School leaving age may rise to 18?

Question

what do you think ?

Pupils could have to stay in education until the age of 18 under plans being considered by Education Secretary Alan Johnson.
If adopted, it would be the first time the school leaving age has changed since 1972, when it was raised to 16.

The change, which would take place by 2013, would force all youngsters to stay at school, start an apprenticeship or begin workplace training.

Answer 1

Canada already has a law on the books stating that students are required to stay in school until age 18, unless a highschool diploma is achieved, or they risk losing their drivers licenses. Some states, like Colorado and Arizona, have already considered state legislation for a similar law, mainly in an attempt to enforce school attendance laws.

I think Canada has the right idea. Teenagers should learn that there are consequences and rewards for completing a job such as highschool. I think that too many parents, who have throw their obligation to raising their kids aside, have not instilled the value of education.

The National Education Association states:
Economic: The costs of inadequate education are staggering in terms of economic losses to the nation.

The United States could recoup nearly $200 billion a year in economic losses and secure its place as the world's future economic and educational leader by raising the quality of schooling, investing more money and other resources in education, and thereby lowering dropout rates.

A high school dropout earns about $260,000 less over his or her lifetime than a high school graduate and pays about $60,000 less in taxes.

Annual losses exceed $50 billion in federal and state income taxes for all 23 million of the nation's high school dropouts ages 18 to 67.

The United States loses $192 billion-1.6 percent of its current gross domestic product in
combined income and tax-revenue losses with each cohort of 18-year-olds who never complete high school. Increasing the educational attainment of that cohort by one year would recoup nearly half those losses.


I think that we should be stressing the importance of education to our children, and not letting them take the easy way out, a choice that in the long run, many will regret.

Answer 2

I can't see the point myself. One of the big concerns of this goverment is that there is a steady decrease in the workforce compared to the people of pensionable age so give people 2 years less to be working in if they want to.

Also the school environment doesn't suit everybody. I think society in general would benefit from a much more flexible system of education. I think children should be able to leave at 14 if they want to but have credits which they can use any time they want to return to education. Lots of people get much more from education after they have experiened what it is like to live in the real world. That's why the gap year has become so popular is to be almost compulsory.

Lots of young people don't really know what they want to do. Isn't it better that they have a chance to find out what's out there before they are forced into taking a career path they aren't really committed to.

Answer 3

Your second paragraph sounds like a great set of options. In the states kids can drop out at 16 before getting a diploma. Few go on to pass an equivalency GED exam which proves they have a good knowledge of basic subjects. You can not even apply for most jobs after age 18 without a high school degree or a GED.
Few dropouts thrive after quitting.
At least the proposed options you described offer hope to those students not academically inclined.

Answer 4

I really believe an education, with whatever choice of classes, is the way for all people to get succeed in life. Whether a student is book smart, or hands on learner, there is a place for all to be educated. Students will find an education will take them places, and give them more opportunities in life. "Forcing all youngsters to stay at school" is not a bad place for youngsters to be.

Answer 5

YES. I think that this should come into practise sooner than 2013. looking back at my teenage years i wish i would have stayed in school l and completed my A levels. i was very younger and stupid and I'm paying for the mistakes i made concerning my education now. it's a good idea to steer teenagers into another 2 years of education which will benefit them in the long run .

Answer 6

There are currently about 200,000 young people who fall outside this net and the new legislation should be aimed at inclusion. I would be interested to know what proprtion of them were 'cared for ' by local authorities up to the age of 16? I'm fully aware of the privilege and advantages of opportunities for further training and education. Young people at the age of 16 need encouragement and practical to support to continue with their learning and skills training. Many students in mainstream schools, for example those with specific learning difficulties like dyslexia/dyspraxia; those with clinical behaviour problems in the autistic spectrum, or with ADHD; those from fractured, abusive or even difficult family backgrounds, may have poor social skills, low confidence and self-esteem. It is likely that without further training and support, they will be unable to find employment. Young people make significant advances in a wide range of learning skills; physical, academic and social, between the ages of 16-20, so the more opportunities they have to channel this process into positive outcomes, the greater the chance of future employment and improved relationships in families and communities. I believe that daily work is good for us; it gives us a structure, the chance to be part of a positive team, opportunties to learn from more able and experienced peers, a wider base from which to meet new people and experience life outside our own backyard. However, to be employed, we need to have something to offer and quite simply, there are some young people who may be seen by employers as having very little to offer at the age of 16. They need structure, focus, defined boundaries and incentives to continue to develop their learning and skills base. The Canadian model is sound, and in the UK, such a scheme could only improve the lives of these young people and possibly the communities in which they are based.

Answer 7

I think it is wrong . Too many employers discriminate against young people for having lack of experience. How can you get any if you are forced to study for longer ? Good grades do not neccesary mean success in employment , I am proof of that. I went to grammar school and even university but I haven't been able to find anything other than meniall , low paid , low skilled work.

Answer 8

It should be 19 or 20 since there are seniors who are 18 and typically no kids are older than 18 in high school except if they were left back.

Answer 9

Personally I think it's kind of stupid. I've seen the kids who should've dropped out at 16 take up space in schools, many of them sticking around just to get welfare/child support checks and sell drugs. Schools shouldn't be baby-sitters. They should be educators. If they're (the kids) too stupid to stay in school through choice, why bother wasting our time forcing them to be there?

Answer 10

Bad idea.

Making people stay in school longer won't improve grades. If its anything lie what I remember, people who want to work and get grades are now gonna have jokers disrupting them while they're doing a-levels as well as gcse's.

They need to change the curriculum and introduce a wider range of subjects and possibly re-introduce apprentiships in my opinion.