The eighth floor

[DC]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7595155.stm

so have a thought for all the poor year 7's this week. not only do they have to deal with the fact that they are at a new school full of older kids with no protection, but now all the other kids in the years above them get to leave a year earlier than them. i think things should of been left as they were becuase adding one lousy year on has messed up all the exam timetables, what year will gcse's start from now? plus the fact that they will probably just be struggling to get work at 17 instead of 16, it won't change that.

it's kind of degrading really, people like us, their older brothers and sisters and mom and dad etc. were looked upon as 'young adults' as they turned 16 and were allowed to go out into the world, becuase of this i'd feel like a kid until i could get out of school. it's also kind of strange where there will be a year in a school, completley full of teenagers who are able to have legal sex.

[Hugh.]

That seem's flippin' odd to me... Some schools don't have a 6th form, and in my school, the 6th form is a bit different to the rest of school, not only academically, but the way it runs. It seems strange that they'd make you get half an A-level, which is when it gets hard, and then let you leave after a year of it... Even from my first day in 6th form, I know it's a big step up, so why not let you leave before if you want?

Baffling!

[Sam]

I left at 17 and that was after 2 years of sixth form

[DC]

yes but there are people who hated the place like dc, and would probably want a fresh challenge like college instead.

[Jono]

I'm trying to work out the flip side to this story. I just can't see how they could accommodate this. It seems a strange decision, but one way to see a decline in people passing those 'easy' A-Levels!

[dstrkzn]

I dont really understand the english system but basically keeping people in school when they dont want to be there is only going to disrupt the people who want to be there. Pointless.

[Hugh.]

I assume it doesn't just mean school, but they must go to college for 1 year maybe? Surely some schools couldn't accomodate an extra year?

[Bumble_85]

It's a stupid idea. Nearly as stupid as them planning to extend it so that you can't leave school till you're 18.

If you're not academically minded then you're not going to get anything out of it.

[Jono]

Plus there are sixth forms but they are not built to take on large amounts of people. My sixth form only had space for about 50 people per year.

I liked sixth form because people chose to be there and teachers had more time to assist those that wanted to do well. Plus I got EMA which will no doubt scrapped under this regulation

Silly move...

[Sam]

Plus there are sixth forms but they are not built to take on large amounts of people. My sixth form only had space for about 50 people per year.

I liked sixth form because people chose to be there and teachers had more time to assist those that wanted to do well. Plus I got EMA which will no doubt scrapped under this regulation

Silly move...

my sixth form and other local sixth forms have a partnership, there are 6 schools within it and pupils from the schools can attend any of the others for lessons meaning you have a lot more choice and the partnership means a lot more people can attend.

all the schools run minibuses so that students can get to lessons on time too

I can see a lot of schools doing the same thing when everyone has to stay on longer

[Hazrold]

I am in the year above the stay until 17 law, but I intend to stay anyway so it doesn't bother me

[superchris0110]

Another stupid idea from this stupid government. If people dont want to be in education they dont want to be in education. They are simply prolonging the torture on both those who actually want to learn being disrupted by mindless idiots, and those who just want to get out and work! Stupid stupid idea

[Futures]

Just another nail in the coffin for this poor excuse of a Government.. punish those that don't have a voice to speak out, much like they've done to the Police.

Complete morons.

[Lucinda]

It seems that the kids currently in year 5 will have to stay in school till they're 18. Crazy idea. It will just make things more difficult for the people who actually want to get A levels, at the moment the people who don't want to be there leave after GCSE and sixth forms are less disrupted. The schools don't have the funding or the facilities or teachers and there'll be more time wasters in education.

[ali2098]

I dont really understand the english system but basically keeping people in school when they dont want to be there is only going to disrupt the people who want to be there. Pointless.

That's what I was thinking.

[Futures]

I doubt they've thought it out, probably just looking for votes.

[Guest]

I disagree with the general sentiment of this thread.

I think keeping young people in compulsory education until they are 17 will be beneficial not just to them, but to society holistically.

The capitalist economy of this country is rapidly changing to the extent that by 2020 there will only be around 500,000 'unskilled' jobs in the economy. Currently there are 6 million, therefore people will need skills.

Young people who are not academic will be given the opportunity to pursue subjects that will guarantee them a vocation when they leave, increasing their prospects of finding employment that has more dignity than serving up cheeseburgers or cleaning toilets.

I'm as yet undecided on increasing the leaving age to 18, but I do think that 17 is a decent compromise for the well-being and lifetime security of our young people.

[Futures]

I disagree with the general sentiment of this thread.

I think keeping young people in compulsory education until they are 17 will be beneficial not just to them, but to society holistically.

The capitalist economy of this country is rapidly changing to the extent that by 2020 there will only be around 500,000 'unskilled' jobs in the economy. Currently there are 6 million, therefore people will need skills.

Young people who are not academic will be given the opportunity to pursue subjects that will guarantee them a vocation when they leave, increasing their prospects of finding employment that has more dignity than serving up cheeseburgers or cleaning toilets.

I'm as yet undecided on increasing the leaving age to 18, but I do think that 17 is a decent compromise for the well-being and lifetime security of our young people.

We're always hearing about how these schemes will help to support those that need the support.. but what people who aren't in education don't realise is that the secondary education system and some of the college systems that've put in place to help the vulnerable are flawed beyond belief.

Take EMA for example. This is for people with an income lower than X pounds, I have no idea what the exact figure is, but I know my parents earn too much for me to qualify for EMA.

Explain this to me... How does what my parents earn factor into what I can and can't afford? I've provided for myself my whole life and have never asked my parents for money, and nor do I expect money off of them. They feed me and pay for bills, I do the rest. Now how does this mean that I'm not eligible for £30.00 a week in money to help me pay for my bus pass, my pens, paper and books for college etc?

It's a complete mess. It's disgusting how these kids in my tutor group whos parents buy everything for them then get an extra £30.00 a week for doing jack shit. Half of them don't even have jobs, which backs up my claim that their parents buy everything for them.

I'm just using that as an example to point out just how flawed the plans that this Government makes that relate to education are. No doubt half of these kids won't get half the amount of qualifications that they need, which will cause a huge influx in migrant workers and then uproar from the all the upper classes.

[Bumble_85]

Money and education makes me cross. Mainly because I left 6th form the year before they decided people should get money and went to uni just after they decided people weren't allowed grants anymore. Thanks ever so much for that, governmenty people who had grants to go to uni on.

[Lucinda]

I totally agree with the two previous posters.

Why should the Government decide that because my parents earn above a certain arbitrary amount, they should pay for everything for me? Someone whose parents have taken early retirement or where one parent has never worked get loads of money from the Government to spend on beer.

Serin I agree that teaching people vocations is a good idea, however I am very doubtful that the funding and facilities will be in place to offer people decent training.

It angers me that these politicians who got their degrees paid for and got grants are pushing more and more people into a system where they will graduate with £20000+ of debt (at 4.8% interest currently, twice what it was 2 years ago) and will have a degree that is worth less because more and more people have them.

[Futures]

I think it's getting to the stage where degrees will become worthless. This Government harps on and on about education, but at the end of the day they're only saying it because they know people will vote for the party who go on about eduation and health care alot.

Neither of those two things should be used to win votes. Education and healthcare should be kept as far away from politics as possible.

I also agree that there may be new courses set up to teach these kids vocations, but there won't be any money there to support them, they'll be too busy giving it out in loans to kids so that they can get the soon to be (or most likely soon to be) 5.5% intrest back on it.