This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

School leaving age to rise to 18

Scroll to see replies

I did read the article, thank you very much. Hence you'll see more than one mention of 'training' in my original post. Pillock :rolleyes:

Reply 41

X_tatiana_x

Am I wrong to think this...or will raising the school leaving age do the opposite of what the government intended by lowering the overall standard of education? For example, at this moment in time, the leaving age is 16 and the GCSEs is seen as an important step towards the childs future, distinguishing whether a child can go to college, what course he/she can study and etc. Now suppose that the leaving age has increased to 18 and the student realises that even if he or she were to get low GCSEs he would still get into college or get an apprentiship, surely that student will realise that the GCSEs are no longer of such importance and will work less harder in his/her secondary years (I know I certainly would!).
In addition to that, supposing that a 16 year old has finished his GCSEs and has low grades. What will happen then? Will the government decide what the student should do? What if he wants to go to college but has, say, only 4 A*-C? Surely the entry grade for colleges and sixth froms will decrease with the number of students having to contunue their education... and if that happens, those students with high GCSE grades will ask for a college for people with higher grades, thinking that students with lower grades will be disruptive and teaching standards will decrease . If the government were to answer these requests and have colleges for students of a higher ability and colleges for lower ability students, then surely they would have introduce segregated education back to Britain - the thing that they rid themselves of a long time ago.

Reply 42

abc101

This is absolutely ridiculous. At 16, you are old enough to have your own place, be married, have a job. Why the hell should the government be able to force you to stay at school?

It's not fair on people to make them stay at school if they don't want to, it's their choice.

There's enough of an incentive with EMA, so the people who want to do A-Levels and are capable of doing them are more likely to stay on anyway.

All this will do is force kids who don't want to be there to go to school and disrupt the learning of all the kids who want to be there. It's a stupid idea, and I hope it is dropped.

*Slams head on desk*

Lib North

There's too many 15 and 16 year olds in state schools that obviously don't want to be there and just disrupt the learning process for everybody else.

We don't need more...

Exactly. Furthermore, for those who wish to pursue medicine or law will be a student for six years from university onwards before they are actually a doctor or a lawyer respectively. Prolonging secondary education for two years could put people off from these two professions because of their lengthy education course.

Reply 45

TSR Community Staff

NDGAARONDI

But noting will be prolonged. Maybe you misunderstand hat is being proposed.

If you plan to become a doctor, say, you would finish your GCSEs at 16/Year 11. Then you would chose to go to a college or Sixth Form to complete A Levels during years 12 and 13/ ages 17 and 18. After which you apply to univeristy for the medicine course.

That is what you do now, that is what you'll do in the future. Nothing will change for you.

All that is changing is for those children (and I use the word children there on purpose) who would leave school at 16, many of which maybe have poor qualifications to start with, espeically in English and Maths. Everyone will not be required to so some sort of education or training from 16 up to 18. It could be the A Levels for those who choose that path. It could be an apprenticship or those who wish to do that. Those who seriously want stright into a job which doesn't have aprenticeships will have to do some sort of on the job training....not sure what this entials yet myself, but I suppose it could be basic key skills to improve literacy and numeracy skills or it could be some sort of basic training for the job they are doing to help significantly further their career options within that field.

Reply 46

Wangers

I am cautious to these reforms. Because I can see the potential benifits, however making it legally necessary could be alianating a large proportion of the population.

Some that are able to go into work immediatly at 16 should be allowed to. Those that clearly have more independent tendacies would only find this policy restricting and resort to disruption as a outlet for resentment.

I think the goverment should not force people into school . Ths will involve more educational spending - the cost effectiveness of which it will have to justify. - leading to statistics and a perpetual drive towards superficial improvement in results.

Reply 47

an Siarach

Charlieee

Personally I think this is a bad idea, although I can see why the government wants to do this.

Its a ****ing terrible idea and absolutely typical of Labours laughably pathetic attempts at "promoting" more education by making a right royal mess of it. Already with the leaving age at 16 you get far too many kids kept in school when what is taught is utterly irrelevant to them. Their time is wasted, their disruptive behaviour wastes the time of academically inclined kids and of the teachers. Raising the age to 18 will just waste another 2 years for a great number of kids who would have left school at 14 to take up a trade or someother form of meaningful work/general existence had they not been kept in school aimlessly.

Reply 48

Wez

X_tatiana_x
an Siarach
Boo
NDGAARONDI
(possibly Wangers)

Have you read the article?

What you're arguing against isn't actually proposed in the article (as has been pointed out numerous times already in this thread).

ForeverIsMyName

*Slams head on desk*

I know how you feel.

Reply 49

username81904

the article implies that carrying on to sixthform will be optional. How is that any different to what it is now?

Reply 50

Wez

cookiejest

the article implies that carrying on to sixthform will be optional. How is that any different to what it is now?

"Young people will be required to stay in school, training or workplace training until the age of 18."

Currently they're not required to get training or workplace training if they drop out of school to the best of my knowledge.

Reply 51

username81904

"This will not mean that pupils have to stay in the classroom or continue with academic lessons"

It says they must stay in training. That could be 2 hours a week in collage while the rest of the week is doing whatever they would be doing anyway.

Reply 52

Wez

It could, but I'm going to wait for more details first.

Reply 53

leenick

Telegraph

More than one in six young people leave school unable to read, write and add up properly and the proportion of 16- year-olds staying on in full time education in the UK is below the average for developed countries.

So lets assume one of the reasons behind this proposal was to improve literacy. This in itself should be a worthy goal, but will it really lead to the benefits it desires?

How reasonable is it to assume that low graded GCSE English pupils will be able to improve their literacy during an Alevel English course? Even worse, like the OP suggested, if the majority of children not wanting to be there were disruptive you have the domino effect of it lowering the attainment of other children in the classes through a monopoly on teacher time or other negative social nuances.

To take the disruptive effect of these 'bad' children further, it is not entirely unforeseeable to see it leading to an actual reduction in the average literacy of other children in the class therefore just making the entire problem it aimed to solve worse.

The problem we have, that is trying to be addressed is social. There's a reason so many people are leaving education early in comparison to other countries. And I'd be willing to place bets that its the same reason we have drunken chav gangs and 16yr old mums with council flats. By forcing these types to stay in school longer, we are only going to hurt those that are not already effected by this section of society. What needs to be done is a long term address of this social problem. Kids in school will then rise as a matter of course.

My suggestion is that the social problem be solved, inducements be thought up, as well as the level of support increased (I myself got none). Some form of one to one councillor should be given to every state child to clearly explain their choices and what's available to them. This should be done either during Year 11, or the proceeding holidays. Forcing kids into training or worse, forcing bad kids to stay with good students, will only serve to harm our country.

Reply 54

TSR Community Staff

leenick

At the moment the situation is that all that want to be in further education make a concious decision to be so. Therefore you have a much better class, and a more responsive and available lecturer.

As I understand the article, children under the age of 18 will be kept in education of sorts, whether this be the IB, Alevels, or some other form of NVQ or training course. Naturally, the majority of people will stick with the IB/Alevel route as that's what their school will promote, leading to the situations I'm about to describe.

Its a terribly bad idea, and let me tell you why. Rather than using the BBC source, I'd like to quote that of the Telegraph;

So lets assume one of the reasons behind this proposal was to improve literacy. This in itself should be a worthy goal, but will it really lead to the benefits it desires?

How reasonable is it to assume that low graded GCSE English pupils will be able to improve their literacy during an Alevel English course? Even worse, like the OP suggested, if the majority of children not wanting to be there were disruptive you have the domino effect of it lowering the attainment of other children in the classes through a monopoly on teacher time or other negative social nuances.

Why would this be the case? Why would a school want to promote itself to pupils who you say will not benefit, and will do nothing but bring own the reputation of the school and make the work for teachers harder? Why would a school promote ideas to kids when this would be the outcome?

The truth is they wouldn't. One, because of the reasons above - schools would be glad to be rid of troublesome pupils and pupils who are not suited to studying the courses they offer. And two, because if a school was promoting and encouraging children to do courses not suitable for then, perhaps by not providing a correct level of career choice so all the options were shown to the kids, then the school would get slatted in any inspections which took place for failing to provide sufficiently for children.

So it's a very niave view that schools would automatcially try to keep everyone on at their sixth form. It just wouln't happen with those kids ho currently don't stay on in education at all....and when you look at the facts, most of those who currently leave all education, even many of those who don't stay on at their schools sith form won't have the min requirements to go there....my school needed 4 Cs at GCSE to stay on, I know of places which require 4Bs. Those who leave all education (ie those who will benefit more from this) will not have anywhere near those qualifications by 16, they might be lucky to have 4 GCSEs gades A*- G full stop, never mind 4 higher passes. It's lear they are not suited to A Levels, the schools would find it very difficult to educate them in A Levels alongside those who would already be going. It just wouldn't happen in a responsible school or college.

Reply 55

Ezekiel

It’s a good move but I think it’s a gesture so Tony Blair can be remembered for something other than Iraq.

Reply 56

leenick

Roger Kirk

Why would this be the case? Why would a school want to promote itself to pupils who you say will not benefit, and will do nothing but bring own the reputation of the school and make the work for teachers harder? Why would a school promote ideas to kids when this would be the outcome?

Actually, I never said it would bring down the reputation of the school, but I do agree with it nevertheless. The reason schools would likely promote their own sixth forms over other training for the simplest reason - funding. The same reason many further education colleges make General Studies/critical thinking/citizenship/keyskills compulsory. They need not worry about their league table position if they have an almost guaranteed intake.

Roger Kirk

So it's a very niave view that schools would automatcially try to keep everyone on at their sixth form. It just wouln't happen with those kids ho currently don't stay on in education at all

It is also a very naive view to assume that entry grades would still be factor in a system where post 16 education/training is compulsory. However I think you have ignored the crux of my dialogue. I care not what the reasons a school would promote itself. That was only a sentence or two in my rather long winded post. I only care about forcing kids into a further two years with disruptive pupils which take away lecture time from the other kids which wish to actually learn. Maintaining the status quo is the better option.

It is my hope that the effect of this law is minimal. In that I mean that the disruptive people I've previously mentioned will instead go into apprenticeships or other work based training schemes, leaving those that require a "learning atmosphere" to have it. Their education should not suffer because some guy in Whitehall wants to up the numbers on a spreadsheet.

Reply 57

TSR Community Staff

leenick

The very well do have to worry about their league table position, as if they were to drop down their intake woul certainly fall, even if over all the number of people going to 6th forms and colleges increased over all. They would lose their own pupils leaving year 11 to other schools. There would be fewer people coming to them from other schools as elsewhere would have the better reputation.

Certainly increased funding from increased intake might be what happens for the first couple of years, but after that the if they take on students who are not suitable for A Levels, the behaviour will drop, the results will drop and each will lead to further deterioration of the other. The reputation woul fall, fewer people would want to go there. Intake woul drop, funding would drop, perhaps well below what they did have before. Added to this, the staff would have a tougher job. They would become unhappy. Many may want to leave. The school could lose it's best teachers and most experienced staff whcih woul lead to futher drops in standards.

So why would a school want to take on pupils which are not suited for the qualifications they offer?

But those kids you call dsiruptive most likely, under normal circumstances, not be educated in a lesson or lecture style full time course. There is much more out there than those qualifications like A levels on offer and what I said above can explain why those 'disruptive' pupils for whom A Levels etc are not the right course woul not be foreced on to such courses to cause disruption to those who wih to study them. they woul istead be advised on a route which would be of more interest to them and on which they woul normally be able to go ahead with ahppily or else would have little formal classroom contact with other students.

It is my hope that the effect of this law is minimal. In that I mean that the disruptive people I've previously mentioned will instead go into apprenticeships or other work based training schemes, leaving those that require a "learning atmosphere" to have it. Their education should not suffer because some guy in Whitehall wants to up the numbers on a spreadsheet.

Indeed, that is what is expected by myself and anyone else I've seen talk about this. It is the most sensible and obvious route such a change as this will take and will be the way to ensure the best for all pupils and the best for any establishment offering any 16-18 options, be that a school, sixth form, college, employer, business or anything else.

Reply 58

Korny

Personally, i think that such a move would be a good one. It would greatly help further educate the population (benefits pretty much all surroundings, saving the details which to a large extent i'm certain have been covered).

The underlying counter-argument that i see here is that some feel that by forcing people to study until they are 18, entry standards to universities etc will be lower, and those unwilling to continue studies will demotivate others and inflict damage on their educational experience. I have no clue why, by forcing children to continue studies until at least 18 would lower entry standards to universities. They will still, just like now, have the ability to select prime students. And thus it is in the interest of each student to do well in order to go to a good university, rather than soon relying on some potentially lower entry requirements. Aside from this, even if one desires to study at a higher level (i.e. university) then they would truly have to undertake a program such as the A-Levels which finish when 18. Universities, too, have problems and are reluctant accepting students under 18.

However, i feel strongly though that you can't really impose a strict age till when you should be studying. In my opinion it should be more centred about the level of education you finish at, as this provides a basic foundation of solid education. For instance i know a 16 yr old who graduated from the IB program last year- and so, already finishing the equivalent of the A-Level's i don't think he should be forced to still study until 18 bang on the dot. Yet, the general idea of prolonging the level to which one should continue their studies is in my opinion a very beneficial one.

Reply 59

Angelil

Korny - out of interest, how much do you know about studying in England? I see you're from Poland...

While universities do have the opportunity to select prime students, this doesn't stop new universities from opening, or colleges being given university status, that still 'select' students, but only as far as giving offers of DDD can be called 'selecting'. I wouldn't call this 'selecting prime students'.

It also concerns me that expectant mothers will be exempt from staying in education or training until 18 - as someone already mentioned earlier in the thread, it's perfectly feasible that teenagers will deliberately get pregnant in order to get out of it.

Roger Kirk - it's true that schools *shouldn't* persuade students to pursue paths of education that aren't right for them. But the fact is, many do. My school (considered by many to be a good all-girls state school with over 80% achieving 5 A*-C at GCSE) seemed to take the line when we were in Year 13 that if you weren't applying to a university then you were an oddity - if you didn't apply to university then they kept on asking what you were going to do with your life after finishing at school. I think part of the problem is that entry requirements to sixth-form are lower now than they used to be (not sure if this is a national thing or just something that occurred in my area). The year group before us could only take on an A Level subject if they had achieved a B in the subject at GCSE. In our year, this was lowered to a C, and I think the gap just becomes too big. There were students in our history class who had achieved C grades being taught alongside people who had achieved A*, and I think it's unfair for the pupils to be made to feel frustrated (either by feeling stupid next to cleverer students or by feeling like they're held back while the teacher explains things to weaker students). It's also unfair on the teachers to have to differentiate for such a wide range of abilities - I think that there has to be some point where such vast differentiation of teaching methods becomes impossible. Lowering the entry requirements to sixth-form also means that people stay on who may not/should not have stayed on otherwise - and this leads to certain universities accepting people who perhaps shouldn't be in university education, simply because they too are able to lower their entry requirements. (Look at how many posts are in the 'General University Discussion' forum from people who feel they shouldn't be at university, are looking to drop out, feel they're on the wrong course and so on.) So in response to your original point - yes, schools shouldn't persuade/allow pupils to take paths that aren't right for them, but it does happen, and it has a knock-on effect that I don't believe to be a good one.

Phew, not a short answer!