When I was at university, I worked in a kilt-hire shop. As well as fitting the customers for outfits, we had to steam and clean jackets, hem and press the kilts and clean them. I had the rather unenviable task of checking the kilts for stains when they were returned and, using a nail brush and some Vanish soap, getting rid of them.

If I had left school and entered just this part-time job, I would have been deemed by the Scottish government to have arrived at a “positive destination”, because I would have been classed as employed.

According to the latest statistics, more than 90 per cent of school leavers are now in positive destinations, including further education, higher education, employment or training, or after signing up to “activity agreements”.

But when I’m feeling the pressure of juggling my career with my domestic life, I cast my mind back to that kilt-hire shop and the long hours that I spent in front of an ironing board staring at a wall, and I remind myself that it could be much worse.

To be stuck in a job like that - where you rarely feel a sense of achievement or satisfaction and where you work hard but are not well-rewarded - is a life sentence, not a positive destination. And there are, of course, far worse jobs out there.

The plight of Sports Direct employees was highlighted recently by both the BBC and the Guardian. The company says that it is addressing the problems raised in reports; employees in its warehouses were reportedly scared to phone in sick or leave early to pick up their children when they were ill, and they were closely monitored and regularly searched.

Working conditions like those reported hardly seem desirable, but, under the current system, such a job would be counted as a positive destination.

The ‘fraud’ of positive destinations

To be classed as employed, school leavers don’t have to work a minimum number of hours - they don’t even have to be earning minimum wage - they just have to report that their job is their “main destination”.

Leading educational thinker Keir Bloomer calls the statistics “a fraud” and argues in this week’s TESS for more stringent criteria to be imposed.

Only worthwhile employment, not “dead-end jobs”, should count as a positive destination, he says. Secondary headteachers echo this demand, saying that they have been uncomfortable with the government’s definition of a positive destination.

And while activity agreements have been praised and held up as a shining example of good practice when it comes to engaging those teenagers who are furthest from the labour market, they have also come under fire from experts.

Billionaire businessman Jim McColl calls this kind of positive destination “a cop out”, arguing that the agreements can be short-lived and undemanding, involving unchallenging things such as attending ready-for-work courses a couple of times a week.

Perhaps we have to accept that those who are signed up to these agreements, although possibly en route to a positive destination, are not there yet.

Ultimately, the Scottish government must better define what it means by a positive destination. At the moment, the stats may look good on the surface, but the impetus to do more for school leavers to propel them into more satisfying futures is not there.

No teenager should be left scraping away at eight yards of tartan with a nail brush and some Vanish without someone badgering them to do better for themselves.

This is an article from the 22 April edition of TESS. This week’s TESS magazine is available in all good newsagents. To subscribe, click here. To download the digital edition, Android users can click here and iOS users can click here

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES on Twitter and like TES on Facebook