Is a 16 year old allowed to miss school for induction days for a part-time job?

cazziebo

As an employer, if I had two similar candidates one with a first class degree and no work experience, and one with a second class degree and evidence of reliable work history, I know which one I'd go for.

Get this in perspective. A young person is going to gain far more life experience doing 8 hours per week in M&S than sitting at home on the Xbox or on Facebook.

(My daughter got 5 As and spent most of her weekend in bed! Certainly wouldn't recommend that as a strategy)

jellyhead

duchy wrote: »

Are the rules still the same for schools now ? As colleges don't force their A level students to be present outside of contact time in the same manner it may make college rather than sixth form a more appealing option for a lot of the 16-18 age group .......or even for some in low income families where having a part time job is essential limit the choice of options at A level or force them into NVQ rather than A levels.

It is all well to make comments like "You have plenty of years to work" but some students don't have parents who can afford it....or the student may need to work to save for university. Plenty of AAA and AAB students have had part-time jobs and often are savvy enough to secure one with companies who will offer transfers to their ultimate university town location.



As for a sixth form stopping student volunteering for charity work outside of contact time-words fail me. I've recently returned to university as a mature student and one of the (many) noticeable changes for me is how the university encourage volunteering in a massive way and treat contributing to society as an asset and reward it with university recognized awards. If you go to Oxbridge they may demand you don't work as well but most universities view some experience of work as an asset to employability ...as should colleges and sixth forms because employers definitely do.

I have one in 6th form and one in college. College has no rules about the non-contact time. There are certain times when they would need to be in college to use certain equipment to complete their assignments, but they could volunteer in their non-contact time and college wouldn't know, or even care. There is an attendance threshold, so if a student was missing lessons then their outside activities might be looked into.

Sixth form made it clear before they started that they would be expected to spend the majority of their time in school. I think the recommendation was to not work for more than 8 hours per week too.

The boys were volunteering for 2 full days per week, none of them were A students and they were struggling a bit. School said they should only volunteer for one full day per week, and needed to do more private study than they were doing at the time.

Our college doesn't teach A levels. My boy at college has less contact time than the one in 6th form and rarely has homework, whereas the one in 6th form is expected to do 5 hours per week of private study for the science A levels, but less for other A levels.

Soleil_lune

duchy wrote: »

It is all well to make comments like "You have plenty of years to work" but some students don't have parents who can afford it....or the student may need to work to save for university. Plenty of AAA and AAB students have had part-time jobs and often are savvy enough to secure one with companies who will offer transfers to their ultimate university town location.

If you go to Oxbridge they may demand you don't work as well but most universities view some experience of work as an asset to employability ...as should colleges and sixth forms because employers definitely do.

This doesn't make sense, as for the duration of the time in college/sixth form, the parents keep on getting the full amount of tax credits and child benefit, so why can they suddenly "not afford for their children to not go out to work?"

What's more, I haven't said at ANY point, that a college student should not work; maybe 4-6 hours a week: say every Saturday OR Sunday (not both,) but certainly no more than that.

Soleil_lune

daisiegg wrote: »

Most employers will have a minimum contract that is more than 4 or 5 hours a week.

I know you were referring to me with the '57 A*s' comment, but the fact remains, my experiences and those of my friends, my family and my students, are not made up. It is not fact that working 10 or 12 hours a week will negatively impact your studies. I am a teacher at a school with a big sixth form, where our students do extremely well. The vast, vast majority of our sixth form students have jobs and work those sorts of hours. If they are hard workers and sensible they do well, and if they are lazy and immature they don't do so well regardless of whether they have a job or not. In fact, sometimes the ones who do the worst do not work outside of school at all...probably because they are too lazy to do that in the same way they are too lazy to do schoolwork!

Of course, it would not be a good idea to work all the hours under the sun, but one weekend day and an evening or two a week should be absolutely fine, and this is what most students do. Have you had a bad experience or something to make you so adamant about this?

I have not had a bad experience no, but I know plenty who have. Whilst you come up with your stories of how the vast majority of students you know, and your friends AND family worked 12 hours a week plus, and STILL came out with glowing A* grades: I can tell you that I know of at least half a dozen students who decided making money was more important than their study, and when they got to the end of their first year (the end of the AS's) the college told them they had to repeat the year before they could move onto their A2's, as they had done so poorly... PLUS, many students who worked 14-18 hours a week or more throughout the A2s ended up with Ds and Es.

I also don't buy your story that the students who do not have a job through A level study are less likely to do well because they are 'lazy;' 2 students I know: both studied like crazy for their A levels and did NOT have a job throughout them, and they are both going to Cambridge.

We can all come up with scenarios that suit our argument.

As I said, I have NOT said they should not work; but to try and make out that working 12 hours a week or even more is not going to have an impact on some A level students studies, is irresponsible advice IMO.

Back to the OP, I shall repeat the advice I gave before: ask the SCHOOL. I would be interested the hear what they say

I am out of this thread now, as I am just repeating myself. Different people have different opinions/views, and it's pointless rattling on all day arguing, when neither one is going to change their stance.

fabforty

Soleil_lune wrote: »

This doesn't make sense, as for the duration of the time in college/sixth form, the parents keep on getting the full amount of tax credits and child benefit, so why can they suddenly "not afford for their children to not go out to work?"

What's more, I haven't said at ANY point, that a college student should not work; maybe 4-6 hours a week: say every Saturday OR Sunday (not both,) but certainly no more than that.

Not all parents receive tax credits for their children and sometimes (as it was in my case and many of my friends and I suspect many others), working is the only way that they will have any money of their own.

My parents both worked full-time but pocket money in our house was unheard of, and if you wanted spending money you had to earn it. We got dinner money (usually the exact amount) and they bought all necessary clothes etc, but we had to ask for money for anything else, which wasn't always forthcoming. As a result, we all had jobs (paper rounds, Saturday jobs etc.) as soon as we were able. I worked 14 hours a week while doing my 'A' levels, because I needed a job and those were the hours. I was 18 and could not bear the thought of asking my parents for money every time I wanted to go out for pizza, buy a pair of tights or take a bus. My choices were work and study, or work (or the dole of course).

I am not saying that this applies in OP's case. I am just making the point that working (sometimes long hours) while studying - even at a young age- is not always a choice, even when the parents are not on a low income.

peachyprice

Soleil_lune wrote: »

This doesn't make sense, as for the duration of the time in college/sixth form, the parents keep on getting the full amount of tax credits and child benefit, so why can they suddenly "not afford for their children to not go out to work?"

It makes perfect sense.

Once children leave compulsory education they lose their free travel, they have to buy text books, wear adult clothes so lose the benefit of no VAT on their school clothes. If they are at college they have to pay a contribution towards materials and no longer have subsidised lunches.

That's before we even start on them being young adults needing financial independence.

Have you put any children through further education? It's a hell of a lot dearer than sending them to school.

paulineb_2

When I was at school many of my friends worked part time. I didnt but only because I struggled to find part time work or I would have. If someone is capable, they can manage work and study, many of my friends managed no problem. It didnt affect their exam results. Id also say someone who has done part time work, goes into the job market already with something on their CV.

I was lucky in the respect that when I did a degree and then did some work part time before I got my postgrad, I went into a career where that professional qualification meant that I would eventually get work in that field. I do think the sessional work I did helped me get work, it also helped me get on my post grad course, but if I had been able to find part time work in my teens, Id have taken it, rather than doing it in my early 20s.

Motivation is different with every person. I dont think theres a case for saying people shouldnt work across the board, the same way that if someone didnt want a part time job and wanted to concentrate on their studies, thats ok too.

If someone works 4 hours on a Saturday and 4 hours on a Sunday theres ample time during the rest of the week to study. I cant recall ever sitting studying on a Saturday afternoon for example, would always have done it during the week.

sulkisu

fabforty wrote: »

Not all parents receive tax credits for their children and sometimes (as it was in my case and many of my friends and I suspect many others), working is the only way that they will have any money of their own.

My parents both worked full-time but pocket money in our house was unheard of, and if you wanted spending money you had to earn it. We got dinner money (usually the exact amount) and they bought all necessary clothes etc, but we had to ask for money for anything else, which wasn't always forthcoming. As a result, we all had jobs (paper rounds, Saturday jobs etc.) as soon as we were able. I worked 14 hours a week while doing my 'A' levels, because I needed a job and those were the hours. I was 18 and could not bear the thought of asking my parents for money every time I wanted to go out for pizza, buy a pair of tights or take a bus. My choices were work and study, or work (or the dole of course).

I am not saying that this applies in OP's case. I am just making the point that working (sometimes long hours) while studying - even at a young age- is not always a choice, even when the parents are not on a low income.

This is sad but true. Not all parents are prepared to support children through further educations, even if they have the means to do so. They provide food, clothes and shelter but not much beyond that. I mentor inner city school children through a volunteering scheme and this is a common scenario.

daisiegg

Soleil_lune wrote: »

I have not had a bad experience no, but I know plenty who have. Whilst you come up with your stories of how the vast majority of students you know, and your friends AND family worked 12 hours a week plus, and STILL came out with glowing A* grades: I can tell you that I know of at least half a dozen students who decided making money was more important than their study, and when they got to the end of their first year (the end of the AS's) the college told them they had to repeat the year before they could move onto their A2's, as they had done so poorly... PLUS, many students who worked 14-18 hours a week or more throughout the A2s ended up with Ds and Es.

I also don't buy your story that the students who do not have a job through A level study are less likely to do well because they are 'lazy;' 2 students I know: both studied like crazy for their A levels and did NOT have a job throughout them, and they are both going to Cambridge.

We can all come up with scenarios that suit our argument.

As I said, I have NOT said they should not work; but to try and make out that working 12 hours a week or even more is not going to have an impact on some A level students studies, is irresponsible advice IMO.

Back to the OP, I shall repeat the advice I gave before: ask the SCHOOL. I would be interested the hear what they say

I am out of this thread now, as I am just repeating myself. Different people have different opinions/views, and it's pointless rattling on all day arguing, when neither one is going to change their stance.

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I did NOT say '12 hours a week plus'. I said, 10-12 hours a week. I actually completely agree that once you get into the territory of 14-18 hours a week or more, it is likely to impact negatively, as you found with the students you know who got Ds and Es.

I also didn't say that students who don't have a job are less likely to do well (although like you I know many people who went to Oxbridge - more than two - myself included - and can't actually think of any who didn't work at sixth form). I actually said that not having a job is not a GUARANTEE that a student will do well, because it doesn't necessarily mean they have chosen not to get a job so they can study hard; it is just as likely that they do not have a job because they are lazy, rather than due to a burning desire to study, and this laziness surely translates into their school work too! I repeat - I am not saying ALL students who don't work are lazy and will do badly in their studies. I am just arguing the idea that if a student doesn't have a job, they will automatically do better. There is absolutely no guarantee that they will spend the time they are not working a job in studying. They could just as easily spend it sleeping, partying, watching TV or on the Internet!

The thing is, I actually don't think we have such different ideas when you come down to it. I completely agree that students should NOT prioritise a paid job over their studies. For example, as a teacher I would be very worried if a student was not completing homework because they were at work, and would be expressing the concern that they might be working too many hours. I would expect A Level students to plan ahead and, as far as possible, book annual leave from work during exam time so they aren't working until 10pm the night before an exam, for example.

I also agree that they should NOT work too much. It just seems we differ on the idea of what 'too much' is.

So to sum up, I do think paid employment is very important for a young person. I think A Level studies are more important. I know it is perfectly possible for a majority of young people to work a reasonable number of hours without it negatively impacting their studies. I think a 'reasonable number of hours' could be up to 12 hours a week, but I would get worried after that point. I know many people who have got glittering results and gone to fab universities having worked around 10-12 hours a week during sixth form, so it is entirely possible. I am not, however, saying that no one does well if they don't have a job because they must be lazy (that would be a ridiculous statement).

To return to the OP, I think that employment is sufficiently important that he should miss school to do the induction (and yes, I say that as a teacher). However, if it was one of my students I would expect them to catch up on missed work very quickly and effectively. I would be speaking differently if the student already had bad attendance, a poor attitude, or was behind or struggling in their studies....but as you mentioned none of that I presume it is not the case with your son. A student with good attendance, who is coping with school, is up to date with all work, and who can be trusted to catch up, can miss 3 days without it being a disaster. People are ill for longer than that and it doesn't ruin their A Levels.

Good luck to him.

Air_Cooled_75

Soleil lune, I reckon most A Level students spend far more time than a few hours a week on social media sites/the internet/texting/going out so surely having a job would be more beneficial? I don't for one minute believe that they spend every free moment studying