The reason that I ask is that this not so wonderful government seems to think that we the UK electorate are a simple bunch who cannot see through their smokescreen
2007-01-12 22:18:01 · 18 answers · asked by lonely_rang3er 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes. it CAN be seen as a smokescreen (if that's possible!) but on the other hand, there are quite a lot of youngsters out there who could definitely benefit froma bit more time on learning the English language!
2007-01-12 22:58:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was subject to ROSLA (Raising of the School Leaving Age) a few years ago (??). You actually had to stay at school until you were 16. As with now, we were told that it was to improve education. It isn't just this government!
In truth, there are kids who will achieve academic results and there are kids that won't. And if you think about it, it is probably just as well! What the entire education system, including teachers and parents, fail to understand is that having GCSE's is not the be all and end all of an education! How many schools actually teach and prepare kids to go to work every day and actually do a job? We don't need that many academics, we do need that many workers.
I think that it would be better for kids to be assessed at about the age of 14. If they are unlikely to achieve academicaly or show a preference/ability for 'trade' work, then give them the training that they need.
In the construction industry there is a shortfall in all trades such as bricklaying, carpentry, plumbing and heating etc. These are highly skilled and highly paid jobs - do they really need to have GCSE's and A levels to do it?
I don't think that it is a smokescreen for the electorate, I think that the current and previous governments have created their own smog - and that now they cannot see past their noses!
2007-01-12 23:06:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It can't be for anything else. What on earth will they need all that extra education for?
Britain has become a warehouse economy. Not an awful lot is manufactured here now. It is not necessary to be educated to a high level to become a driver, warehouse operative, sales man or woman. Governments have not put in place policies that have helped manufacturing in recent years. They only seem to be concerned about developing the economies of third world countries.
The education provision now is adequate for providing doctors, lawyers etc. this of course supplemented by the provision of employment opportunities to immigrants that have been encouraged by the present government.
Don't forget the whole ethos of a socialist government is to keep people in poverty so as to sustain their voting levels.
2007-01-12 23:20:02 · answer #3 · answered by frank S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because under 18s are not entitled benefits for the unemployed, so don't count on the employment figures.
The aim of keeping 16-18 year olds in education is a good one, but compelling them to stay in school is not the answer - many young people have reached their limit in traditional education by 16, and often before that. If they are to be compelled to remain in some sort of education, a whole new thinking is required.
2007-01-12 22:25:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lets face it some kids are just not made for school and they and they want to be out there doing things, and leaving school at 16 is not always a bad thing, many top business people left school then. Having said, it is a very young age to be making decisions about your future, even at 18 it is, choosing your a-levels, choosing uni courses etc. I don't know why the government suddenly want to change it, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Like you say, maybe they are doing it just to pretty up their figures, not for the welfare of the kids, sorry, young adults
2007-01-12 22:23:16 · answer #5 · answered by Crazy Blue Beetle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well i think that rasing the age of school is a good idea. At 16 when you come out of school, you still think you are owed everything, that why should you work?
When i left school i felt like that, but i did get a job, alot of people in my year never bothered untill they were 18/19, at that age i think you are alot more mature and are more chances of kids goinging straight into work instead of dossing around for a few years contributing to the umemployment rate!
But yes i also agree, this would get them out of a lot of sticky situations, and we can see the method behind thier madness!
2007-01-12 22:27:59 · answer #6 · answered by TP 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it would be too obvious.
What is really far more sad is that this is an admission that many of the people stumbling out of school are complete f*ckwits, only suitable for a life of low-level crime or benefits dependance.
Two extra years at school is not going to make a difference for them. As a country, we are quite happy to be thick (unfortunately) & I doubt any government is going to change that.
2007-01-12 23:11:56 · answer #7 · answered by Well, said Alberto 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is what all governments seems to think of us. However I think I agree with you as at 18 one tend to be too young to think of what they want and need to do in the future so the potential / risk of being unemployed is rather high
2007-01-12 22:34:51 · answer #8 · answered by Rosy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes its cause most of the kids that leave school have no qualifications, so they immediately sign on, i totally for the age being rising as it will stop neds leaving school to early and they might actually learn something
2007-01-12 22:34:32 · answer #9 · answered by rfc_1st_to_50 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i wish id stayed in school till i was 18, not that i wanted too at the time, but if i knew then what i know now, id be in my career..well i just started uni, but i took the scenic route there..But yes, most kids these days arent interested in school, they want part time jobs with money
2007-01-12 22:28:46 · answer #10 · answered by b.hole 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋