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
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.
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....”
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.
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.
Politicans.....don't you just love 'em.
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.
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?
The latter planning to release anything soon? Won't be the same since George's passing.
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.
It’s embarrasing when a waiter/waitress can’t split a bill in two without using a calculator
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'.
On the wider issues I've long thought children should be able to study GCEs and A Levels in hairdressing, plumbing, accounting, engineering alongside Science, maths, history etc
Education for life
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?).
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.)