Kids starting school this week have to stay till they are 17
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
In short, not really.
If I understand the article correctly these new rules (laws?) are designed to keep teenagers in some sort of education / training. The ones that don't want to stay in school won't be allowed to just doss around at home, they'll have to do some sort of vocational training (presumably on the job). This will encourage more employers to run apprenticeship schemes and help keep your typical juvenile delinquents off the streets during the day (hopefully).
Having tried to explain to a 14 year old how their GCSEs can effect their employment, anything the education system can do to shorten the gap between some relatively useless exams to real life skills you can use in a real world environment is only a good thing.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,598
Schools already do that with streaming.
No, they don't, not really. They still focus solely on academic achievement with no consideration of whether it's appropriate for the pupil.
I went to school in an area where they chose to abolish the 11+ and throw everyone together irrespective of ability, it failed most of the students fairly well, especially as we had at the time a school head who didn't believe in grouping based on academic ability...
It is not a bad thing to not be good at academics, it's a bad thing to not be good at academics and forced to do them anyway with no alternative. Most of the non-academic people I know thrived on practical and vocational skills, but by the time they could consider doing them (post 16) they were already so demotivated and had spent so long being broken down and told they were useless by the school system that values only academic achievements, they really didn't want to.
Last edited:
Don
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,190
- Location
- In a house
Great, hopefully this means people will stop getting paid to go to school with that government hand out carp!
I think this is a good thing. Provided the schools start to cater for the less academic students.
Ooo, better yet, as suggested above, stay in school at 16-18, or get national service. If you fail to complete the 2 years, then u have to do 2 years national service on-top.
Sorted!!
I think this is a good thing. Provided the schools start to cater for the less academic students.
Ooo, better yet, as suggested above, stay in school at 16-18, or get national service. If you fail to complete the 2 years, then u have to do 2 years national service on-top.
Sorted!!
No prime minister has the balls to bring back national service.
I actually enjoyed school, I would have happily stayed there till 17 or even 18.
Because my birthday is in August I actually left school after my exams at 15
I actually enjoyed school, I would have happily stayed there till 17 or even 18.
Because my birthday is in August I actually left school after my exams at 15
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,598
It has changed a lot since you were at school with the 11+. There has to be a minimal education standard to be achieved, it takes the less able longer to achieve this level. Most schools nowadays include a lot of non-academic activities focusing on things like team building or community activities.
As for others ideas of national service, are you going to pay the extra taxation needed for centres, personnel, uniforms etc,etc,etc. From replies to posts on this forum people are not even willing to pay current taxation let alone the costs of national service.
Last edited:
Are non-academic qualifications offered? Or are all results still focused on succeeding or failing at academic endevours?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,598
Non-academic qualifications are offered or as I said activities that the school will make up a certificate, e.g team building or community projects.
yup
'general life' should be a class, and things like proper workshop classes, not 'make a paint stirrer'
in school they never said "you could just leave school at 16, get an apprenticeship and soon be earning a packet"
As someone who had great difficulty actually learning much at school, mostly because I have difficulties with written exams and so forth (not dyslexic or anything, I'm just a "hands on" type of person..) I was utterly relieved to finally leave school at 16 and started working straight away. I don't like this idea.. it will put that little bit more strain on parents who will no doubt have to pay for another year, which collectively is quite a lot, and will prob have some effect on the economy because of that, too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
I went to a normal school as I didn't do well enough at my 11+ while my brother did.
I was in the top set out of 3 at high school and ended up with very good GCSE results.
11+ means f all. Kids mature at different rates, while I might have been stupid at 11 I was a Academic GOD by 16.
I can understand the point that some kids just don't want to learn and they are better off in work, but what happens when they realise they were being stupid and they now don't want to work at maccys for the next 40 years.
Kids are kids, I didn't know what I wanted to do at 16, While some money might be wasted on kids that are too far gone, it will likely help a lot of kids who ware unsure.
I am for it overall. Education is the key to a successful country.
I was in the top set out of 3 at high school and ended up with very good GCSE results.
11+ means f all. Kids mature at different rates, while I might have been stupid at 11 I was a Academic GOD by 16.
I can understand the point that some kids just don't want to learn and they are better off in work, but what happens when they realise they were being stupid and they now don't want to work at maccys for the next 40 years.
Kids are kids, I didn't know what I wanted to do at 16, While some money might be wasted on kids that are too far gone, it will likely help a lot of kids who ware unsure.
I am for it overall. Education is the key to a successful country.
i agree, most of my GCSE's were grade D, so i went to college to do a course equivelent to C's at GCSE. just wish they had diplomas when i was at school, something i might have been good at.
How are the gov going to force 17/18 yr olds to go to school, they can bearly get some to go who are younger. good idea, but i think little thought on how to put it into practice
i assume by making 6th form/college compulsory forcing someone to either continue academic study till 18 or vocational till 18. in thoery this would increase the quality of employment pools within most industries...and reduce unemployment by forcing the non academics to do something.
the problem is there are some pools of people who are resistent to both employment and education, and forcing them to do more will probably have no net effect on unemployment and the amount of them scrounging benefits, having 8 kids and getting a free house
after all, the majority of people post 16 do carry on into further education whether that is academic or some form of vocation/apprenticeship by choice, they didnt need to be forced to they either finally got the chance to jump at something they really wanted to do, or they just didnt fancy going out into the real world just yet
the problem is there are some pools of people who are resistent to both employment and education, and forcing them to do more will probably have no net effect on unemployment and the amount of them scrounging benefits, having 8 kids and getting a free house
after all, the majority of people post 16 do carry on into further education whether that is academic or some form of vocation/apprenticeship by choice, they didnt need to be forced to they either finally got the chance to jump at something they really wanted to do, or they just didnt fancy going out into the real world just yet
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,598
I went to a normal school as I didn't do well enough at my 11+ while my brother did.
I was in the top set out of 3 at high school and ended up with very good GCSE results.
11+ means f all. Kids mature at different rates, while I might have been stupid at 11 I was a Academic GOD by 16.
Very true. That was the reason for doing away with the 11+, being branded a failure at 11 is unacceptable.
The sad thing although normal at that age is that most kids want instant gratification and do not think about what about my future.
Agreed, but it has to be quality education/training to be of any use. The only trouble is quality training costs and Govts. do not tend to put enough resources into it.
I think it'd be good to offer more vocational alternatives at school for your "options". Maths, English and Science should remain mandatory, however there should be the option to go to college instead to pursue mechanical engineering, or any other number of vocational subjects as a sort of "Major" subject which the schools can't cater for.