Compulsory education to 18

[Colleger]

I never take any notice of what's going on in state schools but whilst reading an article on the above I began to wonder if this means that no 16-18 year old will be allowed full time employment. Is this correct or is it an attempt to stop benefits for 16 year old NEETS and if a 16 year old can get a job then they can leave compulsory education/training?

They have to be receiving full time education, be in a recognised apprenticeship, or be working with a structured training component (280 hours with approved supplier).

So no, I do not think benefits is an option. I've not seen if there are additional measures for those with particular needs (eg parents), but expect that they will be in a similar situation to current parents under compulsory school age (just more of them, but with a greater range of options than just school).

I have a page about Raising the Participation Age here
edyourself.org/articles/leavingage.php

This page has info about the current benefits system for under-18s (set to change with Universal Credit if they ever sort out the software of course)

www.direct.gov.uk/en/YoungPeople/Money/FinancialHelpForYoungPeople/DG_10027506

Current Y10's will be the first to have to stay at school to 18. We were told in Y6, surprised so few people know this in the general population.

Thanks for the responses. I'm not interested in benefits I'm just more concerned that if my child wanted to work full time and earn a full time wage at 16 he now couldn't.

More mollycoddling from the state and more "one size fits all".

Yes, it's a pity the current Government didn't abandon or change this Labour measure when they came in. But as they haven't, then we'll have to make the best of it.

It will be hard on the initial cohort, and I don't think all the underpinnings for this have been adequately thought through (transport to school being the obvious point, and I expect there are others) but the expectation of continued training through to legal majority at 18 isn't a bad concept.

It can be career training like hairdressing or mechanics, not just A levels.

I think in one way its a good idea and thats dcs will not be hanging around with nothing to do and no money coming in. A good number of students where I taught didn't want to be there but mum had made them go to get them from under her feet. As long as they offer a varied choice of courses, I think it will be a good idea. Its not like there are many jobs waiting for them at 16

I don't think full-time employment is ruled out.

For one thing, part-time education or training is an allowable option provided that the young person is employed, self-employed or volunteering for at least 20 hours a week. Presumably young people could work full-time and then go to an evening course.

For another thing, the government has said that initially at least, they will not criminalise young people who do not comply. And unlike the current system, the young person's parents will never be liable for the young person's noncompliance: parents' responsibility to provide an appropriate education to their children will still end in June of the year when the child turns 16 - meaning truancy laws won't apply to 16-18 year olds. I would guess that their parents may lose the option of claiming benefits for them if they aren't in compliance, but if the young person is working full-time then losing benefits may not be a deal-breaker.