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.

Mr Johnson, addressing a Parliamentary Press Gallery lunch at Westminster yesterday, described how he had visited Ontario to discuss the initiative there to raise the compulsory age of education. He said: “Our approach was we should make what was called the school leaving age immaterial because all youngsters [would] stay on anyway to at least 18 and hopefully beyond.

“And we introduced back in 1997 the right for any 16 and 17- year-old who is out in the work place that their employer must give them training, they have a right to get training as part of their job. Very few 16 and 17- year-olds have taken it up.

“The introduction of education maintenance allowances made a huge improvement, a 2 per cent increase in the staying-on rate. But I was interested that in Ontario they had all these different initiatives but they finally decided that actually they needed to send a clear message to young people.â€

The Government is keen to increase the number of working-class students going to university, but in spite of the wide variety of outreach programmes, they seem to be making little head way.

A spokesman for Universities UK, the umbrella group of vice-chancellors, said that fair access to higher education could be achieved only if schools increased the staying- on rates beyond 16.

“In the UK the participation rate of 17-year-olds in education is one of the lowest of any OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) country.â€

 

According to the OECD, only Mexico and Turkey had a lower proportion of their 15 to 19-year-olds enrolled in education than the UK in 1998.

However, improvements have been made, and by 2004 the UK had moved up the OECD league to 23rd place out of 30, with 79 per cent in education.

 

Edited November 12, 200618 yr by brian91

Ridiculous, chavs being forced to do 2 years more school will damage the quality of 6th forms

 

Far better to bring in 2 years national service or 2 years community service for them to do while the bright people do 6th form

Ridiculous, chavs being forced to do 2 years more school will damage the quality of 6th forms

 

Far better to bring in 2 years national service or 2 years community service for them to do while the bright people do 6th form

 

Still banging on about this 'National Service' square-bashing guff I see..... :lol:

 

How about we actually do something REALLY radical...? For kids who dont really have the academic bent and are better with their hands, howabout they actually get taught a trade...... Carpentry, brick-laying, construction, etc... What, we actually HAD this system in place in the past you say....???? The Apprentice Scheme you say...? So, erm, what actually happened to it then....?????

 

 

 

 

 

Still banging on about this 'National Service' square-bashing guff I see..... :lol:

 

How about we actually do something REALLY radical...? For kids who dont really have the academic bent and are better with their hands, howabout they actually get taught a trade...... Carpentry, brick-laying, construction, etc... What, we actually HAD this system in place in the past you say....???? The Apprentice Scheme you say...? So, erm, what actually happened to it then....?????

 

 

agreed scott... you cant force non-accedemic kids to stop at school...

Still banging on about this 'National Service' square-bashing guff I see..... :lol:

 

How about we actually do something REALLY radical...? For kids who dont really have the academic bent and are better with their hands, howabout they actually get taught a trade...... Carpentry, brick-laying, construction, etc... What, we actually HAD this system in place in the past you say....???? The Apprentice Scheme you say...? So, erm, what actually happened to it then....?????

 

I included community service in my post which was something YOU suggested in our discussion :lol:

I don't think it's a good idea. Some don't want to stay on and forcing them to might make them not bother if they don't want to be there. They might ruin it for the other students.

Like at my school most of the chavs left and probably got a job but the only people left are people who want to be there, and it's so much better.

I really can't see the point in forcing kids to stay on at school after 16. There'll be no real purpose served if they don't want to be there and, as has been said before, they may disrupt the education of others. I don't know what's happened to the Apprenticeship scheme, but as Scott says, I think it would be far more useful if there was more training and apprenticeships in trades that we will always need, such as electricians, builders etc.

I agree ... my college days (6th form) were the best of my life so far, because I was surrounded by people like me, who really wanted to be there, and we all had the same goals. However, the final years of compulsorary educations were some of the worst, because it was so difficult to achieve my potential because of those I was surrounded by. It's so unfair on those who really want to be there to be dragged down by those who have no interest in it, and so turn to disruption and chaos to entertain themselves.

 

I have no problem with 16+ not continuing academically, but agree with Scott that they should be taught a trade (as many schools now do in years 10+11) so they can get a job, rather than sitting around with nowhere to go.