Readers have responded to Daisy Christodoulou's article on predicting which children are at risk of becoming Neets (not in education, employment or training). One letter, from Mark Mon-Williams, professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Leeds, challenges the idea that teachers should not be involved in this prediction.
Teachers can identify barriers
Mon-Williams, who conducted the research at the centre of the debate, says his study showed that children identified with developmental difficulties through the statutory early years foundation stage profile (EYFSP) are much more likely to become Neets in late adolescence. He argues that the EYFSP reveals holistic educational needs, but teachers cannot diagnose autism, treat anxiety, or fix housing.
He acknowledges that schools cannot eliminate poverty, repair the housing market, or create jobs, but he says that separating children struggling at school from efforts to build the economy makes no sense. He points to the rise in the number of Neets as a tragedy, with government attaching an administrative label at the end of childhood, when warning signs were visible years earlier.
Ofsted's influence
Neil Blackshaw from Alnwick, Northumberland, disagrees with Christodoulou, saying that good primary teachers are adept at predicting futures. He cites his wife's experience in Newcastle and Wythenshawe, and her encounter with a teenager in a Welsh mining valley who wanted to be a policeman because he had big feet. Blackshaw criticises Ofsted's baleful influence on teachers, giving an example of a secondary-trained inspector ending the career of a respected primary headteacher.
Simon Surtees from London says Christodoulou's response is fair, noting that primary teachers have enough to do without speculating on children's futures. He suggests that secondary schools are best placed to assess potential, but need better training and structures.
