Lonan3 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 TIMES LINK Children will be compelled to stay in full-time education or training until they reach 18 under proposals being considered by ministers for one of the biggest shake-ups in education for decades. Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, said that it was unacceptable for children of 16 to be in full-time work, adding that government policy on the school leaving age may be reversed. He is attracted to a move in Ontario, Canada, to reintroduce a legal requirement that children stay at school or college or remain in formal training until the age of 18. His comments are likely to spark a debate among educationists, with some schools raising questions about pressure to find extra places for disengaged teenagers but universities welcoming the idea as a way to encourage students from poorer families to reach university. The last time the school-leaving age was raised from 15 to 16 in the 1970s a massive school building programme was required. Similar expense would be required to fund these plans as currently around a quarter of pupils leave at the age of 16. If this should be introduced - and we seem to follow the UK in most respects - how well does the statement that it is "unacceptable for children of 16 to be in full-time work" sit with the notion of awarding 16 & 17 year lods the vote? And, if we decide not to follow it, will this mean that our own youngsters in this age group who leave school after GCSE will be unable to go to the UK to find work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 aren't they short of teachers ? crazy idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Sandwich Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 This is an interesting one for several reasons. Firstly, it will never happen because it would have to be accepted across Europe, otherwise kids will leave school at 16 and go and work in France or something. However, I remember when Blair came to power, there were about 2.5 million unemployed. One of the first things he did was to set about encouraging 16 years olds to either go one to full time education or to start on one of his Governement funded apprenticeship schemes (where instead of just getting the dole your worked and learned and earned the dole). Of course the take up was overwhelming, and because of the takeup and the opportunity of the schemes he craftily removed the 16-18 year olds from the unemployment figures, bringing thte figure down to less then 1 million after a year - 18 months. Ever since then the figure has crept up again as the schemes end etc. I wonder if this is another of Tony's mad schemes to lower the unemployment figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 People these days should realise that they need to sign up to school for life. *There is no such thing as a permanent job anymore - just you and your CV - and a variety of employers. If you fail to regularly update your skills, you'll be asking for trouble. *Does not apply to IOM government employees. If an IOM government employee please relax and go back to sleep - sorry for waking you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 The main problem with all this is the sheer lack of useful educational courses - why force someone to stay 2 extra years at school if all they're walking away from it with is a piece of paper saying they passed "media studies" then promptly join a bank. Even worse is the sheer lack of communication between our schools and colleges and the real world, a friend of mine recently passed a 3 year course at Chester university that had been reccomended by IOM College as the best she could get for her future field of work only to get back and be told it wasn't worth a damn. Life is a learning experience and I agree with AT that you need to keep on your toes but education for educations sake must be kept in check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 What about the pension 'crisis' too? Surely taking a lot of people out of the contributing workforce for another two years in only going to lead to people having to work even longer before retirement. Madness if you ask me, get them out working and climbing the employment ladder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Madness if you ask me, get them out working and climbing the employment ladder. Yeh! My chimney needs a sweep, and I'm sure there's lots of treacle left in the Laxey mines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Madness if you ask me, get them out working and climbing the employment ladder. Yeh! My chimney needs a sweep, and I'm sure there's lots of treacle left in the Laxey mines. Ronague fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Sandwich Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 I agree with Rhumsaa. Media studies, my arse! These days it seems course are designed to the student in order that they can be passed, rather than the student taking the challenge of a daunting qualification. I mean, when was the last time you heard of someone coming home from college/uni and failing? Even GCSEs. I know every year we get this every year, but "record passes" etc. What the hell is that? Were we so thick 30 years ago? Firstly, let me say, I have seen a couple of GCSE papers from this year and I don't think the questions are any easier, the asking appears dumbed down a bit but they are hard questions (at that age). Now, my niece is coming up to GCSEs next year, I believe she is studying for 10. When I was at school it was not possible to take that many at one sitting, I believe the maximum was 7, maybe 8 if you were super humanly clever. I was one of the quite clever ones who took a couple of subjects a year early and passed them. However, when I left school my best result was a "B". In those days you had to achieve 45% to pass ("C" grade). I know someone who marks maths CGSE papers for spare cash and according to him this year was laughable. The instructons said something like "If the student has made a reasonable attempt but got the answer wrong, it should be marked as correct for effort." The "C" grade pass mark for GCSE maths this year was 16%. 50% got you an A*. The problem with all this is that it is misleading the kids into thinking they are clever. The problem is when they leave school and start work, and find they are in a competitive market, they are very soon out of theur depth. An example, a 16 year old joins the bank in a junior administrative role. We gave her a couple of days simple filing and stuff so she could settle in. I then sat her down with a simple reconciliation, barely more then checking off your bank statement, not only did she not understand it, but she could not do even the simplest bits without a calculator. This was really disturbing to me. I don't know how many CGSEs she had but I knew they included maths and English. She lasted in the job for about a month then left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Agitator Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 People these days should realise that they need to sign up to school for life. *There is no such thing as a permanent job anymore - just you and your CV - and a variety of employers. If you fail to regularly update your skills, you'll be asking for trouble. *Does not apply to IOM government employees. If an IOM government employee please relax and go back to sleep - sorry for waking you. couldnt have put that better myself (the last line) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 15, 2006 Author Share Posted November 15, 2006 Perhaps they should all have teachers like this? WORTH A READ "How many peers are there in the House of Lords?" Mr Johnson asked his class before admitting: "We don't quite know because they keep dying all the time." They settled on somewhere between 741 and 752. Super stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 If someone has naturally come to the end of their studies at age sixteen just what would they actually do in school for another two years? Also, since it is even harder these days to get on the mortgage ladder this delays earning for another two years. One of the arguments for the measure is that it would prevent young people ending up in 'dead end' jobs. Excuse me but someone has to do these jobs exclusive of imported Poles. Some people actually prefer not being in a career - it's less lucrative but less hassle. Sorry, no commonsense at all in this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 CGSE papers for spare cash and according to him this year was laughable. The instructons said something like "If the student has made a reasonable attempt but got the answer wrong, it should be marked as correct for effort." Sounds like bollocks to me, most of the exam boards post their exams and mark schemes on their sites (e.g. www.aqa.org.uk/). Sure there are method marks for showing correct working (which I totally agree with), but that is quite different then a 'mark for effort'. No wonder GCSEs are so easy if clowns like that are marking them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
integer Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Yeh! My chimney needs a sweep, and I'm sure there's lots of treacle left in the Laxey mines. Theres treacle in the Laxey mines?! *plans midnight raid with a sliced loaf and a spoon* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I think one of the most important questions is how such a change might impact the economy. If there is a move from 16 to 18 that will mean a huge pool of labour will be unavailable. Though Britain's education system isn't anything to be complacent about. GCSE are apparently far too easy, so are A-levels and now the whole purpose of doing a degree is in question. I suppose the most important question is whether such a change will better educate and make students more employable. I am not sure myself as considering GCSEs mean little these days then why not push kids to do A-levels? If they aren't so difficult now then what's the problem? As someone previously mentioned about it possibly being pointless because after two years they walk away with a worthless piece of paper but is that not that case at the moment with GCSEs? I do not think it should be a problem with the situation of younsters leaving to work in the UK. If it is the case then 'oh dear' but the Isle of Man would surely adopt similar measures. Is it not all about labour competitiveness? I definitely do not think as Mission says that people should just drop out and go on the employment ladder. That is a joke, right? I know it isn't that hard to find a reasonably good job as an office junior or clerk as soon as you leave at 16 but it is hardly an auspicious start in your career if you wanted to move away and really move up the ladder. Certainly, for Manx teenagers going to university has to be the best 'wake-up call' to real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.