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 “[irlstick two fingers up to all those that have underestimated her over the years and thought she would never achieve anything in liferl[/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 rlguardian articlerl 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.

That's another thing23 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.

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.)