rioted
redundant
Education should never be mandatory IMO
School Leaving Age
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
Education should never be mandatory IMO
A good capitalist would agree with you. An illiterate twat makes great cheap labour.
scifisam
deleted
No matter what's on screen, you just read whatever's in your head, don't you?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I can see why you might think that, because I tend to stick to the topic and ignore issues which might derail the thread.
So for example a good point was made about the need to teach practical skills earlier - something that I agree with, but which I didn't comment on because I wanted to discuss the topic I had in mind - ie the negative effects on the schools and those students who wish to work, if you force students who are not keen to work into the classroom with those who are.
bouncer_the_dog
Well-Known Member
All education should be optional.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
My 18 y/o has just received a letter from his school. He is no longer welcome there and needs to find a different place to finish his high school. They cited that he didn't attend over 60% of his classes and that this behaviour sets a bad example to the younger students.
I think this was a good decision. He felt classes were a waste of time, so he never attended. Yes, this is a bad example for the younger students. He will be finishing his schooling at an adult high school - far more appropriate.
I think that he is too old for high school. Where I grew up, you were finished at 16 y/o. If you wanted more education, the colleges were free - go for it. If you didn't, then go join the work force. This is excellent - gets rid of the kids that don't want to learn and the state gets good statistics on kids that completed the minimum education.
Where I live now, they give "incentives" to stay in school. You can get your drivers permit at 16, but the government will revolve it if you are not in school. So, if you decide school is not for you and quit or get kicked out, there goes your drivers permit. I live 20km from the nearest town - no school, no car, no job!!! Lose/lose imo.
As for this 14 year old debate - I side with making the kid stay in school. He is too young to leave and enter the job force. I hope that your government doesn't pay extra monies out to these kids. That would be wrong. At fourteen, they are still the parents responsibility.
I think this was a good decision. He felt classes were a waste of time, so he never attended. Yes, this is a bad example for the younger students. He will be finishing his schooling at an adult high school - far more appropriate.
I think that he is too old for high school. Where I grew up, you were finished at 16 y/o. If you wanted more education, the colleges were free - go for it. If you didn't, then go join the work force. This is excellent - gets rid of the kids that don't want to learn and the state gets good statistics on kids that completed the minimum education.
Where I live now, they give "incentives" to stay in school. You can get your drivers permit at 16, but the government will revolve it if you are not in school. So, if you decide school is not for you and quit or get kicked out, there goes your drivers permit. I live 20km from the nearest town - no school, no car, no job!!! Lose/lose imo.
As for this 14 year old debate - I side with making the kid stay in school. He is too young to leave and enter the job force. I hope that your government doesn't pay extra monies out to these kids. That would be wrong. At fourteen, they are still the parents responsibility.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
erm - no!!!
I worked in a company that had plants down in the States. They hired illiterates. I was the one responsible for making all the safety and pubic notices in graphics so they would have some idea of what was going on.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I agree but not politically feasible...
Indeed they are, and that's the point - If you make it voluntary to go to school then the onus is on the parents to decide whether they want their children to get an education or not.
This is a key choice and I would prefer this choice to be made when there is still time for the child to turn it around.
If the parents are happy for their 14 year old to not be at school then again this is part of the freedom to choose for parents.
Sure some might argue that parents must be FORCED to make the 'right' choice and send them to school but the point is that using force shows our society to be one based on coercion by force as opposed to persuasion.
Without commenting on the rebellion complex this can cause it is not a reasonable principle for a modern country.
I think we have to be working towards a society without coercion by force on the statute books...
And the government needs to be more prudent in their usage of force There are already too many stupid laws which make a mockery of the law.
Depends on the system. If you hire a tick fucker out here, you can pay them sod all. Someone with an education gets paid more because they are more skilled.
Because education has to be paid for, there are many that can't afford it. They end up poor all their lives because they never went to school.
I still can't believe posters are arguing in favour of letting kids drop out. It took all that time to get a free education system set up to protect kids and now some daft bastards want to toss it all away.
What a set of silly cunts you are.
scifisam
deleted
No, the government doesn't pay any extra money to kids who choose not to go to school at 14, because letting kids leave school at 14 is just an idea, not actual reality.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Thanks for clearing that up.
hegley
never odd or even
I think the reason people are disagreeing with you on this thread is because you're lumping school and education into one. The government's plan is not that everyone will remain in school until 18; but they will remain in education until then - there's a huge difference. For some children/young adults this will mean getting a job at 16 (though admittedly not younger), and only having the equivalent of "traditional" schooling one day a week; similarly, the government aims for 1 in 5 young adults to go down the apprenticeship route by 2020.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Thankyou! I wasn't aware that such a distinction existed. I suppose that there is a world of difference between an apprenticeship form of training which is one-on-one and the schooling I am concerned about which is many-to-one with a teacher. Is that the distinction?
The former training is very constructive and I support the extension of apprenticeships. However the many-to-one form of training or education will not work if the classes are populated with 'students' who are not interested in being there. Such a situation would be injurious to the education institution and to the learning in the class.
My priority is the learning in the class and supporting the schools and teachers to ensure that this learning, and those students who wish to learn can do so.
My fear is that dumping the unemployed into classrooms where they don't wish to go, no matter what age they are, would have a negative effect on this learning.
I am also rather perplexed at the idea that being over 14 and out of school would be 'dangerous' and thus we should keep them in school as long as possible. The world is NOT that dangerous and to spread our fear of it onto kids thru forcing them to remain at school when many people who left school at 14 made a success of themselves just doesn't make sense.
scifisam
deleted
LOADS of people have pointed out that there's a difference between 'education' and 'school.' It's a little bizarre that someone who claims to have worked in schools has forgotten that FE colleges, adult education, distance learning and apprenticeships also exist.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Further education doesn't have a mandatory aspect to it... I didn't forget they exist, ALL these classes would similarly suffer if they were populated by students who refuse to work, but who were there, being paid to attend.
Thus, for ALL classrooms a principle of expulsion from the room in the event of refusal to work is established.
Now we can get back to whether it would be better to force the 14+ into classrooms seeing as this would contravene the above principle and would impact on those students (our priority) who actually choose to work.
The offer of a further opportunity to work might be appropriate (in the event of refusal) but a minority will maintain their refusal to work.
A holding cell would seem draconian and so it makes sense just to send them home in the free society we have...
I am just trying to work out the practicalities of the situation and am hoping to start a mature discussion as to the ramifications of this policy.
Many people have left school at 14 and been a success.
I appreciate that the government would prefer that they stay in school for as long as possible, but this policy is to the detriment of the scholastic system for an age group which can ill afford to mess up.
Again, further education is voluntary and so I am only talking about mandatory education here.
Would it really be that bad if a minority of the 14+ were told to go home for the good of the education of the students.
Surely another principle is the school as a place for learning as opposed to a place for indoctrination or even a babysitting service...
hegley
never odd or even
On the whole, these are the exception rather than the rule, though.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Maybe this thread should have been about when a parent can trust their children?
For me fourteen is old enough to know whether they are prepared to work or not. I do not think that authoritarianism is justified against those so young. Indeed I would suggest that any society would need to think twice before applying force...
At the earliest age possible we need to encourage children to take responsibility for their actions. It would seem a tad hypocritical to take it away at the same time as encouraging them to be responsible...
I voted 14, but it would be with conditions. For a start, I think we should go back to three-stage education: primary, middle and high schools. In my perfect world, 7-9 would be primary, getting the basics of the three Rs (we start compulsory education far too young in this country), with a bit of history, geography and science thrown in. 10-14 would be middle school: pretty much the same as the first couple of years of secondary school when I was a kid: different specialist teachers for each subject, and a mixture of academic and vocational subjects leading to the 14+. Anyone who passed the 14+ would be free to leave school if they wished, education after that would be three-tiered: something like the old secondary moderns for kids who failed the 14+ (which would, in fact, just require literacy and numeracy to pass, although there would also be academic and vocational questions). The kids who did well on all parts of the exam, and who didn't want to leave school, could choose whether to go vocational or academic. Otherwise, they'd be funnelled into the schools to which they were best suited. The academics would do something like the International Baccalaureat at 18, the vocationals would do something like the new diplomas that have been brought in. Both would have equal weight for university entrance.
My plan is similar to that proposed by the 1944 Education Act, which was never properly implemented, except that it makes the choice at 14 rather than 11 - more fair to boys, who tend to mature later.
It also ensures that kids with no real interest in education have a reason to pay attention in middle school: they'll get to leave four years earlier than otherwise.
Kids with genuine educational needs 14+ would no longer suffer from being in classes where the average get the most attention. Those with an interest in doing well, at vocational or academic schools, would benefit from not being surrounded by kids who disrupted lessons.
And none of them would go through the ridiculous experience of constant testing that today's kids suffer. Apart from the 14+ and the IB/diploma, there wouldn't be any external exams.
It'll never happen, because too many of the 'elite' in this country value academia over vocational: it's what killed the technical schools proposed in the 1944 Act. As the grammar school educated daughter of a plumber, I know which is more important when the toilet is backed up...
Can you tell I have relatives working in education and have put an awful lot of thought into this...?
My plan is similar to that proposed by the 1944 Education Act, which was never properly implemented, except that it makes the choice at 14 rather than 11 - more fair to boys, who tend to mature later.
It also ensures that kids with no real interest in education have a reason to pay attention in middle school: they'll get to leave four years earlier than otherwise.
Kids with genuine educational needs 14+ would no longer suffer from being in classes where the average get the most attention. Those with an interest in doing well, at vocational or academic schools, would benefit from not being surrounded by kids who disrupted lessons.
And none of them would go through the ridiculous experience of constant testing that today's kids suffer. Apart from the 14+ and the IB/diploma, there wouldn't be any external exams.
It'll never happen, because too many of the 'elite' in this country value academia over vocational: it's what killed the technical schools proposed in the 1944 Act. As the grammar school educated daughter of a plumber, I know which is more important when the toilet is backed up...
Can you tell I have relatives working in education and have put an awful lot of thought into this...?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Yes, and I like your ideas immensely.
One point I would add would be a section on critical thinking, as many students seem to have little or no idea what fallacies are and how easily they can be used to manipulate people.
Also being able to use a computer, at least in Adult Education which I see as an effective weapon against the 'poverty trap'.
If everyone had an entitlement to a certain number of courses to be taken at any time in their lives, then the poverty trap would be reduced as a problem.
LilMissHissyFit
Disturbed in a pink bra
I thought this article might be of interest to people who have posted on this thread
http://www.agent4change.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=374&catid=65&Itemid=194
http://www.agent4change.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=374&catid=65&Itemid=194
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Interesting article - it is self evident to me that lessons have to be relevant or else the kids will not be engaged - but what happens if they decide that learning to read is not relevant? I once had a kid state that his Dad couldn't read and so he saw no point in trying himself!!
Some kids are just looking for a reason to be lazy!! Sad but true and heck! I know a good few supposed 'adults' who seem to have maintained this attitude into old age...
Furthermore I am interested in your reasoning for your vote to force children to stay at school up to 18 years old. How do you think the schools (or training courses) would be improved by having scores of children forced to be there? What if they refuse to work? Surely we should be persuading them that school IS relevant even if they don't understand why yet?
LilMissHissyFit
Disturbed in a pink bra
education should be compulsory- school should not.... in fact thats the law in the UK.. Full time education at school OR OTHERWISE is compulsory for all 5-16 year olds ( 18 year olds from this years Y7 intake of 11-12 year olds)
You are focusing accutely on school yet there are so many other settings where chiildren and young people can learn- that can be applicable to them, engage them and be relevant to the child or young persons particular talents or aptitudes( again directly cited in the education act as what should be provided- which clearly isnt at present in state schools with a politically driven, set curriculum which everyone is forced to learn.
School I would argue will eventually become obsolete in its present form but education wont ever be unecessary, it will just have to change in form away from the school model we have at present.
I havent voted for children to stay IN SCHOOL until 18.. Ive voted for some form of education and training for them to be compulsory until they are 18 however Im a great believer in allowing them to choose what form that should take as far as is possible so if a 14 year old wants to spend all day every day learning to do something which interests them they should be allowed, whether thats academic or vocational or a mix or even neither ( artistic,musical, sporting etc)
You are focusing accutely on school yet there are so many other settings where chiildren and young people can learn- that can be applicable to them, engage them and be relevant to the child or young persons particular talents or aptitudes( again directly cited in the education act as what should be provided- which clearly isnt at present in state schools with a politically driven, set curriculum which everyone is forced to learn.
School I would argue will eventually become obsolete in its present form but education wont ever be unecessary, it will just have to change in form away from the school model we have at present.
I havent voted for children to stay IN SCHOOL until 18.. Ive voted for some form of education and training for them to be compulsory until they are 18 however Im a great believer in allowing them to choose what form that should take as far as is possible so if a 14 year old wants to spend all day every day learning to do something which interests them they should be allowed, whether thats academic or vocational or a mix or even neither ( artistic,musical, sporting etc)
Velouria
Long time lurker
I voted 18 ... BUT ... with the proviso that if you have failed to gain qualifications by age 16, then there should be some kind of serious remedial education, properly tailored to you, to get you some kind of basic academic or vocational qualification. I envisage a series of nationwide centres, offering a diverse range of courses, but these should be centres of excellence which accept a broad spectrum of pupils, not just those who are (presently) written off at age 16 with no qualifications. Perhaps there could even be a residential element to this.
It's all pie in the sky. The Government would never pay for such a fantastically expensive scheme. In many ways it suits them to maintain an uneducated underclass
It's all pie in the sky. The Government would never pay for such a fantastically expensive scheme. In many ways it suits them to maintain an uneducated underclass
scifisam
deleted
I voted 18 ... BUT ... with the proviso that if you have failed to gain qualifications by age 16, then there should be some kind of serious remedial education, properly tailored to you, to get you some kind of basic academic or vocational qualification. I envisage a series of nationwide centres, offering a diverse range of courses, but these should be centres of excellence which accept a broad spectrum of pupils, not just those who are (presently) written off at age 16 with no qualifications. Perhaps there could even be a residential element to this.
It's all pie in the sky. The Government would never pay for such a fantastically expensive scheme. In many ways it suits them to maintain an uneducated underclass
If students intending to join sixth form haven't got GCSE English and Maths, then they have to study for equivalent qualifications that are more skills-based - this goes for anywhere that teaches 16-18 year olds. They take these courses at the same time as their other (free) chosen courses.
The rest of what you're asking for already exists too, except for the residential element.
@LMH: Totally agreed, except that the new age limit is 17, not 18.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I am focusing on school as I am trying to examine whether it is feasible to keep disruptive 14+ in the classroom.
You could argue for 'education', ie outside school training, but whatever you are trying to do they need to be open to learning and I am suggesting that if this does not happen - then they should be ejected.
Certainly other forms of 'education' could be offered but I would advise stating that only those actually interested in learning need apply. If they come to it without being open to learning then that would be a waste of their time and the time of whoever is running the 'education' you might envisage.
As relevant as possible, but there will inevitably be some subjects which the student will not want to learn, which are essential (see maths). Stating that the teachers need to enthuse would be just insulting to teachers. The priority has to be the students who are motivated to work. There is a syllabus to get thru and using valuable time trying to persuade a disruptive student that working is a good idea is NOT the teachers job - it is up to the parents to produce children who wish to work.
Some students are just NOT interested in working and they should be thrown out at the earliest opportunity to ensure that those who are prepared to work do not have their education affected by them.
I agree, the schools should be given more freedom to make their own decisions.
If they are not prepared to work and wish to disrupt then whatever education they are forced to attend will be compromised as a learning environment - and the kids who ARE keen to learn will suffer... Would you be happy as a parent of such a kid to get reports that the teacher had to spend so much time dealing with behaviour issues of students forced to attend, that the syllabus was not completed?
Surely they would all choose to just do sport, or art and music... Well that sounds fine I suppose, just so long as those who wish to learn don't have their learning disrupted... The shortfall of science and maths teachers would be solved overnight as they would no longer be needed...
How would you persuade students who refuse to work? Would you hold them back a year until they achieved the standard you expect?
Again, HOW do you force them to study if they choose not to study?
Everyone here would agree (probably) that education should be producing workers with the three R's, computer skills and hopefully critical thinking - but just stating this over and over doesn't answer the question as to what to do if they refuse and decide to disrupt the class for their own (and others') amusement. If we all agree that we have a duty to get them out of the class as quickly as possible to maintain the learning environment then fine - but some here seem reluctant to state this... almost as if their priority is the disrupting student, rather than the student working...
Sure, destroy education by forcing students who want to leave school, to stay in school longer - great idea...
LilMissHissyFit
Disturbed in a pink bra
But you are focusing on SCHOOL...
what everyone else is arguing and you, as usual are completely ignoring is that nobody here is suggesting children should be forced to stay IN SCHOOL.... they should be able after a minimum amount of time in education to have more choice about what they study and where its studied.
Further education colleges apprenticeships, universities,( for the most able) and schools should all be an option for young people, rather than the situation that exists at present where the most disruptive and least able are offered those opportunities at 14 to prevent them being disruptive and everyone else( the children who behave well whatever their achievement level) is offered little choice in what is studied and no choice in where.
I cant see that offering them a choice is a bad thing...if people enjoy a subject they will be motivated to choose it and study it, no matter what it is... once people have mastered a basic level of literacy and numeracy they are then endowed with the skills necessary to learn/study whatever it is that interests them. Why is that a bad idea in your eyes and why is it preferable that they all be forced to study some sort of state determined, politically driven curriculum in order to turn out identically educated factory fodder?
what everyone else is arguing and you, as usual are completely ignoring is that nobody here is suggesting children should be forced to stay IN SCHOOL.... they should be able after a minimum amount of time in education to have more choice about what they study and where its studied.
Further education colleges apprenticeships, universities,( for the most able) and schools should all be an option for young people, rather than the situation that exists at present where the most disruptive and least able are offered those opportunities at 14 to prevent them being disruptive and everyone else( the children who behave well whatever their achievement level) is offered little choice in what is studied and no choice in where.
I cant see that offering them a choice is a bad thing...if people enjoy a subject they will be motivated to choose it and study it, no matter what it is... once people have mastered a basic level of literacy and numeracy they are then endowed with the skills necessary to learn/study whatever it is that interests them. Why is that a bad idea in your eyes and why is it preferable that they all be forced to study some sort of state determined, politically driven curriculum in order to turn out identically educated factory fodder?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Am I not allowed to focus on school? It would seem a good starting point for a thread entitled School Leaving Age...
I am NOT ignoring this because the vote seems to suggest that a large number here are keen to force students to stay at school until 16-18, hardly anyone has voted to allow the 14+ to choose to stay at home. And few have commented on how this policy might impact on the other students.
Choice is fine, but school is also about educating students in the skills that they need to survive in society - ie the three R's etc. I don't think that posters here are suggesting that this should not happen and yet when I ask what should happen if students decide to disrupt rather than work - nothing, no comment or solution just nothing.
Sure and I have no problem with this, but what if they HAVEN'T mastered such basic skills?
I do think that there could be a restricted National Curriculum with the three R's, computer skills and critical thinking - tho a case could be made for the probability of schools doing this themselves if they were given the freedom; but this is a later issue - the key issue is whether we force the 14+ to stay at school if they decide not to work.
Maybe the other posters DO agree that refusal to work should result in removal from the learning environment - leading to other offers of 'education' and the result of persistent refusal finally being sent home - but few here have stated this - indeed the vote suggests that they wish to (somehow) force these students to stay geographically in school, despite refusal to work. How would it help to allow these students to remain at school and refuse to work? I suspect that it would NOT help - but the vote here says clearly that this should occur.
Refusal to work is a basic principle issue - if the student refuses to work then they should be sent home. Up to 14 I would suggest that such a refusal is rare, but at 14 it becomes less rare as the student becomes more conscious and the disruption becomes more serious. Also it hinders the learning environment for others at just the time that education becomes more important and I suspect that the parents of those students who wish to work would prefer the classroom to remain a learning environment.
Again I would state that many people have left school at 14 and been a success as I linked earlier in this thread. In a free society we could allow them to return to education if and when they have decided what they would like to do, and when they have decided to work...
You suggest that I am ignoring other posters but I have taken great care to address everything relevant; but if you feel that I have missed something then please point it out and I will address it.
Similar threads
