School leaving age put up to 18 is it a good or bad thing?

Question

I think its an excellent idea, no more arguements over college...

From what age group will this be implemented?

Answer 1

I think some form of education after 16 is important, my boys are in yr 6 and the newsletter that recently came home stated they would be the last children allowed to leave at 16

Answer 2

Think the main thing is you still apply school discipline...

Ie detentions etc at 16, 17 and 18...

(this from a reble and esy going dude)


Rahter then not do anything if the kids dont attend lesson or mess around then simply expell them to keep the structure and even give them something to fight.

Means much more secure.

Allow freedom of clothing to help develop socailly and express self. on the conditions that nothing is overtly reglous or gang realted ie no gang colours, no burkas and no various football tops if any danger or football yobs... and keep it up to date.


Or its like no support or anyone caring about you or structure... needs gradual removal not no swimming lessons then shove off pier

Answer 3

i think its a cr@p idea to be honest...the kids who would skive till 16 and fail at school will continue to do so now till 18 whereas the kids who would apply themselves and go on to further study would do so anyway. with an ageing population and a fall in the birth rate there are not enough adults working now to support pensions etc and are many overly qualified people with degrees etc not finding it hard to secure good jobs?..how is it going to improve things?? sure we can dole out an nvq to them that will no doubt be made obsolete in a few years when goverment changes tack again. we should go back to ensuring all school leavers have access to an apprentice system or college and accept that not everyone will or can acheive the same educational level..thats life and what makes for a productive society.

Answer 4

I think it's a horrible idea. What about kids who are ready to graduate early? There would be much more incentive to leave and move on, thereby saving public education arena millions of dollars (study in Idaho on mandatory education ages) Children who aren't interested in going to college would be better served to receive an education that makes them good citizens, and then allowed to find jobs or learning situations that suite them, rather than assuming that every person needs to take calculus to be successful in life.
From unconventionalideas.com
"Equally valid would be a trade school, an informal apprenticeship, or simply getting a job doing something they enjoy. We make it clear it's more important to listen to their heart than their peer group when it comes to structuring their life. We don't pressure them to choose one option above another. Rather, we will equip them with the knowledge and tools to enable them to choose from a variety of paths."

To continue from the website:
"There are different interpretations of the term "grunt jobs." Many people define such jobs as those requiring physical exertion. Personally, I benefit from my physically demanding job. It keeps me in shape, gives me a constant change of scenery, and provides abundant time for contemplation. Not too shabby.
Jobs that punish creativity, force team play, and pressure people to wear a public face which is at odds with who they are inside, could also be defined as "grunt jobs." If a "grunt" is someone who does disagreeable work, certainly people in such careers are in reality more like "grunts" than an autonomous janitor."

And on to *wanting* to learn:
"We think going back to school later in life can be a great way to do it. That is, if you truly want to learn something, and really think you need a degree. Personally, after having entered the work force, I got much more out of my formal studies. As an inexperienced college student between the ages of 18 and 22, I had only a vague idea of what goes on in the outside world. I lacked a practical sense of how things actually worked or didn't work. Hence, much of the "learning" didn't register.

Regardless of whether a person earns a first college degree when they're 22 or 62, or not at all, they will likely find that enjoying a lifetime of meaningful work (paid and non-paid) requires a lifetime of learning."

Answer 5

i think its a good idea i think when kids are 18 they have more of an idea of what they want to do with their lives my daughter is only 14 and is taking her options now and i feel 16 would be a better age to choose them and when they leave at 18 they could then go onto their chosen career

Answer 6

As a teacher, I applaud it !! I have had students drop out. Two years later, I get a call late at night.
" Miss, I screwed up. Can I get back in school?"
Problem is... many high schools will not admit a 19 year old anymore. I wish our Texas legislature would make that mandatory, but this group couldn't agree on how to change a light bulb .

Answer 7

I think it's a great thing. My son is in Year 5 and I think by the time he finishes high school, he will be able to stay till he's 18 - I'm hoping anyway!

Answer 8

I think its a brilliant idea. Dont know why it took so long to get to that. At 16 yrs old you are still a child how can you even begin to know what you want to do with your life. Although I think the education system here is a shambles anyway, thats just one of the things on the list.

Answer 9

Good thing. I say from 6-18 is all the schooling you need.

Answer 10

I think it is a absolute great idea,because the fast majority of teens who left school at 16 or so ,regrets it down the road.
Also their would be less unemployment and I think a more mature decision making when it comes to college or University