Schools Shouldn't Be Tasked with Predicting and Preventing Future NEET Status
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/daisy-christodoulou. "Could you predict which children will be Neets? No – and it’s unfair to ask that of teachers | Daisy Christodoulou | The Guardian." August 11, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that it's unfair and impractical to ask primary schools to predict which young children will end up unemployed or out of education by age 16. She says schools already do their job well by teaching reading and math, but blaming schools for youth unemployment ignores bigger economic problems like job markets, taxes, and regulations that schools have no control over.
Conclusion
Primary schools should not be made responsible for identifying children at risk of becoming NEET (not in education, employment, or training), as this policy proposal from government adviser Alan Milburn asks too much of a system already burdened with excessive responsibilities.
Premises
- Making institutions responsible for outcomes they have little control over demoralizes them and distracts from what they can actually control.
- The simplest way to identify at-risk children already exists—those struggling with literacy—making a separate 'Neet risk register' redundant bureaucracy.
- The main way primary schools can influence future employment outcomes is by teaching maths and English, which they already do.
- Schools are only one small part of a much larger system affecting youth employment; structural economic problems matter more.
- Neet rates have risen despite different education systems in England and Wales, suggesting causes beyond schooling.
- International comparisons (e.g., US vs UK low-literacy workers) show that economic structure, not just skills, determines employment outcomes.
- Primary schools in England have been a genuine policy success (rising in international literacy rankings) while the broader economy has stagnated, suggesting the economy—not schools—is the primary problem.
Assumptions
- Institutions perform better when given narrow, achievable responsibilities rather than broad, systemic ones.
- Current NEET risk factors are already visible through existing literacy assessments, making additional prediction systems unnecessary.
- Adding bureaucratic requirements (like a 'Neet risk register') would not meaningfully improve outcomes and may harm existing effective practices.
- There is a meaningful and identifiable line between what schools can control (skills/qualifications) and what they cannot (macroeconomic conditions).
- Correlation between school policy and Neet rates is being overstated by policymakers relative to other structural economic factors.