Employers should teach primary-age children about work, says Milburn

Alan Milburn's suggestion that career education should start in primary school is the kind of policy proposal that neatly splits the political room in two, and that is precisely why it deserves a closer look. On one side, there is an undeniable logic: if the UK has a persistent problem with social mobility, and if aspiration gaps are formed early, then waiting until secondary school to talk about careers may simply be too late. Milburn, who has spent years chronicling the barriers facing working-class children, is not a figure who can be dismissed as a lightweight. His report draws on evidence that children form assumptions about their futures—often shaped by class and postcode—long before they reach their teenage years. Yet the counter-argument is equally compelling, and it is not merely the reflexive conservatism of "let kids be kids." Early childhood specialists warn that the primary curriculum is already crowded, and that the most valuable thing a five-year-old can learn is not the difference between an apprentice and an undergraduate, but how to read, how to cooperate, and how to think. There is a legitimate fear that inserting "careers education" into the primary phase could become a tick-box exercise, or worse, a mechanism for funnelling working-class children into practical trades while wealthier peers are encouraged toward academic study. The intention may be egalitarian, but the execution could easily become a new form of sorting. What makes this story particularly interesting is the timing. Milburn's report lands at a moment when the government is simultaneously championing "skills" and "levelling up," while also facing criticism over teacher recruitment, school funding, and the persistent attainment gap. The proposal is a classic example of a supply-side solution to a structural problem: it asks schools to fix what poverty, housing, and family income have created. That is not to say schools have no role—they absolutely do—but a four-year-old's career aspirations are shaped more by what they see at home than by what they hear in a classroom. The broader theme here is the ongoing tension between education as a means of personal development and education as an instrument of economic policy. Milburn's proposal leans heavily toward the latter, and while that may be pragmatic, it risks reducing the purpose of schooling to workforce preparation. The best response to this report is not outright rejection or blind acceptance, but a careful interrogation of what "learning about work" actually means for a four-year-old. If it means visits, stories, and widening horizons—fine. If it means formalised career pathways before a child can tie their own shoelaces—that is a different conversation entirely. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr2kwlw0p3v9o