School Leaving Age

[Gmart]

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.

Perhaps YOU could explain their policy then please?

Why would they wish to hinder the schools by forcing people to stay?

Maybe I'm just being cynical but it seems to be a political decision rather than a logical one for the reasons I noted above...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Perhaps YOU could explain their policy then please?

Not my job, but it's bugger all to do with "lowering the unemployment figures".

Why would they wish to hinder the schools by forcing people to stay?

Perhaps they've come to the conclusion, like much of the rest of the "developed world" did long ago, that compulsory education until 18 is sensible from a "social control" point of view?
That is, after all, the primary purpose of compulsory education.

Maybe I'm just being cynical but it seems to be a political decision rather than a logical one for the reasons I noted above...

It's certainly "logical" insofar as it "harmonises" with most of the rest of the developed world, and may help the DoE "rationalise" the secondary and tertiary education sectors. Whether it'll be any good for the students will depend entirely on whether the education system evolves a decent set of strategies for offering a reasonable range of vocational and academic courses.

 

[_angel_]

I don't really see how you can force people to do something they don't want to (especially at that age!).

 

[Gmart]

Perhaps they've come to the conclusion, like much of the rest of the "developed world" did long ago, that compulsory education until 18 is sensible from a "social control" point of view?
That is, after all, the primary purpose of compulsory education.

That would be fine if it worked on the ground level, but it is actually divorced from such practical matters. As I have pointed out, I am NOT saying that education should be withdrawn from those who wish to use it, only from those who don't. Our priority in the schools needs to be learning, not ideology.

Forcing children to stay in school beyond 14 is authoritarian as well as injurious to the ability of schools to do their job. The list I posted of people who left school at 14 is testament to its ineffectiveness.

And "long ago" as you put it would seem to be not that long ago at all...

 

[Gmart]

I don't really see how you can force people to do something they don't want to (especially at that age!).

I agree, it sets a worrying precedent for them to see our society as authoritarian and therefore not something to cooperate with.

There are some here who are not thinking about this practically, but are allowing their prejudiced ideology to dictate policy, rather than the realities on the front line.

We absolutely MUST ensure that schools remain as learning environments rather than holding pens for the unemployed.

 

[derf]

We absolutely MUST ensure that schools remain as learning environments rather than holding pens for the unemployed.

There is an option that may help. Out here they have a two scale system.
One is about the same as the UK model but there is a second level that is known as the SMK schools or vocational schools. They do the usual basic subjects like maths and so on but their main learning is in whatever the school specialises in.
That can be almost anything from leaning how to make a computer work to car mechanics.
It allows a far greater flexibility than the UK system but you have to base it on an understanding that all kids are not the same so it may be hard to get past socialist dogma.

 

[mentalchik]

Maybe instead of just letting them leave,

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.

(i think this ^ is a tad naive tbh)

we should be looking at why the current system does nothing for them ?

 

[isitme]

i think that kids should be kept in school until they are 18 if possible but i agree that the education system is fucked

i remember pressure from my parents and teachers saying that if i didn't get my gcse's it would have a bad effect on my life which added up to learning things like maths and history which had no immediate effect on my life

when you are 14 you are a long way from being an adult, but you aren't stupid, the schools priorities are all wrong focusing on regurgitating information which is irrelevent to real life

the focus from 14 or 15 should be on social studies, financial management, careers advice etc (i think some countries call it 'citizenship training'?) and basic literacy, general knowledge etc if needed

and i also don't think that grades should be so important. a GED to prove you have competent literacy and logic skills etc to do admin jobs or whatever would be useful (employment agencies do these when you register and in the last 10 years i bet these tests had more bearing on a lot of school leavers than the GCSE results) but even the dumbest kids have worked out by 16 that GCSE history isn't going to have that much of an effect on their life if they aren't interested

i don't think that the school leavng age should be lowered i just think school should be geared more towards practical education plus the chance to choose what you are interested in learning about on top of that

 

[Gmart]

So, isitme and others who are convinced that school should remain a place to dump the unemployed. Should a student be allowed to stay in a class if they refuse to work? It is a simple question but the people here seem unable to answer. The same goes for the sense angel is talking about: How can you force them to learn when they don't want to?

I understand that people here might be convinced that education is useful and thus we should ENCOURAGE the post 14 lot to stay, but if they refuse to work then their presence in the class hinders the education of the others who are prepared to work.

More basic skills courses would indeed be useful but the same principle applies - if the students are not prepared to work then they should not be allowed in the classroom - I don't see how this can be described as naive - it is simple logic to point out that disruptive pupils must be removed or else the effectiveness of the school is impaired.

No one has given a reason why we should force these 14 year olds into classes they have no interest in. A period at home might be enough to persuade them - or maybe they'll get a job anyway - either way their disruptive effect is removed from the class at just the time when those who DO wish to work (a group which many here seem reluctant to consider) need to get their heads down and work hard for their exams.

 

[spanglechick]

Problem = poor behaviour and motivation

solution = address the behaviour and find courses that motivate the kids.

some kids don't like being at school - i can understand that. chunks of the education system are irrelevant to many and inflexible to all. In the last three or four years things have begun to change in some schools - but it's overdue and patchy.

but i don't see the problem being solved through letting young people opt out. Teenagers are smart, but there's a reason we don't let 14 year olds drive cars, or sanction their sexual activity, let them have tattoos or get married... Teenagers have poor judgement and perspective in a significantly large number of cases as to keep the really important stuff ultimately out of their hands.

We need to make the system fit the students needs, rather than deprive them of their right to access it full time.

Gmarthews - what do you imaging 14 year olds will spend their days doing?

 

[isitme]

@gmarthews

no i don't believe that schools should remain a place to dump the unemployed, i believe they should be places where young people learn things that they can use in their lives after school

if kids are disruptive in school then they need help to solve their behavioural problems, there is no point in just shifting their behavioural problems somewhere else. if you just give up on kids at 14 and say they shouldn't be the schools problem it doesn't make the problem go away

good post spanglechick

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

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.

If you HAVE to live away from them then you can claim benefits. This needs to be confirmed by social services, you couldnt just move out and claim. I claimed at 16 after I left care and I lived with other young people who hadnt been in care but who were allowed benefits after social services had visited them and their families and confirmed the severity of the situation which led to them living away from home.
Its been the same situation for a very long time... there needs to be evidence of estrangement/forced seperation though.

 

[Gmart]

@gmarthews

no i don't believe that schools should remain a place to dump the unemployed, i believe they should be places where young people learn things that they can use in their lives after school

if kids are disruptive in school then they need help to solve their behavioural problems, there is no point in just shifting their behavioural problems somewhere else. if you just give up on kids at 14 and say they shouldn't be the schools problem it doesn't make the problem go away

I appreciate the point you're making but your concern seems to be only for the kids who are misbehaving. They are certainly victims of society and should get support (and do) - but the rest of the kids - the ones who WERE working and trying to educate themselves - what about them? We OWE it to them that those who refuse to work get support in special units ELSEWHERE because they are unable to function in a normal school - and worse than that they are injuring the learning environment and the learning of others, thus injuring the school as a place of learning.

All time spent trying to deal with their disruptive behaviour is time NOT spent teaching those who wish to learn.

You need to support the disruptive kids by sending them quickly to a unit for those who refuse to work where they can have all the support we can afford - but the classroom HAS to remain as a place of learning.

 

[isitme]

I appreciate the point you're making but your concern seems to be only for the kids who are misbehaving. They are certainly victims of society and should get support (and do) - but the rest of the kids - the ones who WERE working and trying to educate themselves - what about them? We OWE it to them that those who refuse to work get support in special units ELSEWHERE because they are unable to function in a normal school - and worse than that they are injuring the learning environment and the learning of others, thus injuring the school as a place of learning.

All time spent trying to deal with their disruptive behaviour is time NOT spent teaching those who wish to learn.

You need to support the disruptive kids by sending them quickly to a unit for those who refuse to work where they can have all the support we can afford - but the classroom HAS to remain as a place of learning.

it shouldn't be either/or tho like you suggested. kids of all abilities and backgrounds should get the opportunity to benefit from free education until they are 18 imo

of course it will be really difficult how to find the right courses and so on for them, i don't think that these kids behavioural problems are as fundamental as you make out tho

for one thing, if you get a class of 35 students i think you are bound to get some who are too slow, some who are too bright, and some who just don't want to do anything except fuck about. if classes were down to 15 it wouldn't be that inevitable because it's much more personal and not such an artificial setting....

 

[beeboo]

Perhaps YOU could explain their policy then please?

Why would they wish to hinder the schools by forcing people to stay?

Maybe I'm just being cynical but it seems to be a political decision rather than a logical one for the reasons I noted above...

Like VP said, this has been planned for years and is already being implemented. Not a knee jerk reaction to unemployment, it was dreamt up in a period of high employment when the current recession wasn't even so much as a bad dream.

As for why...a lot has to do with the need to be competitive in an international labour market - need people with more skills and qualifications, so the country can get a decent sized slice of the economic pie.

Incidentally, no one is going to be forced to stay in school post-16. People will be expected to be participating in some form of education or training, which might be whilst they're working. Apprenticeships are due to get a major boost (currently demand is outstripping supply) and as the new Diplomas are rolled out, there will be a less academic, more vocational route for people who don't want to do GCSEs.

 

[Gmart]

it shouldn't be either/or tho like you suggested. kids of all abilities and backgrounds should get the opportunity to benefit from free education until they are 18 imo

of course it will be really difficult how to find the right courses and so on for them, i don't think that these kids behavioural problems are as fundamental as you make out tho

for one thing, if you get a class of 35 students i think you are bound to get some who are too slow, some who are too bright, and some who just don't want to do anything except fuck about. if classes were down to 15 it wouldn't be that inevitable because it's much more personal and not such an artificial setting....

Sure, Every Child Matters etc. The key thing is NOT to waste valuable teaching time on these students who are refusing to work. The motivated students have to have priority. Support can be made available for the students who refuse to work, but they CANNOT be allowed in the classroom until they have decided to work.

As for the:

need to be competitive in an international labour market

All the more reason to get the education system working - without those who refuse to work. As I said earlier Mr Johnson's plans will actually injure the very schools we are depending upon to become more competitive...

The resources saved could be redirected into Adult Education for when and if they finally work out that they need maths and English and probably ICT skills too.

Nonetheless all classrooms should have a simple policy of removal if the student refuses to work, as quickly as possible so that the actual learning can take place.

Then again since no one here seems to be denying this maybe I am labouring the point somewhat...

 

[isitme]

Sure, Every Child Matters etc. The key thing is NOT to waste valuable teaching time on these students who are refusing to work. The motivated students have to have priority. Support can be made available for the students who refuse to work, but they CANNOT be allowed in the classroom until they have decided to work.

you aren't getting what i'm saying

to put it really simply the answers are

1) change the schools
2) change the students
3) get rid of the students who don't fit

1 and 3 are possible but 3 doesn't solve anything

 

[Jonti]

Fourteen.

But there should be an entitlement to a further four years of full time education to be taken whenever, as a right.

 

[Gmart]

you aren't getting what i'm saying

to put it really simply the answers are

1) change the schools
2) change the students
3) get rid of the students who don't fit

1 and 3 are possible but 3 doesn't solve anything

Fair enough - since you refuse to comment even a little bit on what I say I will say this:

1) Change schools how? There is already support for disruptive kids... My proposal would improve learning in schools from 14-16 and education would be available for those who wish to use it - win win.
2) Students are unlikely to change, all we can do is ensure that the learning environment is unaffected by those who wish to disrupt - thus helping out the students who actually work who are the priority.
3) Get rid of students who don't fit in - well if you mean the students who refuse to work and wish to disrupt the learning of others for their own amusement then indeed - get rid of them as quickly as possible - a few weeks doing nothing at home might help - but it might not - but at least there they are not disrupting the learning of others.

Fourteen.

But there should be an entitlement to a further four years of full time education to be taken whenever, as a right.

Absolutely Jonti

 

[spanglechick]

Gmarthews, care to address my post?

 

[isitme]

Fair enough - since you refuse to comment even a little bit on what I say I will say this:

1) Change schools how? There is already support for disruptive kids... My proposal would improve learning in schools from 14-16 and education would be available for those who wish to use it - win win.
2) Students are unlikely to change, all we can do is ensure that the learning environment is unaffected by those who wish to disrupt - thus helping out the students who actually work who are the priority.
3) Get rid of students who don't fit in - well if you mean the students who refuse to work and wish to disrupt the learning of others for their own amusement then indeed - get rid of them as quickly as possible - a few weeks doing nothing at home might help - but it might not - but at least there they are not disrupting the learning of others.

1) do you think the support for disruptive kids is adequate? your solution isn't win-win. i don't understand what is to be gained for a 14 yr old who decides to opt out since noone is going to give them a job
if it was your 14 yr old kid having problems with school would you honestly be cool with them just giving up on school and doing fuckall?

2) was a joke

3) well what else do you think i meant?

the attitude you take towards children doesn't even work for adults. it depends on this idea that 'it would all be ok except for these people...'
it just isn't that simple. you've taught young kids yourself, even at 10 some kids seem like a waste of space, why not just kick them out then? give them 2 years working and they'll be begging to go to school by the time they are 12......

 

[subversplat]

I'd be very much up for allowing kids to leave school at 14 as long as there was some sort of adult education voucher system put in place so they could take those missed five years at a later date and get the GCSEs and A levels they will probably sorely miss when they're in their mid-twenties. It would probably still save money and I really don't think we should penalise people in their later lives for being hot heads while they're teenagers.

 

[isitme]

i get pissed off with this idea that it should be about saving money

i know it just amounts to pissing and moaning, but every discussion of how to organise things that are actually important like schools and hospitals and police etc are always based around the fact that there isn't enough money when there blatantly is.

 

[subversplat]

Yeah I think I agree, it just seems like second nature to factor in the cost of stuff I guess it's hard to expect people to jump at ideas that are going to cost more than the current situation.

Being able to take your GCSE options at 20 rather than at 14 with no penalties would be great for kids that are eternal drifters like I was

 

[isitme]

Yeah I think I agree, it just seems like second nature to factor in the cost of stuff I guess it's hard to expect people to jump at ideas that are going to cost more than the current situation.

Being able to take your GCSE options at 20 rather than at 14 with no penalties would be great for kids that are eternal drifters like I was

it particularly pisses me off with education because of the amount of people who care enough about it to pay thousands every year for private schools

if all the money that went into private schools was put into state schools there would be no need for private schools




like i said before about GCSE's, I think it's incredibly important and very possible to make it so that every student gets at least enough grasp of literacy and numeracy to feel confident about it day to day

i don't think GCSE's work for any students to be honest, this idea of giving kids a choice isn't really a choice i don't think. it's for the benefit of the kids who don't have problems to the detriment of the ones that do

that is still an educational message to kids leting them drop out of school....

 

[Cloo]

I'm for ending mandatory full-time education at 14 to allow for work-based learning/apprenticeships 14-16+. Trouble with that is the massive infrastructure you'd have to set up to do it properly, as I understand a lot of apprenticeships ATM are pretty useless.

Along with that there should be, as subversplat suggests, options to help people take qualifications later in life if that's what they want - this would avoid people's careers being too set in stone by choices made earlier in life. Again, probably a massive task to organise.

A big problem seems to me to be that when kids do leave at 16, the message is pretty much 'You've failed, you're fucked, goodbye' - no support (or not very organised support), no celebration of what they have been able to achieve. My worry for many kids who leave at this stage is that, at worst, a minority might be unemployable because they're lazy, obnoxious and defiant, because that's all they've learned in school; or at best, a lot of kids end up a bit feckless, a bit unaware of 'how the world works' and rather helpless and passive - they just don't know what to do or how to start anything. They might not have any models of stable employment in their family, school hasn't helped them develop a proactive mindset and so on.

 

[Gmart]

[Gmarthews, care to address my post?]

Problem = poor behaviour and motivation

solution = address the behaviour and find courses that motivate the kids.

some kids don't like being at school - i can understand that. chunks of the education system are irrelevant to many and inflexible to all. In the last three or four years things have begun to change in some schools - but it's overdue and patchy.

but i don't see the problem being solved through letting young people opt out. Teenagers are smart, but there's a reason we don't let 14 year olds drive cars, or sanction their sexual activity, let them have tattoos or get married... Teenagers have poor judgement and perspective in a significantly large number of cases as to keep the really important stuff ultimately out of their hands.

We need to make the system fit the students needs, rather than deprive them of their right to access it full time.

Gmarthews - what do you imaging 14 year olds will spend their days doing?

Once again I am NOT saying that these teenagers should be 'deprived of their right to education', quite the opposite - if they want to work they should be allowed to study whatever they wish. Perhaps you could actually read my posts?

Like subversplat says, let them leave but ensure that they know that they can have education when they realise the need for it.

School is NOT a place to 'hang out' and I don't buy that it would be better to let them use it as such just because they don't have anything to do.

Sure there aren't any jobs - but (yet again) that is the point. The lack of options will encourage them to consider the merits of enskilling themselves more seriously when they have had the time to think about it and to grow up.

1) do you think the support for disruptive kids is adequate? your solution isn't win-win. i don't understand what is to be gained for a 14 yr old who decides to opt out since noone is going to give them a job
if it was your 14 yr old kid having problems with school would you honestly be cool with them just giving up on school and doing fuckall?

As a parent it would be up to me to discuss with them their options. They could go back to school ONLY if they are prepared to work - or they could try and get a job or they could do nothing. I have no problem with them doing nothing because I remember doing nothing for a bit and in the end I got bored, decided that it was not a long term solution and I got on with working.

This process can take some time but I would rather we had a decent Adult Education system to enable people to turn their lives around rather than spend the money on keeping disruptive kids in school.

...even at 10 some kids seem like a waste of space, why not just kick them out then? give them 2 years working and they'll be begging to go to school by the time they are 12......

I agree that some kids misbehave before 14 - but education becomes so much more important between 14 and 16 that it is a disservice to those who work, to force disruptive students to stay and disrupt their education (an issue which none of you seem keen to comment on).

You seem to be implying that I don't care - far from it, I am simply caring more for those who want to work (a group which many here seem totally uncaring about) - they want to take the chance education gives them.

And it isn't about the money - I am arguing for better resources to Adult Education for when they finally sort it out.

Ten is too young IMO. At 14 they are getting to adulthood - it is not too surprising a conclusion that they need time to work out what to do. I am merely suggesting that we give them that time rather than the alternative where they disrupt the learning of others.

like i said before about GCSE's, I think it's incredibly important and very possible to make it so that every student gets at least enough grasp of literacy and numeracy to feel confident about it day to day

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Many students don't want to learn maths and English because they're going to be a 'rock star' etc.

These kids have the right to their dreams but if they don't come true I want a better Adult Education system to pick up the pieces.

 

[spanglechick]

Once again I am NOT saying that these teenagers should be 'deprived of their right to education', quite the opposite - if they want to work they should be allowed to study whatever they wish. Perhaps you could actually read my posts?

Like subversplat says, let them leave but ensure that they know that they can have education when they realise the need for it.

School is NOT a place to 'hang out' and I don't buy that it would be better to let them use it as such just because they don't have anything to do.

Sure there aren't any jobs - but (yet again) that is the point. The lack of options will encourage them to consider the merits of enskilling themselves more seriously when they have had the time to think about it and to grow up.

As a parent it would be up to me to discuss with them their options. They could go back to school ONLY if they are prepared to work - or they could try and get a job or they could do nothing. I have no problem with them doing nothing because I remember doing nothing for a bit and in the end I got bored, decided that it was not a long term solution and I got on with working.

This process can take some time but I would rather we had a decent Adult Education system to enable people to turn their lives around rather than spend the money on keeping disruptive kids in school.

I agree that some kids misbehave before 14 - but education becomes so much more important between 14 and 16 that it is a disservice to those who work, to force disruptive students to stay and disrupt their education (an issue which none of you seem keen to comment on).

You seem to be implying that I don't care - far from it, I am simply caring more for those who want to work (a group which many here seem totally uncaring about) - they want to take the chance education gives them.

And it isn't about the money - I am arguing for better resources to Adult Education for when they finally sort it out.

Ten is too young IMO. At 14 they are getting to adulthood - it is not too surprising a conclusion that they need time to work out what to do. I am merely suggesting that we give them that time rather than the alternative where they disrupt the learning of others.

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Many students don't want to learn maths and English because they're going to be a 'rock star' etc.

These kids have the right to their dreams but if they don't come true I want a better Adult Education system to pick up the pieces.

The problem is that adults who have left school early and are entitled to take GCSEs for free at college often find that they cannot afford to do so, once encumbered by the financial responsibilities of adult life. You can offer people four years of education to return to at will, but if it stops them supporting their families then they can't access it - and thus they do lose their right.

I have not said that disruptive students should be allowed to disrupt classes and in many, if not all secondary schools there are now growing initiatives to firstly remove those students from the teaching and learning environment, and the address their behaviour or match them with the courses they do want to do. (i'm an education professional, btw, as are several of the posters trying to debate with you - i'd love to know your experience of the current system).

the idea that if they remain in school they will be allowed to disrupt, hang out, and socialise unfettered by learning and unchallenged by rules is a straw man. It doesn't have to happen. It doesn't always happen. It is happening less and less in schools which have the freedom and the budget to try new courses etc.

When you 'did nothing for a bit' did you have access to the internet and computer games? did all your friends have the option of doing nothing too? did you live in an inner city area close by your mates and with lots going on? were you surrounded by street and gang culture?

kids are much safer in school than out. they are far less vulnerable to crimes committed against them, and for a minority of kids, they are far less able to commit crimes. during the summer holidays gang membership rises, street crime rises, certain bother kinds of crime rise. not only because there are more criminals but because there are more victims. Not only that, but kids in school are being exposed to crucial messages about sexual health etc. It's sad, but i think fair to say that those who are most at risk in all these areas would be heavily represented in the students who would decide to leave.

When the UK increased the school leaving age it was also to liberate children from the financial expectations of their families. Children are sometimes pressure to work for the family businesses, or to get other jobs - legal and illegal - in order to contribute to the family 'pot'. My mum will tell you that her family couldn't afford for her to stay on at school - they needed her to go out to work. Raising the leaving age from 15 (in the 60s?) was seen as a step forward for a developed society.

 

[Gmart]

I appreciate that there may be danger out there, but I am reluctant to agree that we should lock these kids up for their own good. I earlier posted a link for a list of people who left school at 14 only to succeed. I understand that gangs are a problem as they always have been but aren't we letting our fear of them compromise our freedom? (I would suggest in another debate that we need to look at legalising drugs and prostitution so that these gangs aren't able to spring up and finance themselves so easily - but maybe that's another issue...)

You can offer people four years of education to return to at will, but if it stops them supporting their families then they can't access it - and thus they do lose their right.

That would be unlucky to do so and I share your concern, but i would suggest that the number of people unable to take advantage of this offer at some point during a 50 year working life would be a minority.

I have not said that disruptive students should be allowed to disrupt classes and in many, if not all secondary schools there are now growing initiatives to firstly remove those students from the teaching and learning environment, and the address their behaviour or match them with the courses they do want to do.

Fair enough, constructive steps have indeed been made. Though education is still mandatory and we could quite easily offer these services even if attendance were voluntary.

Raising the leaving age from 15 (in the 60s?) was seen as a step forward for a developed society.

I understand why, but it is an experiment which has failed. And the new policy is going to further compromise the ability of the schools to do their job.

When I did nothing for a bit, it was in the inner city and I did hang out with 'undesirables' but sooner or later I decided to make the break and work hard. I understand your lack of faith in our youth but I think that the majority would do the same and we would have a society with better schools and better Adult Education to help more and more people stuck in the poverty trap...

Still no comment on our duty to educate the kids who ARE working in the class. If we agree that those who refuse to work should be removed immediately, then this would limit the disruption to these kids.

 

[Gmart]

This thread has shown me the instinctive force that people are prepared to support.

I suggested a system where the post-14's could duck out of school if they were not prepared to work and yet the overwhelming response was:

'NO!' they must be forced to remain at school no matter what until a later age.

I understand the need to provide support for them - which seemed obvious, but the key point was that schools should not be used as a place to dump the unemployed as this would impact on their ability to do their job.

Maybe I am misreading the posts here - and the idea is not to force them to stay in the class but to force them to take up this support. In which case I understand the position better.

Still it would seem from the vote that the majority are quite happy to have the government force attendance to whatever course they wish to impose on the post-14's.

I am always somewhat reluctant to use force unless absolutely necessary - still that's democracy I suppose...