School Leavers at 18?

[Matt]

The school leaving age is to be raised to 18 under plans being considered by Education Secretary Alan Johnson.

Youngsters would be forced to stay in education or vocational training unless they had a job with a minimum level of training.

If the proposals go forward, it would be the first change to the school leaving age since 1972, when it was raised to 16.

A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills said Mr Johnson was "definitely looking into it" but it would be "going too far" to say it would certainly happen.

But it was reported that the change would take place by 2013, with youngsters who entered secondary school next year the first to be affected by the new regime.

The Times said a green paper was set to be published in the spring, while Mr Johnson had tasked officials with laying the ground for the move, which will require additional capacity in schools.

Mr Johnson told the paper: "It should be as unacceptable to see a 16-year-old working, with no training, no education, as it is now to see a 14-year-old.

"A 14-year-old at work was common until the (post-Second World War) Butler changes, but now you would find it repellent.

"We should find it equally repellent that a youngster of 16 is not getting any training."

Mr Johnson is also looking at incentives to encourage compliance. One example he has studied from Canada is the withdrawal of driving licences, although the DfES spokesman said that was unlikely to happen in Britain.

Don't these people who come up with these stupid plans realise some people want to finish school a.s.a.p and go to work in the real world? Not everyone wants to be academic and stay in education. . .

Fair enough some people do want to go onto study further after school, but thats what 6th forms and uni are for...Why keep kids in school till 18?

I know some finish school then doss about, sponge of the government, e.t.c, but most either go onto further education or go straight to work, whats the point in wasting a further 2/3 years at school? Its a waste of time as it is!

There are plenty of truency's as it is so whats it gonna be like if they change the leaving age to 18? And i'm sure plenty of those who are sciving of school could/would work, so then you have 16/17/18 year old sciving of school who can't get jobs because there supposed to be at school and whats the use in that? Also people who would be eligible to leave school at an earlier age would be teen parents...I thought Europe was trying to cut the amount of teenage pregnancys...IMO that would just be an easy excuse and way of kids leaving school at and early age...does that make sense?

[samingram_uk]

but we can still leave early if we get a good job, cant we???

[davieG]

Don't these people who come up with these stupid plans realise some people want to finish school a.s.a.p and go to work in the real world? Not everyone wants to be academic and stay in education. . .

Fair enough some people do want to go onto study further after school, but thats what 6th forms and uni are for...Why keep kids in school till 18?

I know some finish school then doss about, sponge of the government, e.t.c, but most either go onto further education or go straight to work, whats the point in wasting a further 2/3 years at school? Its a waste of time as it is!

There are plenty of truency's as it is so whats it gonna be like if they change the leaving age to 18? And i'm sure plenty of those who are sciving of school could/would work, so then you have 16/17/18 year old sciving of school who can't get jobs because there supposed to be at school and whats the use in that? Also people who would be eligible to leave school at an earlier age would be teen parents...I thought Europe was trying to cut the amount of teenage pregnancys...IMO that would just be an easy excuse and way of kids leaving school at and early age...does that make sense?

it doesn't mean you have to stay at school just that you have to carry on receiving a formal education, it could be an apprenticeship for example.

[Matt]

but we can still leave early if we get a good job, cant we???

Don't know...Doubt it.

Anyway what would be considered a "good" job?!

[Flynny]

Urgh. Hopeless.

The government wants more people in further education because there's fook-all jobs for 'unskilled' workers these days. They don't seem to realise that people have skills in different areas and endlessly streaming people down an academic, exam-based route will be failing more people than it'll be helping. It's ridiculous.

[Daggers]

Don't these people who come up with these stupid plans realise some people want to finish school a.s.a.p and go to work in the real world?

Erm...that's the proposal

1. Stay being educated or trained

OR

2. Get a job

[Matt]

it doesn't mean you have to stay at school just that you have to carry on receiving a formal education, it could be an apprenticeship for example.

The way I understand it, It means full time education, an Apprenticeship is part time education because its a day release scheme, could be wrong though.

[Flynny]

The way I understand it, It means full time education, an Apprenticeship is part time education because its a day release scheme, could be wrong though.

Day release scheme? Isn't that what prisoners do?

[davieG]

The way I understand it, It means full time education, an Apprenticeship is part time education because its a day release scheme, could be wrong though.

Youngsters would be forced to stay in education or vocational training unless they had a job with a minimum level of training.

An apprenticeship is vocational training and is a job that would have a high level of training.

[Anish]

Teenage girls getting pregnant simply to get out of school before the age of 18? Hilarious.

[Daggers]

Teenage girls getting pregnant simply to get out of school before the age of 18? Hilarious.

It's no laughing matter.

I've seen conceptions take place just to get out of double maths.

Even I tried it during an arduous Art class.

[Flynny]

It's all the poor Baby Beyoncés I feel sorry for.

[vanfox12]

An apprenticeship is vocational training and is a job that would have a high level of training.

Part of me thinks its a good idea but the other half thinks it's a cynical ploy to keep unemployment down and raise the retirement age to 70. In the past when the leaving age was 14 and 15 before it was raised to 16 in the early 70's people could leave school without a single qualification and walk into a job because there was plenty of work about. Now there aren't many jobs about which don't require at least some basic qualifications and i can understand the point of keeping children in education until their 18 so they are able to walk into a job when they finish. However whats the point of doing this if by the time they reach 18 they still don't have a decent standard of knolwedge in Reading, Writing and arithmetic. I also hope the government doesn't start threatening parents of children over the age of 16 with fines or prison if they don't attend some form of course or training.

For all this to work there needs to be a better choice of courses which are relevant to the needs of the Country and organisations such as the CBI need to get more involved in developing our young people instead of constantly moaning about the lack of skills they have by going into the schools and encouraging not just training and apprenticeships but also placements for those on more academic courses as well. Furthermore there needs to be a an overhaul of the qualifications system with only the brightest or most able doing GCSE and A level Courses or equivalents. For those who are slower learners or less academically inclined they should be encouraged to do more vocational Courses. I know some of these ideas have been discussed before but i seem to agree with some of them.

One thing i don't agree with this government on is trying to get 50% of all students into University, whats the point if half those going to University aren't good enough and even if you are where are all the graduate jobs to meet that sort of demand? Plus who want's to leave University £10,000 - £20,000 in debt?

[Matt]

Part of me thinks its a good idea but the other half thinks it's a cynical ploy to keep unemployment down and raise the retirement age to 70. In the past when the leaving age was 14 and 15 before it was raised to 16 in the early 70's people could leave school without a single qualification and walk into a job because there was plenty of work about. Now there aren't many jobs about which don't require at least some basic qualifications and i can understand the point of keeping children in education until their 18 so they are able to walk into a job when they finish. However whats the point of doing this if by the time they reach 18 they still don't have a decent standard of knolwedge in Reading, Writing and arithmetic. I also hope the government doesn't start threatening parents of children over the age of 16 with fines or prison if they don't attend some form of course or training.

For all this to work there needs to be a better choice of courses which are relevant to the needs of the Country and organisations such as the CBI need to get more involved in developing our young people instead of constantly moaning about the lack of skills they have by going into the schools and encouraging not just training and apprenticeships but also placements for those on more academic courses as well. Furthermore there needs to be a an overhaul of the qualifications system with only the brightest or most able doing GCSE and A level Courses or equivalents. For those who are slower learners or less academically inclined they should be encouraged to do more vocational Courses. I know some of these ideas have been discussed before but i seem to agree with some of them.

One thing i don't agree with this government on is trying to get 50% of all students into University, whats the point if half those going to University aren't good enough and even if you are where are all the graduate jobs to meet that sort of demand? Plus who want's to leave University £10,000 - £20,000 in debt?

But they (Schools and Government) don't wanna know about the slower learners, I was a slower learner and I was always put to the back of the class and not listened/helped very much, surly the slower learners should be the ones getting most help?

Also "Slower learners should be encouraged to do more vocation courses" beleive me, I wanted to do a vocational corse the day I walked into secondary school, along with many other slower leaners I knew, and i'm school they did do a thing called NOVA where kids got took out of school 1 or 2 days a week and went to college to do vocational corses...thing is you had to be one of the trouble maker kids...so surly thats seting a bad example and saying "Hey if your a trouble make you can do part time school and actually do something decent in college"?!? The truth is the school just didn't want the hastle of the trouble maker kids in school so passed them onto college...

Face it school = Academic if you don't learn academically well, the school don't care, all they care about is getting the brighter kids exam results amazingly high so it makes up for the slower learners who "let the school down"

[Leonisco]

In the past when the leaving age was 14 and 15 before it was raised to 16 in the early 70's people could leave school without a single qualification and walk into a job because there was plenty of work about. Now there aren't many jobs about which don't require at least some basic qualifications and i can understand the point of keeping children in education until their 18 so they are able to walk into a job when they finish.

That's cos Britain doesn't have any industry any more - it was all abolished under Thatcher's government. They got rid of all the traditional primary and secondary industries like mining and manufacturing that made this country great, and now all we've got is crappy office jobs and thousands of unemployed working-class.

I hate the way all the posh Tory-voting w*nkers go on about the "council estate underclass", when it was them who created the fvcking problem by taking away all their jobs in the first place.

[hairy]

That's cos Britain doesn't have any industry any more - it was all abolished under Thatcher's government. They got rid of all the traditional primary and secondary industries like mining and manufacturing that made this country great, and now all we've got is crappy office jobs and thousands of unemployed working-class.

I hate the way all the posh Tory-voting w*nkers go on about the "council estate underclass", when it was them who created the fvcking problem by taking away all their jobs in the first place.

The mining and steel went because it was too expensive to extract compared to imports and the manufacturing went because its cheaper to do it in Asia and import it.

By the way we have millions of unemployed.

[James.]

That's cos Britain doesn't have any industry any more - it was all abolished under Thatcher's government. They got rid of all the traditional primary and secondary industries like mining and manufacturing that made this country great, and now all we've got is crappy office jobs and thousands of unemployed working-class.

I hate the way all the posh Tory-voting w*nkers go on about the "council estate underclass", when it was them who created the fvcking problem by taking away all their jobs in the first place.

Wo there Comrade.

Thatcher didn't abolish these industries. It was a massive structural change that was necessary if this country was going to compete on the global economic stage. We now have approaching the most important financial centre in the world in the City Of London, overall we all earn more and enjoy a better quality of life than 20 years ago.

There were some tough times but Thatcher pulled the country out of the "dark ages", the decline in steel, mining etc being more to do with cheaper imports from places like China.

I see no reason why this shift alone takes the Great out of Great Britain?

[Steven]

Wo there Comrade.

Thatcher didn't abolish these industries. It was a massive structural change that was necessary if this country was going to compete on the global economic stage. We now have approaching the most important financial centre in the world in the City Of London, overall we all earn more and enjoy a better quality of life than 20 years ago.

There were some tough times but Thatcher pulled the country out of the "dark ages", the decline in steel, mining etc being more to do with cheaper imports from places like China.

I see no reason why this shift alone takes the Great out of Great Britain?

I am earning less than I was six years ago and the quality of life has gone down in the last ten years.

[James.]

I am earning less than I was six years ago and the quality of life has gone down in the last ten years.

do you blame thatcher?

or yourself?

[Steven]

do you blame thatcher?

or yourself?

Thatcher and Blair.

[James.]

Thatcher and Blair.

it's very easy to blame politicians though isn't it.

[The People's Hero]

I've got a job and work sucks.

Stay in school, losers!

[hairy]

I've got a job and work sucks.

Stay in school, losers!

Then straight to Univ then a Master etc etc etc. Work sucks.

[Thracian]

That's cos Britain doesn't have any industry any more - it was all abolished under Thatcher's government. They got rid of all the traditional primary and secondary industries like mining and manufacturing that made this country great, and now all we've got is crappy office jobs and thousands of unemployed working-class.

I hate the way all the posh Tory-voting w*nkers go on about the "council estate underclass", when it was them who created the fvcking problem by taking away all their jobs in the first place.

I suppose you still believe in Father Christmas.

It was Mrs Thatcher who gave your co-called council estate *underclass* the chance of owning their own house.

It was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to buiild some real collateral and lots and lots of coal miners, car workers and others involved in manufacturing industries were quick to take up that opportunity and many have never looked back since to my personal knowledge.

Without bothering with details, Britain and other countries in the West lost manufacturing jobs because of worldwide factors and those jobs have been lost under Labour and Conservative governments.

I don't know why your class-War rhetoric has burst forth with so much bitterness but it is misplaced and misguided. It is also patronising.

Many workers from manufacturing backgrounds have and do vote Tory.

The nature of work does evolve sometimes. As one need diminishes another arises. It happened in the days of stage coaches when someone invented the steam train.

And, while I lament the loss of manufacturing jobs and the skills that went with them, life moves on.

Other jobs have been created and I would think this much-maligned country of ours still offers as many jobs per head of population as most places in the world.

You should think about that.

About about how many people squeeze onto this tiny island of ours yet live reasonably decent lives?.

And about how many foreigners come here from so many parts of the world - because it is a bloody sight better than where they've come from.

Stop being so prejudiced and enjoy life.

but I don't see places like North Leicestershire have been neglected. The National Forest has helped improve the area as a place to live and there is a much broader range of jobs available

[The People's Hero]

Leonisco actually, isn't entirely wrong... and neither are you Thracian.

I'm not going to be drawn further on this... as it is clearly something which many people feel passionate about and perhaps directly/indirectly involved with, but both of you have something of a point and there is certainly enough evidence and 'fact' to support either argument.

What you see, largely depends on where you're standing.