However we want something added to the school curriculum, we have to also remove something. There's only so many hours in the school day. Insist on 3/5 of school time to be on literacy and numeracy for 5 -11 year olds and all other subjects fight for the remnant.

To paraphrase your point, Damo, we need to reflect more on do we want our chidren educated or trained at 16 (I realise it is not a sharp distinction).

As for your last point: "So why does the government keep insisting on funding the likes of A4e and other providers?" Simple : privatisation.

Excellently put.

Then why not extend that day? Even if it is just for the last couple of years of high school?
It comes as a huge shock to many kids that they may have to work till 5:30pm and/or start before 9am.

What? Extend the school day? Who'd teach 'em?

A typical school day used to be: 09.00 start 'til 12.00n then dinnertime 'til 1.30pm then lessons 'til 4.00pm with a break in the morning and afternoon. More often than not teachers would then be engaged in extra-curricular activities on evenings and weekends. Our rugby coach was also our maths teacher, simply because all the PE teachers knew buggerall about Rugby League. The head of maths used to run after-school courses for anyone interested in the subject or who possibly needed more coaching. Many of the teachers were also involved in the youth club too. In fact it was quite possible for anyone to extend their school day until 6.00pm then go on to the youth club.

What happened?

Cod'ead: I taught for 27 years and remember only too well that every hour in the classroom meant an hour at least outside it. Oh, I ran Rugby teams as well.

What a number of commentators forget is what many of us learned by hard experience: for many parents (and many politicians) we cared for the children so they were not on the street. Juveniles are by nature volatile and so keeping them where they could also be taught was a safer option.
Also learning is tiring. Simple

(Now we have after-school clubs and pre-school clubs so lone parents can search for work once the child is 5: not to inmprove education.)

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7234578.stmSome interesting stuff here – not least about the history of starting children early in school, and the amount of time British children actually spend with their families.[/url

The question was, in part at least, rhetorical mate. Now I know this will attract the usual opprobrium from her disciples but I blame Thatcher and her attacks on teachers and the decimation of school playing fields and facilities. That probably did more to demotivate teachers than anything else.

I think you can look back now and see that it wasn't just the attacks on teachers: we have had 30 years of attacks on anyone working in the public sector – something that has been absolute grist to the mill for swathes of the country's newspapers.

Those in the public services are lazy, unskilled – so these jobs are really just a form of benefits – surly, rude, incompetent, corrupt and so on and so forth. Some, not realising the idiocy of their comments, espouse a view that the public sector isn't even 'the real world'.

It's been a useful myth to spread when you also wanted to spread the lie that private is always better than public.

What we are starting to see now – from G4S to A4e, Locog to Close Protection UK, Tesco to Poundstretcher, Barclays to HSBC, Southern Cross to Winterbourne View, [iNews of the World[/i to the [iDaily Mail[/i – is an indicator of just how some of the private sector behaves, is allowed to behave and has been encouraged to behave, by deregulation, the promotion of a greed-is-good culture, the demonisation of the poor and the unemployed, and three decades of constant attacks on the public sector, amongst other things.

Perhaps the biggest tragedy of all is that some people were (and are) so very keen to lap it all up; vicariously sticking their snouts into a trough of utter nastiness and inhumanity.

I think we need a smaller and more appropriate curriculum that allows teachers flexibility. I feel sorry for kids today I really do. We prescribe a massive curriculum, a lot of which is irrelevant to their lives, force them to sit down and basically memorise or simply copy what is being "taught" for hours every day, send them home with hours of homework, tell them off for being bored out of their skulls, set them exams, when they pass them we tell them theyre thick and the only reason they passed is because it's easy, send them off to university, then tell them their degrees are worthless, tell them to get a job, then if they get one we tell them they're no good in that job and they can't read, write or add up.
Then we wonder why some get p|ssed off and don't bother with school.

I think we maybe need a less broad curriculum (but possibly going deeper into some subject areas), a smaller curriculum to allow teachers time to do different things or allow more time for trips, events etc outside of school, and most importantly it needs to be far more relevant.

As for work, well the number of jobs available is always the biggest factor, but that's going to fluctuate. As mentioned on other threads, we need employers to go back to taking a long term view and to train employees on the job, not expect a 16 year old to immediately and miraculously have all the skills necessary.

Now [url=http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=35599this[/url really is taking the pi[is[/is

Not just your ordinary intern's "job", no sir. If you decide to apply for this baby, [url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/07/18/think-tank-in-city-wants-to-be-paid-for-a-job/you are expected to pay Civitatis for the privilege of working there[/url. £450 a month if you're a UK citizen, £750 a month if not. This is on top of living expenses etc. How this gets on to the W4MP ebsite is beyond me

You see, this is what I was talking about earlier - within a couple of decades we've gone from a position where employers EXPECTED to have to train young people via on-the-job experience or college courses (paid for by the employer), to a position where young people are EXPECTED to pay for their JOBS.

Expanding the principle slightly its probably not as stupid as it sounds as hundreds of thousands of 18 year olds will this year embark on three year university courses that will cost them a minimum of £9000 per year in the hope that at some point in the far distant future they will recoup that money (which most will have to borrow at an interest) through better employment, the evidence for which remains to be seen.