Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sancho Panza

University Bubble Making Hissing Sounds

Recommended Posts

I never knew leaving age was now 18. So what would happen if somebody wasnt doing 20 hours work, an apprenticeship, or an educational course? Obviously they couldnt sign on, so i assume they would be shunted on to a course, whether it was of any use to them or society? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

Saw a low paid admin job advertised at the towns FE college.The main duty was improving attendance for students. This is post 16 education, nobody has to be there by law.  What happened to telling individuals if your lazy, dont turn up, mess,  about your out? 

Sadly you are wrong

https://childlawadvice.org.uk/information-pages/participation-of-young-people-in-education-employment-or-training/

Quote

Is education compulsory after the age of 16?

Under previous legislation it was compulsory for young people to remain in education until the age of 16. However, as a result of legislation introduced in September 2013, the law now requires that young people continue in education, employment or training until the age of 18. 

If you can't find a job you have to stay in education even if you don't want and will make everyone else's life miserable (don't worry those who passed this law will not have children like that at THEIR children's schools).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So individuals who learned nothing at school, messed about, wasted the time of teachers and other pupils, and dont have the motivation or nouse to find work or an apprenticeship- the government decided the solution to this was give them two more years of the same? Logically, this must mean that since 2013 courses must have been introduced with zero entry requirements(either formal academic qualifications or even an interview to assess personal suitability of candidate) to fill this demand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

 

If you can't find a job you have to stay in education even if you don't want and will make everyone else's life miserable (don't worry those who passed this law will not have children like that at THEIR children's schools).

Even if in a job between 16 and 18 you still need to be on at least a part time course or apprenticeship supervision, and retaking maths and English GCSEs of you didn't get a c grade equivalent or above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nothernsoul said:

So individuals who learned nothing at school, messed about, wasted the time of teachers and other pupils, and dont have the motivation or nouse to find work or an apprenticeship- the government decided the solution to this was give them two more years of the same? Logically, this must mean that since 2013 courses must have been introduced with zero entry requirements(either formal academic qualifications or even an interview to assess personal suitability of candidate) to fill this demand. 

It was a stupid policy because something approaching 92% of 16 year old's stayed on in education. the other 8% you really don't want to be in a class with.Currently though there is no duty on parents, And no enforcement against the 16-17 year old so It's very much avoidable.

But since the labour market for 16 year olds has been totally destroyed they might as well go to college for a couple of years.  When I was 16 (6 years ago) The only real jobs out there were £400/month 40hr apprenticeships, Which if I took would have cost my mum £500/month in Child support/Tax credits.  Incidentally I chose to go to college to learn and had a great time but looking back I can see why there were so many unmotivated students on the course.

What is shocking though is the number of Level 1 and Level 2 courses colleges offer, This amounts to effectively being "held back" by 2 or 1 years respectively.  Good earner for the FE colleges struggling with a falling 16-18 population/cuts. But I have seen people put on courses below their ability so that the college receives an extra year of funding which is horrendous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nothernsoul said:

So individuals who learned nothing at school, messed about, wasted the time of teachers and other pupils, and dont have the motivation or nouse to find work or an apprenticeship- the government decided the solution to this was give them two more years of the same? Logically, this must mean that since 2013 courses must have been introduced with zero entry requirements(either formal academic qualifications or even an interview to assess personal suitability of candidate) to fill this demand. 

They have what you might call sink courses to mop up those individuals, yes, on the basis that if they leave after two more years with slightly better maths English and IT skills then it's a win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, nothernsoul said:

Saw a low paid admin job advertised at the towns FE college.The main duty was improving attendance for students. This is post 16 education, nobody has to be there by law.  What happened to telling individuals if your lazy, dont turn up, mess,  about your out? 

This is no longer true, The law changed so that between 16 and 18 you must either remain in education or enter a formal apprenticeship or other training programme. https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Si1 said:

I think you're the third person to have pointed this out. Feeling a bit sorry for nothernsoul now ;)

Oops!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, nothernsoul said:

So individuals who learned nothing at school, messed about, wasted the time of teachers and other pupils, and dont have the motivation or nouse to find work or an apprenticeship- the government decided the solution to this was give them two more years of the same? Logically, this must mean that since 2013 courses must have been introduced with zero entry requirements(either formal academic qualifications or even an interview to assess personal suitability of candidate) to fill this demand. 

Yes that is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Yes that is right.

But what should any govt do instead? Euthanise them?

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Si1 said:

But what should any govt do instead? Euthanise them?

It is tricky (although making an absurd suggestion does not help).

Maybe workfare for those who don't attend at school at 16 - or only get benefits if they have tried to get an education.[

In my school having more people stay post 16 might have made the results worse not better!  Neither Tony Blair nor David Cameron went to a school like that.

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

It is tricky (although making an absurd suggestion does not help).

Maybe workfare for those who don't attend at school at 16 - or only get benefits if they have tried to get an education.[

 

Both our suggestions are as absurd as each other. Yours may as well be euthanasia in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Both our suggestions are as absurd as each other. Yours may as well be euthanasia in practice.

Not really, I was at school with people, who didn't want to be there and ASAP* looked for a labouring job.  Keeping them on at school would have been a complete waste of time for them and for everyone else.  One of my former colleagues was sacked 7 times by the time he was 18 - what good would forcing him to stay on have done (he would have got expelled anyway).

 

*In those days if you were born at the right the time of year you could be made to stay on until May but not be forced to do GCSEs, which was crazy, they should have been made to stay for a few more weeks to try to get something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Council estate capitalist said:

 

When I was 16 (6 years ago) The only real jobs out there were £400/month 40hr apprenticeships, Which if I took would have cost my mum £500/month in Child support/Tax credits.  Incidentally I chose to go to college to learn and had a great time but looking back I can see why there were so many unmotivated students on the course.

 

That sounds a bad benefits system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

That sounds a bad benefits system.

That was basically the system under the previous Labour govt. Taken a while to reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical managerialist/bureaucratic solution to a systemic problem. Instead of reforming the deep problems within the school system and labour market they do something like this. Im sure it helps, along with tax credits, to sustain the illusion of Britains record low levels of unemployment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would lower the school leaving age to 14 and let the 5% of the population who really get nothing from formal education at that age go out in the world and do what they want. I'd use the money saved from reduced special educational needs units in secondary schools to fund more adult education classes so if the early leavers do calm down by their mid-20s and realise they need maths and English GCSE to get where they want to go they could come back and study them at college for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Personally I would lower the school leaving age to 14 and let the 5% of the population who really get nothing from formal education at that age go out in the world and do what they want. I'd use the money saved from reduced special educational needs units in secondary schools to fund more adult education classes so if the early leavers do calm down by their mid-20s and realise they need maths and English GCSE to get where they want to go they could come back and study them at college for free.

+1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dorkins said:

Personally I would lower the school leaving age to 14 and let the 5% of the population who really get nothing from formal education at that age go out in the world and do what they want. I'd use the money saved from reduced special educational needs units in secondary schools to fund more adult education classes so if the early leavers do calm down by their mid-20s and realise they need maths and English GCSE to get where they want to go they could come back and study them at college for free.

Love this idea, Successive governments have dismantled adult education/night school and concentrated the funding to under 19's for FE and on the university system. Horrid system where what is free if you are 16-18 costs thousands if you are a late bloomer

The wolf report is a good (bit long) read for the problems in the sector/proposed solutions.

Funded adult education in many places now consists of English/Maths + Rubbish job centre 2 week funded courses in food hygiene/how to lift boxes etc. 

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

That sounds a bad benefits system.

It's pretty awful, I've seen anecdotes where parents have "banned" their kids from taking apprenticeships because it will "cost" them £2k+ in benefit losses. And that assumes the apprentice pays over the entirety of his net pay (Minus travel) as board money.

Solution A: Treat apprenticeships like school/college and continue to pay CTC/Child support/CB to parents.
Solution B: End CTC/Child support/CB at 16. (Horrible option, would place hardship on *some* who want to better themselves at schools/college)
Solution C (My preferred), Lower benefit payments overall + Solution A to put apprenticeships on par with sixth form/college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Council estate capitalist said:

Solution A: Treat apprenticeships like school/college and continue to pay CTC/Child support/CB to parents.
Solution B: End CTC/Child support/CB at 16. (Horrible option, would place hardship on *some* who want to better themselves at schools/college)
Solution C (My preferred), Lower benefit payments overall + Solution A to put apprenticeships on par with sixth form/college.

Solution D: basic income for all citizens starting at 14

I think we keep young people trapped in child-like situations for far too long. No housing benefit for under 21s, criminally low apprenticeship pay rates (£100 for a 40 hour week in 2018, who on earth thought that was appropriate?!), parents having to contribute to university. Yes, a 14 year old is not a full adult, but they are at the stage where you start to learn how to be one by going out and taking some knocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole idea is to keep as many people as possible in the benefit system(by stealth) , whether the benefits are related to education or doing low paid work for 16 hours a week. Plus create a bloated, overly managed,  public and quasi public sector. The elite is frightened that if they dont do this,  the horrible reality of a post industrial economy that cannot provide a standard of living that we expect in the west will lead to unrest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/11/2018 at 16:01, iamnumerate said:

Sadly you are wrong

https://childlawadvice.org.uk/information-pages/participation-of-young-people-in-education-employment-or-training/

If you can't find a job you have to stay in education even if you don't want and will make everyone else's life miserable (don't worry those who passed this law will not have children like that at THEIR children's schools).

The nuts thing about this is, if a kid leaves school without a gcse pass in english and maths, they want to punish the kid!

Far better they take the 5k year from the teachers.

Just another of  Browns make work schemes for the useless publuc sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

The whole idea is to keep as many people as possible in the benefit system(by stealth) , whether the benefits are related to education or doing low paid work for 16 hours a week. Plus create a bloated, overly managed,  public and quasi public sector. The elite is frightened that if they dont do this,  the horrible reality of a post industrial economy that cannot provide a standard of living that we expect in the west will lead to unrest. 

Gordon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   325 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.