Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Chalky, Jan 12, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Personally think this is a good thing.
And watch recruiting dive to a new low!
Those on leaving school who cannot find employment either:
Are very, very unlucky.
Have been failed by the very same Education Minister who is proposing that they stay on longer.
Are genetically incapable of absorbing either knowledge or learning skills.
Are bone idle.
Are aware that there is no significant gap between the earnings they are likely to enjoy in employment against the benefits the state will gladly provide them to sit and do nothing.
Come to the realisation that in spite of being told for years they have been told how good they, are they are really only suited to picking spuds or wheeling trollies around and so would be better off picking up SS payments.
How is keeping youngsters penned up for a further 2 years going to alter this reality? How are they going to be forced to stay in 'training'?
Also like the extract from the Canadian Model:
Among the examples of how this might be enforced is a scheme in Canada, where under-18 year olds cannot get a driving licence without proof that they are in education or training.
Brilliant - more unlicensed and uninsured drivers.
In summary: Another attempt to legislate their way out of a problem when the real issue they need to be addressing is why the state education system is failing and why the benefits system provides a disincentive to train and work.
simple solution no benfits unless in training or education no real call for a 16 yr old with no skills in the workforce unless they go ta job to go to NEETS are a wast of space
Got to release them from the zoo when they get to vote
From the BBC report
The phrase horse to water etc. comes to mind. Those who currently leave without qualification or skills will retain the attitudes and mind set that they have now. Teachers who have problems with classroom discipline will have to be dealing with young adults rather than older children and that will add to the stress.
My education post 11 plus was at a comprehensive school. There were three bias streams - commercial, engineering and professional. By a means I do not now remember, one found oneself in one or other of these streams and the education was tailored accordingly. The engineers specialised in that trade in all its aspects and ideas such as the influence of Plato on modern thought was ignored. This focussed approach meant that we learned the skills needed. I seem to remember the Russians had a more extreme idea where they calculated the number of - say - shipwrights needed in 1950 and started training that number in 1945.
IMHO, we need to revert to that comprehensive model.
Of course, we do not have the problem of National Service. This showed me there was a real world outside the workshop and all my engineering skills were abandoned for the charm of 1,23 1
Keeps the unemployment figures artificially lower, without necessarily providing any more meaningful employable training.
Those who don't want to be there, won't show up. I don't see a great track record for the Government now on truancy rates, and reoffending rates for 16 year olds, so how is making them stay on at school going to help?
Those employers who offer training schemes and work for cheap labour 16 year olds lose that market. That has consequences.
The demographic that joins the military would stay in school, so that's a an additional period of time where they find another interest, and don't join.
If the Government were offering meaningful training for vocational skills, then I might have a different view, but it all smacks of nanny knowing best. I'll have more faith in the education system when I can stop setting simple english and maths test for new joiners so that I can weed out the ones who have a certificate that says they can read, write and do sums, but in reality, can do none of these things.
If the aim of this is to raise standards of education and training, rather than massage unemployment figures or such like, I reckon that instead of raising the leaving age to 18 we should just make it necessary to reach certain standards before moving up a year group as some other countries do. So instead of automatically going from Year 10 to Year 11 (or the Fourth to Fifth Year as it was pre-National Curriculum) just because you're a year older it's dependent on some progress being made and demonstrated, by an exam or other means.
That way, if you work hard you can leave at 16 but, if you don't, you have the indignity of being kept back a year, possibly being kept back the same year twice. That way, pupils will need to reach 18 or 'graduate' in order to leave compulsory education. There is no point, to my mind, in giving some kids two more years education and training if they haven't mastered the current compulsory curriculum.
The weakness of our education sectors vocational training has been clear since Butler's proposed tripartite system (grammar, secondary modern and secondary technical schools with 'parity of esteem') became, in most parts of the country, the bipartite scheme, whose injustices led to comprehensivisation as we generally know it - the same for all and not OldRedCap's formulation above.
Putting genuine vocational training in place would arguably help both a lot of students and the economy. However to be most effective a lot of vocational training needs to take place outside of schools. I would argue that is better done earlier rather than later, perhaps from Year 10 (14+)thus encouraging the non-academic to 'graduate' from Year 9 with basic skills rather than just coast through as at present and only, perhaps, get 'training' from 16+.
Those who really don't want to learn or be trained never will. The aim should be to raise standards by encouraging youngsters to make more effort, not just trying to make more effort for them, however well-intentioned that might be, by offering ways out of education/training they don't like into education/training they might like instead of, at worst, giving them two more years of what they don't like.
This is not happening here in Alberta, in fact the little sods can quit school at age 15 if they want. It might refer to driver training, there is currently a huge crack down on junior drivers, lots of restrictions being placed on novice drivers, ie:
Among the examples of how this might be enforced is a scheme in Canada, where under-18 year olds cannot get a driving licence without proof that they are in driver education or training.
Once again the journos display the fact that they should not be allowed to leave school without some sort of job training, or workplace ability,
Good reason now to hire Polish 17 year olds
Great, so the worst pupils can have another 2 years of ******* off, if they even bother to turn up, and dragging down the ones who actually want to learn and get on. What will they get at the end of it? fcuk all, just like now really but with 2 years worth of people not officially unemployed.
Another New Liebour political stunt methinks.
I can only see this working with a far more flexible system, including a better emphasis on vocational and applicable life skills.
The canadian system (in some areas, only know in brief about New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ottawa) does keep school compulsory until 18, but it's aimed at the level of the pupil; you can "sit" levels above and below your year. They also seem to cope with inclusion far better than our mainstream. The only reason I say this is I know, and have worked with, some canadian teachers and they've talked a lot about their education system compared to ours.
With system as it is keeping kids til 18 will just be hell; if there is a real drive for enterprise, vocations etc then those less gifted in traditional academic subjects may see a reason to stay within the system and be more manageable: what's wrong with them going off for a couple of days a week to do an apprenticeship?
Or an increase in Junior Entry (Army Foundation Collage) if between 16 & 18 Education was added to training package to NVQ Level 3 and/or GCSE accepted levels like in the old Junior leader days. Not everyone is A Level material.
Likewise perhaps if the MoD offered part or full bursary's/grants for university based on a minimum 5 years regular or 10 years contracted TA service on graduation we could catch them after uni as well.
I know we do it for officers, so why not OR's as well?
Do our American Friends not have a similar deal for the National Guard & Reserves? so unlike our TA can not resign till debt is paid off?
The people who leave school with nothing are the people who put in nothing or who have been failed by the govenment Education minister. Putting the age up to 18 won't sort that.
If idiots who can't be bothered to do anything at school, come out with 11 GCSE fails then why should I care? It's their own fault.
I have not read the article, am no master of big sums but surely if the young work force of 16-18 year olds dries up overnight who will make up the labour force? Work 'till we're 70 right?
Separate names with a comma.