what will raising school leaving age achieve ?

Question

is it a bit optimistic to think that keeping kids in school who didn`t learn anything by 16 will achieve anything .By that age it seems obvious they either can`t or don`t want to learn
maybe the government could subsidise them to learn a trade instead ?

for any one being sarcastic i meant trade as in a proper aprenticeship that can give them work experience
vocational courses will do nothing its the school enviroment that some kids can`t get on in and if they resent it they`re not likely to try

Answer 1

Those who'd decided to stay in full time education will feel insulted that they're being told what to do by the government. Those who sign up for courses to get the weekly allowance but don't take any interest won't be affected. Those young entrepreneurs and kids starting to work for a family firm or farm will get messed about and will have to sign up for some unnecessary training course.

Only a minority of people voted for this government; why can't they just treat us like adults and allow us to live our own lives.

Answer 2

Well, it will reduce the unemployment figures further. These have already been underestimated (fiddled) by three million. It will cause considerably more problems for teachers, who will no longer be dealing with children, and that was bad enough. No doubt we will need even more teachers.

It is a panic measure. Young people should not be made to believe that they are all University material, requiring a dumbing down of entry standards as exists at the moment. Yes, they should be directed toward taking up a trade, then we wouldn't need so many immigrants.

Another problem is that they will all come out as indoctrinated clones of the 'left'. Then we will have an even bigger job trying to re-educate them on this site.

Answer 3

"maybe the government could subsidise them to learn a trade instead ?"

That's exactly what these proposals are. It's not about keeping kids in school til 18, it's keeping kids in either further education, vocational training, modern apprenticeships, etc. Far more kids will be learning a trade under these new proposals.

edit: IT'S NOT JUST IN SCHOOLS. Under these proposals actual *on-the-job* apprenticeships and *on-the-job* training will be an option. Try actually reading the story next time.

Answer 4

Well ther you do have a valid point but it is a bit moot, as the government does fund a program for dropouts to learn a trade it's called Job Corps. They not only teach a trade, but require the students to get their GED or High school diploma (their choice) at their own pace. And, they get paid to be there, it's not much but they get paid. There is also a relocation and adjustment fund that is put away for them $75 every month fro the first year an $100 each month after that. They have OJT (on the job training) and even job placement.

I know all of this because I am a Job Corps graduate. I dropped out of school when I was 16, my mother (RIP) gave me a gentle nudge to go to job corps. I got my GED in 6 months and in the 3 years I attended I learned 3 trades and earn a few college credits. I am now 35, have an ATS degree in Business Information Technology and am currently the Assistant Manager of a Hotel.

The government needs to do a better job of advertising Job Corps for those who drop out, or better yet incorporate the Job Corps system into our education system in some way. Presently the state of our education system blows, there are far too many politicians in the education system with their heads up their fourth point of contact.

Answer 5

well i think the way of the schooling should be put on a grade system and if the kids fail that grade then they stay in that grade till they pass and it should be done from the time they start school i have lived all over and i find the way the English schools are is a joke how can you put a child forward if they don't even know how to read and then just keep putting them up and up the school ladder its madness they should stay behind until they have reached the level

Answer 6

It will falsely off set the unemployment figures for a year or two, it will put some lower paid parents into more difficulties, it will put teachers at more risk of violence and it will do nothing to stop anti social behaviour, the only way to stop the yobs is to lock them up in borstal type centres and take away all of their liberties as was done before, it is just another pathetic effort by a failing government to try and convince us they are doing something.

Answer 7

Take off the rose tinted glasses by the age of sixteen most of the NEDS have decided that no education is needed because if they don't make it as a future Beckham they can fall back on the family business of drug dealing.

Answer 8

The democraps came up with the plan modled after their hero's the Soviet Union. Let us label all children before they come of age the gov can provide for them and think for them
The x-Soviet Union commies have a plan just like that?????
worked really well for them. The x-Soviet Union is doing soooo well

Answer 9

Well it will spoil the further education for the students who want to be there. I can imagine how 'great' my school would be if the idiots, who are unemployed now, were forced to stay on and do A levels or GNVQ's *shudders*!!! Classes can be disruptive enough at GCSE, at A level, it's the last thing you need.

Answer 10

They won't be forced to stay in school. Part of the deal is vocational training - or a trade in other words.