Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

School leaving age to be raised to 18 by 2013!

42 replies

homemama · 22/03/2007 13:57

Haven't got a link but just heard it on the news.

Kids don't have to stay and do Alevels, they can, in fact be off site learning a trade or attending some form of FE course. Less academic kids can (in theory) now gain a well respected trade.

I hope it can only be good for the country/economy. I also hope this isn't just lip service and that a huge amount of funding will now go into 16-18 provision. Finally, I'm hoping this means the government may abandon their 50% to university target.

OP posts:
mm22bys · 22/03/2007 15:37

I lefy school when I was 16 and had my degree when I was 19.

This was not in the UK though, and where I went to school most of us turned 17 in our final year, and I went straight to uni for 3 years from high school (no gap year for me!)

Yes I do think I did everything too young, I hated being one of the youngest at school, and it was even worse in first year uni not being old enough for the whole year to drink legally!

paulaplumpbottom · 22/03/2007 15:43

I think this is a good thing. Will it also mean that you will become a legal adult at 18? Isn't it 16 here at the minute?

RustyBear · 22/03/2007 15:48

Age of legal adulthood is already 18 here though you can get married at 16

Blandmum · 22/03/2007 15:51

Oh Dear God!

Plaese don't let the silly buggers in government do this without first putting into place real, valid, approriate vocational education.

Because they will force the kids to stay and do bugger all to help provide the courses the kids need. I know it, I can feel it in my water.

And then istead of having 16 year old disgruntled, fed up, arsy little buggers to deal with we will have them for another two frigging years.

PeachyClair · 22/03/2007 15:52

I think its good (in a selfish way as well- another argument for making ds3 start school this year abandoned, they said if he repeats his nursery (KLEA) year he'd be able to leave school at 16 and not do GCSE's- HA1 SN, btw)

But Dh was forced to leave school early despite good grades by eveil MIL with an eye on his wages,might spare a few kids that. It ended with him trying to do a FT college course, FT job and having a nervoud breakdown at 17

zippitippitoes · 22/03/2007 15:53

I think 16 is plenty old enough..18 imo will be a disaster they haven't worked out the change from 15 to 16 yet

paulaplumpbottom · 22/03/2007 15:54

Why can't they do both. Why not make them take a few academic classes in the mornings and then do work placement or apprenticships or learn a trade in the afternoons. Those who want to do full time academics could do so. I don't think anyone is harmed by being exposed to academics. You can't have to much knowledge.

Freckle · 22/03/2007 15:56

I do think this is a good idea in general, but have some reservations. What about those families who want their children to leave at 16 so that they can contribute to the family income rather than being a drain on it? There are loads of them. How do they think very low income families will be able to fund 2 more years of education for one or more children?

I do think they need to think what they are going to offer those children who have lost interest in learning by the age of 14. I feel very sorry for teachers having to deal with 17 and 18 year olds who don't want to be there. Perhaps they should offer an alternative of National Service.

Tortington · 22/03/2007 15:58

agree with MB. the provision is already in place ( in the area which i live) for vocational training.

my one wish would be to have the less academic kids focus on english and maths during any school time away from the vocational training. sod exams - just help kids leave school with a decent ability to write, spell and use basic grammar and read fluently. To be able to add subtract use franctions and percentages competantly. what the effin ell is 16.5 APR on a bazzin' car from the garage son? stuff thats going to enable them to have real life chices and decisions.a solid foundation from which to build in the future should they want to.

Blandmum · 22/03/2007 16:00

I don;t think there is anything work in geting more acaademic study *either. As long as the kid wants to do it!

I have spent much of my adult life trying to drag disenchanted kids into getting GCSE science. Trust me it is bad enough when they are 15 and don't want to be there. Even worse when they are 17!

For some people academic study is not the way forward.

I'd have hated to be told I had to study, say, French, at the age of 17 . I bloody hated it at O level.

If there are appropriate courses for these kids, then it will be a good idea.

However that will cost money, and governments don't like to spend money. So they will change the rules and leave us to deal with the mess.

Same as inclusion. Great idea if funded. Not funded, bloody nightmare for all concerned esp the 'included' kids.

Original poster
homemama · 22/03/2007 16:11

I agree,MB. As I mentioned, they did say that it wouldn't be 'everyone has to stay at school until 18 doing academic work.' The idea is that all 16-18yr olds undertake some form of further study, whether it be academic or vocational.

I think it's a good idea in principle, BUT and as you can see it's a big but, they have to throw sufficient money and resources at it.

Personally, I've always thought that some kids should be allowed to leave the classroom at 14 and learn a trade if that's what they want. Why we persist in battering these pure kids with directed teaching when they're disinterested and itching to get on with life is beyond me. I think we'd see a huge reduction in teenage crime if this was the norm.

OP posts:
Original poster
homemama · 22/03/2007 16:13

That should be poor not pure! How many 15yr olds are pure I wonder?

OP posts:
Blandmum · 22/03/2007 16:14

totally agree with you HM

What they need is something they see as relevant. Get disenchanted kids on the right course and the effect can be amazing. they got from arseholes to human beings in a single bound!

Which if you think about it is fairly sensible, As an adult I don't do anything I'm not reasonably good at. I don't like doing things I'm crap at, it pisses me off! And yet we expect kids to do this all day at school! And then wonder why they act up! Duurrr!

Mercy · 22/03/2007 16:20

Homemama, completely agree with the last paragraph of your 16.11 post

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 22/03/2007 16:31

I wonder what percentage of children do actually leave education at 16?

Educational Maintenance Allowance is available at the moment for lower income families - will they still pay that if it's compulsory education I wonder? It was certainly helpful to my eldest.

Original poster
homemama · 22/03/2007 16:33

I can't for the life of me understand why government can't see that as a win-win situation.

a) Instead of being bored, restless and spending the day thinking up ways to piss off their teachers and each other, these kids could be doing something they engage with, enjoy and take pride in.

b) These kids will learn a much needed skill and start contributing to the economy.

Of course, there are always going tobe kids who want none of it but I think we'd be surprised at how few that would be.

OP posts:
PeachyClair · 22/03/2007 19:26

'I do think this is a good idea in general, but have some reservations. What about those families who want their children to leave at 16 so that they can contribute to the family income rather than being a drain on it? There are loads of them. How do they think very low income families will be able to fund 2 more years of education for one or more children?,

Well, presumably if statutory school age is 18 they'll get child benefit, and possibly WTC? And there's currently EMA which helps a treat.

But (having come from just this sort of family- me doing A Levels practically split my family) I do feel kids should never have that pressure placed upon them. Its not the job of the child to bring in an income. I had tor eturn to Uni at 31, hardly ideal! Whilst I'm doing OK, I know I could do better if I didn't have three kids, a dh and a household to manage!

I am very up for this AS LONG as there are enough options to suit all kids. Apprenticeships, vocational training, life skills courses- as well as the academic. Something for everyone, indeed.

zippitippitoes · 22/03/2007 19:28

currently child benefit continues to 19, and ema is 35.00 a week too school weeks

SherlockLGJ · 22/03/2007 19:29

MartianBishop put it better than I could have.

If my DS wants to stay on until he is 18,(and that is what is expected of him TBH) then I really don't want children in his class who do not want to be there.

zippitippitoes · 22/03/2007 19:30

30.00 a week plus 100.00 bonuses

PeachyClair · 22/03/2007 19:31

Isn't CB liable to stop though if you leave education?

Tortington · 22/03/2007 19:42

yes. no cb if your kid is working - which is fair i think.

however if by education this covers vocational training then i would expect CB to continue.

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 22/03/2007 19:45

EMA depends on your income - nothing if you earn over £30K. Sliding scale, £30, £20 to £10 per week plus bonus.

Hathor · 22/03/2007 19:46

So, they can get married and have children at 16, with permission.
Drive at 17.
Buy drinks and vote at 18.
Leave school at 18.
And we get child benefit for them until 19(?)

Did anyone ask the 'children' to vote on this idea?

PeachyClair · 22/03/2007 19:46

I would expect so Custy too, in which case that at least helps the lower income families doesn't it? Anbd there's less risk too- at least they won't get the sack after 4 weeks and bre unable to claim any benefits because of their age.

Swipe left for the next trending thread