• Welcome to the Land Rover UK Forums

    You are currently viewing the site as a guest and some content may not be available to you.

    Registration is quick and easy and will give you full access to the site and allow you to ask questions or make comments and join in on the conversation. If you would like to register then please Register Now

Following on from the 3 R's thread

ButtonMonkey

ButtonMonkey

Trekker
The present government has announced that it intends to try to raise the school leaving age to 18 by 2013. OK so hopefully they are still not in power but I think whoever is should follow this up.

England's education secretary is said to be exploring ways to raise the school leaving age to 18.
Alan Johnson told political journalists that "staying on" rates must improve.

He said it was unacceptable for a 16-year-old to be in employment without getting help with continued schooling or training for qualifications.

An aide said later that ways of overcoming the complex legal problems associated with raising the leaving age were under consideration in Whitehall.

Figures published in June show 76.2% of 16 to 18-year-olds in England are in education or training, rather than in employment.

The leaving age was last raised, from 15 to 16, in 1972.
Click to expand...

Full Story here

So does this mean the little scrotes will have somewhere to go for a further 2 years, rather than shopping centers, or will it do some good and produce a new willing workforce?

In Finland this is nothing new, from 14 you are pre-destined for your career depending on your results/aptitude to date.

They have specific uni's/polys, call them what you will, for various careers.

My wife got good grades so she was able to go into the Scientific college, my brother in law did nearly as well and was able to get into the business college, my other brother in law didn't do quite so well and went to a vocational school to do carpentry but after his year in the army (all Fin men must do this and is optional for women) in which he excelled he was able to change direction.

If you want to be a policeman/woman in Finland you have to get the required grades to go to the police university for 3 years.

I really think this is what we need in this country to give our youngsters a kick up the rear end>

It really is a shame that aprentice places were killed off by Maggie and her cronies.
 
I herd today that there was 2 exemptions to the proposed longer complsery education, these where, Tennage parents and those who cared for other people such as the elderly.
Is this correct because i did not see it on the bbc's website?
 
charliedenny said:
two less years paying the benefit's these little scrotes seem to claim!!
Click to expand...
How do you work that out?
If they are still in full-time ed up to their 19th yr they can still be eligible for child benefit. Working parents on low income will still be eligible for working tax & child tax credits & the child could be eligible for the £30.00 EMA wkly allowance plus free school meals & travel to school if from a poor background.

How is keeping them in school going to be any better for the tax payer..

Schools, Colleges & Uni's will all need funding & all teachers & lecturers will need all those additional training courses & 1 day 'tick the box on a form' sessions. Plus pay rises in line with inflation & pensions paid by the government.
 
Next..
It's said that the elderly population is rapidly on the increase at a major cost to the government & thus a burden on the tax payer yet Blair et al is suggesting educating everyone to a 'higher level'.
Why bother?
At the end of the day the masses are going to be crying out for someone to come round with a hot meal & change their sheets, be a little kind to them & help them into bed.
If too many ppl obtain 'good grades' & high carreer expectations then there aren't going to be enough carers in the world as everyone is going to expect to be paid £30 per hr. because they have letters after their names & they are going to be deeply resentful towards any imigrant coming into this country who is prepared to wipe their relative bots for less.
 
Alice said:
How do you work that out?
If they are still in full-time ed up to their 19th yr they can still be eligible for child benefit. Working parents on low income will still be eligible for working tax & child tax credits & the child could be eligible for the £30.00 EMA wkly allowance plus free school meals & travel to school if from a poor background.

How is keeping them in school going to be any better for the tax payer..

Schools, Colleges & Uni's will all need funding & all teachers & lecturers will need all those additional training courses & 1 day 'tick the box on a form' sessions. Plus pay rises in line with inflation & pensions paid by the government.
Click to expand...

good point Alice I really hadn't thought about it in my sleep addled mind!
 
Some kids are driving the teachers to distraction (or worse) having to stay at school till they are 16 when they should be training on the job in vocational areas so what are they going to do to staff between 16 & 18 if there are any teachers left in the job.:confused: :confused:
Pleased I'm out of the system.

Margaret (again using Mike's log in)
 
Some kids are driving the teachers to distraction (or worse) having to stay at school till they are 16 when they should be training on the job in vocational areas so what are they going to do to staff between 16 & 18 if there are any teachers left in the job.
Click to expand...

14 is too long for some of them tbh. It is only a handfull but everybodies life (staff, pupils and thier own) would be much better if they could be found something more constructive to do outside of school. Only trouble is that some other poor sap would have to put up with them.
 
If it was made a requirement to pay income tax for two years before qulifying for benefits, that might make kids wake up to working at school, rather than just playing truant, knowing that the taxpyer will bail them out at the end of it. Benefits are far too easy for the idle to obtain, and kids know it.
 
Snagger said:
If it was made a requirement to pay income tax for two years before qulifying for benefits, that might make kids wake up to working at school, rather than just playing truant, knowing that the taxpyer will bail them out at the end of it. Benefits are far too easy for the idle to obtain, and kids know it.
Click to expand...
Maybe you would understand all the different types of benefits & the requirements needed to obtain them. I don't, I find it extremely complicated & confusing.

At the worse time in our life we had to do without while it took Income support 3 mths each time to decide if we were entitled to 1 wk of their money. Due to my partner working but not being paid for 3 mths. 10mths before it was decided we would be entitled to Family credit instead.
My daughter was 10mths old before we recieved her child benefit and as I did not have a child benefit book with her name on it & income support took so long we were not able to obtain the £100 automatic 1 off payment that poor ppl were entitled to as we had no proof of no money (an income support book was the only proof they'd accept), despite empty bank account. Plus my partner had not been told he could recieve dependants allowance for me as his pregnant partner. Also Mothers who breast feed do not receive milk tokens as other mothers. Believe me you become a tad upset when you are so effing hungry & a baby's crying to be fed. Then there was the council tax benefit which worked out our notional income... do you know what that is, I didn't... it's how much they thought we would be getting not the 2 boys CB & my partners occasional cheques when he'd had work or occasional single persons UB. Not to worry about getting that because as soon as you are paid a chq from work they insist on having a yrs tax all at once or they'll take you to court & bring in the bailifs.
He also got threatened by officials that Unemployment benefit would be stopped & reclaimed if he continued to do work for the same company which he 'kept' leaving. ...he hadn't chosen to leave, it's just that they couldn't differenciate between casual, contracted or self-employed. As we later found out there was no legal definition between these as such.
Citizens advice, Members of parliment & Tribunals... none of these helped. They'd get names wrong on forms (Tribunals) MP sent our letters to a different address & vice versa & Citizens advice suggested I pay a childminder to look after my children while I went & cleaned toilets.
Oh the joys of it all, still it can always get worse.
So much nicer if you can get a job & not have them go into receivership owing a few tho in unpaid wages, holidays & overtime.
 
I think you have me at cross-purposes, Alice. What I'm saying is that kids should not be able to play truant and misbehave inschool, and then be able to claim benefits as school leavers. I'm not refering to you recieving benefits to support your children at school, but the kids themselves should get nothing until they have paid into the nation for at least two years. It's to try to stop those kids who have no intention of ever doing a day's work in their life, including school, and there are plenty of them who are destroying our society. Shows like Big Brother, who reward stupidty and bad behaviour, compound the kids desire not to work.
 
Yes I think you are right Snagger.. it just grieves me to see how easy it is to say people obtain benefits when the reality is so different.

I am a long way from being a good parent in terms of assisting schools in the education of mine & visiting children. I had all the high hopes when I first started out & that is long gone.
I do believe it is however a misconception to say that it is the underprivalidged children who drag the league tables down. This morning for example we had 1 arrive & fall asleep on the sofa as he'd been told not to bother taking an exam. This teenager has 2 working parents owning outright a pair of semi's in a nice little cul de sac & he has no intention of putting himself out to work as he reckons he knows when he's well off.
At least mine have learned not to expect anything from life unless they work for it & even then they don't stand much chance of getting.
 
It's nothing to do with priviledge dragging standards down. A hard working child can do well regardless of how much money their parents have or don't have, conversely a lazy, thick child will do badly in exams even at Eton. I'm advocating streaming on ability, not wealth. Unfortunatley, the government is against this and is bringing state education down to the lowest common denominator, so the only way my kids can get a good education and reach their full potential is by me paying through the nose for it in the private system. Other parents that can afford to do the same. Government policy of non-competitiveness inschool and non-streaming of classes is resulting in streaming by wealth because of people like me being able to send my kids to better schools where streaming is used and competition encouraged. It's not that I want to spend the money, it's that I must...
 
Alas streaming on ability can't happen when the policy is to intergate all members of society without discrimination.
If we ignore the money factor.. which is actually easier than I've made it seem and go simply on academic cabability it still can't work.
Grammer stream undoubtedly end up with the majority of good quality teachers. Unfair in itself as there must be plenty of extreamly gifted teachers in comprehensive schools who just wouldn't get the same pay or acknowledgements.
My own sons school had seperate grammer & mainstream & the clever kids got torched by the majority so I'd call that a failure.
Then look at those with less ability.. how many do you want to put in 1 class & still expect them to be able to learn. When their needs will be vastly different.
My middle son was lucky to have a friend in his junior school who was blind. At that age they learn quicky to accept peoples differences. If you deny children normal access to mixed ability you loose a lifetime of the ability to understand & accept variety.
I think I could manage about four or five adht type disruptive children at one time so how much will it cost to have someone qualified keep these children in a safe environment to everyones satisfaction.
 
Out of interest my sister teaches a class of about 7? Kids. She teaches in a place where the kids have all been kicked out of every school in the area. What she puts up with is amazing!
 
I was put in care at 15, not allowed contact with anyone I knew.
This gave me the oportunity of being left to my own devices to study for my O levels & CSE's in a class with a remidial (sp) teacher who was not qualified to teach at exam level. There was 7 or 10 of us, mixed age, sex, background & ability. I learned much of greater value to life than the exam results depict.
 
"It's nothing to do with priviledge dragging standards down. A hard working child can do well regardless of how much money their parents have or don't have"

This is exactly what the Grammar school system achieved..and we've got rid of it in most of the UK?
 
A child will only get out of school (or anything else for that matter) what they are prepared to put into it.

Margaret (again using Mike's login)
 
JMAP said:
"It's nothing to do with priviledge dragging standards down. A hard working child can do well regardless of how much money their parents have or don't have"

This is exactly what the Grammar school system achieved..and we've got rid of it in most of the UK?
Click to expand...

Hey I went through the private and public school system, and as Clifford Cummings said (he was a retired army chaplin and our RE teacher also a complete drunk who tried to instill in us that if things got to bad we should take the gentelman's way out..........that's it blow our brains out with our fathers/grandfathers service revolver and they sya private schools get all the best teachers..........erm I think not)

"I teach the creame de la creme..........The rich and the thick"
 
Back
Top Bottom