Post by: smurfboy on January 12, 2007, 09:42:38 pm
The government is considering raising the minimum school leaving age to 18. Education Secretary Alan Johnson said: 'It should be as unacceptable to see a 16-year-old working, with no training, no education, as it is now to see a 14-year-old. A 14-year-old at work was common until the (post-Second World War) Butler changes, but now you would find it repellent. We should find it equally repellent that a youngster of 16 is not getting any training.'
On one hand I agree, but on the other hand, should we really be forcing kids to stay at school if they really don't have the inclination to? I know we're all supposed to say 'you can do anything you want to if you put your mind to it' now, but you can only work with the raw materials you have. The fact is some kids just aren't academically minded and would be better off going into a job where they could earn themselves some money and develop a work ethic.
Your thoughts?
Post by: goldencup on January 12, 2007, 10:28:07 pm
Post by: on January 13, 2007, 08:00:12 am
Also maybe a lot of young people will be more receptive at 17 and 18 and will find those extra two years really worth while, both academically and for their own development.
Post by: oldspice on January 13, 2007, 09:15:32 am
I don't agree with this proposal at all. Addiotnally, I don't agree that youngsters who work at 16 have received no education or training. It is perfectly possible that a bright 16 year old could leave school with 5 or more good GCSE grades and receive training on-the-job in his/her chosen profession.
Equally, it is possible for a 16 year old to have done badly in his/her GCSEs but be perfectly happy in a job where training is offered. I would much rather they were in the workplace than in school against their wishes or on benefits.
However, if 16 year olds are not willing to stay in education or training and are not willing to get a job, they should receive no benefits what-so-ever and the parents should not receive child benefit for them.
I already have the problem of dealing with unwilling students who are in college reluctantly because they get 30 per week EMA money (if they qualify) and they would rather be there, causing me grief, than be out working.
Only yesterday a student threw his pen at me and called me a bitch because he did not want to take part in a lesson that other students were enjoying. I am told by the college that this student has 'problems' and that he cannot help his behaviour, therefore I should be willing to be abused verbally and physically to save him from being on the streets. Every time he is in the classrooom (when he turns up) I have problems of this sort. My impression is that if education is such a trial for him he should either be in a job, or if his problems are so bad they cause this sort of anti-social behaviour he should be in a psychiatric ward.
Post by: on January 13, 2007, 01:21:51 pm
The incident with the guy calling Oldspice a bitch and throwing the pen is outrageous and unacceptable. I doubt whether this person should be in further education and would probably benefit from sort sort of community placement. In my grandfather's day he would not be able to sit down yet. Mind you he would probably have been in a coal mine but you get my point. I have a lot of admiration for teachers. My sister is one, and I know it's no bed of roses.
Bye the way, I was serious about the uniform.
*Slaps own wrist*
Post by: kevvosa on January 13, 2007, 01:26:39 pm
Post by: on January 13, 2007, 01:44:05 pm
Post by: on January 13, 2007, 01:47:47 pm
Post by: lorri on January 13, 2007, 01:51:04 pm
i think its ridiculous to force them to stay on, its tough enough now for the ones that want to learn trying to do so in the same class as 15yr old that dont let alone 17 & 18 yr olds, they are very aware that they can disrupt lessons and in some cases threaten teachers with very little come back as teachers authority has over time been taken away by political correctness gone mad.The money that will be spent employing more teachers and chasing up yet more truants would be better spent improving the further education of the ones that want to be there in my opinion.
Post by: Velvet Darkness on January 13, 2007, 02:08:33 pm
However, if 16 year olds are not willing to stay in education or training and are not willing to get a job, they should receive no benefits what-so-ever and the parents should not receive child benefit for them.
If they hate school because they are not in any way academic, and they cannot get a job because there are none for them, (contrary to the beliefs of some people, not everyone who is on benefits is on benefits because they like it!!!) and their parents receive no child benefit money for them how exactly are they supposed to live if they cannot claim benefit for themselves? No money for food, no money for clothes!
Still I suppose if they all die it will solve the problem of what to do with them wouldn't it? Or we could just put them all in some kind of containment facility for being too stupid to learn and too unfortunate to live outside in the rest of the world!!!
Or perhaps we could just shoot them?
My impression is that if education is such a trial for him he should either be in a job, or if his problems are so bad they cause this sort of anti-social behaviour he should be in a psychiatric ward.How neat and tidy your world must be.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
Smurfboy.
My first thought was that compulsory education for 2 extra years would get these poor unfortunate creatures off the unemployment lists and so would effectively bring the numbers of unemployed way down. Could this be part of what this is all about?
Post by: on January 13, 2007, 02:34:57 pm
Maybe the government haven't thought this through. I want everyone to achieve thier best at school and if that means they stay on a little, fair enough, buit maybe it's not for everyone. Making it a prescriptive thing might not be a good idea.
Post by: Velvet Darkness on January 13, 2007, 03:02:40 pm
The government, having already offered to pay children to stay at school have obviously found that bribary didn't work so now another way must be found. 
It would be a shame if students who didn't want to be there spoiled it for the rest, who genuinely wanted to take advantage of further education. A disruptive influence in class is bad for not only the pupil and teacher involved but for everyone, as it makes concentration and absorption of the lesson being taught impossible.
I have nothing but admiration for good teachers, who face the possibility every day of being pelted by flying objects by one or more disaffected students. How on earth you would stand up for yourself against an angry teen that has no respect and no fear I do not know.
My grandfather would have advocated conscription for all those who did not want to stay in school voluntarily. I suppose in his day it would have worked too, but I doubt the masses would go for it nowadays. 
Post by: loulou on January 13, 2007, 04:07:10 pm
Post by: on January 13, 2007, 04:10:30 pm
Post by: on January 13, 2007, 04:12:12 pm
Post by: oldspice on January 13, 2007, 04:35:00 pm
QuoteHowever, if 16 year olds are not willing to stay in education or training and are not willing to get a job, they should receive no benefits what-so-ever and the parents should not receive child benefit for them.If they hate school because they are not in any way academic, and they cannot get a job because there are none for them, (contrary to the beliefs of some people, not everyone who is on benefits is on benefits because they like it!!!) and their parents receive no child benefit money for them how exactly are they supposed to live if they cannot claim benefit for themselves? No money for food, no money for clothes!
Still I suppose if they all die it will solve the problem of what to do with them wouldn't it? Or we could just put them all in some kind of containment facility for being too stupid to learn and too unfortunate to live outside in the rest of the world!!!
Or perhaps we could just shoot them?
QuoteMy impression is that if education is such a trial for him he should either be in a job, or if his problems are so bad they cause this sort of anti-social behaviour he should be in a psychiatric ward.How neat and tidy your world must be.------------------------------------------------------------ ---
Smurfboy.
My first thought was that compulsory education for 2 extra years would get these poor unfortunate creatures off the unemployment lists and so would effectively bring the numbers of unemployed way down. Could this be part of what this is all about?
Post by: oldspice on January 13, 2007, 04:43:28 pm
QuoteHowever, if 16 year olds are not willing to stay in education or training and are not willing to get a job, they should receive no benefits what-so-ever and the parents should not receive child benefit for them.If they hate school because they are not in any way academic, and they cannot get a job because there are none for them, (contrary to the beliefs of some people, not everyone who is on benefits is on benefits because they like it!!!) and their parents receive no child benefit money for them how exactly are they supposed to live if they cannot claim benefit for themselves? No money for food, no money for clothes!
Still I suppose if they all die it will solve the problem of what to do with them wouldn't it? Or we could just put them all in some kind of containment facility for being too stupid to learn and too unfortunate to live outside in the rest of the world!!!
Or perhaps we could just shoot them?
QuoteMy impression is that if education is such a trial for him he should either be in a job, or if his problems are so bad they cause this sort of anti-social behaviour he should be in a psychiatric ward.How neat and tidy your world must be.------------------------------------------------------------ ---
Smurfboy.
My first thought was that compulsory education for 2 extra years would get these poor unfortunate creatures off the unemployment lists and so would effectively bring the numbers of unemployed way down. Could this be part of what this is all about?
If you read my post CAREFULLY you will note that I say "if they are UNWILLING to get a job then they should receive no benefits". I did not make mention of job availability. Also, you don't have to be ACADEMIC to stay at school, there are vocational courses available and I never said a word about anyonme being too stupid to learn.
I am talking from EXPERIENCE of working with young people who do not want to learn and are staying in education to avoid getting a job and they are also staying there to get EMA (Educational Allowance) money and have no intention of learning anything.
I am trained to deal with difficult young people and I also train other teachers so I am well qualified to judge that this law will not suit all 16 year olds and that those who want to should be allowed to leave school and get jobs.
When you have been spat at, sworn at and physically abused for simply doing your job, perhaps you might feel the way I do.
Post by: Forth Bridges on January 13, 2007, 05:03:42 pm
also I think there should brunch out to the colleges! give them even more skills
Post by: oldspice on January 13, 2007, 06:05:49 pm
Well, that's what I am saying - but you cannot fill colleges with people who do not want to be there.
Youngsters already have the option of staying on for more quals or getting a job. It's bad enough that kids are going to college by choice to avoid getting a job (these students refuse to work so they're not getting quals either) but to force them into college or school by law is madness. There will be anarchy and it will be a waste of money.
Post by: Velvet Darkness on January 13, 2007, 07:30:18 pm
I read your post very carefully oldspice.
No-one could judge whether a person was unwilling or unable to get a job. As there is no visible difference between the two. The end result being the same........ no job!
You appear to be judging ALL teenagers by the experiences you have had which, although to be expected, is unrealistic and unfair.
I am talking from the experience of knowing some of these teenagers personally, not just from a teachers perspective.
You do not have to be trained or qualified (well or otherwise) to be intelligent enough to realise that such a law could not possibly suit all 16 year olds.
But perhaps the ones who are at school for the money are simply trying to get along as best they can in a world that as far as they can see can promise them or offer them nothing.
I personally, IF I were a professional, trained to deal with difficult young people, would be happy to see them in my classroom, knowing that the probable alternative to that in the real world is to have them out on the street or sitting in a hovel somewhere stoned out of their minds.
I am assuming that you knew the kinds of problems that you would be expected to deal with when you took your extremely difficult and emotionally stressful job oldspice?
When you have been spat at, sworn at and physically abused for simply doing your job, perhaps you might feel the way I do.
As a professional trained to deal with these circumstances I would sincerely hope not.
Post by: smurfboy on January 13, 2007, 07:39:39 pm
I am talking from the experience of knowing some of these teenagers personally, not just from a teachers perspective.
'Just' from a teacher's perspective? I think considering this proposal concerns the future of the education system, a teacher's perspective is pretty damn important. If you had a heart defect would you rather be operated on by someone who knows people with heart defects personally, or 'just' a surgeon?
Post by: oldspice on January 13, 2007, 07:39:38 pm
How smug you sound! It's all very well saying I should have expected these problems when I took the job on but how would you feel if your children had no teachers because they all got fed up with being abused?
I KNOW that many young people stay in education to avoid getting a job because THEY TELL ME SO! Where we live there are plenty of jobs for young people and I am not judging them all harshly or only looking at it from a teacher's perspective - I have had two teenagers of my own.
Of course I don't want to see young people on the streets getting into trouble - I would welcome them into my classroom but they have to observe behavioural boundaries - if only to respect the right of others to learn in a safe and productive environment.
Post by: Velvet Darkness on January 13, 2007, 07:40:18 pm
Our replies crossed in the post. I was referring to VD's words.
VD??????? Thanks Bounty hunter.
Post by: Velvet Darkness on January 13, 2007, 07:55:20 pm
If you had a heart defect would you rather be operated on by someone who knows people with heart defects personally, or 'just' a surgeon?
If we are going to be really silly and from your quote above it looks as though we are, then I would rather be operated on by someone who knew what they were doing, not just someone who had read all the right books!
Training does not make you good at what you do. Doctors all over the world have been killing people for decades because although in theory they know what they should be doing they simply cannot DO IT!
IF you do not feel it in your heart (defective or otherwise) then you will never be the best at your job!
This educational system you speak of is not there to provide teachers with somewhere to hangout during the hours of daylight. It is there for the children and IF they are not who you are there for then frankly you would be in the wrong job!
How smug you sound
Do I? That surprises me as smug is the last emotion I am feeling!
Post by: smurfboy on January 13, 2007, 08:04:00 pm
This educational system you speak of is not there to provide teachers with somewhere to hangout during the hours of daylight. It is there for the children and IF they are not who you are there for then frankly you would be in the wrong job!
It is not there to provide children with somewhere to hang out during the hours of daylight either! What I think Oldspice is saying is that there are some kids who can't quite accept that, and that this law could make that worse. And of course teachers should be there for the kids - that doesn't mean they should sit back and take abuse.
Post by: Velvet Darkness on January 13, 2007, 08:27:21 pm
No-one should sit back and take abuse, and I think it is wrong that there is not the respect for teachers nowadays that I had when I was in school. It would never have occured to me to even answer a teacher back let alone throw anything at them, but for that I would blame the parents and their lack of supervision at home as much as I would blame anything else.
Also since the day all powers of punishment were effectively taken away from teachers and the police, children have nothing to fear. I was brought up to believe that a healthy dose of fear works wonders with a child intent on mischief of any kind.
When I was young we had all the ideas, but we simply DARE NOT put any of them into practise because we knew our parents would have spanked us and sent us to bed supperless and with a sore bottom!
I would NEVER advocate the 'hitting' of a child, but spanking is a different thing in my mind. And having been both spanked and hit as a child I KNOW what I'm talking about. There is a difference, I would never tolerate anyone hitting any of my kids but I would want them to bring any problems they had to me, and it is a shame that people do not feel comfortable reporting your child's bad behaviour to you as a parent, knowing that you will take care of it.
Mostly in my experience you merely get a mouthful of abuse yourself from the parent in question!
Post by: oldspice on January 13, 2007, 09:00:13 pm
Believe me, any student that enters my classroom, whatever their age, gets a respectful and stimulating environment to learn in. If that were not the case I would not have been chosen to train, observe and assess other teachers and trainee teachers. I have advanced skills status and a wealth of experience in dealing with school refusers, disaffected youngsters and those with learning difficulties.
I believe passionately in education and in making the best effort to keep youngsters interested in developing their skills but I do not believe that a law that forces young people into education they do not want will make any contribution what-so-ever towards making them better educated or better skilled.
Post by: Velvet Darkness on January 13, 2007, 09:08:33 pm
Is it right that this would only apply to schools in England? Or is it Britain as a whole?
Just wondering if, when (and if) it all goes through my children would be included. Right now they would jump at the chance of spending more time in school, (my daughter wants to become a doctor and my son has his sights firmly set on being a pilot) but at the moment we live in Wales and I can't move back to England.
Post by: oldspice on January 13, 2007, 10:01:28 pm
Post by: Velvet Darkness on January 13, 2007, 11:17:37 pm
Surely it would be better if it could be altered before it actually becomes law to be an optional extra time for those who want it, would appreciate it and would make use of it, rather than compulsory for everyone?
Not that anyone who could make those decisions would take any notice of common sense. Even in small doses it appears to be non-existent in the government today!
Post by: on January 13, 2007, 11:33:42 pm
Post by: oldspice on January 14, 2007, 09:09:20 am
There is already the option of staying on in education after the age of 16. Students can stay at school, go to an FE college full time, or train and study part-time. At 18 there is the option of going into Higher Education (degree and/or HND level) so there is plenty of choice. 16 year olds can choose to work or choose to continue to study.
What the government is saying is that at the moment, some choose to do nothing at all and the plan is to keep them in education on a compulsory basis until they are 18.
The problem I can see with that plan is that some will stay in education because they have to, they will cause havoc, achieve no qualifications, leave at 18 and then still do nothing!
I think the most sensisble solution is more work-based training schemes in a variety of employment areas whereby youngsters can train and study for a skilled trade or other occupation.
Post by: lorri on January 14, 2007, 03:50:12 pm
Is it right that this would only apply to schools in England? Or is it Britain as a whole?
Just wondering if, when (and if) it all goes through my children would be included. Right now they would jump at the chance of spending more time in school, (my daughter wants to become a doctor and my son has his sights firmly set on being a pilot) but at the moment we live in Wales and I can't move back to England.
from what they said on the news it planned starts in 2013 so children that have just started shchool will be the first effected.
Post by: lorri on January 14, 2007, 04:11:33 pm
Quote from: Velvet DarknessIs it right that this would only apply to schools in England? Or is it Britain as a whole?
Just wondering if, when (and if) it all goes through my children would be included. Right now they would jump at the chance of spending more time in school, (my daughter wants to become a doctor and my son has his sights firmly set on being a pilot) but at the moment we live in Wales and I can't move back to England.
from what they said on the news it planned starts in 2013 so children that have just started shchool will be the first effected.
i really need an edit button