Cut School Leaving Age to 14

IronWolf

Children in this country are never going to be as motivated as those in third world countries, they are not exposed to the harsh realities of life and death. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so, I'd rather live in a country where people weren't suffering and maybe children are a bit spoilt, than to live in a country where children had to walk 10 miles to get to school where the incentive is a free meal.

chewmylegoff

the trouble is that i rather doubt the people who gain nothing out of going to school will gain anything more out of doing some sort of vocational training either - because they are likely to treat whatever training they receive with the disdain that they treat school. and if there were actually any jobs at the end of it, then companies would already be taking in apprentices at 16 in order to fill any skill void - if that was happening then youth unemployment wouldn't be what it is.

further, schools would no doubt use this sort of thing as an opportunity to dump anyone who might drag their exam results down.

Idiophreak

CAN1976 wrote: »

I'm all for more education for kids, but unless they want to be there and are capable of learning at the level being taught, then what's the point? A non academic pupil would be better off learning plastering, plumbing etc rather than than differentiation. Basic literacy is of course a must have.

I don't know how branding certain pupils (let's face it, it'll end up being any kid that's considered "a handful" or not the sharpest tool in the shed) as "non-academic" and passing them over for someone else to cope with really helps the individual child or society as a whole in the longer term.

Pennywise

I've always believed that the problem lies in the way that kids are pushed up from year to year whether or not they are up to the required standard.

There's no point in trying to teach someone science if they aren't basically numerate and no point teaching languages to someone who isn't basically literate, yet that's what happens. OK, there may be remedial classes for the basics, but the poor sods still have to face other lessons which they're not going to have a hope in hell's chance of understanding, making them feel worse and even less inclined to behave or try.

The "year" system should be made far more flexible, so that people progress according to their ability and progress rather than by date of birth. For those really struggling, there should be no issue about them being "kept back" to re-do the year in the hope of making more progress second time around. OK, it may appear de-motivational, but not half as bad as wasting your entire education stressed trying to catch up and not half as bad as a carp job or benefits for life, and anyway if it was mainstream and happened a lot, there'd be less stigma.

I speak from personal experience. I had a bad few years leading for very poor exam results, so stayed back and re-took a year, which led to decent O Levels then decent Levels and then a decent profession. I could have given up or struggled on, but instead I bit the bullet and sat lessons with kids a year younger which after the first few days of novelty was soon forgotten by me and them.

As for leaving at 14, yes, that's fine if it's for some decent training and career opportunity. Not for a dead end job and not for sitting at home doing nothing.

Butterfly_Brain

Fine if there are jobs available but there are not.... too many engineering jobs have been sent abroad and the HS laws in this country are far too nambypamby.

I am all for teaching those who don't want to stay on at school in a vocational college, Teach them skills that will help them in the future.

In the early 60's and into the early 70's Children were taught typing ,cookery( Not the stupid way that it is done now, all nanny state and no substance - I mean hands on cooking, proper cheap filling meals) gardening/farming, metal working skills, carpentry skills, sewing etc

I remember the YTS scheme (Cheap labour doing work for carp all, and in so doing stopping older people getting a proper job with a decent wage)
Apprentiships are not much better at £2.60 ph
My DH did an apprentiship in Electrical engineering in the 70's and when he passed his qualifications he was told that there was no job for him as were thousands of other apprentices.

Some children are academics and some are good with their hands so yes in principle I agree with them leaving school at 14 but to go on to a vocational course not to sit at home or loitering on the streets doing nothing.

The_White_Horse

as someone said earlier, there is no massive difference in lifestyle between those who come out of school with zero exams and those with lots. if you work hard, get a decent job (40k ish) you will struggle to buy a small house (in or near london) pay your bills and have a "decent" lifestyle. meanwhile the layabout will get given a free house and enough benefits for his booze and fags. what more does he want?

yes, some people want more, but in the chav underclass, a roof, tv and money for booze and fags is all that is required for a good time.

lemonjelly

Rinoa wrote: »

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.

Apprentices don't receive £5 an hour.
Current NMW rates

There are different levels of NMW, depending on your age and whether you are an apprentice. The current rates (from 1 October 2011) are:

• £6.08 - the main rate for workers aged 21 and over
• £4.98 - the 18-20 rate
• £3.68 - the 16-17 rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18
• £2.60 - the apprentice rate, for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/TheNationalMinimumWage/DG_10027201

Those poor, poor employers can't afford apprentices may backside!

Flight2quality

Percy1983 wrote: »

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

Me too. Start your life earlier.

The longer you put off working and climbing the ladder of life the harder it will be.


some people leave school (uni) in their late 20's, then end up working in a fast food dump.

If they did that when they were 14 not so bad and start learning about real life, those with some get up and go will do well for themselves.

Kennyboy66

Another peverse idea from the person who once said sexual relationships between pupils and teachers could be "experiential and educative on both sides".

Not a single country in Europe has a school leaving age less than 15.

The more sucessful economies (Germany, Holland) have a leaving age of 18, although that would include part time education with vocational training.

Seems like another Tory wet dream to send us back into the Victorian age.

Kennyboy66

lemonjelly wrote: »

Apprentices don't receive £5 an hour.
Current NMW rates

There are different levels of NMW, depending on your age and whether you are an apprentice. The current rates (from 1 October 2011) are:

• £6.08 - the main rate for workers aged 21 and over
• £4.98 - the 18-20 rate
• £3.68 - the 16-17 rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18
• £2.60 - the apprentice rate, for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/TheNationalMinimumWage/DG_10027201

Those poor, poor employers can't afford apprentices may backside!

To be honest Lemonjelly, an employer in many occupations would get very limited value out of an apprentice for at least a year. I am thinking plumbers / electricians etc, etc.

In fact they are more trouble than they are worth in many cases.
I know many small tradesman who would not take an apprentice on even if the government paid them to.