What happens to CTC CB HB CTB when child turns 16?

dktreesea

daviecol wrote: »

In my experience they all need a 'little push' into the big world of work.

Being 'harsh' and making them stand on their feet as an adult is part of your job as a parent.

Well done you!

And what of the vast majority of youngsters who want to work, who pound the pavements handing out their CVs and hardly ever receive so much as an acknowledgement, let alone an interview or a job?

It's amazing the number of people on this forum who assume anyone on benefits is not working and the undeserving poor. Or that NEETS are just sitting around at home doing nothing. What is the point of wasting money sending children onto further education if they are only being offered courses that don't interest them? We need more work based schemes where teenagers can work, with maybe a day a week or a couple of night a week at college to improve their qualifications.

Instead the message from the government when it comes to the children of the poor seems to be clear: If you stay in school then we will pay you, via your parents, something to live on and something for accommodation, plus we'll give you a grant directly (be that EMA outside of England or a grant). But if you quit without a job to go to (pretty much par for the course in this day and age in most, if not all, of Britain), the only way you can then get any support is to become homeless, because we are going to cut the funds that go to your parents to support you.

And that's a policy some of you - the ones who are advocating the poor will have to survive on a tighter budget - which by the way, means robbing money provided to support their younger ones so that their older ones can eat and taking money away from all their children so they can meet the shortfall in their rent - think is great??!! Shame on you! No wonder we have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe. It's the only way some of these teens can survive.

dktreesea

jellyhead wrote: »

but isn't it better to do a course they are not suited to (or change to a less demanding one) than drop out to do nothing at all? Courses take up a small portion of the week, so there's plenty of time to search for work, do work experience, etc.

Wouldn't it be better to try to scrape a pass in the course than drop out and do nothing?

This is the requirements for childcare, a heavily oversubscribed course, at our local college:

"Course Requirements:
You should normally be 18 years of age at the start of this course. You should have 2 - 3 Highers including English. However each application is considered on an individual basis and relevant experience will be considered. Practical experience of working with children is also an advantage. 2 references are required and a Disclosure Scotland check will be conducted. Relevant IT skills are desirable."

Colleges these days don't seem to be targeting 16 and 17 year old school leavers, who may have quite a few GCSEs or standard grades, but no highers.

I realise there is competition for courses, but to create a situation where 16 and 17 year olds can't even get into further education courses of their choice due to lack of qualifications (are highers/A levels really necessary for college courses?), let alone get a job is ludicrous.

And no, I don't see the point of them taking an FE course they are not particularly interested in. For one, it's a waste of tax payers money. And college is even more of a grind work wise than school, especially the full time courses. How are they going to work and do their course? They shouldn't have to.

jellyhead

dktreesea wrote: »

And what of the vast majority of youngsters who want to work, who pound the pavements handing out their CVs and hardly ever receive so much as an acknowledgement, let alone an interview or a job?

It's amazing the number of people on this forum who assume anyone on benefits is not working and the undeserving poor. Or that NEETS are just sitting around at home doing nothing. What is the point of wasting money sending children onto further education if they are only being offered courses that don't interest them? We need more work based schemes where teenagers can work, with maybe a day a week or a couple of night a week at college to improve their qualifications.

Instead the message from the government when it comes to the children of the poor seems to be clear: If you stay in school then we will pay you, via your parents, something to live on and something for accommodation, plus we'll give you a grant directly (be that EMA outside of England or a grant). But if you quit without a job to go to (pretty much par for the course in this day and age in most, if not all, of Britain), the only way you can then get any support is to become homeless, because we are going to cut the funds that go to your parents to support you.

And that's a policy some of you - the ones who are advocating the poor will have to survive on a tighter budget - which by the way, means robbing money provided to support their younger ones so that their older ones can eat and taking money away from all their children so they can meet the shortfall in their rent - think is great??!! Shame on you! No wonder we have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe. It's the only way some of these teens can survive.

I agree that we need more work-based courses. I did a YTS when I dropped out of 6th form. Everyone moaned about them and called them slave labour, but I think the apprenticeships that are around nowadays (paying about £90 I think?) are probably similar.

However I disagree that getting pregnant is the only way for teens to survive. Why can't they stay in college until they find work? It's only a few hours a week, it's not as time consuming as school. These teens are not usually starving and homeless (but those who are should be given all that they need) - all they need to do is stick to a few hours a week at college. There are all kinds of courses for all different abilities.

Also, there's the Connexions service which can help them find something - if they are registered with them then the parent still gets child benefit.

What did the other people in this thread do at age 16-18? I did a YTS when I dropped out of 6th form, while waiting for college in September. I also had a weekend job and a paper round, although I appreciate that it's not so easy to get work nowadays. I bet not many of you were NEETS at 16-18, or at least not for the whole 2 years.

jellyhead

dktreesea wrote: »

This is the requirements for childcare, a heavily oversubscribed course, at our local college:

"Course Requirements:
You should normally be 18 years of age at the start of this course. You should have 2 - 3 Highers including English. However each application is considered on an individual basis and relevant experience will be considered. Practical experience of working with children is also an advantage. 2 references are required and a Disclosure Scotland check will be conducted. Relevant IT skills are desirable."

Colleges these days don't seem to be targeting 16 and 17 year old school leavers, who may have quite a few GCSEs or standard grades, but no highers.

I realise there is competition for courses, but to create a situation where 16 and 17 year olds can't even get into further education courses of their choice due to lack of qualifications (are highers/A levels really necessary for college courses?), let alone get a job is ludicrous.

And no, I don't see the point of them taking an FE course they are not particularly interested in. For one, it's a waste of tax payers money. And college is even more of a grind work wise than school, especially the full time courses. How are they going to work and do their course? They shouldn't have to.

Sorry I don't know about the Scottish education system - are highers like a levels?

I looked at childcare last year but couldn't afford the fees. The course I was looking at was A level equivalent, so the requirements would be that you needed 5 GCSE at C+ or you would need a suitable level 2 qualification.

If you didn't have 5C+ you could do a level 2 course instead. I think they even do level 1 courses.

The sort of course that you describe would be a much higher level - level 4 I suspect? So school leavers wanting to go into childcare would do a level 1, 2 or 3 course first.

jellyhead

OK I have checked my local college website. The requirements for the 1 year full time BTECH level 1 in childcare are just a grade E in GCSE English.

Then there's level 2 CACHE (1 year) for which they only need 3D's at GCSE or the level 1 childcare qualification.

The level 3 BTECH or CACHE courses are 2 years and CACHE asks for 4 GCSE including English, while BTECH asks for 5 GCSE including maths and English (or the level 2 qualification I mentioned above).

So, while the course you described has high entry requirements my local college offers ways to get those entry requirements, including GCSE resits if needed.

badmumof1

I managed to 'forget' my eldest sons CB and CTC during his last year of secondary school. He already had uniform and shoes etc so this was possible for us to do. As soon as September last year came BOOM we lost the weekly payments into account as expected . He didnt want to 'follow' the crowd and go to college but wanted to go straight to work. Managed to secure an apprenticeship and i gave him a head start with money for travel and other bits he needed. He has worked really hard and looks now very promising to gain full time employment after his studies.
Looking back yeah i lost £30 a week but so damm proud of him. He has gained so much more than he would if he had followed the usual college crowd and looks forward to £95 a week too

Dunroamin

dktreesea wrote: »

Is the drop out rate so high because children are being forced to continue on their education, in the absence of meaningful paid employment, so end up doing courses they didn't want to do or are not suited to? And possibly forced to by parents who can't afford to support them if they become NEETs even though the parent and the child both know they would be better suited to the world of work?

When Primark opened here - personally I can't see the attraction of working for Primark, but teenagers seem to think they are the bees knees - they had over 4,500 applications for 557 jobs. They had to put adverts in the paper saying all the jobs had been filled. And going into the store, I don't think I saw one girl who looked like she was still in her teens on their staff.

I'm all for if kids don't want to continue their education then they should go to work, but there's not enough jobs for older experienced jobseekers, let alone teenagers straight out of school with only a couple of weeks work experience.

And to those who say poor working families in that situation will have to budget better, maybe that is true for all of us, but it's fairly impractical. It's not like one can suddenly go up to their boss and say that junior is now out of work so can he stump up a few extra hours work a week to cover the shortfall. Not in this day and age where companies seem to be moving to reduce hours rather than increase them.

You seem to be living in the past. All young people will shortly have to be in education or training until the age of 18. The days of children leaving education at 16 and going into dead end jobs are, fortunately long gone.

Dunroamin

dktreesea wrote: »

This is the requirements for childcare, a heavily oversubscribed course, at our local college:

"Course Requirements:
You should normally be 18 years of age at the start of this course. You should have 2 - 3 Highers including English. However each application is considered on an individual basis and relevant experience will be considered. Practical experience of working with children is also an advantage. 2 references are required and a Disclosure Scotland check will be conducted. Relevant IT skills are desirable."

Colleges these days don't seem to be targeting 16 and 17 year old school leavers, who may have quite a few GCSEs or standard grades, but no highers.
have to.

You're just being silly now!

If a course is for 18 year olds with Highers then it's HE and not FE - probably an HNC. Most young people going into childcare will start BTEC or CACHE courses at 16 after GCSEs and there are courses with minimal entry qualifications aiming at NVQ level 2.

Soapn

But aren't they all walking out with 10 A* these days?

And yet employers are saying half of them can hardly read or write, or construct a sentence......

daviecol

dktreesea wrote: »

And what of the vast majority of youngsters who want to work, who pound the pavements handing out their CVs and hardly ever receive so much as an acknowledgement, let alone an interview or a job?

It's amazing the number of people on this forum who assume anyone on benefits is not working and the undeserving poor. Or that NEETS are just sitting around at home doing nothing. What is the point of wasting money sending children onto further education if they are only being offered courses that don't interest them? We need more work based schemes where teenagers can work, with maybe a day a week or a couple of night a week at college to improve their qualifications.

Instead the message from the government when it comes to the children of the poor seems to be clear: If you stay in school then we will pay you, via your parents, something to live on and something for accommodation, plus we'll give you a grant directly (be that EMA outside of England or a grant). But if you quit without a job to go to (pretty much par for the course in this day and age in most, if not all, of Britain), the only way you can then get any support is to become homeless, because we are going to cut the funds that go to your parents to support you.

And that's a policy some of you - the ones who are advocating the poor will have to survive on a tighter budget - which by the way, means robbing money provided to support their younger ones so that their older ones can eat and taking money away from all their children so they can meet the shortfall in their rent - think is great??!! Shame on you! No wonder we have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe. It's the only way some of these teens can survive.

Personally I don't see ANY of my kids friends 'pounding the streets' looking for work. In fact my kids are the only ones I out of all their friends who have jobs. That's nothing to do with luck, it's because I wrote their CVs for them and applied for jobs for them, bought them smart clothes and drove them to interviews.

They have done all the rest, i.e. turn up for work every day and work hard.

In my experience 99% of young adults don't have a days work in them. Where I work we used to take 18 year olds on, and out of 20 taken on there's only 2 that have managed to stay. The other 18 lasted from half a day to a month.

That's the reason we have such a high teenage pregnancy in the uk, because it's an easier way of getting money than working!