The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
How many 14-year-olds do you know that can make contributions to society?
Reply 2
i cannot think of anyone (except maybe the odd 13-14 year old) who would be for this? Nor can i think of any considerable benefits...
No, quite simply it shouldn't.
Reply 4
emmar
Heya

An doing an english debate! Was wondering wat you thought about the school leaving age changing to the age of 14? Pls leave your views and ideas FOR and AGAINST!!tHANKS:smile:


Why do you think GCSEs are too easy or something?
Reply 5
Jobs, training, apprenticeships etc could be opened up for them...wages would drop (which pleases banks and businesses). Not everyone wants to do paper qualifications like GCSEs...we should be aiming to help people achieve, not sideline them into academia.
Reply 6
sr4470
Jobs, training, apprenticeships etc could be opened up for them...wages would drop (which pleases banks and businesses). Not everyone wants to do paper qualifications like GCSEs...we should be aiming to help people achieve, not sideline them into academia.

GCSEs aren't "academia", they're a basic qualification showing competence in the core disciplines. Being able to leave at 16 is already quite low amongst developed countries and loweing it still further would help no-one.
Reply 7
LH
GCSEs aren't "academia", they're a basic qualification showing competence in the core disciplines.


English, Maths and Science are "core disciplines", but what about the rest? Could we not recognise people with practical skills and try to incorporate that aspect into mainstream education? Things like apprenticeships and training for young people are few and far between...

LH
Being able to leave at 16 is already quite low amongst developed countries


I suppose you want our labour laws, social security laws etc to change upwards as well?
Reply 8
In a proper education system people would be able to sit GCSEs at 12. And people often leave without passing the core qualifications. I agree with lowering the leaving age. Some people are just a waste of everyones time at school. If they dont want to take the opportunity of eduction then that is their loss. They only waste the opportunity and everyone elses time if you make them go.

One girl at my school had learning support all the way through school. Her highest GCSE pass was an F and she hasnt had a job since she left. What on earth was the point of that? What a waste of time and taxpayer money.
Reply 9
If the age dropped then they'd need to drop the age at which people receive their NI card to 14 as well. My dad left school at 14 to get a job and he managed fine. However, I think with the modern "chav" and yob culture it may cause problems because some people will simply see it as an opportunity to finally get away and will give them more free time to drink white lightening and smash up bus stops. There's also the issue of exploitation of children. 14 is still very young and I think businesses would seize the opportunity to take on kids who would be paid less, have less workers rights etc and so be easier to take advantage of.

Lowering the age is probably only helpful to poor families who really don't have the money to keep kids at home for another two years and so going out to work is necessary. But the government could help these families in far more effective ways than lowering the school leavers' age I think.
We already have the CBI complaining that post-GCSE school leavers lack the basic english and maths skills to become useful employees - reducing the minimum leaving age would just exasperate this problem even further. The education system is already struggling to imbue even the most basic of knowledge into the children most likely to leave school at 16 any reduction in time that these children spend in education would be disastrous.

One also has to consider the legal responsiblity issue too. At 16 years old an individual has at least some basic legal responsibilities that will allow them to be independant to a fashion. At 14, children are still the responsibilty of their parents and are considered differently under employment legislation. Reducing the school leaving age would mean a raft of new legislation which would, in effect, mean reducing the protections that young people have against unscrupulous employers.
Reply 11
Thud


Lowering the age is probably only helpful to poor families who really don't have the money to keep kids at home for another two years and so going out to work is necessary. But the government could help these families in far more effective ways than lowering the school leavers' age I think.


Leaving school for financial reasons would be horrendous. Parents should not be allowed to take away the opportunity of their children to go into education. I think parents should have a legal obligation to fund their childrens studies until they complete their degree.
Reply 12
14 is the age of full criminal responsibility and this hasnt changed...

As for 16 year olds being useless employees - companies have no problem using them as cheap labour for things like stacking shelves, sweeping floors, packing boxes etc. Hardly requires a good grasp of Maths to do those.
Reply 13
allymcb2
Leaving school for financial reasons would be horrendous. Parents should not be allowed to take away the opportunity of their children to go into education. I think parents should have a legal obligation to fund their childrens studies until they complete their degree.


Think thats a good case for EMA and more grants rather than expecting poor parents to pay for everything. Plus if young people are in employment, they can fund themselvews. But the educational funding system needs to be better implemented.
Reply 14
sr4470
14 is the age of full criminal responsibility and this hasnt changed...

As for 16 year olds being useless employees - companies have no problem using them as cheap labour for things like stacking shelves, sweeping floors, packing boxes etc. Hardly requires a good grasp of Maths to do those.


yes, but the 16 year olds grow up.....

allymcb2
Leaving school for financial reasons would be horrendous. Parents should not be allowed to take away the opportunity of their children to go into education. I think parents should have a legal obligation to fund their childrens studies until they complete their degree.


I agree, but if they can't?
Reply 15
Thud
yes, but the 16 year olds grow up.....


Age =! maturity

As for the parents not being able to afford it, see my post above.
Reply 16
sr4470
Age =! maturity

As for the parents not being able to afford it, see my post above.


sorry didn't see that one.


Age doesn't necessarily = maturity, but that wasn't my point anyway. You were saying that 16 year olds don't need maths to sweep the floor, but I should imagine that maths will be of use to them at some point in their lives unless you're quite happy for people to sweep floors for their whole life?
Reply 17
Well Im against it obviouslly, but if you want some FOR points one could argue that for some failing students who are obviouslly going to fail their GCSEs it may be better to get them involved in skills, or an apprentiship which would be much more useful for them in the long run.
Reply 18
Thud
Age doesn't necessarily = maturity, but that wasn't my point anyway. You were saying that 16 year olds don't need maths to sweep the floor, but I should imagine that maths will be of use to them at some point in their lives unless you're quite happy for people to sweep floors for their whole life?


A lot of people do already...but surely thats better than being a miscreant in class and disrupting education of others? Or being funded by the state, etc etc...

Getting a job in the short term allows them to fund their own education (they can switch to part time employment once starting a course).

Obviously we'd all rather not sweep floors, but someone has to do it. Not everyone walks straight into FE\HE or a good job either.
Reply 19
Bismarck
How many 14-year-olds do you know that can make contributions to society?


Note: the post does not represent my opinion. i personally do believe in society, all it entails and have some socialist leanings.

Margaret Thatcher - ''there is no such thing as society''

If people must look to themselves first and have no such thing as entitlement then why is the first priority, in this case a 14 yr old school leaver, their contribution to a social system?