Should teenagers be forced to stay at school until they're eighteen?

Answer 1

no they should bring back nation service to sort them out

Answer 2

It would be a good idea a few modifications. Many children who are 'academic failures' would be better off in a system where, say at 12 or 13 they could choose to leave the ordinary school and study practically until 18, alongside those who want to do A levels and GCSEs until 18 in preparation for university. This would have several advantages.
1 It would certainly solve the skills shortages in areas like plumbing, construction and carpentry.
2 It would give children more time for proper advice on careers and higher education. My school basically said to the brighter ones "A Levels are the best path for you" withut any real thought. Anyone else was practically told to go and work in shops.
3 Few teenagers are experienced enough to really know what they want. I wasn't really aware of post-16 choices and my school rushed us into it in my last year.
4 The system works. SImilar systems are used in France and Germany, who have some of the most advanced industry in the world, and America, the only superpower in the world.
5 The current school system is outdated with little encouragement for the sciences or technological subjects.
6 It would allow for a greater range of exams including the Baccalaureat and also NVQs and GNVQs.
There is no way however that you can make someone stay in school until 18, especially young carers with disabled parents or poorer families. There would have to be an allowance for these children and the time and income loss they would suffer.

Answer 3

If they need forcing to stay at school, they won't learn much whilst there. How can this be compatible with getting married at 16 and possibly having their own children? It would be better to make school more interesting to start with. The old fashioned apprenticeships/training on the job would be a much better idea. Teenagers who have no academic leaning would be wasting their time and society's money by staying on for an extra two years. There is already a high rate of truancy. Think how difficult it would be for newly qualified teachers, probably only 22 themselves, to control bored, recalcitrant 17 and 18 year olds. More help with practical careers would be far preferable. And no, we don't need to give out "degrees" in plumbing etc. Good training facilities with tradesmen and craftsmen would be better. the age at which teenagers leave school is not the best criterium to use, but more "how can we keep them interested" so they will want to learn more.

Answer 4

Actually, some places already have that as law.

I have mixed feelings on the issue. On the one hand, no diploma can affect--but doesn't necessarily--job prospects. Lower education levels can also just affect the general quality of life and ability to make good decisions.

On the other hand, school programs are designed to 'create' a certain type of person and certain people just can't be molded to that, and shouldn't be molded to that if we are going to respect that everybody is an individual. And what's the point of being forced to stay in school until 18 if you don't want to be there and are just going to slack off and not get anything out of it anyhow?

Some kids have to work as much as they can to be able to support their family and school is in the way. Others already have careers lined up. I know of one 16yo who already has a job in a trade through an apprenticeship program--this is what he wants to do for the next very long time and can do it without a diploma. Would staying in school until he's 18 do anything for him? How is learning about the French revolution going to help him in life? Or reading complicated literature? Or even working with trigonometry/pre-calculus?

Then, of course, there's the issue in terms of does the government even really have a right to force these kids to be in school at all... ;)

Answer 5

No! Not only because you can not do it, but crime in the schools has increased in schools since many states made attendance mandatory until 18. Some students are nothing but problems and will drop out at 18 in their senior year anyway. Also there is no way to force anyone to stay physically in the school and even if you could lock them in you can not force them to participate in anything. A student could just go sit in a common area doing nothing for 8hrs and no one could do anything about it. Also students may act out to get expelled on purpose. You can not force someone to do something they refuse to do. At 17 if a student quits attending there is nothing anyone can do anyway, if you can not get someone interested in an alternative education then it's a lost battle.

For those who have the false belief it's a good idea to force attendance, what good does it do being there if they refuse to go to class, do any work, turn in blank tests, act out disrupt others who want to be there, get expelled on purpose? A student can fail on purpose, never complete even one assignment, put their name on a blank test answer sheet and turn it in. They can even sit down in a hallway refusing to move for the day.

Answer 6

Yes, please.

Now, if they have actually graduated from an accredited high school, then no, they shouldn't be forced to sit around a school doing nothing. But, the aim of public education in this country is to produce an informed citizenry that will have the knowledge to democratically elect officials, and also contribute to the employment and tax base of the state and country. If they cannot support themselves, then they cannot help in the support of the government (which is subsidizing the education in the first place). Teenagers should be in some type of cirricullum that will prepare them for adulthood, whether it be college prep or technical / vocational.

So yes, keep 17-year-olds in school. Who knows, they might learn something.

Answer 7

No. A lot of them do not want to stay on until then. The economy will collapse without 16-17 year olds on the job market doing a lot of useful work. This is nothing but idiotic Blairite social engineering based on his marketing mantra of "Education, education, education. If you run a country on what the marketing men say this is the sort of ill thought out short term thinking that is the hallmark of this government.

Answer 8

YES!
im all up for this
i left school at 16 , too immature and young to know what i wanted, all i knew is that i wanted to chase the boys lol i went on to do some a/s levels but failed my first year so i didnt go back, and now i regret that and i am looking into doing this next year, when my son is at nursery
16 is far too young to leave school, 18 is a much better age!

Answer 9

Yes definitely! Because 15/16 year old are not mature enough to go into the big wide world yet. I left school at 17 and was very glad of the extra year to get my life skills a little more in tune. Most people I know who left school at 15 wish that they had the chance to stay on a little longer. Too many of us want to rush what little time we have on this planet, so we should take our time and appreciate everything including our school years.

Answer 10

I actually think it would be more useful if everyone left at 15, got a trade under their belt (actually did some hard work for a couple of years) then went back to finish secondary in preparation for tertiary education. Keeping kids at school who are not suited to the schooling system is only going to make them worse off. It would do some schoolies a world of good to actually get out and dig some ditches instead of sitting at a computer for their whole lives pretending to 'work'.

Answer 11

No, I don't think so. It is the person's life and it is their choice. Nobody can force them if they do not want to stay at school until they're eighteen.