School leaving age to rise to 18

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6254833.stm

Personally I think this is a bad idea, although I can see why the government wants to do this.
I, like most of you on this forum, went to 6th form to do A levels and although it was hard work sometimes, I enjoyed it and part of that reason was because I was in better surroundings to study as the majority of people also were there to learn and so classes weren't easily disruptive, unlike what it was like during the rest of my secondary education :rolleyes:

If all students had to stay on till 18, 6th form or college would probably just be like what it was at GCSE and you wouldn't be able to have that freedom you have at 6th form now where in most cases you have a more friendly relationship with the teachers as they know you want to learn and are not there because you were told too and more times for discussions and things in class without badly behaved kids disrupting the class etc...

Also, by saying teenage mums are exempt from staying on till 18, wouldn't this make some teenagers want to get pregnant just to quit school early? (I can imagine it happening :rolleyes:

)

Reply 1

NDGAARONDI

16

They can't make up their minds, like most people, as to what adulthood means and what age should it be. Numpties the lot of them.

'Tis a silly idea.

School leaving age set to be 18

What do people think of this proposal, that by 2013 school leaving age will be raised to 18. Doesnt mean you actually have to stay 'at school' looking at the article, but have to be receive training.

Surely there will be people who still waste the chances given to them, so it will just waste money forcing people who dont want to, to stay in some form of education/training etc?

General thoughts on it?......

Reply 4

hannah_dru

2

Good in theory and bad in practice. There are people out there who just don't care about studying and get rubbish grades, and then there are people who just genuinly find school hard. So I don't think it'd benefit either types of those people.

Reply 5

killerbee

12

twas proposed last nov i believe
i think its retarded - another 2 years spent at home is going to cost parents a lot of money, and it would mean that students could potentially be 25 before they finish their 1st degree and start earning

Reply 6

Lola_in_Slacks

It's a terrible idea!

I'm 16 and not at school or working (doing distance learning, but I'll still be classed as one of the people not doing anything). It would be Hell if I was being made to do either of those things.
At 16/17/18 I believe you're old enough and stupid enough to decide if you need to be in college/training or not, and learn from mistakes (if you feel you've made one) when you're older.

Reply 7

Howard

5

General thoughts - good move.

Reply 8

eggd2

2

I think its a good idea, well im 15 im staying on in 6th form, then going to uni, so if the law came in now i wouldnt mind. Also this way there wont be as many people claiming benifits as they have qualifications to do somthing, therefore the goverment will have more money to spend in other areas, more important areas.

Reply 9

Iago

1

killerbee

twas proposed last nov i believe
i think its retarded - another 2 years spent at home is going to cost parents a lot of money, and it would mean that students could potentially be 25 before they finish their 1st degree and start earning

?

This isn't going to affect the usual time for going off into further education. Things will proceed as they do now - most uni applicants will be 18 or 19 and will finish their first degree around the ages of 21 and 22 (in the case of your usual 3 year course).

This will affect those who under the current system leave school at 16 after GCSEs and don't stay in any kind of training. They will now have to go into some kind of vocational training (I assume the government will be accordingly expanding the support network that facilitates this process?) or stay on to get A levels.

That's the impression I get anyway, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm largely for it - it makes sense, and we ought to bring our education system more in line with practice around the rest of the Western world. This is a double-sided thing though, and I would like to see the entering age for school-proper being raised considerably. 4 is a silly age to begin a formal education at.

Reply 10

Howard

5

I'm bound to agree with Education Secretary Alan Johnson who says that it is "repellent that a youngster of 16 is not getting any training".

It's a sign of a very backward nation and it needs to be addressed.

Reply 11

Zerforax

21

When they realise A level grades being obtained are so bad, they will go for the short fix, which is to make them easier, thus devaluing the A levels... and making it even more rediculous to get Uni offers.

Reply 12

2026

15

I would have rather the Government introduced greater incentives to keep people in education, rather than forcing them, however having said that, I do recognise the benefits of keeping people in education till 18 years of age.

Reply 13

Iago

1

I don't think that the main focus of this move is keeping kids in school/college until 18 - it's more a reaction to the current possibility that a 16 year old can leave school after GCSE and then not recieve any kind of training at all. I imagine that this move will be combined with the government's ongoing attempts to increase the depth and scope of vocational training. I can see the argument that it is sometimes pointless to keep a kid in academic institutions until the age of 18, but I don't so much see the argument that 16 year olds should be able to drop off of the 'preperation-for-adult-life' system entirely.

John Dunford, head of the Association for School and College and Leaders, cautioned that "we need to be clear that this is not strictly about raising the 'school' leaving age, but about keeping young people in some kind of education or training until they are 18, most of them full-time, including apprenticeships and work-based training".

Reply 14

Straggler

13

..

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 15

L i b

19

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...

Reply 16

Howard

5

Tom

Care to expand on why it's a good move?

Sure. I think it is an abomination that in one of the most advanced countries in the world that 11% of 16 year olds are not in education or being trained in some other way. It's not good for them or the country.

Reply 17

yawn

17

At the moment according to government statistics, 75% of the school population stay on until 18 years of age anyway.

The government had set a target of 90% of 16-18 staying in education by 2015.

The new proposals would mean that an extra 10% over and above their target would be attained two years earlier.

There will obviously be provision for alternative education bwo vocational training for those who are really not suited to academic study, much in the same way as there is now for disaffected students at the end of key stage 3 (age 14)

Regarding unemployment figures that someone mentioned: Since 16-18 year olds cannot 'sign on' or receive benefits (unless they are estranged from their parents) it's not going to make any difference anyway to any such figures...and we already have EMA (Educational Maintenance Allowance) for those who come from poorer backgrounds to help parents keep them.

What the move will do is provide a well-educated/trained work force for our country. The Learning Skills Council bemoan the fact that Britain has one of the most unskilled workforce in western Europe - the proposals will go quite some way to rectifying that dismal notoriety.

Reply 18

JadedHippy

11

I'm probably biased because I left school at 16, but I feel it's a very bad move. Of course free training/education is nothing to be sniffed at, but the reality is that it is not what is needed in a modern society to be standardized at that age. Most jobs give there own in-house training and that NC in humanities or the odd A-level in whateverology is really meaningless unless it is valued by the person or as a means to an end. We are already (as a country) awash with various training schemes for everybody, and some of us just want to get on with us and get a ground level job at 16 rather than waiting to 18 to do the exact same thing. I suspect one of the main reasons that practically all countries to not have compulsory education untill 18 is because it just does not work well. It's fine when people are very young and easily controlled, but as you get older you start to expect the things you do to have some sort of long term benefit to do.

There are some positives to the scheme though, but I have to catch a train now. I'll type them up later.

Jaded

Reply 19

Q.E.D

12

I can see what the government are trying to do. Imo, raising the age for compulsary schooling to 18, however, will not solve the problem of a highly unskilled workforce. By the age of 16, you have to let people do what they want to do with their lives. If kids do not want to be in school, they will learn nothing, even if they stay there till they are 80. Greater variety and greater emphasis must be put on profesional training- apprenticeships, and other skill based stuff...
q.e.d

School leaving age to rise to 18

Related discussions

Articles for you