to think that people were a lot better off when they left school at 14

[hungrierhippo]

Was having this conversation with my Mum and Dad recently, both who left school at 14.

Both went straight into work, both received training. My Dad got an apprenticeship and became a qualified mechanic.

I realise these are different times and there is no real industry here anymore, but some days I do think that investing in training kids for something needed would be better than reluctantly teaching them not very much for a few extra years then chucking them on the dole.

or have I suddenly been possessed by Jeremy Vine

My granny left school at 14 - not because she wanted to, or because she couldn't have benefitted from more academic education, but because as the oldest of 4 she had to go out and earn a living. She went into service, and eventually managed to get from being a housemaid to being a cook.

She just accepted that she would never have the chances other people had. But she could have done so much more with her life.

A proper vocational route at 14 would have its value, but only if it was properly funded and respected. "Back in the day" that certainly wasn't the norm, only a few lucky ones learned a good trade and had the chance to really progress in it.

Leaving school at 14, 16 or 17 or whatever the legal leaving age is would not be of much benefit to most youngsters because of the appaling lack of jobs with any prospects / training opportunities.

This situation is certainly not helped by the artifical restriction on the jobs available by the huge number of jobs which now state that a degree is required but in reality is not really necessary.

In many cases thos often seems to be more a case of occupations competing with each other in the "one upping" race rather than accepting that only a very few jobs actually need a graduate.

hmc

I'm afraid that says more about your parents than it does about the school leaving age.

Not everyone who left school as soon as they could are closed minded, opinionated or bigotted.

Oh thanks for stating the bleeding obvious there that it is not everyone - of course it is not everyone . However I stand by my assertion being generally true.

hmc

You are most welcome.

Your assertion however is most certainly not "generally true."

personally i'm a 'book learner' and was in education till 21 and am now (at 35) doing a second masters degree.

BUT, not everybody is, my brother is a 'practical learner' and works as a chef - he didn't study cookery at college (he did a couple of other college course to no real ends) - he started washing dishes in a kitchen at 14 and despite trying other things always gravitated back to kitchens and is now pretty bloody good (and well paid).

neither is better than the other - both should be options i think (depending on type of ability and regardless of finance)

In the 'good old days' , non academic children had the option for apprenticeships if they were that way inclined.

That does save two years of school for a pupil who becomes disaffected because they know in their hearts that no matter how much they try, they won't ever get the 5 A*-Cs required to be deemed a success at school. The non-success at school doesnt make them a failure because they always have other skills that they could have developed in a vocational environment.

I'm all for a tri-part schooling, similar to the one I grew up with. The highly academic children went to grammar school. The low/er ability went to tech colleges where a trade was taught alongside the 3 Rs. The rest of us - me included - went to what was known as a secondary modern, where we were reasonably academically taught but the reality was that we would go into offices , therefore short hand, typewriting, general office skills were also taught as (not that you would know it by my bloody awful typing these days!).

The comprehensive system was the BIGGEST injustice done to our children. Education isn't a 'one size fits all' and you have 50 odd years of a system trying to 'normalise' differences in learning ability and make children fit a bog-standard model.

well you might want to deny it Pendeen but this study says otherwise!, like it or not there is a correlation between undereducation and bigotry, if I had the time or inclination it wouldn't be difficult finding more examples

See the sentence in the abstract which says: "It was also found that those with only a high school degree were found to be more prejudiced than those who have a higher level of education"

likewise here, skip to page 8

I'd love to see your counter evidence

I left school seriously underage and undereducated. It was very easy to get unskilled work then. You just walked in, looked lively and asked.
Someone was always either desperate or could use you.
You got laid on and off without notice, but I was never out of work for more than a couple of days, because there was so much opportunity about, but aprenticeships were out of the reach of most.

The other side of it was you accepted industrial injury as your own stupidity even when the foreman made you remove the machine guard, dealt with being pawed as best you could, took any amount of overtime, working in the dark etc, and had no realisation that chemicals you breathed damaged you.

Very few cared about age, health and safety, equality, training opportunities, insurance etc, (or quite often national insurance or tax!) The worlds changed a great deal between then and now, much of it making uneducated workers lives safer, but I?d hate to be an undereducated kid trying to get a foot in the door now.

(Am definitely not a bigot BTW! :) )

I'm sure you are not JustGetting

Some children would most definately benefit from being able to "opt out" of school from the age of 14, if they were going onto an approved and regulated apprenticeship. Some kids are just not cut out for academics and are literally wasting their time being in a classroom, and often disrupting those who do want to learn. Put a spirit level in a teens hand and tell them to measure up for a window, and many will suddenly develop an interest in maths if it is for practical purposes..

My own stepson left school at 14 due to various reasons. He came on in leaps and bounds once he was away from the strict regime of a classroom that he found difficult to cope with.

hmc

It is clear you have contradicted yourself in your latest post (15:28) - as do more than a few contributors to MN, however one study of the poor in the USA and one study funded by a body who's self-interest is entirely based on promoting the idea that the UK is a deeply divided society (because they would be disbanded if this was not actuallt true) offers little in the way of convincing evidence for your asertion:

" YABU - my parents similarly left school at 14 and are correspondingly closed minded, opinionated and more than a little bigotted "

I am sure you are convinced by your arguments. I am not.

Your beaten Pendeen - and you know it

You're (lest there are any pedants around!)

Education does more than equip for jobs - it should also develop reflective, thoughtful people But it doesn't, hmc.

I've known many who've gone through the education system until they've emerged with a piece of paper at age 21 signifying that they've read numerous pieces other pieces of paper but who do not possess any demonstrable life skills or the ability to relate to others.

IMO no-one should be able to attend university until they are 21 and have a modicum of life experience that can offset the indoctrination inherent in the system.

hmc

Of course. If you say so.

My parents left school at 14. Neither wanted to but both were expected to contribute to the household income. They went into very menial jobs, no training at all and had pretty miserable lives at that age.

My father eventually went to night school in his 30s to gain professional qualifications and my mum worked her way up from the post room to office manager at a multinational company in charge of £millions budget. Neither would ever have wished their start in life and their education on their dcs. Which is why both myself and my brother are both educated to postgrad with professional qualifications.

I would never ever want my ds to live the early life that either his maternal gps did.

at the age of 25 i don't know what to do with my life.

at 14 i think it too young for a child to make a huge descion on what they wants to do for the rest of there working life

izzywhizzy - but what a nightmare for those who know where they are headed - I would have hated this. and it makes it even harder for women who want to establish a top career before they have their babies.

For some kids school is a torture. Really, those that kick off continuously can't cope at school. I second the notion of allowing those who are clearly not academic and not thriving at school to go into full time apprenticeships, but open up free evening classes for all who decide to go back to learn when they are older and wiser, and ready to put their head down to the grind stone. We waste so much time, effort and resources forcing kids to stay on, managing their bad behaviour, and then they just go on to fail at GCSEs. Pointless!

My Mum and Dad both left school at 14.
My Dad was/is very bright but there was no money for University - so he got an apprenticeship. He would have liked to study medicine.
Someone upstream said apprentices were paid a real wage - that is not the case. Apprentices were paid very little because until they had learned their trade they were not fit to be paid a fully-qualified tradesman's wage. Once passed their apprenticeship their wages increased.
But that aside - modern apprenticeships are nowhere near as rigorous as they were.
I have a couple of brothers who learned their trades the old-fashioned way - day release and a 5 year training before they earned their City-In-Guilds and they say that the youngsters they get now have absolutely no idea how to even calculate an angle or area.
I really believe we should stream pupils into vocational courses where appropriate rather than forcing non-academic pupils to take academic certificate courses they will never need.

I think 14 it too young. Tbh I was always astounded when living in England at how many people I met who I considered to have quite a poor general education, their knowledge of history was very confined to "Kings and Queens of England", they weren't very widely read, basic geography was poor etc. I'm not talking of the high end stuff. I think everyone deserves a decent basic education THEN there should be choices so that kids who aren't particularly academic can follow paths other than uni which are equally well respected.

Spooky! This BBC article today says Chris Woodhead is recommending lowering the leaving age to 14.