Kids starting school this week have to stay till they are 17

i read the article and i've never read such a load of controlling rubbish.

Basically the government is trying to stop thick kids from going out and getting jobs because theres no point in them training.
If we don't have the dumb kids doing the unskilled work, then who is going to be doing the unskilled work?

The main gist of the article I got was "america is doing it why shouldn't we" because we're not america. We're not run by an anti smart warmongering chimp. Kids go to school, get their GCSE's, fair enough, basic skills learnt. The extra year is totally pointless and unnecassary.
 
Last edited:
do_ron_ron said:
Very true. That was the reason for doing away with the 11+, being branded a failure at 11 is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Whereas being branded a failure at 16, or getting qualifications that don't actually mean anything because they are no longer able to differentiate between people is acceptable?

I agree that the 11+ could be used to brand people as failures, but that was part of the problem with focusing exclusively on academic results, which is the very problem I'm arguing against.
 
I'm still all for this. As above it'll take care of the wasters but also cement into parents and pupils heads that there are other paths, rather than just your traditional one.

There's nothing under these new rules stopping a teenager from leaving school, but rather it ensures that they'll still be getting recognised qualifications if they do (NVQs for example).

Just need a bigger push to get more apprenticeships going now.
 
Last edited:
Hxc said:
On a related note, has the A* grade been phased in for A-Level now?
Click to expand...

2010 I believe. Straying a bit off topic now but if we add in an A* grade and then discover that doesn't differentiate enough do we go to an A** grade or an A*+ or something else entirely? Maybe we can get to an "A* with chocolate sprinkles on", point being it all seems a little bit silly.
 
semi-pro waster said:
2010 I believe. Straying a bit off topic now but if we add in an A* grade and then discover that doesn't differentiate enough do we go to an A** grade or an A*+ or something else entirely? Maybe we can get to an "A* with chocolate sprinkles on", point being it all seems a little bit silly.
Click to expand...


Aha, thanks. I couldn't find any definite info on it, only old reports and a friend telling me we will be getting up to A*s this year. I thought it was later but old news seemed to suggest it was now...
 
NathanE said:
Doesn't mean full time education does it? Surely not?
Click to expand...

No, it's some form of education (e.g. vocational).

Just a quick glance at the thread and you can tell who bothered to read the article rather than just chime in to the tune of Daily Mail controversy! :p
 
No. 2 son started senior school today and upon hearing on the news this morning that he couldn't leave school until he is 17, turned to me and said that he thought he was leaving at 3.30. :D
 
yermum said:
No. 2 son started senior school today and upon hearing on the news this morning that he couldn't leave school until he is 17, turned to me and said that he thought he was leaving at 3.30. :D
Click to expand...

I just told my colleague that and we had a chuckle.
 
bledd. said:
in school they never said "you could just leave school at 16, get an apprenticeship and soon be earning a packet"
Click to expand...

I really think more should be done to make kids aware of things like this. Bit more cooperation between the companies in the area and whoever is offering careers advice.

My mum brought me up alone and she did a great job in hard circumstances but bless her she was no careers advisor and really wish somebody had made me more aware of opportunities at that age, rather than simply staying at school because I didn't see what else I could do.
 
starfighter said:
I would welcome an American style system where they can't leave until they pass. and an E isn't a pass.
Click to expand...

i agree but GCSE's arent at all helpful, and technically a E is a pass, only a U is a fail but i think a C should be a pass and a D a fail

Raymond Lin said:
The solution isn't keeping them at school longer, if they don't want to learn, it makes no difference if they stay til they are 80, it'll be just a waste of money.
Click to expand...
thats true
 
yermum said:
No. 2 son started senior school today and upon hearing on the news this morning that he couldn't leave school until he is 17, turned to me and said that he thought he was leaving at 3.30. :D
Click to expand...

Haha :D

But I echo what others have said really, if they don't want to spend more time in education, I don't think it's going to be of much benefit to them to spend an extra year there.
 
I don't think it's a bad idea, it weill jsut be poorly implamented.

When you hit gcse you should get a choice of academic or trade.

Both do core subjects then the academic people choose extra subjects like they do at the moment. And the trade people learn a trade of some description or work placed qualifications.

Problem is the English system is far far to academic orientated.
 
Dolph said:
Whereas being branded a failure at 16, or getting qualifications that don't actually mean anything because they are no longer able to differentiate between people is acceptable?
Click to expand...

You missed the point, I was agreeing with a post from starfighter that kids develop at different rates and using the 11+ as the sole point when differentiating was unacceptable and the reason it was removed. The point you are referring to is a completely different arguement.

By 16 most kids but not all have caught up. Some certification shows a basic or foundation level of understanding of a subject. Is that not of some advantage to an employer? Far from not being able to differentiate between pupils' understanding of a subject, there is a great deal of information about the level of attainment.

I agree that the 11+ could be used to brand people as failures, but that was part of the problem with focusing exclusively on academic results, which is the very problem I'm arguing against.
Click to expand...

No, as starfighter said and I agreed with, it was that the timing(at 11yrs old) and the inability of the system to move late developers into the certification classes that existed at the time. At that time pupils not in the certification stream were moved into the general stream and did subjects like Woodwork, Metalwork and the girls did subjects like typing.
 
Last edited:
Nevermind staying an extra year in school, schools should be open longer hours. This doesn't necessarily mean more lessons. The extra time there could be made up of games and sports etc.

I say this for two reasons: It would help out parents who struggle to work hard and arrange child care. The other reason is to stop single mums thinking that they have a right not to work just because they have a child in school ?? (I've never understood that)

"I need to claim benefits as I can't work because i have a child that attends a school that is now open from 8am-6pm"

Surely the cost of the schools being open longer hours would be more than paid for by the money saved on benefits :D

BTW I don't have any children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom