Do you believe pupils should have to stay on at school until they are eighteen?

Question

Those who I speak to seem to be unable to back their arguments up. I would be interested to hear your views.

Thanking you in advance for sensible answers!

Answer 1

If only because the world tends to shun those that don't have a high school diploma, regardless if the person is intelligent or not. Some tend to see it as a weakness because those who quit don't have what it takes to hack it, not just school, but in a job, or even life. And I'm not saying this is fact, but perceptions of people are hard to change, and if someone perceives someone a certain way, like a person without a diploma not being as useful as another WITH a diploma, then fact and truth doesn't really matter.

The data is out there....people who stay in school and receive a diploma, tend to do much better in their jobs. Even more so, for those that continue on to higher education. Not all, but a majority. And this isn't even covering actual intelligence, just perceptions laid out by society.

Answer 2

Changing the school leaving age to 18 will not work. At least with the present system, kids that want to learn get a couple of years in a sixth form or college without the worst of the disruptive idiots which spoil their own and everyone else's chances.

I am so sick of this government putting the needs of the ungrateful/unable few above the many who could benefit from a decent education. Sixth form is not just for education but a chance to get more responsibility and learn more skills in a protected environment. This will not be as possible with some of the kids that they will have to keep on.

I went back to education in my 40s, starting at the local college and the kids and behaviour I saw certainly held me back - the library, for example, was a no-go area. The noise from yacking 16-18 year olds plus i-pods,MP3s etc. made study impossible. Go round the bookshelves and there was normally a couple petting and fondling each other and fights broke out every day. I only got through the year because the adult education was in a completely different building where these little sh*ts were not allowed. I felt so sorry for anyone there who really wanted to get on.

I do think that there is another option. Any 16 year old who is not considered capable -through ability or behaviour - to stay on at school or college and cannot get work/aprentiship should go into a form of national service - not army but possibly a community service corp where they could learn the skills needed and get some much needed proper discipline.

Now I am uni, I am aware that alot of the 18 year olds may be very intellegent on paper but they cannot hold a conversation with anyone more than a couple of years older than themselves and their outlook is very narrow - getting drunk, pop and fashion mainly. Perhaps we have to look at the education system so it produces well rounded individuals rather than those who know a little about subjects but cannot communicate or manage in the outside world.

Answer 3

If students leave school at 16 with no prospects of uni etc,
they have little chance of finding a job that they are willing to do.
being that they think they are better qualified than they are
most exam result pass marks being set so low that nearly all that turn up pass,
why not devise a system that acts like a non combative national service that would teach life skills and allow those who need it extra school work,
I'm sure this will have problems,but what would you rather have
your 16-18 year olds learning on the street how to use a knife or take to drink or drugs,
I'm sure there some that wont agree, but a bit of controlled direction i/e from service type officers nco's and pti's
a bit of outdoor adventure,might make a few half decent people out of them.
it wont happen though the PC/save the unicorn/liberal/human rights Eco warriors would protest cry and stamp there feet
that its not fair.because they never had a go. the tax payer still foots the bill.

Answer 4

I think pupils should have to stay in education till they are 18. Not necessarily school..ie A levels, but some kind of college course.

These days it is so much harder to get a job and I think having some kind of training would be a good thing. Where I live there are a lot of youngsters who leave school at 16 with not many qualifications and seem to just walk about the streets all day.

I do think that the option of working with day release to college should be an option though.

Answer 5

I've actually just done my GCSEs and I can't believe I'm only 16. I mean I really can't get my head to thinking that I'm gonna be going to college in September and to university 2 years later. I'm from Lithuania, and if I'd still live there, I'd be at school until 18. I believe that pupils staying at school until they're 18 is a definite YES! A lot of people drop out of education straight after their GCSEs and pretty much go nowhere with their lives. Some of the reasons may also be because they found the school life too hard and boring,etc. They don't even get the opportunity to experience life at college/sixth form. I mean it is so different from your school life + You get to do 4/5 A levels and you choose the subjects which you actually enjoy. It's such a great opportunity that a lot of pupils miss out on. Also, making students stay in education until their 18, provides them with a lot of skills needed for work, so if they decide not to go to university later on, at least they will have a considerable amount of skills and education for a career. As well as that, I believe that being in education until they're 18, is beneficial to the whole society, because it gives pupils something to do, and prevents some of them from turning to crime.

Answer 6

I do believe that pupils should stay in education till 18 but not just to get formal qualifications, there are a lot of children who don't do well academically but are craving for practical experience in a working environment but apprenticeships are few and far between and unless they obtain good exam grades are almost impossible to get.
The government should look at this as an important part of education and class it as such, what child knows what they want to do at the age of 16 or 18 for that matter but by having a practical experience widens their choice and keeps their mind active and less likely to get up to mischief.

Answer 7

I do think that making it compulsery for pupils to stay in school till their 18 is a good idea. I wouldn't argue for them all to take A Levels or IB's but allow them to chose to do apretiships in things like plumbing, or access courses. Give young people who don't have much aspiration, or not sure what it is they want to do a chance to grow up and distinguish themselves from their friends, realise who they are, what they want from life and how there going to get it. Rather than leave school at 16, be in a muddle as to what to do next and the get stuck in a rut of not having a job. (im not saying this is the case for all school leavers, i no many people have become highly successful with little qualifications, but why wouldnt we want our kids to have the structure that school can sometimes achieve until they have fully matured)

Answer 8

As a taxpayer, I would rather pay a little more to make sure a student got an education which fully prepared him/her for the job market than pay to support that same person in unemployment and other social services throughout his/her adult life. Frankly, 18 is not long enough these days, and there have been a number of proposals to require education through the community college level to ensure that these students are prepared for the types of jobs that are out there now. They generally lose, just because no one is willing to make the initial investment in the system, but it would probably be a worthwhile investment in our economy.

Answer 9

No. Not if they aren't going to be doing anything useful and are resenting being in school, probably holding back people who are genuinely interested in their studies by being obstructive.
My father left school at 12 to start an apprenticeship with a butcher, then joined the Navy as a "boy sailor".
School leaving age when I was there first was 14 then raised to 15 (in the 1940's). Later to 16.
Looking at the current curricula, schools seem to pack in less and less in a greater time span, so, for the less academically inclined, I'm in favour of the voluntary system of leaving school at 16, then on to a more "adult" environment (hopefully) of a College offering practical, linked academic studies enabling students to find a comfortable niche in the employment sector.
In my experience, for what it's worth, people aren't born "responsible" - they become responsible by being offered the chance to be so.

Answer 10

No.
(Although the current Government proposals suggest enforcing people to continue in full-time learning til 18 - this does not necessarily mean school; it could be college, an apprenticeship or recognised training).
Personally I believe that there needs to be decent provision to appeal to young people, rather than forcing them to accept inappropriate provision. If the range of options is good enough there should not be a need to force anyone to do anything.