I don't agree wth keeping people in full time education past the age of 16 if they really don't want to be there.
My DH left school at 15 (in Australia), took up an apprenticeship for 3 years and stayed in that trade for 10 years. He then decided he wanted to change, so went back to college to get a diploma in Business Studies, and then on to Uni to get a degree in Business, which he finished age 30. It suited him much better to do it later, when he actually WANTED to study.
I knew a lad of 19 who had started one of these vocational training schemes - he spent initially 4 days in a mechanic's workshop and 1 in college - he just about coped with that, but when they reversed the ratio (4 days college to 1 day workshop) he dropped out because he couldn't stand it.
There are some people for whom booklearning is really not their thing - but they could potentially be brilliant artisans; and they are effectively prevented from being so by the requirement for some bit of paper that they have had to sit in a classroom to obtain, when they can demonstrate practically how good they are. So while I like the idea of kids getting vocational training at 14, WHAT is the point of making them go to college full time at 16 afterwards? Just keep them on day-release to college if they have to have the bit of paper and let them be working the way they work better for the majority of the week.
I have been told by a friend that her grandchildren in Germany have the option of 3 levels of school, depending on their academic level - I don't know how accurate this is but roughly, the grammar school is for the most academic, then there is the next level of school which is for less academic but could still turn out white collar workers, and then there is the 3rd level where they take the least academic students and they do vocational training instead, and become blue collar or manual workers. I don't know how old they keep them in school until, but I think it's only 16.