Guess the youth unemployment figures have gone up again. Simpler than creating real jobs I suppose.

# Bill, Dunblane

This must be the latest high tech idea, thought up by the country's greatest political minds, to drop the unemployment numbers....

National Service for the fall in army numbers next ?

Maybe if I had stayed at school longer I would know what 'Forasfamilation' was though I doubt it would have made me more succesful in life.
Many of my pals who like me left school at 15 (45 years ago) already had a bunch of 'O' grades and went on to have on the job training or day release and went on to be surveyors, engineers, office managers etc. Even my daughters (nearly 20 years ago) left school to go to university, one aged 17 with 5 highers and one aged 16 with 6!
What on earth do they suppose they are going to achieve by keeping youngsters at school until they are 18. The bright ones will already have learned everything that the school has to offer and be bored stiff, the less academic ones will have to locked in to keep them there. This is just nonsense. Teachers must be tearing their hair out. The only reasons given are to tackle the NEET group as Bill@1 has noted and secondly that 'You would find it repellent' (to see a fourteen year old at work). No, Mr Johnson, I would not. Legislation has more or less put an end to young people working part time and during the holidays while still at school, yet I feel that this work experience was enormously beneficial to my generation and particularly to my daughters' who gained so much knowledge of the real world before (and during) being cloistered in a Uni for 4 years.
The sooner workers start to work and acquire the work ethic, the better. Many employers would rather have a 'blank canvas' to train rather than their trainee having to unlearn bad habits.
As for tackling the 'NEET' group. There should be no benefits paid either for staying on at school or college unless they have near perfect attendance. Otherwise, no state benefits at all, just an expectation that -you leave school - you get a job.

2 - Famous 15 - not often I'm lost for words, but you got me there!

'Forasfamiliation' - please disect.

3 - Peter - Aye, almost definitely.

4 - Sheena - not your normal (good) self? Moving just a wee bit to the right there in your final paragraph?

Otherwise agree entirely. :)

When my son was 16 he got a holiday job to give him a bit extra cash before starting college. He loved having his own money and refused to go back. After being a wage earner for even that short time was enough for him to know he did not want to stay on at school.

Has he suffered for it? Does he have some dead end job with no prospect because he did not get the qualifications we hoped he would? Well he is a company director well on course for a 50K a year salary. OK it does not work like that for all. But forcing young adults to keep going to school is daft.

But it will keep the unemployment figures down.

Yea, Bill I surprise myself at times. But I do think that an expection that people will work for most of their lives has to be re instilled into parents, young people, do gooders and politicians. Do you also remember the excitment of leaving school, the first day at work, the feeling of being a grown up and the pride of taking home your first pay. I want todays young people to experience that joy too so I'm only being cruel to be kind.

Ah Sheena,

Such memories indeed. (British Linen Bank - £7 for a 40 hour week - most of which went to my maw for my keep!) It was so much simpler then, or maybe we were just young?

I (always) know where you are coming from.

But I have also known the despair of redundancy (more than once) and unemployment.

It makes one slightly less keen to criticise those that might appear to be unwilling or reticent - so many hopes dashed so often?

But appreciate your post. :)

#1 Bill. As you say, the youth unemployment figures must be going up again.

What is the point of keeping kids at school who are obviously unsuited to academic life? If they had technical colleges to teach these kids a trade, I could see the force of it, but, otherwise, it is a waste of taxpayers money.

Anyway, we badly need more qualified tradesmen, not a bunch of kids with dumbed down qualifications who are not trained for anything.

As for paying kids anything up to £40 a week to stay at school, that is also a joke. How much are they going to pay them now to stay at school till they are 18? It will be like paying them dole money, but it will not be included in the unemployment figures.

Bill @ 9 We must stop meeting like this :) But - How strange - National Commercial Bank £250 a YEAR! for me. I have also been made redundant and the just under £50 per week for 6 months which was all I was entitled to didn't half make me keen to get another job, any job, quickly.
Guga @ 10 agree with you too.

Kind ignores the fact that you are an adult at 18 in Scotland.

Dear Miss

Johnny couldn't come to school today as the doctor says its his wife's most fertile time, and they have been trying to start a family for almost two years now.

Can you keep him off PE too, as hes going to be knackered.

Johnny's mum

16 even!!!
:-)

Excellent news!

I can only compare the schools in South Africa with the schools in the UK to see what a difference leaving at 18 makes to a person.

Its true that most government schools in SA have the same sort of facilities as a Fettes. Sport is paramount and in many instances compulsory! Children wear uniforms, ties done up, short hair, blazers and polished shoes. No jewellery permitted, no make-up permitted and detention or expulsion for those who fail to comply with the rules. The end product through this system results in well mannered, well balanced hard working respectful individuals who at 18 are closer to adulthood than they were 2 years prior to that. They are more prepared. (More often than not that is)

The whole structure in Britian needs a shake up! The kids there are out of control...and theyare the future!

I was a secondary school teacher the last time the leaving age was raised.
I can well remember the chaos caused by those non-academic pupils forced to stay on.
Forty broken windows a week was not seen as unusual!

And no doubt the government will want to pay them £30 a week to remain in school till eighteen. Cheaper than the dole?

April 1st. is early this year ( due to global warming?). This must be the stupidest idea, after the illegal war in Iraq, our beloved politicians have come up with. One of the biggest wastes of taxpayers' money is trying to educate those who don't wish to be learnt. Personally I would lower the school leaving age to 14 or less and spend the money saved on top class education for those who want to learn, be it Physics or plumbing.

Hooray!

An extra couple of years to learn to spell properly - can only be a good thing surely?

Then again - why can't kids spell by 16?????

Two points...

Where will the extra teachers come from to cope with the extra numbers? Schools are already having difficulty filling vacancies and finding supply cover to fill in for staff illness.

Secondly, allowing some to leave but not others is going to lead to real difficulties with enforcement. If a pupil leaves to go to a job, but then loses their job, would they be forced to return to school?

Smacks of tackling the problem in the totally wrong way. The issue to address is why so many young people can't wait to leave school even when they have no job, training or further education lined up.

Why is the Scottish parliament always copying the new laws of England... Westminster makes a new law designed specifically for England...Scotland follows like a sheep... we really need independence as devolution is just the old Scottish grand committee.

What a lot this is.I`ll tell you i would not have liked to be a teacher if my lot were still at school till 18.That was 1960 and they`re a lot worse now.At 18 I was a 3rd year apprentice well into the work ethic.My dad left school at 13 and it did him no harm.School is for the accademics not the ones who want to leave and get on with their working lives.
It`s just another ploy to keep the unemployment figures down.Also we`ll have to fund them as they get paid £30 a week from 16.

Well I have to admit after reading the first 10 plus entries you had me shaking my head thinking why do I see it so differently. Then #16 came along, thank god someone else who thinks the way I do. Sure the proposal needs to be thought out a bit more, but the idea is right. What is two more years going to give them.... well hopefully common sense, better reading and writing skills... And even if thats all they got it might take them along way from where so many are right now. A few of you are talking like these kids are part of a throw away society. How many kids in their early to mid teens knows what they want to do in life, what kid doesn't act up at that age. I am not sure there are many of us that didn't fall into this category at one point or another. But rather than say they are useless , so lets just get rid of them making room for the truly deserving ..lets try and give a few others that bit extra help they need to become decent productive adults. Times have changed this is an educated world and the children of uk at one time were thought to have a truly excellent education system..... look around the world no longer thinks that... the world is shaking it's head in disbelief at what has happened here.

#12 "Suck"
I was about to become all indignant and critical about this daft idea (obviously thought up to massage the unemployment figures), then I read your posting and started to laugh. Another law being passed without much thought about how it will work!!!

Well, that's one way to ensure that the teaching profession will continue to struggle to attract teachers. What do the governments on both sides of the border suggest we do with the large number of big lads who, even by the age of 16, have become unteachable, offensive, disruptive and abusive? Goodness knows what they will be like for another two years until they reach their majority! The government understands so little about what it's like to actually be in the classroom day after day babysitting other people's badly brought-up children!

Since those who don't want to go to secondary school are free to roam the streets anyway, teachers breathing a sigh of relief that they are not disrupting the classroom, how will raising the age achieve anything without effective sanctions?

Gorernment fails to enforce existing legislation on school attendance.

#16 Lots of these schools are in Soweto and other shanty towns. Right media1?

I was so glad at school when all the nupties left at 15/16 so I could finally concentrate on my highers, without those disprutive pupils which had made school life hell up until then (my school was pretty rough!)

Forcing people to stay that don't even want to be there in the first place has to be one of the stupidest ideas the government has come up with! It means people that actually want to be there to learn and do well will be held back by the other folk that just want to muck about.

Should've been done years ago. But will it keep the little thugs off the streets??

In response to DW (#20), perhaps the government has an eye on the 50% of secondary school teachers in Scotland, who are about to retire within the next 10 years. By 2013, it might reckon that there will be a very large pool (indeed, sea) of experienced supply teachers available to handle this increase in disruptive and discontented elements in our state schools. It might even offer them courses in the martial arts to enable them to cope with the threats and intimidation!
I do agree with #18 and #22. The government should contemplate lowering the school leaving age rather than increasing it. A young person working in an adult environment will learn much more than on-the-job skills, such as a sensible work ethic, politeness and respect for their seniors.
It brings me back to my own experience with a particularly cheeky and impertinent young lad at school, who left to work as an apprentice plumber. Less than a year later, I came across this young lad working on the school premises along with a time-served plumber and was amazed at the transformation in his attitude to work and behaviour. When I told the plumber about his previous behaviour at school and asked how he had managed to change this young lad's outlook, he replied by saying that he, too, had experienced this type of behaviour. However, having ignored one warning about his attitude, he took the lad, stuck his head down the nearest toilet and flushed it!! After that, he had no more trouble. The young lad in question is now a well=respected, polite middle-aged plumber. I am not suggesting for one moment, that we should treat our young people like this, but in the adult working environment, such bad behaviour is not tolerated and sanctions can be severe. It is a place, where young people can learn to become self-disciplined.

#28 CADGERS: I am not sure about Soweto, although billions have been spent there.

It is true that the rural areas are not as advanced as the urban areas in terms of schools. But the standard issue government school within the many thousands of suburbs that exist throughout this beautiful country cater for all creeds and colours. There is little religious division and even less racism. The kids are just kids going to school to learn. They play sport with passion, they all want to be the next Springbok rugby star, the next Springbok Cricketer, the next Aeron Mkwena at Blackburn, the next Benni Mc Carthy or Lucas Radebe, the next Ernie Els, Retief Goosen, Gary Player, Rory Sabbatini, Trevor Immelman, the next Roland Schoeman, the next Wayne Ferraira etc. They are passionate about sport, their appearance is exemplary, they are polite, they are courteous and they matriculate at 18. They can leave school at 16 if they make alterior arrangements to complete their studies at a college or technical college.

All I am saying is that it can work. It works here. These kids know there is no dole system, that sort of system is alien to them. They grow up in a very modern infrastructure within a wealthy nation with all the European bells and whistles. They leave school at 18 with the full understanding that you work hard to make money and survive, or you chose not to and live a life of povety. There is no hand outs and no cradle to grave attitude.

Its hard work, respect and discipline with a passion for sport that makes them different. The weather plays a big part in it also, but you dont need sun to be polite.

i dont think it should be changed to 18 because it wouldnt be fair on them...because the other students got to leave when they where 16...so why can't they?????

16 - Media 1

You're back on your school uniform fetish yet again!

Do you think they'll provide a creche for the pupils to encourage them to turn up?

#34: BILL; You may like to appear slovenly, but I take pride in my appearance and it stems from the fact that I was forced to do so from an early age. I was used to wearing a tie and a blazer everyday. I was concious that my appearance was important! I was aware that pride in oneself led to respect for oneself and others.

I would not dream of dressing slovenly to work. Call it a fetish if thats all your mind can offer you. I chose to call it well groomed respectable attire.

Wow! There certainly is a great cross section of thought here and, frankly, there are good points that have been made all round.
For my part, I was Head Boy of a school that became comprehensive in 1969 and overnight uniforms disappeared and discipline started to wane, though quite why this was I did not comprehend at the time.
Parents are, in my opinion, the root cause and this is a frame of mind that goes back to the '60's and '70's when the comprehensive bug took hold and a "so called" freer society became the norm and we were all encouraged to think about our social rights and to be more independent.
School was supposed to be a disciplined environment, teachers like bankers and doctors were recognised as figures of standing in society and we paid them due respect. Uniforms were part of that society and were worn with pride and encouraged competition between schools in sport and other forms of inter school challenges.
So where has it all gone - the respect, the discipline, the uniforms and the competition?........and to make matters worse politicians now want to increase the school population and exacerbate the problem.
A problem engrained in society and caused by politicians in the first place. Is there no original thought out there amongst these politicians - why not scrap the rubbish universities and reinvent Technical Colleges and provide us with plumbers, electricians, brickies and the like that are so hard to find these days and who can start training at 15.

When I was at Primary School (1957-1964), the teachers were considered failures if kids hadn't learned to read and write and do simple mental arithmetic by the age of 8, let alone, 11, 14, 16 ....

I was lucky, I learnt to read by the age of 4 mainly because I was jealous of my elder brother who spent all his time reading, and there were adults around to teach me.

I was in a class of 40 in a poor London suburb with mostly working-class parents.

When I was 8 (1961), the only boy who could not read well was severely educationally challenged (at that time, he was called a Mongol) - I met him last year, and he's a journalist !

Putting the age up to 16 helps nobody.

#9 Such memories indeed. (British Linen Bank - £7 for a 40 hour week

Lucky b*****d! In the early 60s I got £3/0/0 less 6/9 National Insurance as a trainee civil engineer, net £2/13/3.
But these were the days when we would fight our way through drifting snow on the 11 mile walk to work and do so with a song in our hearts, a happy smile and a cheery wave for all. ;-)
Nowadays I see kids with a Standard Grade 'pass' (Foundation Level) in Stupidity Sciences who get quite indignant to be offered a starting salary of less than £20k.

The politicians have finally lost all understanding of the real world in their zeal to be seen to be doing something... anything is better than nothing.
This does not begin to adress the real problem of how to motivate and inspire a proportion of young people.

14, 16, 18, 21 what difference does it make they wont be any better educated or ready to take on the real world away from mommy and daddy. This is the biggest waste of time or is it just a way of justifying even more immigrants to cover the jobs that these people should be filling

Hardly any commenter has actually bothered to READ the story.

First of all, if this is put into practice, pupils would only be allowed to leave school at 16 if they were entering employment, training or further education.

No change will take place until 2013, with pupils entering secondary school next year the first affected.

So young people with a job can leave at 16 as at present. So can young people with a training place or college place.

Now the detail. It would be inappropriate for many of the young people who are not academically minded to stay in the school premises, so there is a real opportunity to find more practical and vocational education for them. this can begin not at 16 but at 14, if necessary. What won't be an option will be hanging about idly. We have ten years to plan for and apply resources to meet the needs of these young people for when they reach age 14.

#2 - the word is "forisfamiliation".

In old Scots law, as set out in Erskine, it is defined as "the act by which a father gives to a child his share of his legitime, and the latter renounces all further claim. From this time, the child who has so received his share, is no longer accounted a child in the division of the estate."

More practically, it means the separation of a child from its family. For example, some young people grow so far apart from their parents that they are treated as a separate family entity. This might happen if there was some serious ill treatment and the child, with the support of welfare authorities, was in practical terms living his or her own life with no contact with either parent. It has also been used to refer to young people who have married.

Neither definition is relevant to the context of this discussion. Someone has been eating a dictionary and hasn't digested properly.

I don't believe that chronological age is or should be the issue here, it should be educational age There are those who take full advantage of the education offered
them and may be quite capable of gaining a good standard of education younger than most others.
There are those who fall into the trap of regular truanting, who do not realise the value or want to be educated. With the spread of nursary education, children are making an earlier start, and hopefully one benefit may be the realisation of that value earlier.
For those who will not learn their should be no upper age, far beeter that it is made clear that no one will be allowed to leave education and make a living for themselves until they can prove that they have attained a nationally agreed educational standard.

This an excellent idea, long overdue. Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to leave school without a certain level of literacy and numeracy. There are too many unemployable people out there. Hopefully, job seeking skills will be embedded in the curriculum, so that youngsters don't think it's ok to turn up for an interview in jeans, submit an application form which is full of spelling mistakes and crossings out, and chew gum throughout the proceedings.

#4
Sheena - the Educational Maintenance Allowance is only paid for each full week of attendance. This means, of course, that those who don't want to be there will be there even more, no doubt spreading their negativity across the school.

44) I tend to agree, it took a retired lady teacher from
the public school sector to elucidate this for me when she was filling in for my ill form master at a tough school in Edinburgh. She Said that Education was from the Greek root and meant to draw out of not as was the case then and now to force into.

When I went to school in the 60s, I had to translate an article into German about ROSLA (Rising of School Leaving Age). A theme that seems to be still actuell. But I think some problems should be solved in an other way than ROSLA.

I and most of my peers were bigger and stronger than our teachers by 16 and dwarfed them by 18, but then we chose to stay on but the disaffected who could not cope with the disipline were already skivving and trying to intimidate. A recipe for assaults on teachers. Did someone say danger money?

Unless I've missed something, teenagers will still be able to get married at 16, but have to stay in school for two more years. If they have kids, they won't be able to leave school to look after them, because looking after your own children is not "employment, training or further education".

Joined-up government?

Here in poland, although kids can technically leave school at 16 almost all of them stay on in Liceum until they are 18. I believe this common throughout Europe.

I emigrated from Aberdeen and attended uni in the States and became a secondary school teachr. I taught history grades 9-12 (15-18) yrs of age. The system in Britain is based on the days when hiher education was not a necessity and young folk needed to work to help the family survive as my parents had to do. My Dad was on the buses at age 15 as a conductot then a driver at 21. His pay packet went to his Mum and he received an allowance. In NY State one can leave school at 16 with parental permission but what kind of parent would consent to that. Only the children from bad homes and severe trouble makers would do such a thing. Students are not mature enough at 16 to know what they want to do in life. I did not know what I wanted to do untill my third year at uni. I decided to attend uni. as I knew that was an open door to a higher paying job. We have Occupational Schools for ages 16-18 that students attend for half the schoolday the other half is spent taking mandatory subjects required for graduation. About 33% of students choose this option, the rest take college prep courses. My daughter took four college credit courses in high school at age 17-18 that saved her from taking these courses at uni. this saved money as well. The school in which I taught had a 92% graduatin rate at age17-18. We also have sport in school and competition in high school leagues. This helps some students want to finish high school, it gives them incentive. You are considered are real looser if you quit before graduation and few employers will hire you. McDonalds is an exception. You have to many school leavers who are unemployed and then they become the responsibility of the police in many cases.

Sorry for the typos, as I'm in rather a hurry.

In the 1930s, NY State decreed that students MUST stay in school until age 17. The Great Depression was on, there were few jobs available for mature men, and releasing children from school at the former age of release (14) would just put even more pressure on those jobs. And, society had changed from mainly agricultural to mainly urban.

In many states here, there are work/study programs for adolescents who are interested in getting to work sooner than age 17+, or who want to begin an apprenticeship program in a skilled trade. There are also, as mentioned in another letter to this forum, accelerated courses for bright and ambitious students who want to get some of their college "core" courses out of the way before entering the university.

Frankly, although Britain excels in the socialization of young children, the older children are not educated to their full potential. Leaving school at 15 is simply not conducive to preparing for a productive adult life. Those children are still in early adolescence and cannot possibly be prepared for a complex and technological society.

So I, for one, applaud the decision to keep adolescents in school until age 18 in Britain. It is sensible, sane, and if administered correctly, will enormously help your society. It's only too obvious that your enormous numbers of unemployed youth do nothing but hang about on street corners and get into mischief, some of it criminal.

Brigadoon: even though in some of our backward southern states young people can marry at 16 with parental consent, almost universally in the USA any teenage year is considered far too young for marriage. Most people consider that age 25 is the appropriate age to begin considering marriage.

And, many young couples in their 20s and 30s live together for a couple years before formal marriage, a phenomenon that has arisen since the 1960s.

Unfortunately, our seemingly intransigent subculture of poor whites, blacks and hispanics does not consider 14 too young to become parents, and a few children produce their own children even younger. While clearly these girls are exploited members of an unfortunate economic class, the trend continues unabated and is very worrisome.

What happened to VocationalSchools? - and the 'streaming A/B/C, C being the hands-on education. Open to different trades, thus giving students the opportunity to find the trade best suited to them?
Did I read right - paying kids to stay at school?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!! Re-dic-u-lous!

Arthur (48) : educo, educere, eduxi, eductum - Latin, I think?

Anne, So I was misinformed all these years ago, but you don't say if the meaning is the same, that's what matters.

The root is e(x) meaning out and ducere = to lead.

Paying students??? No wonder the young want to start out at high salaries. They are not willing to prove themselves worthy of a pay rise. Bring back National Service. for the growing number of neds you now have in Britain, it certainly is not the nation I left so many years past. I grew up with a very strong work ethic that I give Scotland and my parents credit for. When we arrived in the States my Father could not get a car loan as he talked "funny" but once he showed the lad his savings book frae the bank. As all proper Aberdonians would have, they sold him the car on the spot. When at work for General Motors, his pals would tell him to slow down as he was making them look bad. No wonder "Generous Motors" is in trouble.

#50, what kind of students were you? You sound like an innercity American school full of minority kids from crack families. I taught school for 34 years and you have to earn the respect of students and mine knew enough not to get my goat. Intimidation in our schools would result in police being called in if excessive.

I hope this proposal doesn't succeed. As an "ex-pat" (well, ex UK but certainly not ex-PAT) having lived in the US for forty years I have yet to see any benefit from youth being held in school until they are 18yrs. old. Seems to me a major mistake in this country and we'd be making similar in the UK if it's allowed to happen. Many kids are not cut out or, frankly, well enough equipped for Uni education on any level so what purpose does keeping them in school so much longer serve if not simply to suit govt. and industry needs? I finished school at fifteen, have an IQ acceptable for MENSA and have no regrets. We all make our lives what we wish and if left to make our own decisions or choices (within reason) can fare as well as we are prepared to achieve. Enough with govt. controlling so much of our own lives and those of our children.

My son is only 3 but I already despair at what kind of schooling awaits him.

This is a most ridiculous idea. I very vividly remember the people at school who were ready to leave at 16 as it simply was not an environment that they flourished in. I was also glad to say goodbye to the neds that made school a living misery day by day. Teachers will be stretched to their limits, as will resoures (if thats possible), students will become more fractious and disconnected from the very system that is attempting to encourage them, but yes....the jobless figures may decline and that seems the point of the exercise here.

Why not put all this high-brow think-tank effort (had a little chuckle there) into overhauling the methods and delivery mechanisms of education.....how about even using the 'monetary incentives' paid to hangers-on to fund appreticeships with small local companies, or require one to two years of vocational based training at a college if a leaver chooses to go at 16?

Keeping kids in high-school is not the answer as evidenced by the rates of university drop-outs reaching silly proportions because they are not equipped nor matched to continuing to this level of education. We are kidding ourselves on that this is a viable alternative to giving kids real world vocational experience when they do not function well in the current school system. Either change the school system, or let them do something worthy on their own.

61) Why has there always got to be some reactionary fool on every thread pertaining to youth, who regards
National Service as the panacea for all social ills.
I am getting fed up saying the military has no use for
unwilling, undereducated, conscripts who will not conform to or accept the discipline, they will be a useless, and dangerous encumberance to any voluntary professional military service.

#63, Who the hell would hire them? These days grade 12 is a nesessity, you are living in the past. Those students that are not college bound go to vocational school for part of the day. We would be like Britain with all these unemployed under educated neds on the street, We have enough of that in US cities as it is. Please, we do not have to hear about how smart you are, you certainly wasted your potential by not going to Med school or something eqivalent. Those that can't hack it today drop out, they unfortunately do not have your intelligence nor luck. From an average student that worked his tail off at uni. I have a great pension because I chose a vocation that would give me one.

55. Martha

It would be great if things in the UK were as you described. The Scottish education system used to be respected world wide. The truth now however, is that because of the nanny state that has developed here, more and more young folk have no idea of personal responsibility and no great amount of self respect. They come through the education system without the ability to read, write or count well enough to get or hold a job. If they cannot do this at 16, what will a further 2 years in the same system do to encourage them?

I do not think forcing those young people to stay on another two years will benefit them any further. Maybe if the education authorities (and parents) would go back to making sure kids mastered the basic skills required for education to work, during their formative years at school, then remaining at school until 18 would be beneficial to everyone.

If a child is lucky enough to be born into a family who still see it as their responsibility to encourage and help their children, then in most cases that child will do as well as they are capable of. But if that child is born into a family that see it as the states responsibility to do this, then the kid starts at a disadvantage.

We did encourage our son, and when he started school at four and a half yrs old he could do simple reading, counting and write his name. Within a week of him starting I was sent for and told that I had done wrong by encouraging him to learn those things as it gave him an unfair advantage over the other kids. We had not forced him into it, he wanted to learn. Eventually we were told we would be better sending him to a private school or getting him private turors. As he was obviously an individual and not suited to a state education. When I asked why, his teacher told me that he kept asking questions, and did not simply accept what was put to him. That was in the 1970s and he was 10 years old at the time. things have got wors

I think the school leaving age should be lowered to 14, not increased to 18.
Those who show little inclination or skill at academia could then transfer into vocational training to gain a useful trade.
Those who show a degree of aptitude and/or willingness to be more academic could then continue on until 16.
At 16 the choice would then be whether to go onto higher education or not.

67) Quite obviously an inadequate school and or teachers, who could not cope with an enquiring mind.
They should have been exposed, what you describe is wholly unacceptable, then or now.

68) Ridiculous, train them how, without the basics.
Train them to do what? There are insufficient jobs
in the market for this kind of worker.

i too had experience as a young teacher of trying to teach ROSLAs in the 1970s. I found it quite frightening, as they did not want to be in school and did not want to learn anything. They were happiest insulting teachers and causing trouble.

Teaching them how to count and spell? You must be joking, and I know the sort of response such a suggestion would receive. I once asked a pupil to read something aloud and, to my extreme embarassment, he replied that he could not read.

School is not relevant to these youngsters.

Arthur, I'm a retired army officer that was drafted for Vietnam, national service will not be an answer to all but I have seen it give pride to many a young man that had no direction in life, they may have hated the service but were proud to say they did their two years. In the US, "once a marine, always a marine" is an example. The losers are drumed out in short order.

69) Why is Britain different. And I say again apprentice them to what, the apprenticeship system was excellent for it's time. It is now decimated nobody is taking them
on, the job market has changed, I doubt for the better.

I chose to contiue my service by going to Officer school as a reservist and was able to balance military service and teaching, so now I have two pensions and social security which helps as I still have three of my five children at home, one of whom is at uni. to become a primary teacher when she receives her MA, which is required in NY state to teach.

Working at 14? How is that repellent? Its time we stopped treating 14 year olds like children and treat them like the adults they are - including when they commit crimes. It is going to be a nightmare at school for the ones who want to study and get Highers etc, up till now you could be sure of getting peace to work after the wee neds and layabouts had left at 16. Now they will be hanging about disrupting the good students for 2 more years.

#66

Perhaps it was that I simply pointed out how education was, then...and I still am totally bemused by how it seems to have deteriorated as many of these posts might imply. Look, I had a daughter whose last two years of schooling were completed at a Scottish school (thankfully!). At sixteen years of age she went on to a Technical College...her choice following parental discussion and agreement. Smart kid, did not like school but bloomed during her further education. However, when I returned to the US she chose to remain in Scotland. Initially, I wasn't happy with it but upon my return, seeing her peers, here, I reversed that. She would have had a very difficult time assimilating with the immaturity of young adults who are forced to remain in school through 12th. grade...not to mention a serious lack of decent education. Frankly, I'm appalled that we graduate adults with degrees...teaching among them...who have reading, spelling/vocabulary or even world knowledge expected of a fifteen year old or younger. But holding them in school until they are 18 is not the solution. Parents, I'd agree, are pretty much at fault. They need to demand more of themselves where their children are concerned, more of the children they chose to have and raise and more of the educators/educational systems into which they place their trust for childrens' potential. Certainly not into government hands or dictates. Frankly, were I to be raising children these days they would be home-schooled because public education is nothing short of a mess. You and I know it is here...while the situation may be approaching bad enough in the UK, let's not make it worse by using what we must bear as an example. Either that or the UK might just as well offer itself as the 52nd. State and be done with it then live with...and suffer...the consequences.

74) That was in a time of war, when your nation could not make up miliry numbers by voluntary means. The fact that this was so suggests to me that no one who was physically and psychologically able would have been drummed out. Yes I have no doubt that some would have left proud to have done their patriotic duty
but there wer also many who were turned into another kind of social misfit because of their enforced experience.

I shall give you an example, I had been student teaching and when I arrived for basic training I saw a young chap that had been one of my charges a year erlier. I knew him to be rather slow and thought, well they want another trigger finger. When this chap began having difficulties in training I mentioned to my Sgt. that I had experience with him as teacher/student. I was called into OC's office and was asked my opinion. This never happens in boot camp. He was then sent to a school to learn how to work on lorries and the like and never was posted to Vietnam as the others in our training unit. They were not going to let someone off their obligation but certainly did not send many Forrest Gumps to Nam.

As I see it, if you are a citizen of a democratic nation, you have three obligations. Vote, pay your taxes and defend your nation when called to do so. As a Scot, I wanted to show the Yanks what we were made of and was made a squad leader through out the training period.

Oh to be young again,so many opportunities,when you are at school you don't know what the heck life holds for you,it's only when you've been exposed to it for a while, understanding it then is easier.
Apprenticeships in the Trades are badly needed in Canada,we are like the rest of the world presently in that department,all us 'babyboomers' are retiring ,give more exposure and information to pupils in order that they can choose a compatible path in the workforce,nevermind increasing the term of schooling,the politicians must have short memories of their schoolyears.

Although I belive UK young people may more mature at 16 than their American counterparts, as our world grows more technical another 2 years of educatin may be a help.
Our American schools are by no means perfect in methods and program. We have high drop out records and those who compleat High School may not be educated. However adaptation as work/ study. advanced college/university courses, do make our students more ready for further education or the real world ofemployment.

I fully understand the need to raise the school leaving age to 18 if the previous comments are any indication!

Arthur #74 when were you last near a building site ? They're crying out for skilled manual labour in this country. Hence the multiplicity of the Poles. Edinburgh is one big building site and skilled workers are very much in demand. Nobody is taking apprentices on ? of course they are, very much so.

1
Im not surprised that this was the first comment! Its the obvious one isnt it!
It might be worth mentioning that Labour came to power claiming that Tory unemployed figures were 1 million higher because of the way they were calculated.
One of the following is true therefore.
a)Labour stopped fiddling the unemployed figures and the national total increased by 1 million the following day
b) The figures have never jumped by a significant figure on any occasion according to the government,so the figures are still crooked as was the case under the Tories.
Guess which one is true!

#71 Arthur.....Ridiculous is it to learn plumbing, carpentry, vehicle mechanics, heavy and domestic electrical skills, plastering, painting/decorating, gardening, secretarial skills, brick-laying, dental assistant, basic nursing, and so-forth, a waste of time?
There are no jobs in any of these vocational trades you say?
Damn me but I must be blind'n'bemused if there ain't plenty of jobs in these and other trades.
As for "knowing the basics" if the basics ain't grasped by the age of bloody 14 then I do not see another 4 years as being of any benefit to anyone. Get the little blighters working or working towards a trade.

Let them leave school at 16 give them 6 months to find and keep a job or send them into the military services<i.e. national service>.That should learn them to respect others and themselves.

There is no "official" school leaving age here. We work within a system of grades and throughout their school life advanced students are escalated to higher grades allowing some students to graduate at 16 or 17 years of age while normal learners will continue and complete the high school curriculum at 18 or even 19 years of age. This has good and bad results as my wife and I had the experience and the dilemma of dealing with, some years ago, when our daughter completed her grade 13 (Ontario,then) and entered University at the ripe old age of 16 only to find that her classroom peers ranged in age from 19 to 22 years in age. Anyone of you who is a parent will not need a road-map to understand the conflicts that took place in what had been up to then our very quiet home. Everything has worked out fine in the end and our daughter is a competant surgeon in sports medicine and who is at present on exchange in your fair country. But not to propose a pun, it took some time for the scars to heal. I would vote yes for a compulsory school leaving age of eighteen if the curriculum was amended to allow for the more advanced to meet their potential prior to university entrance without creating a disadvantage for the normal learners.It is a polytechnic theory that may be worth exploring.

89 - Thanks Bob. Not the term I would have used!

87 - National Service - now there's a novel aproach! Would you advocate sending them into an illegal war to be killed for Bush & Bliar's mistakes and lies? (Obviously just the poor - rich people and politicians always seem to manage to avoid national service for their offspring.)

Why force those non academic kids to continue school? If there are no jobs, create a teen work/boot camp program. Let the kids who want to learn do so in peaceful classrooms. I quit teaching secondary ed. because struggling with yobos made my life and my hard working students' lives unbearable. I switched to teaching adults--many of whom had dropped out of high school only to realize some years later that education is important.

I've had some good years teaching willing learners, but now, thanks to the latest educational boondoggle (an 'exit 'exam) in CA, my adult students are being pushed out by nasty, don't want to be here, exam failures.

Wake up! Those students do not want to be in school!! Many, not all, do want to have paying jobs, and they are not averse to manual labor--so give them what they need, along with on the job training.

Don't our moronic leaders recall apprenticeships?

43 - Gnasher, thanks also - I somehow didn't notice your post earlier.

91 - CalScot - 'boondoggle' - sounds like an excellent expression if it means what I think it does. ;)

How about that - two new words in the same day and on the same post. You live and learn!

All it is is a means of doctoring the unemployment figures. Make then stay on at school so they are not included in the figures. This then makes the Government look better which is why this practice is followed by the UK Government and any future independent Scottish Government.

Yes it does have the effect of massaging the unemployment figures, but why should the unemployable be included in the employment figures anyway. It also has the effect of keeping them the financial responsibility of their parents and not the state.

86) Of course it is not ridiculous to learn these skills
but if you do not have the educational basics you will not understand what you are being taught. Secondly
employers are now buying in at the cheapest rate the expertise they need when they need it, they will not spend the money on training, that expertise will come from the EEC if it cannot be found at the cheapest rate possible locally. This is the real world of greed, maximise profits, sod the young who want the training and jobs, ignore those who don't and end up creating ghettos of ignorance, crime, drug addiction, prostitution, and violence. Whose inhabitants will only come out to rob the educated workforc, which they feel have denied them their
"rights", because they sure as hell won't take responsibility for their own actions.

#91 - apprenticeships to our leaders is terra incognito.

Jackie, #: Public school is not for everybody. I know this because it was very ill-suited for me. My mom was reading poetry to me before I was born, and I was always exposed to such things as a baby. This gave me a great advantage over most of my classmates, but it gave a disadvantage as well: I was terribly bored.

Here's the thing: children are born with starving minds, begging to learn. So parents, *teach them*! If they excell in school get them out of public school and into private, or home school them. Public school is designed to maintain an average, and the average is falling. If you love your children and believe them to be a bit above the current average, do whatever you must to get them out of public schools.