Leaving age to raise to 18?

[smurfboy]

The government is considering raising the minimum school leaving age to 18. Education Secretary Alan Johnson said: '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.'

On one hand I agree, but on the other hand, should we really be forcing kids to stay at school if they really don't have the inclination to? I know we're all supposed to say 'you can do anything you want to if you put your mind to it' now, but you can only work with the raw materials you have. The fact is some kids just aren't academically minded and would be better off going into a job where they could earn themselves some money and develop a work ethic.

Your thoughts?

[goldencup]

There might be more point in it if they were teaching more life skills.  But I would pity the poor teachers who stuck with a class full of young adults (old enough to be legally married) who don't want to be there. Plus it wouldn't help the ones who do actually want to carry on learning.

As long as they make the girls wear uniform all the way through I think this is a good idea.  

Also maybe a lot of young people will be more receptive at 17 and 18 and will find those extra two years really worth while, both academically and for their own development.

[oldspice]

I don't agree with this proposal at all. Addiotnally, I don't agree that youngsters who work at 16 have received no education or training. It is perfectly possible that a bright 16 year old could leave school with 5 or more good GCSE grades and receive training on-the-job in his/her chosen profession.

Equally, it is possible for a 16 year old to have done badly in his/her GCSEs but be perfectly happy in a job where training is offered. I would much rather they were in the workplace than in school against their wishes or on benefits.

However, if 16 year olds are not willing to stay in education or training and are not willing to get a job, they should receive no benefits what-so-ever and the parents should not receive child benefit for them.

I already have the problem of dealing with unwilling students who are in college reluctantly because they get 30 per week EMA money (if they qualify) and they would rather be there, causing me grief, than be out working.

Only yesterday a student threw his pen at me and called me a bitch because he did not want to take part in a lesson that other students were enjoying. I am told by the college that this student has 'problems' and that he cannot help his behaviour, therefore I should be willing to be abused verbally and physically to save him from being on the streets. Every time he is in the classrooom (when he turns up) I have problems of this sort. My impression is that  if education is such a trial for him he should either be in a job, or if his problems are so bad they cause this sort of anti-social behaviour he should be in a psychiatric ward.

 

Oldspice makes some good points.  I have to say that there does seems to be an extra set at college nowdays, that weren't there 20 years ago.  There are still the academic, well behaved, well spoken sorts; but you now have an increasing number of oiks and the like at college.  I wonder if some these go for college as an easy option.

The incident with the guy calling Oldspice a bitch and throwing the pen is outrageous and unacceptable.  I doubt whether this person should be in further education and would probably benefit from sort sort of community placement.  In my grandfather's day he would not be able to sit down yet.  Mind you he would probably have been in a coal mine but you get my point.  I have a lot of admiration for teachers.  My sister is one, and I know it's no bed of roses.

Bye the way, I was serious about the uniform.  

*Slaps own wrist*

[kevvosa]

Girls don't like wearing school uniform, at least not from what I remember. 

I think you might be right.  Although most of them do look jolly spiffing in them.  
 

At certain age that is.

[lorri]

i think its ridiculous to force them to stay on, its tough enough now for the ones that want to learn trying to do so in the same class as  15yr old that dont let alone 17 & 18 yr olds, they are very aware that they can disrupt lessons and in some cases threaten teachers with very little come back as teachers authority has over time  been taken away by political correctness gone mad.The money that will be spent employing more teachers and chasing up yet more truants would be better spent improving the further education of the ones that want to be there in my opinion.

[Velvet Darkness]

However, if 16 year olds are not willing to stay in education or training and are not willing to get a job, they should receive no benefits what-so-ever and the parents should not receive child benefit for them.

If they hate school because they are not in any way academic, and they cannot get a job because there are none for them, (contrary to the beliefs of some people, not everyone who is on benefits is on benefits because they like it!!!) and their parents receive no child benefit money for them how exactly are they supposed to live if they cannot claim benefit for themselves? No money for food, no money for clothes!

Still I suppose if they all die it will solve the problem of what to do with them wouldn't it? Or we could just put them all in some kind of containment facility for being too stupid to learn and too unfortunate to live outside in the rest of the world!!!

Or perhaps we could just shoot them?

My impression is that  if education is such a trial for him he should either be in a job, or if his problems are so bad they cause this sort of anti-social behaviour he should be in a psychiatric ward.

How neat and tidy your world must be.

------------------------------------------------------------ ---

Smurfboy.

My first thought was that compulsory education for 2 extra years would get these poor unfortunate creatures off the unemployment lists and so would effectively bring the numbers of unemployed way down. Could this be part of what this is all about?

I can only comment on behaviour or attitude, I have no axe to grind with people on benefits.  Education should be available to all, irrespective of their means.

Maybe the government haven't thought this through.  I want everyone to achieve thier best at school and if that means they stay on a little, fair enough, buit maybe it's not for everyone.  Making it a prescriptive thing might not be a good idea.

[Velvet Darkness]

The government, having already offered to pay children to stay at school have obviously found that bribary didn't work so now another way must be found.

It would be a shame if students who didn't want to be there spoiled it for the rest, who genuinely wanted to take advantage of further education. A disruptive influence in class is bad for not only the pupil and teacher involved but for everyone, as it makes concentration and absorption of the lesson being taught impossible.

I have nothing but admiration for good teachers, who face the possibility every day of being pelted by flying objects by one or more disaffected students. How on earth you would stand up for yourself against an angry teen that has no respect and no fear I do not know.

My grandfather would have advocated conscription for all those who did not want to stay in school voluntarily. I suppose in his day it would have worked too, but I doubt the masses would go for it nowadays.

[loulou]

I think we will see an increase in teenage pregnancies as young girls will see it as an option for getting out of staying on at school.

Sensible words from one so young.

Our replies crossed in the post.  I was referring to VD's words.