School Leaving Age

[untethered]

I'd start at the other end by reducing the size of the unversity sector to about a third of its current size (35 universities). This would have a knock-on effect back through the rest of the system and tackle the ludicrous inflation of unnecessary qualification requirements for just about every job that requires being able to read and write regularly and attend meetings.

You should not need a degree to teach in primary school, fix computers, send press releases, organise events, manage small teams of staff or many of the dozens of supposedly "professional" occupations these days.

Then we can get back to getting young people into real jobs with real prospects (and on-the-job training) at 16 and 18 after GCSEs and A-Levels as appropriate rather than huge numbers of people going to college and acquiring massive debts just so that they can do jobs at 21 that they could have done at 16.

The government has confused the idea of university education with having a skilled workforce, yet most graduates now do not use their degree knowledge in their jobs. You don't need a business studies degree to run a bank branch, let alone one in history or English.

 

[zoooo]

Quick comment on the vote - I am surprised so many wish to make education MANDATORY for so long. Why would we force these students to stay in a class and mess around to their hearts content, hindering other people's education, and for what reason? Political expediency?

Well, why make school mandatory at all then?
Kids mess about and distract others at age 9 too.

 

[spring-peeper]

Quick comment on the vote - I am surprised so many wish to make education MANDATORY for so long. Why would we force these students to stay in a class and mess around to their hearts content, hindering other people's education, and for what reason? Political expediency?

So it would be better to let them drop out at a young age??? What type of jobs are available for the under 16's?

 

[_angel_]

Forcing kids into education that rigidly doesn't work - there should be a more flexible system where people can go back to learning part time etc when they're older and actually want to do it.

 

[spring-peeper]

Forcing kids into education that rigidly doesn't work - there should be a more flexible system where people can go back to learning part time etc when they're older and actually want to do it.

They have that here. If you quit/get thrown out of high school, you can always go back at anytime - and it's free.

From my observations, few of them do.

 

[scifisam]

So, it's not true?

Please tell me it's not true!!!!


I got into an arguement with a former urbanite over this issue, just last night. I was gonna start a thread on it to see if it was true, but this one is already here.

I already said it's not true. This'll do. The 16-17 year old has to prove extreme hardship. If they're living with their parents, they can only prove extreme hardship if they satisfy a few other stringent criteria. It's really not easy for a 16 year old to get any benefits. Trust me, I was one - no parents to support me, couldn't earn enough through work because of my age, and couldn't get benefits either.

Don't get me wrong, I am just hoping to allow those who do not wish to work at school to go off and have the time they need, while they live at home, to think about what they wish to do with their lives. There is no point forcing them to be in school or training if they don't want to be there...

I appreciate that there are few opportunities for 14 year olds, but that's the point. They get to live at home and decide which direction they wish to go in. I would hope that the vast majority would sign up for at least reading, writing and arithmetic skills classes and ICT too. There could be a whole range of activities and subjects available for them to try for free.

You can take a horse to water, but this government is trying to force it to drink, and that is too far.

Bribing them to train or to be in school is also ludicrous as having disaffected students in school hinders that school from doing its job.

I would like to add my support to expanding apprenticeships as a route to employment.

The incentives need to be aligned of course but more generally I would like to see more resources in adult education to provide a way out of the poverty trap that many find themselves in.

But all of this is up to the school involved. If the student is not working hard enough then they can leave as the negative effect on those who wish to work in class is too great to ignore and it would be unfair to penalise those who work by allowing non-workers to stay in a class and mess around.

14 year olds and up can already go to (free) courses at the local adult education of FE college if they're recommended by the LEA, or just persuade the college. After all, it's only education that's mandatory, not secondary school.

Same goes for the kids now who have to stay in education till they're 17. Education is mandatory, not school.

@Spring Peeper: courses up to GCSE level are free to everyone here too. courses up to A level are mostly free, or very inexpensive. Like I said, I dropped out of school and went back when slightly older, at local colleges. I never had to pay for my courses.

 

[_angel_]

A levels are not free to over 18's unless you're a concession, here.

 

[scifisam]

A levels are not free to over 18's unless you're a concession, here.

Most are, but not all.

 

[spring-peeper]

A levels are not free to over 18's unless you're a concession, here.

So once you quit/get thrown out - that's it? That's a pity.



eta: I'm still a bit vague on A levels, but I'm going to assume it's the equivilant of our high school leaving certificate.

 

[_angel_]

Most are, but not all.

Unless it changed very recently, most colleges charge a couple of hundred quid per A level unless you're on benefit or under 18.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Here's my opinon, which is likely to be unpopular with Urbans but still:


School leaving age should be 16.

However at 14 you should be able to deccide if you want to go on academicaly do do GCSEs etc, or go on to learn a vocational course.

I do however believe there should be a minimum requirement to fulfil a certain standard each year, I suppose key stage (not tested, just assesed) would be the equivelent and if these requirements arn't reached then capable pupils should be held back (for up to 2 year so 16 (which would be the minimum education age anyway).

Seems somewhat draconian, but if some children are going to leave school early then the education system may as well try and educate them to the best standard until they escape!

Those that want to do vocations could do so after that, or if they want to do acedemics then entirely their choice.

There's no point in holding bored, uninterested kids lin class, who are more likely to disrupt lessons to others. Best they do well at something they enjoy then something the do badly at and don't.

Edit, also, after the 2 years vocational training there should be an option to go further and study buisness/accounting at some level.. That way it would be viable for some kids to be able to start their own buisnesses and not rely on apprenticeships.

 

[spring-peeper]

I already said it's not true. This'll do. The 16-17 year old has to prove extreme hardship. If they're living with their parents, they can only prove extreme hardship if they satisfy a few other stringent criteria. It's really not easy for a 16 year old to get any benefits. Trust me, I was one - no parents to support me, couldn't earn enough through work because of my age, and couldn't get benefits either.

I saw your post after I posted, but was too lazy to go back and change mine.

Thanks for the link!!!

I'm glad that the info I was being giving was wrong. (it doesn't surprise me it was wrong). I spent last night fuming over how stupid the described situation was, ranted on about encouraging a welfare state, and on and on...

 

[Gmart]

Well, why make school mandatory at all then?
Kids mess about and distract others at age 9 too.

Fair enough, but I think it is more achievable to try for 14 years old as this is the age when they start to grow into adulthood. It can be a difficult time and applying force might not always help.

So it would be better to let them drop out at a young age???

So it would be better to let them stay at school and hinder everyone else's education???

Forcing kids into education that rigidly doesn't work - there should be a more flexible system where people can go back to learning part time etc when they're older and actually want to do it.

Absolutely! There is no point forcing them to turn up if all they do is obstruct other people's learning...

 

[DotCommunist]

I voted for 16 coz it's the age you can start working. Also, there is no government assistance for children under the age of 16. At 16, you can apply for student welfare. This means you have to prove that living with your parents is not good for (very easy to do - "they make me clean my room" - "oh poor baby, here's some money", AND you have to stay in school. Miss more than a day every couple of months without a doctor note and they cut you off.

The one thing that strikes me as strange is that your youth can just quit school and the government will give them money. That seems so different from over here. A (british) friend's daughter just quit school and now she gets as much money as her dad. She doesn't even have to leave home to get it.

yeah. And a free x-box

 

[spring-peeper]

So it would be better to let them stay at school and hinder everyone else's education???

What do you mean by hindering everyone else? Yelling and screaming in class??? Not attending??? I'm not sure what you mean by that?

If the child can't behave in class, then the child should not be in the class.

Absolutely! There is no point forcing them to turn up if all they do is obstruct other people's learning...

Then find courses that will interest them.

 

[spring-peeper]

yeah. And a free x-box

I've already been informed that I was giving the wrong information.

 

[DotCommunist]

I've already been informed that I was giving the wrong information.

ok, forgive the roll-eyes I just got up and am ill of humor

 

[spring-peeper]

ok, forgive the roll-eyes I just got up and am ill of humor

 

[untethered]

ok, forgive the roll-eyes I just got up and am ill of humor

Bring back National Service.

 

[feyr]

Don't get me wrong, I am just hoping to allow those who do not wish to work at school to go off and have the time they need, while they live at home, to think about what they wish to do with their lives. There is no point forcing them to be in school or training if they don't want to be there...

I appreciate that there are few opportunities for 14 year olds, but that's the point. They get to live at home and decide which direction they wish to go in. I would hope that the vast majority would sign up for at least reading, writing and arithmetic skills classes and ICT too. There could be a whole range of activities and subjects available for them to try for free.

You can take a horse to water, but this government is trying to force it to drink, and that is too far.

Bribing them to train or to be in school is also ludicrous as having disaffected students in school hinders that school from doing its job.

I would like to add my support to expanding apprenticeships as a route to employment.

The incentives need to be aligned of course but more generally I would like to see more resources in adult education to provide a way out of the poverty trap that many find themselves in.

But all of this is up to the school involved. If the student is not working hard enough then they can leave as the negative effect on those who wish to work in class is too great to ignore and it would be unfair to penalise those who work by allowing non-workers to stay in a class and mess around.

Forcing kids into education that rigidly doesn't work - there should be a more flexible system where people can go back to learning part time etc when they're older and actually want to do it.

personally i think half the problem is that at 14 most teenagers dont know what they want from the long term. at 14 i thought i'd quite school as soon as i was able to go to full time performing arts college or just work as a dancer. most of my mates planned to leave school to get any job or to stay on for alevels becasue it meant they didnt have to fend for themselves for a futher 2 years. the only careers advise we got was 2 weeks of work experience , 1 in year 10, 1 opt in in year 12.

my suggesting would be to let teenagers take 6 months out if they wished at 14/15, during year 10 rather than going straight to gcses. spend the first term working on transferable skills, more careers/fe advise, and tasters of gcse standard work. then spend the next 6 months in work based placements, either organised through the school or by the student, with regular supervision. those who were definate they wanted to go the academic route could either start on gcse level work either at school or college. after 6 months, they'd all to return to education, spending the final 6 weeks making final choices on gcses or vocational training. those who wanted to return for year 11 would start gcses with a better idea of what courses they wanted to do, and those who had made the informed decison to follow a more vocational path would do nvqs or whatever.

of course, that wouldnt work due to lack of resources, costs, unavailability of work placements etc. but to me, a 14 year old doesnt have the neccessary insight to be making decisions aout the rest of their life. time out to find out about the reality of various career paths, and to really think/try out choice of gcses would give a more informed decsion, and maybe justa s importantly give kids a chance to think if they actually wanted to learn, rather than just being shunted from sats to gcses in what must feel like almost 3 years of learning purely to sit exams

 

[derf]

http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/zt/Features/t274370.htm

Free and compulsory education is identified as a fundamental human right by the United Nations. The U.N. Millennium Development Goals stipulate that every school-age boy and girl complete a full course of primary education.

I can't say much about China as I have never had the pleasure to visit but I can tell you about this country where many kids would love the chance to a free education that these idiots are tossing away.

I wonder how they would have liked working in a Victorian coal mine or popping up a chimney to earn a bob.
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/victorians/children/working.htm

Pathetic is the word that comes to mind.

 

[DotCommunist]

We could set up a work experience scheme whereby they do a few weeks work at you house. A week or two of scrubbing your horrible bog will have them crying out for a maths lesson.

everyones a winner.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

More precisely, they have to stay in training and education till they're 17 for those who started year 7 in September 2008. That can mean school, college, apprenticeships or whatever.

My only quibble with this is how they're going to deal with 16-17 year olds who don't live at home. They can't exactly live on EMA, which is only £30pw, and wouldn't be entitled to JSA - which is lower for people that age anyway.

If they cannot live at home they claim EMA which is then topped up with a small amount of income support. They are also entitled to housing benefit

 

[Gmart]

I still don't understand how (or if) it is a good idea to force them to stay in school when they refuse to work.

The new policy of forcing them to stay longer seems like an even worse idea.

It is Alan Johnson, (the next Labour leader in waiting apparently), who is doing this:

Mr Johnson said a simple £50 fine could be used to enforce attendance "without having to clog up the courts."

If the fixed notice was neither paid nor challenged, then the young person could be prosecuted in the youth courts and issued with a referral order which would set out an "appropriate intervention".

Are Labour really so bereft of ideas?

If you force people who don't care into the classes, then the lessons will be destroyed - you'd have to have two sets, one with those who were only there to get their money, and those who are there to actually enskill themselves through working hard.

Who do we support? Those who are avoiding work, or those who are trying to do their job? AJ doesn't seem to have the broader picture in mind.

 

[scifisam]

If they cannot live at home they claim EMA which is then topped up with a small amount of income support. They are also entitled to housing benefit

Is that new, then? When I was 16, it was practically impossible to get any benefits at all when living away from your parents and not being supported by them. Though, I guess once they start requiring kids to study, which makes full-time work very difficult, they're going to have be more helpful.

 

[Gmart]

Is it a good idea to force them to stay in school when they refuse to work?

Well it would seem that refusal to work should mean expulsion. It would be unreasonable to force these students into the classroom and to hinder other people's education in such a way. There is no need to force these children to stay at school from 14 to 16 AFAICS. School is a learning centre and must be maintained as such.

The question is: What do these 14 year old do?

Well an expulsion and being sent home permanently would encourage the parents to talk to these children and maybe a bit of time off will show them the necessity of education.

As some here have said, most countries have the poorer sections of society as super keen on education as the only way out of poverty.

Maybe this idea could be a less authoritarian message to those who don't believe in education and working hard. When they realise how difficult life is without at least basic skills - and the vast competition for unskilled work which is all that's left, then after a few months reflection at home, maybe the opportunity of education will look more appealing and the strange apathy towards education could be knocked on the head...

Historically having such a late school leaving age is a relatively modern phenomena, driven it would seem by the need to hide the true unemployment figures. If you search for people who left schoo at 14 and who went on to make a success of themselves, the list is long and distinguished, see here...

For an international comparison, see here...

 

[Gmart]

I am astonished that nearly 90% here want to force these children to go to school beyond the age of 14 no matter what.

I can see no reason given for this except out of sight out of mind - and sod the schools if this policy prevents them from doing their job.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The government wants to put it up to hide the unemployment problem, but perhaps it should go down?

Ah, that'll be why they've been consulting on it since 2004 then. They must have used a soothsayer to scry into 2009 and see that the unemployment figures might rise, and planned accordingly.

 

[_angel_]

Perhaps they could try asking 14 year olds what they actually want to do. I'm not surprised some kids get totally pissed off with the way learning is presented in schools. I know they can sometimes access college courses, but don't know how common that is in actual fact.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So, it's not true?

Please tell me it's not true!!!!


I got into an arguement with a former urbanite over this issue, just last night. I was gonna start a thread on it to see if it was true, but this one is already here.

You can't claim any benefits between the ages of 16 and 18 unless you've been kicked out by your parents.

From 18-25 you get a reduced rate of Jobseekers allowance, all of about £38 a week. That's pretty much it, and you have to still search for employment and prove that you're searching for employment while claiming.