Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

when did this happen & have I been asleep for a decade...??

I have 3 children all at secondary school. I was asked today by my mother at what age could they leave school & start work.

I replied at age 16 after taking their GCSE's....same as I did 35 years ago (admitedly they were called 'O' levels then)

She said that she had been told at age 18. My daughter then comfirmed this. "No, your wrong" I said. "It is, and always has been for the past 50 years, age 16".

Just googled it & WHAM !!! You can leave at 16 but you have to either go onto further education or into an apprenticeship / work placement, which still entails further study.

wtaf ????

when did this change happen ?? under what government & why ???. Can't my lad when 16 & finished his GCSE's just leave school & look for work ?? which bright spark thought this one up ?? I know under Tony Blair & Gordon Brown it was their mantra of "education, education, education" & they wanted all & sundry to go to college/university, but whats wrong with going out & earning a living ?? Are parents expected to feed & house their kids forever ??

For the record I left school & started work 3 days after my last 'O' level....yes THREE days !! I had already applied for jobs, had interviews & been offered a job in a bank before I had even taken my exams. I started work at the end of June....1983. Just a year or two after one of the severest recessions in years, so hardly boom time.

Can he really not just leave school in the July & start work somewhere ?? He'll be 17 a few months later......hardly a child.

the worlds gone mad.
«1

Comments

  • edited July 2018
    It was Gordon Brown who brought this law in. The same man who fucked up personal pensions and cancelled the Royal Tournament amongst his other great achievements. He brought the law in before he lost office in 2010 but I don't think it became effective until around 2013/14.
  • Riviera said:

    It was Gordon Brown who brought this law in. The same man who fucked up personal pensions and cancelled the Royal Tournament amongst his other great achievements.

    and sold off half of our Gold reserves to fund his spending plans when a few years later the Gold price soared.

    And he brought in the Child Trust fund. No wonder Blair held out as PM as long as he did....Brown didn't have a clue.
  • edited July 2018
    Redrobo said:

    I have 3 children all at secondary school. I was asked today by my mother at what age could they leave school & start work.

    I replied at age 16 after taking their GCSE's....same as I did 35 years ago (admitedly they were called 'O' levels then)

    She said that she had been told at age 18. My daughter then comfirmed this. "No, your wrong" I said. "It is, and always has been for the past 50 years, age 16".

    Just googled it & WHAM !!! You can leave at 16 but you have to either go onto further education or into an apprenticeship / work placement, which still entails further study.

    wtaf ????

    when did this change happen ?? under what government & why ???. Can't my lad when 16 & finished his GCSE's just leave school & look for work ?? which bright spark thought this one up ?? I know under Tony Blair & Gordon Brown it was their mantra of "education, education, education" & they wanted all & sundry to go to college/university, but whats wrong with going out & earning a living ?? Are parents expected to feed & house their kids forever ??

    For the record I left school & started work 3 days after my last 'O' level....yes THREE days !! I had already applied for jobs, had interviews & been offered a job in a bank before I had even taken my exams. I started work at the end of June....1983. Just a year or two after one of the severest recessions in years, so hardly boom time.

    Can he really not just leave school in the July & start work somewhere ?? He'll be 17 a few months later......hardly a child.

    the worlds gone mad.

    The worlds got better. Education is freedom. Education is equality.

    They will be working until they are 70+ so a lot longer than you will - and will have to change jobs on a regular basis which won’t be easy. What’s the rush? What’s wrong with apprenticeship?

    Sounds like you just want to get them out to work. Should have thought about that before you had them!

    “I had it hard, lived in cardboard box in middle of road....”
    I think it's more about having the choice.

    I know of some friends who were pushed into doing A-levels and BTECs, etc. only to end up doing a job at the age of 18 they could have done at 16.

    In my dissertation I finished recently, the earnings difference between GCSE and A-Level type qualifications is very small in comparison to the gap between those with A-Levels and those with degrees. Often the main benefit of A-levels is to go on to do a degree. Being forced into education from 16-18 for some is a complete waste of time and sets them back 2 years.
  • Stig said:

    Politicians are nearly all of a social class where they expect their kids to go to uni. People who don't go to uni are viewed as feckless, therefore they decided to keep everyone in full time education up until that point as if it would magically raise standards. It might work for their kids, but it certainly didn't work for mine; one just pissed about with his mates and was, no doubts, a distraction to those kids who did want to learn. The other was depressed because he just didn't want to be there. Both have been fine since leaving school and have been more or less continuously employed, but I'm absolutely convinced that the extra years of education were nothing but a complete waste of time which had to be funded by yours truly.

    P.S. It was a great trick for swindling the unemployment figures. All of the 16 and 17 year olds who wouldn't have got jobs were automatically wiped off the record.

    With you on this Stig 100%......esp re unemployment figs. One reason why Conservative / Coalition govetnments haven't changed the policy as they would then see an immediate spike in the figures.

    Politicans.....don't you just love 'em.
  • Redrobo said:

    I have 3 children all at secondary school. I was asked today by my mother at what age could they leave school & start work.

    I replied at age 16 after taking their GCSE's....same as I did 35 years ago (admitedly they were called 'O' levels then)

    She said that she had been told at age 18. My daughter then comfirmed this. "No, your wrong" I said. "It is, and always has been for the past 50 years, age 16".

    Just googled it & WHAM !!! You can leave at 16 but you have to either go onto further education or into an apprenticeship / work placement, which still entails further study.

    wtaf ????

    when did this change happen ?? under what government & why ???. Can't my lad when 16 & finished his GCSE's just leave school & look for work ?? which bright spark thought this one up ?? I know under Tony Blair & Gordon Brown it was their mantra of "education, education, education" & they wanted all & sundry to go to college/university, but whats wrong with going out & earning a living ?? Are parents expected to feed & house their kids forever ??

    For the record I left school & started work 3 days after my last 'O' level....yes THREE days !! I had already applied for jobs, had interviews & been offered a job in a bank before I had even taken my exams. I started work at the end of June....1983. Just a year or two after one of the severest recessions in years, so hardly boom time.

    Can he really not just leave school in the July & start work somewhere ?? He'll be 17 a few months later......hardly a child.

    the worlds gone mad.

    The worlds got better. Education is freedom. Education is equality.

    They will be working until they are 70+ so a lot longer than you will - and will have to change jobs on a regular basis which won’t be easy. What’s the rush? What’s wrong with apprenticeship?

    Sounds like you just want to get them out to work. Should have thought about that before you had them!

    “I had it hard, lived in cardboard box in middle of road....”
    I think it's more about having the choice.

    I know of some friends who were pushed into doing A-levels and BTECs, etc. only to end up doing a job at the age of 18 they could have done at 16.

    In my dissertation I finished recently, the earnings difference between GCSE and A-Level type qualifications is very small in comparison to the gap between those with A-Levels and those with degrees. Often the main benefit of A-levels is to go on to do a degree. Being forced into education from 16-18 for some is a complete waste of time and sets them back 2 years.
    Also agree.

    I've been telling my 3 that staying on for A levels is only worth it if you are going to study for a degree.......and in a degree that means something like doctor, lawyer or a teacher.

    No point staying in the "6th form" for 2 years & then 3 years at Uni to come away with a 2:2 in media studies. By that time you will be 21/22 & still no job.

    I bought my first flat aged 21. At this rate my kids wont even start earning until then.
  • edited July 2018

    Redrobo said:

    I have 3 children all at secondary school. I was asked today by my mother at what age could they leave school & start work.

    I replied at age 16 after taking their GCSE's....same as I did 35 years ago (admitedly they were called 'O' levels then)

    She said that she had been told at age 18. My daughter then comfirmed this. "No, your wrong" I said. "It is, and always has been for the past 50 years, age 16".

    Just googled it & WHAM !!! You can leave at 16 but you have to either go onto further education or into an apprenticeship / work placement, which still entails further study.

    wtaf ????

    when did this change happen ?? under what government & why ???. Can't my lad when 16 & finished his GCSE's just leave school & look for work ?? which bright spark thought this one up ?? I know under Tony Blair & Gordon Brown it was their mantra of "education, education, education" & they wanted all & sundry to go to college/university, but whats wrong with going out & earning a living ?? Are parents expected to feed & house their kids forever ??

    For the record I left school & started work 3 days after my last 'O' level....yes THREE days !! I had already applied for jobs, had interviews & been offered a job in a bank before I had even taken my exams. I started work at the end of June....1983. Just a year or two after one of the severest recessions in years, so hardly boom time.

    Can he really not just leave school in the July & start work somewhere ?? He'll be 17 a few months later......hardly a child.

    the worlds gone mad.

    The worlds got better. Education is freedom. Education is equality.

    They will be working until they are 70+ so a lot longer than you will - and will have to change jobs on a regular basis which won’t be easy. What’s the rush? What’s wrong with apprenticeship?

    Sounds like you just want to get them out to work. Should have thought about that before you had them!

    “I had it hard, lived in cardboard box in middle of road....”
    I think it's more about having the choice.

    I know of some friends who were pushed into doing A-levels and BTECs, etc. only to end up doing a job at the age of 18 they could have done at 16.

    In my dissertation I finished recently, the earnings difference between GCSE and A-Level type qualifications is very small in comparison to the gap between those with A-Levels and those with degrees. Often the main benefit of A-levels is to go on to do a degree. Being forced into education from 16-18 for some is a complete waste of time and sets them back 2 years.
    Also agree.

    I've been telling my 3 that staying on for A levels is only worth it if you are going to study for a degree.......and in a degree that means something like doctor, lawyer or a teacher.

    No point staying in the "6th form" for 2 years & then 3 years at Uni to come away with a 2:2 in media studies. By that time you will be 21/22 & still no job.

    I bought my first flat aged 21. At this rate my kids wont even start earning until then.
    I don't want to worry you, but with house prices the way they are they'll probably be 81 before they can move out. I don't think anyone of our generation realised how long they'd have their kids living with them. I sometimes have this discussion with Mrs Stig but she just gives me a quote from a Carry On film, "you should have thought about that before you took your pleasure"!
  • Redrobo said:

    I have 3 children all at secondary school. I was asked today by my mother at what age could they leave school & start work.

    I replied at age 16 after taking their GCSE's....same as I did 35 years ago (admitedly they were called 'O' levels then)

    She said that she had been told at age 18. My daughter then comfirmed this. "No, your wrong" I said. "It is, and always has been for the past 50 years, age 16".

    Just googled it & WHAM !!! You can leave at 16 but you have to either go onto further education or into an apprenticeship / work placement, which still entails further study.

    wtaf ????

    when did this change happen ?? under what government & why ???. Can't my lad when 16 & finished his GCSE's just leave school & look for work ?? which bright spark thought this one up ?? I know under Tony Blair & Gordon Brown it was their mantra of "education, education, education" & they wanted all & sundry to go to college/university, but whats wrong with going out & earning a living ?? Are parents expected to feed & house their kids forever ??

    For the record I left school & started work 3 days after my last 'O' level....yes THREE days !! I had already applied for jobs, had interviews & been offered a job in a bank before I had even taken my exams. I started work at the end of June....1983. Just a year or two after one of the severest recessions in years, so hardly boom time.

    Can he really not just leave school in the July & start work somewhere ?? He'll be 17 a few months later......hardly a child.

    the worlds gone mad.

    The worlds got better. Education is freedom. Education is equality.

    They will be working until they are 70+ so a lot longer than you will - and will have to change jobs on a regular basis which won’t be easy. What’s the rush? What’s wrong with apprenticeship?

    Sounds like you just want to get them out to work. Should have thought about that before you had them!

    “I had it hard, lived in cardboard box in middle of road....”
    I think it's more about having the choice.

    I know of some friends who were pushed into doing A-levels and BTECs, etc. only to end up doing a job at the age of 18 they could have done at 16.

    In my dissertation I finished recently, the earnings difference between GCSE and A-Level type qualifications is very small in comparison to the gap between those with A-Levels and those with degrees. Often the main benefit of A-levels is to go on to do a degree. Being forced into education from 16-18 for some is a complete waste of time and sets them back 2 years.
    You are ignoring apprenticeships which I believe is a welcome return to good practice. More and more companies are offering these and companies like Dysons are supporting degree students which is a significant help to those who can’t afford huge fees.

    Colleges are offering more training courses that support work experience in almost all subjects giving children support as they move into the adult world. As kids have to follow the courses they are better qualified which helps employers as well. What’s not to like?
  • Helps keep unemployment rates down
  • Sponsored links:


  • Weren’t students also getting paid to stay on at school.......or did I imagine that?
  • Weren’t students also getting paid to stay on at school.......or did I imagine that?

    http://www.ukadvice.org.uk/get-paid-to-learn/
  • It’s been the last 3 years from memory.

    I don’t agree with forcing 16 year olds to stay, I started work at 16 any never did me any harm, forcing me to stay on for 2 years wouldn’t have changed anything for me although that was nearly 30 years ago and times change.

    As for buying houses, outside of the London/SE bubble and a few other areas property affordability is no different to 20 years ago, in a large part of the country prices have barely kept up with inflation over that period. My sister has a beautiful house in Nottingham that she bought in I think 2006 for about £350k, it’s up for sale at £400k and about to be reduced, it’ll probably sell for around £380k. 10% increase in 12 years........ and she’s probably spent more than that on refurbishment.
  • edited July 2018
    I think it’s a good idea! If a 16 year old fails maths and English, they have to resit! Good.

    It’s embarrasing when a waiter/waitress can’t split a bill in two without using a calculator
  • Resist? Back to school for you I'm afraid. :wink:
  • edited July 2018
    Think it was a good idea in principle however it’s deferred a lot of youngsters from getting meaningful work and payment at 16, and encouraged companies to repackage these jobs as apprenticeships (at a lower wage) and also to fill other standard role coverage with 16-18 yr olds on part time shifts (with lower pay and less rights)
  • All it's done is fudge unemployment figures and removed a free choice from the younger generation, for the gain of the political class.
  • I think it’s a good idea! If a 16 year old fails maths and English, they have to resist! Good.

    It’s embarrasing when a waiter/waitress can’t split a bill in two without using a calculator

    Resit yes, doesn’t mean a different outcome. I know a couple of people who got D’s in maths only to resit them and get a worse result.
  • Stig said:

    Politicians are nearly all of a social class where they expect their kids to go to uni. People who don't go to uni are viewed as feckless, therefore they decided to keep everyone in full time education up until that point as if it would magically raise standards. It might work for their kids, but it certainly didn't work for mine; one just pissed about with his mates and was, no doubts, a distraction to those kids who did want to learn. The other was depressed because he just didn't want to be there. Both have been fine since leaving school and have been more or less continuously employed, but I'm absolutely convinced that the extra years of education were nothing but a complete waste of time which had to be funded by yours truly.

    P.S. It was a great trick for swindling the unemployment figures. All of the 16 and 17 year olds who wouldn't have got jobs were automatically wiped off the record.

    Or possibly not. On the one hand the unemployment rate only includes those deemed "economically active". On the other, this is an extract from a report to the House of Commons dated July this year, so it's bang up to date. "The unemployment rate for 16-17 year olds was estimated at around 24%. The rate is higher than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s". So, if it was a trick to massage the stats, it didn't work too well.
  • Sponsored links:


  • good idea in principle but from the experience we have had at our firm you get apprenticeships in who don't want to be here but do it as the don't want to have to go to school.
  • It's a good way to keep the youth unemployment figures down and to encourage young people to go to 'uni' thereby creating jobs for 'academics' and to revitalise previously dying 'uni cities' which have been stripped of most worthwhile creative, employment generating manufacturing industries
  • cafcfan said:

    Stig said:

    Politicians are nearly all of a social class where they expect their kids to go to uni. People who don't go to uni are viewed as feckless, therefore they decided to keep everyone in full time education up until that point as if it would magically raise standards. It might work for their kids, but it certainly didn't work for mine; one just pissed about with his mates and was, no doubts, a distraction to those kids who did want to learn. The other was depressed because he just didn't want to be there. Both have been fine since leaving school and have been more or less continuously employed, but I'm absolutely convinced that the extra years of education were nothing but a complete waste of time which had to be funded by yours truly.

    P.S. It was a great trick for swindling the unemployment figures. All of the 16 and 17 year olds who wouldn't have got jobs were automatically wiped off the record.

    Or possibly not. On the one hand the unemployment rate only includes those deemed "economically active". On the other, this is an extract from a report to the House of Commons dated July this year, so it's bang up to date. "The unemployment rate for 16-17 year olds was estimated at around 24%. The rate is higher than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s". So, if it was a trick to massage the stats, it didn't work too well.
    It would be interesting to know how that figure is calculated, because to my eyes it doesn't square with the reality that they have to be in full time education if not on an apprenticeship. Does that mean that 24% are dropping out of apprenticeships and not gaining alternative employment?

    How can the unemployment rate include only those 'economically active'. Being unemployed is the antithesis of being economically active. Their terminology is as nonsensical as 'interfering with play'.
  • So can you leave and just start working or does it have to be an internship/apprenticeship. Agree it stops people just leaving at 16 and going straight onto the dole but surely it can be a hindrance to someone who wants to leave and begin a career - like I did.
  • edited July 2018
    Stig said:

    cafcfan said:

    Stig said:

    Politicians are nearly all of a social class where they expect their kids to go to uni. People who don't go to uni are viewed as feckless, therefore they decided to keep everyone in full time education up until that point as if it would magically raise standards. It might work for their kids, but it certainly didn't work for mine; one just pissed about with his mates and was, no doubts, a distraction to those kids who did want to learn. The other was depressed because he just didn't want to be there. Both have been fine since leaving school and have been more or less continuously employed, but I'm absolutely convinced that the extra years of education were nothing but a complete waste of time which had to be funded by yours truly.

    P.S. It was a great trick for swindling the unemployment figures. All of the 16 and 17 year olds who wouldn't have got jobs were automatically wiped off the record.

    Or possibly not. On the one hand the unemployment rate only includes those deemed "economically active". On the other, this is an extract from a report to the House of Commons dated July this year, so it's bang up to date. "The unemployment rate for 16-17 year olds was estimated at around 24%. The rate is higher than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s". So, if it was a trick to massage the stats, it didn't work too well.
    It would be interesting to know how that figure is calculated, because to my eyes it doesn't square with the reality that they have to be in full time education if not on an apprenticeship. Does that mean that 24% are dropping out of apprenticeships and not gaining alternative employment?

    How can the unemployment rate include only those 'economically active'. Being unemployed is the antithesis of being economically active. Their terminology is as nonsensical as 'interfering with play'.
    I know why, sort of. It's to exclude those like pensioners for whom it would be nonsensical to classify them as unemployed. But, from age 54 through to 60 I was unemployed but not claiming any benefits, so I would not have been in the figures either. I was, however "economically active" in that I was spending money. Just not bringing any in!

    Here's the link, you'll find the pdf link to the report at the bottom of this page. If you want to pick the bones out of it. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05871

    Edited to add: here's the actual definition:
    Economically active population comprises all persons of either sex who furnish the supply of labour for the production of economic goods and services as defined by the United Nations System of National Accounts during a specified time-reference period. Clear as mud.
    Also the report says there are 110,000 unemployed 16-17 year olds. While 926,000 were economically inactive (students?) and 355,000 were in work (apprenticeships?).
  • @Stig
    I had a further thought which, I hope sheds some further light on the matter. It seems the unemployment rate for 16-17 year olds is for the UK as a whole. But the education/apprenticeship thing only applies to England. It is therefore almost(?) certain that the aforementioned 110,000 are Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland kids. (Close to 50K of that figure can be attributed to Northern Ireland with Londonderry being the worst. I assume many are too busy petrol bombing the PSNI to actually apply for a job.)
  • Rob7Lee said:

    I think it’s a good idea! If a 16 year old fails maths and English, they have to resist! Good.

    It’s embarrasing when a waiter/waitress can’t split a bill in two without using a calculator

    Resit yes, doesn’t mean a different outcome. I know a couple of people who got D’s in maths only to resit them and get a worse result.
    That just doesn't add up.
  • Rob7Lee said:

    I think it’s a good idea! If a 16 year old fails maths and English, they have to resist! Good.

    It’s embarrasing when a waiter/waitress can’t split a bill in two without using a calculator

    Resit yes, doesn’t mean a different outcome. I know a couple of people who got D’s in maths only to resit them and get a worse result.
    That just doesn't add up.
    The world is full of lazy people.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!