Cut School Leaving Age to 14

Rinoa

says former chief inspector of schools Chris Woodhead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15146240

The school leaving age should be cut to 14, a former chief inspector of schools in England has said.

Sir Chris Woodhead told the Times that this would give less academic students a better chance of learning a trade.

He said it was a "recipe for disaster" to force teenagers to study English and maths right up to the age of 18.

Sir Chris said it was a mistake to make vocational education "quasi-academic" and added that the government had a "Utopian" view of school standards.

He said: "If a child at 14 has mastered basic literacy and numeracy, I would be very happy for that child to leave school and go into a combination of apprenticeship and further education training and a practical, hands-on, craft-based training that takes them through into a job."

Sir Chris added: "Does anybody seriously think these kids who are truanting at 13, 14 are going to stay in school in a purposeful, meaningful way through to 18.

"It just seems to me the triumph of ideological hope over reality."

Yeah. That makes sense.

Percy1983

If I could have left school at 14 I would be better off for it now.

CAN1976

As long as they are leaving to train in a vocation and not just sit on their bums playing PS3, I have no issue.

wymondham

sometimes it takes schools to up to the age of 18 to teach pupils the basics ....!!

ILW

For many, nothing is learned in the last few years at school.

hallmark

IMO almost every problem with schools is nothing to do with schools, it's to do with the benefit lifestyle kids can choose at the end of it.

Try offering a free UK-quality eduction in a 3rd-world country, where the option is quite literally work or starve, & see how much non-attendance or mucking about in class you get. It would be 0%.

Ludicrous situation in this country where we can't FORCE an education worth tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds upon so many teenagers.

Mucking about with classes, shools, lesson, exams, incentives or threats to parents - none of this will do anything whatsoever. Only when the rewards for trying hard at school versus not trying at all approximate something remotely fair -i.e. a huge & justified difference in lifestyle - will any of this change.

(which may well be never).

lemonjelly

A friend of mine has frequently suggested education is "wasted" on the young. Their heart isn't in it. Said friend would like to have kids leave school at 12. They then learn a trade, with the option/opportunity to return to education around the age of 18.

Rinoa

ILW wrote: »

For many, nothing is learned in the last few years at school.

And it costs around £6000 per year per pupil. £24,000 from 14-18.

That money could be put to better use by funding apprenticeships and/or subsidising minimum pay. Few employers can justify paying £5 per hour for 18 year olds, hence why so many are unemployed.

kabayiri

lemonjelly wrote: »

A friend of mine has frequently suggested education is "wasted" on the young. Their heart isn't in it. Said friend would like to have kids leave school at 12. They then learn a trade, with the option/opportunity to return to education around the age of 18.

Yes. Let's face it, some kids are not mature enough in their early teens to understand the value of schooling. There are a number of parents who do not reinforce this value.

To keep these kids in school being disruptive to those who want to study is counter productive.

However!.... education should be a lifelong activity which people can return to as their needs and circumstances permit.

MacMickster

hallmark wrote: »

IMO almost every problem with schools is nothing to do with schools, it's to do with the benefit lifestyle kids can choose at the end of it.

Try offering a free UK-quality eduction in a 3rd-world country, where the option is quite literally work or starve, & see how much non-attendance or mucking about in class you get. It would be 0%.

Ludicrous situation in this country where we can't FORCE an education worth tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds upon so many teenagers.

Mucking about with classes, shools, lesson, exams, incentives or threats to parents - none of this will do anything whatsoever. Only when the rewards for trying hard at school versus not trying at all approximate something remotely fair -i.e. a huge & justified difference in lifestyle - will any of this change.

(which may well be never).

I don't think that many of the no-hoper 14 year olds are even thinking this rationally about their futures.

I would prefer to see these youngsters sent to schools which concentrated 50% of the teaching time on maths and English language, with them being held back and unable to leave until they had achieved GCSEs in both subjects at grade C or above. The other 50% of their time shold be devoted to vocational training. This approach would stop them from disrupting those who actually want to learn in the mainstream schools.

I would not want to see them able to actually leave school at this age. Some would actually make this their goal, whilst some parents would insist that even an able child left school to begin earning and contributing to their beer and fags kitty.

I also can't imagine real employers falling over themselves to provide apprenticeships to what would mainly be the very worst of our 14 year olds, when they don't want to do so with 16 year olds.

wymondham

kabayiri wrote: »

Yes. Let's face it, some kids are not mature enough in their early teens to understand the value of schooling.

I bet most kids don't really understand the value of education .. it's only in later life you draw on it...