cisono Posted 15 January 2007 Posted 15 January 2007 It is not just a question of keeping people in school longer. Largely, it is about making sure they learn enough while they are there. In the American model, you keep people at school longer, but the standards of teaching/learning seems rather low. Is it worth it?!?!?
C-man Posted 15 January 2007 Posted 15 January 2007 I don't see it as a problem. They'll be less yobs on the streets during the week, that's for sure. But personally, I don't mind either way.
Matt Posted 16 January 2007 Author Posted 16 January 2007 I don't see it as a problem. They'll be less yobs on the streets during the week, that's for sure. But personally, I don't mind either way. How does that work? The kids on the street tend to be of the age of 12 to 15 as it is so there of current school age so all highering the age of leaving does is mean the Chav's will grow out of that stage much later and tbh all I can see it doing is creating more truencies...
vanfox12 Posted 19 January 2007 Posted 19 January 2007 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. True but their not all classed as unemployed some are clased as disabled or on sickness benefit. Plus you have millions of Housewives (and House Husbands). The government wants to get more people of benefit and into work but where are the jobs to be filled to get that many off benefit? Also if you're still in Education you're not contributing to the wealth of the economy either. Its just lies, damned lies and statistics.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.