If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
School leaving age to be raised to 18.
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Comments
I'm not sure who will benefit from this move. If a pupil is academically motivated then they'll go onto college anyway, and probably univiersity. If a pupil isn't academic, then they'll probably want to learn a trade, something that could be done through a college course, or venturing out into the world of work. It just seems that raising the age of school leaving will only trap the kids who don't want to be there for longer.
:yes:
To be fair, if I'd of been stuck in school til 18, without a choice, I wouldn't have worked hard. I hated working out of a book, and still do. I hate things like science, or maths, because I'm not interested in things like how to work out the hypotoneuse of a triangle, or why the world spins around, because I personally will never use them again. If some people feel they would, then fine, give them the option to stay on for two more years and study maths and science. Like now, when people go to sixth form. Fair enough if that's how they learn, I fully support my friends who are there.
I left school at 16 and went straight onto college, where I do a practical, vocational course. If I hadn't of had this choice, or had been made to do it at school, I know I wouldn't of worked at it. The whole change of scenery, the new people, the new experiences, are what kept me motivated. And I defnetely wouldn't have stuck with it through all the stresses like I have if it'd of been at school. :no:
Plenty of people I know went on to get jobs after school as well, and they're fine. I wouldn't consider them "out of place" - even students work around courses, and alot of people have Saturday jobs from about 14 onwards....
It's all ridiculous, IMHO.
ETA: For the record, if the system were changed I'd support full time education until 18.
On the other hand, this would mean far more 18 year old girls in school uniforms. I'm conflicted.
Only 45% of kids leave at 16 with 5 A-C grades if you include English and Maths - that is a mockery of an education system. There is no path in life you can take where you dont need to have english and maths up to GCSE level.
Of course vocational skills need to be added in at a lower age level, and they are, large numbers of 14-16 year olds are now doing things like plumbing and what not, but you do need to know how to read, write and add up.
"Teenagers would be forced to stay in education or vocational training unless they had a job with a minimum level of training."
No-one is saying that everyone has to have an 'academic' education until the age of 18.........
Also i think it is very important that people have a rounded education, not just the 'essentials'. Which means an academic education to the age of 16 at least....
Why bother learning anything other than plumbing if you're going to be a plumber?
Alright, combine plumbing with a rudimentary maths and english course. No need to teach them any of the fancy stuff though, they're not going to use it. I'm not quite sure when you were planning on switching kids to your new revised curriculum though.
If you don't expose people to different topics then you severly limit them. Everyone needs a rounded education so that they are given as many options and experiences as possible. Your attitude of "if they don't need to know it, don't teach them it", frankly, sucks.
I didn't see that bit- that's good and would prevent kids dropping out at 16 and dole-dossing.
I still think this country places too much stall on academic achievements rather than vocational achievements.
It's their choice, I don't care about geography, it's colouring in as far as I'm concerned, that's why I took a history GCSE. What I want to know about physical geography or economics (human geography as I understand it) I read up on. That sounds like an acceptable way of doing things to me. Actually choosing what you want to learn. It's not that they don't need it, it's that they don't want it. What I'm suggesting is the absolute basic level of need which is approximately GCSE Maths and GCSE English lit/lang. Everything else, is optional.
I really do agree with this. People are being forced to stay in education yet they are not being TOLD what to do. They will be able to do something they are interested in and they will have to follow it through. EMA should still be given out on the basis of how well they are keeping on track, not attendance wise so much as a motivator. All in all thumbs up, the education system has thought of something which will half benefit the student. Now there is a first.
I would argue that every kid needs to learn history, not for the rubbish 'understanding what it is to be british' reason but for the skills it teaches.
How can you take full part in society (and democracy) if you havent been taught about source evaluation?
You could, but its not properly done.
Someone suggested that not only should maths and eng lang be followed but also eng lit - I'm interested to hear the justification behind that.
I think that my big worry is that 16-18 year olds will be unlikely to settle to their course, vocational or academic, or to the on the job training because their perception will be that they have been forced to do whatever it is that they are doing. People like to have some kind of free choice over what they do with their life and this is surely one of the main reasons why pupils look forward to leaving school so much. It's also one of the main reasons that kids disrupt - they haven't chosen to be there so they want to make it a place where they can exercise some influence.
As for the EMA incentive - that has two sides to it from my experience.
1) It helps those pupils who are from families with lower incomes to continue in education.
2) It encourages wasters to stay on AND attend, even though they don't really want to be there, because they see it as the easy option.
Media and non-fiction section of the exam? Times have changed, I supose if that is included then its useful. I still think History is a really important topic though and should be up there with Maths and English.
English lit is important because if you dont have an interest (hopefully a love) of books and reading, then your skill at English could well seriously suffer as a result.