Leaving age to raise to 18?

[oldspice]

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?

[oldspice]

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?

If you read my post CAREFULLY you will note that I say "if they are UNWILLING to get a job then they should receive no benefits".  I did not make mention of job availability. Also, you don't have to be ACADEMIC to stay at school, there are vocational courses available and I never said a word about anyonme being too stupid to learn.

I am talking from EXPERIENCE of working with young people who do not want to learn and are staying in education to avoid getting  a job and they are also staying there to get EMA (Educational Allowance) money and have no intention of learning anything.

I am trained to deal with difficult young people and I also train other teachers so I am well qualified to judge that this law will not suit all 16 year olds and  that those who want to should be allowed to leave school and get jobs.

When you have been spat at, sworn at and physically abused for simply doing your job, perhaps you might feel the way I do.

[Forth Bridges]

THIS Apply to ENGLAND ONLY!

also I think there should brunch out to the colleges! give them even more skills

[oldspice]

Well, that's what I am saying - but you cannot fill colleges with people who do not want to be there.

Youngsters already have the option of staying on for more quals or getting a job. It's bad enough that kids are going to college by choice to avoid getting a job (these students refuse to work so they're not getting quals either) but to force them into college or school by law is madness. There will be anarchy and it will be a waste of money.

[Velvet Darkness]

I read your post very carefully oldspice.

No-one could judge whether a person was unwilling or unable to get a job. As there is no visible difference between the two. The end result being the same........ no job!

You appear to be judging ALL teenagers by the experiences you have had which, although to be expected, is unrealistic and unfair.

I am talking from the experience of knowing some of these teenagers personally, not just from a teachers perspective.

You do not have to be trained or qualified (well or otherwise) to be intelligent enough to realise that such a law could not possibly suit all 16 year olds.

But perhaps the ones who are at school for the money are simply trying to get along as best they can in a world that as far as they can see can promise them or offer them nothing.

I personally, IF I were a professional, trained to deal with difficult young people, would be happy to see them in my classroom, knowing that the probable alternative to that in the real world is to have them out on the street or sitting in a hovel somewhere stoned out of their minds.

I am assuming that you knew the kinds of problems that you would be expected to deal with when you took your extremely difficult and emotionally stressful job oldspice?

When you have been spat at, sworn at and physically abused for simply doing your job, perhaps you might feel the way I do.

As a professional trained to deal with these circumstances I would sincerely hope not.

[smurfboy]

I am talking from the experience of knowing some of these teenagers personally, not just from a teachers perspective.

'Just' from a teacher's perspective? I think considering this proposal concerns the future of the education system, a teacher's perspective is pretty damn important. If you had a heart defect would you rather be operated on by someone who knows people with heart defects personally, or 'just' a surgeon?

[oldspice]

How smug you sound! It's all very well saying I should have expected these problems when I took the job on but how would you feel if your children had no teachers because they all got fed up with being abused?

I KNOW that many young people stay in education to avoid getting a job because THEY TELL ME SO! Where we live there are plenty of jobs for young people and I am not judging them all harshly or only looking at it from a teacher's perspective - I have had two teenagers of my own.

Of course I don't want to see young people on the streets getting into trouble - I would welcome them into my classroom but they have to observe behavioural boundaries - if only to respect the right of others to learn in a safe and productive environment.

[Velvet Darkness]

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

VD? Thanks Bounty hunter.  
 

[Velvet Darkness]

If you had a heart defect would you rather be operated on by someone who knows people with heart defects personally, or 'just' a surgeon?

If we are going to be really silly and from your quote above it looks as though we are, then I would rather be operated on by someone who knew what they were doing, not just someone who had read all the right books!

Training does not make you good at what you do. Doctors all over the world have been killing people for decades because although in theory they know what they should be doing they simply cannot DO IT!

IF you do not feel it in your heart (defective or otherwise) then you will never be the best at your job!

This educational system you speak of is not there to provide teachers with somewhere to hangout during the hours of daylight. It is there for the children and IF they are not who you are there for then frankly you would be in the wrong job!

How smug you sound

Do I? That surprises me as smug is the last emotion I am feeling!

[smurfboy]

This educational system you speak of is not there to provide teachers with somewhere to hangout during the hours of daylight. It is there for the children and IF they are not who you are there for then frankly you would be in the wrong job!

It is not there to provide children with somewhere to hang out during the hours of daylight either! What I think Oldspice is saying is that there are some kids who can't quite accept that, and that this law could make that worse. And of course teachers should be there for the kids - that doesn't mean they should sit back and take abuse.

[Velvet Darkness]

No-one should sit back and take abuse, and I think it is wrong that there is not the respect for teachers nowadays that I had when I was in school. It would never have occured to me to even answer a teacher back let alone throw anything at them, but for that I would blame the parents and their lack of supervision at home as much as I would blame anything else.

Also since the day all powers of punishment were effectively taken away from teachers and the police, children have nothing to fear. I was brought up to believe that a healthy dose of fear works wonders with a child intent on mischief of any kind.

When I was young we had all the ideas, but we simply DARE NOT put any of them into practise because we knew our parents would have spanked us and sent us to bed supperless and with a sore bottom!

I would NEVER advocate the 'hitting' of a child, but spanking is a different thing in my mind. And having been both spanked and hit as a child I KNOW what I'm talking about. There is a difference, I would never tolerate anyone hitting any of my kids but I would want them to bring any problems they had to me, and it is a shame that people do not feel comfortable reporting your child's bad behaviour to you as a parent, knowing that you will take care of it.

Mostly in my experience you merely get a mouthful of abuse yourself from the parent in question!

 

[oldspice]

Believe me, any student that enters my classroom, whatever their age, gets a respectful and stimulating environment to learn in. If that were not the case I would not have been chosen to train, observe and assess other teachers and trainee teachers. I have advanced skills status and a wealth of experience in dealing with school refusers, disaffected youngsters and those with learning difficulties. 

I believe passionately in education and in making the best effort to keep youngsters interested in developing their skills but I do not believe that a law that forces young people into education they do not want will make any contribution what-so-ever towards making them better educated or better skilled.

[Velvet Darkness]

Is it right that this would only apply to schools in England? Or is it Britain as a whole?

Just wondering if, when (and if) it all goes through my children would be included. Right now they would jump at the chance of spending more time in school, (my daughter wants to become a doctor and my son has his sights firmly set on being a pilot) but at the moment we live in Wales and I can't move back to England.

 

 

[oldspice]

I suppose it's one of those laws that would have to be adopted by the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies if they agreed with it.

[Velvet Darkness]

Surely it would be better if it could be altered before it actually becomes law to be an optional extra time for those who want it, would appreciate it and would make use of it, rather than compulsory for everyone?

Not that anyone who could make those decisions would take any notice of common sense. Even in small doses it appears to be non-existent in the government today!