Should school attendance be voluntary? [ENDS 03/04/2011]

Should school attendance be voluntary?

ENDS: 03/04/2011

In one view, some may say why is this question even posed and that of course children should have schooling at least until the age of 16, if not until University level. It should be the right of the parent and teacher to decide, for they have more life experience and generally know what could succeed more. Jobs look for people with qualifications and without them, it would be close to impossible to find one.

On the other hand some say it is useless. For example, some will never again need things such as the sciences or mathematics in their whole life, if they say go for an acting career- so what is the point in wasting precious time learning it. For some it may be a unhappy and unsuccessful place and it has been proved by a few unique cases in the past of people succeeding without any thorough schooling. Also, learning may not fit the interests of everyone and why should the government be telling people what to do.

At first it may seem like a one-sided debate, but it will generate many interesting views.

It is impossible to get on in life without being able to read write and add ( I mean very basically. As in adding 5 and 12). They will always help you.
I want to act. But at school it teaches you far more than facts.It teaches you how to share (when your a lil baby!), It teaches you how to make friends, it teaches you the importance of respect, it toughens you up and it helps you do something productive with your time. If I didn't go to school, I would not do anything with my time. Just sit here and go on habbox.But school helps me do something challenging and sometimes fun.

I think it should, but you should have to go a certain amount of days compulsory.
Some things in maths and science are just pointless for me to know, I will not need to know why x = 4 I mean cmon im going to need to go to asda and buy x amount of potatos.
School itself isn't pointless, it gives you skills you'll need for life, but only a certain amount of it should be compulsory.

Up to a certain age or ability, yes. However I think it's stupid to keep people on (as the previous Government decided) until they're 18, when some people clearly HATE school.

Education is obviously a necessity and people in some countries would DIE for education. However, it is not worth the money or time or effort if someone is being forced to go there and just disrupt it.

My view is, school should be compulsory up to a certain standard - ie; you are tested yearly with a few exams that are the minimum standard (so you're fluent in english, can solve basic mathematics problems etc.) then you can leave - for some people that may be 12, for some that may be 18. However there should also be an age limit, ie; if you don't pass the test by age 16, you can go anyway.

To me, that seems fair. It's hardly fair to let a kid with 1 GCSE leave at 16, and a 12 year old of the same standard be forced to go to school for another 4 years.

Also, I think schools should be ability classed, not age, that way those who constantly fail "the test" could be helped while those who pass it can extend their knowledge.

My opinion is probably controversial but I hate the fact that stupid (sorry couldn't think of a better word) 16 year olds are allowed to leave when very intelligent 12/13/14 year olds aren't.

Sure some people may never need algebra or GCSE French in their life but you also learn beyond the knowledge. You learn more life skills like meeting deadlines (homework/coursework) etc that will always be useful for life regardless of what job you do so this is why it should be compulsory.

Also, I'd be a bit worried about what voluntary attendance would result in. It could be used as an excuse by parents to keep their children, particularly women, at home doing the housework cos they have more traditional values. It could be used by pupils to never go to school. My brother wouldn't go to school if he had the choice. I think this would result in widening the gap between the rich and the poor. While that's capitalism which needs inequality to function properly I don't dispute that, it goes against 21st Century thinking to make education voluntary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

Sure some people may never need algebra or GCSE French in their life but you also learn beyond the knowledge. You learn more life skills like meeting deadlines (homework/coursework) etc that will always be useful for life regardless of what job you do so this is why it should be compulsory.

Also, I'd be a bit worried about what voluntary attendance would result in. It could be used as an excuse by parents to keep their children, particularly women, at home doing the housework cos they have more traditional values. It could be used by pupils to never go to school. My brother wouldn't go to school if he had the choice. I think this would result in widening the gap between the rich and the poor. While that's capitalism which needs inequality to function properly I don't dispute that, it goes against 21st Century thinking to make education voluntary.

---

Uhm...what? How could it do that. It'd simply be - those determined to succeed vs. those who couldn't give a ****. I know several "poor" people who would go to school regardless because they want a better future, and I know rich ***** who would leave school ASAP if they could.

Sure there'll be exceptions to the rule but the general rule will be those who have family pressure to succeed placed on them (more likely to be rich according to Douglas' study) will stay in education while those who don't (more likely to be poor) won't. That's not to say that ALL poor people will drop out and ALL rich people will stay in but as a general rule it'll definitely increase the gap.

I don't think it should be voluntary, what else are they going to do? You're not allowed a job until you're 16(?) and you can't go on jobseekers, at least at school you have somewhere to go instead of just hanging about doing nothing until you're 16.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camy

I don't think it should be voluntary, what else are they going to do? You're not allowed a job until you're 16(?) and you can't go on jobseekers, at least at school you have somewhere to go instead of just hanging about doing nothing until you're 16.

---

You can get a paper round at 14. You can get a special license to work if you're under 16 if you're performing or playing national sport etc.

I think it should be compulsory to a certain age. At the moment, if the education system changes to make it voluntary for, lets say 16+, it would be difficult as that 16 year old would need to find a job of some sort to keep them occupied (not everyone has a farm or family run business to keep them occupied :P) and many businesses refuse to take on 16 year olds as it is at the moment due to the financial costs and the Government cannot be expected to fork out for each 16 year old going into apprenticeships and work experience. I know of some people who hated education, but in some cases forcing education upon children is a good thing because not all children know what they want or like in life until they begin to see the bigger picture, and learning about certain things like science, english and maths is a good thing - of course, some children do know what they want to be but you have to blanket cover everyone to insure yourself. I don't think everyone should have to go to college unless they feel they need to, but at the moment the college education system seems to cater for everyone - academic or practical. The only problem is that some practical courses tend to ask for a bit of theory, which some people may despise.

You'd be amazed at how many people that are now famous, loaded with cash, were actually quite frankly stupid in school. They failed at everything, but still managed to turn their life around.

But in my opinion, school attendance should be voluntary, but not for all. There are loads of people that, lets put it simply, cba with school. They go on, torment the teachers & pupils, waste and ruin others education time, cause trouble and do not achieve anything, these people should be given a choice whether to come in or not, so there are no excuses for acting like a complete ****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Communist

You'd be amazed at how many people that are now famous, loaded with cash, were actually quite frankly stupid in school. They failed at everything, but still managed to turn their life around.

But in my opinion, school attendance should be voluntary, but not for all. There are loads of people that, lets put it simply, cba with school. They go on, torment the teachers & pupils, waste and ruin others education time, cause trouble and do not achieve anything, these people should be given a choice whether to come in or not, so there are no excuses for acting like a complete ****.

---

But not all people who hate school go on to do great things - many regret dropping out. Quite a few homeless men and women who dropped out when they were young didn't and do not amount to anything and lived in the "poor house". Saying it should be voluntary for some and not others is impossible, some children do not know what they want to be while others do. I think if a child hates school, then maybe the school can do something to tackle that - work experience at an early age, maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Communist

You'd be amazed at how many people that are now famous, loaded with cash, were actually quite frankly stupid in school. They failed at everything, but still managed to turn their life around.

But in my opinion, school attendance should be voluntary, but not for all. There are loads of people that, lets put it simply, cba with school. They go on, torment the teachers & pupils, waste and ruin others education time, cause trouble and do not achieve anything, these people should be given a choice whether to come in or not, so there are no excuses for acting like a complete ****.

---

You are right, two of the biggest men in the world (Alan Sugar and Richard Branson) left with no GCSEs (or O Levels), however, they are in a tiny minority. I think it was Bill Gates who said "don't bully the nerds, you will work for them some day" - or something like that. The majority of people who succeed in the world of work, are those with a decent IQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milestone

You are right, two of the biggest men in the world (Alan Sugar and Richard Branson) left with no GCSEs (or O Levels), however, they are in a tiny minority. I think it was Bill Gates who said "don't bully the nerds, you will work for them some day" - or something like that. The majority of people who succeed in the world of work, are those with a decent IQ

---

Exactly. Perhaps what could work is a change in the education system to accomodate different minds? Obviously keep traditional methods, but focus on pupil potential. Some may be completely hopeless with theory and academia, but be brilliant in creative thought and practical work. Education shouldn't just be about books, it should be about discovering a young persons potential too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative,

You can get a paper round at 14. You can get a special license to work if you're under 16 if you're performing or playing national sport etc.

---

I just think that everyone should go to school 'till the same time because tbh if you leave early not achieving anywhere near your potential eventually you will regret it. Nontheless if school was made voluntary i'd still go. Also it's much more annoying when say your in maths and your watching everyone outside running round having fun in pe. Which relates to being in school and others out having a fun time/having lie-ins/doing as they please :) IMO kkkkty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hayleigh,

I just think that everyone should go to school 'till the same time because tbh if you leave early not achieving anywhere near your potential eventually you will regret it. Nontheless if school was made voluntary i'd still go. Also it's much more annoying when say your in maths and your watching everyone outside running round having fun in pe. Which relates to being in school and others out having a fun time/having lie-ins/doing as they please :) IMO kkkkty

---

Some people just don't belong in school though. Because the people in my class - most of them have the IQ of a...well lets not go there, and they hate school. All they do is disrupt it. I'd rather have peaceful classes where only those that WANT to learn, can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative,

Some people just don't belong in school though. Because the people in my class - most of them have the IQ of a...well lets not go there, and they hate school. All they do is disrupt it. I'd rather have peaceful classes where only those that WANT to learn, can.

---

Then that's a matter of splitting up classes 8-) Im not saying I agree with me having to stay in school till im 18 (im current year 9) and I agree with you that after 16 you should be allowed to drop out but I think anytime before that it should be compulsary. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milestone

You are right, two of the biggest men in the world (Alan Sugar and Richard Branson) left with no GCSEs (or O Levels), however, they are in a tiny minority. I think it was Bill Gates who said "don't bully the nerds, you will work for them some day" - or something like that. The majority of people who succeed in the world of work, are those with a decent IQ

---

This is true but like you point out it's a tiny majority so hardly worth pointing out. The vast majority who drop-out don't amount to much. And that quote is regularly attributed to Bill Gates incorrectly, he's never said such a thing ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative,

Some people just don't belong in school though. Because the people in my class - most of them have the IQ of a...well lets not go there, and they hate school. All they do is disrupt it. I'd rather have peaceful classes where only those that WANT to learn, can.

---

Hmm well I think this is where "sets" should come in and possibly bringing back the good ol' grammar schools. Classes should depend on ability from Year 7 if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative,

Up to a certain age or ability, yes. However I think it's stupid to keep people on (as the previous Government decided) until they're 18, when some people clearly HATE school.

Education is obviously a necessity and people in some countries would DIE for education. However, it is not worth the money or time or effort if someone is being forced to go there and just disrupt it.

My view is, school should be compulsory up to a certain standard - ie; you are tested yearly with a few exams that are the minimum standard (so you're fluent in english, can solve basic mathematics problems etc.) then you can leave - for some people that may be 12, for some that may be 18. However there should also be an age limit, ie; if you don't pass the test by age 16, you can go anyway.

To me, that seems fair. It's hardly fair to let a kid with 1 GCSE leave at 16, and a 12 year old of the same standard be forced to go to school for another 4 years.

Also, I think schools should be ability classed, not age, that way those who constantly fail "the test" could be helped while those who pass it can extend their knowledge.

My opinion is probably controversial but I hate the fact that stupid (sorry couldn't think of a better word) 16 year olds are allowed to leave when very intelligent 12/13/14 year olds aren't.

---

The new law about staying on until 18 doesn't mean you necessarily have to stay on at school/college. For instance you can do vocational courses at 16 (and sometimes before), and the new law allows for you to do apprenticeships and training till your 18. I'm not actually opposed to forcing people to stay in education or training till 18.

It most certainly shouldn't be voluntary. How can we be expected to compete with other nations if we have people dropping out before 16? I'd advocate more classes to be decided on ability, much heavier focus on academic subjects till 14 and then allow people to go their own way, whether they choose to do academic subjects or vocational courses, just as long as they're learning something till they're 18 :)

It should also be noted that whilst a lot of the things you learn at school are useless in later life, it's showing whether you can understand concepts and how successful of a student you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

This is true but like you point out it's a tiny majority so hardly worth pointing out. The vast majority who drop-out don't amount to much. And that quote is regularly attributed to Bill Gates incorrectly, he's never said such a thing ;)

Hmm well I think this is where "sets" should come in and possibly bringing back the good ol' grammar schools. Classes should depend on ability from Year 7 if you ask me.

The new law about staying on until 18 doesn't mean you necessarily have to stay on at school/college. For instance you can do vocational courses at 16 (and sometimes before), and the new law allows for you to do apprenticeships and training till your 18. I'm not actually opposed to forcing people to stay in education or training till 18.

It most certainly shouldn't be voluntary. How can we be expected to compete with other nations if we have people dropping out before 16? I'd advocate more classes to be decided on ability, much heavier focus on academic subjects till 14 and then allow people to go their own way, whether they choose to do academic subjects or vocational courses, just as long as they're learning something till they're 18 :)

It should also be noted that whilst a lot of the things you learn at school are useless in later life, it's showing whether you can understand concepts and how successful of a student you are.

---

You could possibly do what China do and Russia did (not sure if they still do) and do a series of tests on children at a very young age (3/4 years old) which then basically says what they'll be good at. It tests everything (physical ability, academic ability, creative skills etc.) and then they could be given heavier focus on what they're good at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessicrawrr

I think it should, but you should have to go a certain amount of days compulsory.
Some things in maths and science are just pointless for me to know, I will not need to know why x = 4 I mean cmon im going to need to go to asda and buy x amount of potatos.
School itself isn't pointless, it gives you skills you'll need for life, but only a certain amount of it should be compulsory.

---

First sentance is a bit contradictory there. Maths developes your mind and teaches you to think, even if most of the stuff you learn is useless the actual subject isn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Communist

You'd be amazed at how many people that are now famous, loaded with cash, were actually quite frankly stupid in school. They failed at everything, but still managed to turn their life around.

But in my opinion, school attendance should be voluntary, but not for all. There are loads of people that, lets put it simply, cba with school. They go on, torment the teachers & pupils, waste and ruin others education time, cause trouble and do not achieve anything, these people should be given a choice whether to come in or not, so there are no excuses for acting like a complete ****.

---

These people usualy get expelled, so they end up not going anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative,

You could possibly do what China do and Russia did (not sure if they still do) and do a series of tests on children at a very young age (3/4 years old) which then basically says what they'll be good at. It tests everything (physical ability, academic ability, creative skills etc.) and then they could be given heavier focus on what they're good at.

---

It is widely known now that people change hugely in their first twenty years of life mentally. People develop and change mindsets vastly during these ages. So taking a test at 3/4 years of age is very unreliable. Sure some people who are good at maths at 3 may still be good at maths at 15. Likewise however, a guy in my class was top of the class in our early maths years. However now he's 17 and he's very average, in fact he's struggling to stay in the class he's in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

Likewise however, a guy in my class was top of the class in our early maths years. However now he's 17 and he's very average, in fact he's struggling to stay in the class he's in.

---

Sounds like me, throughout Primary School I was consistently top of my year group in Maths and Science (And I wasn't at a one class school or anything). At the beginning of secondary school I was pretty much still top and then when I got to GCSEs I got B in Maths and Science's and I'm currently failing AS Maths. So I accept the premise things change but I think it shows I'm probably capable if I hadn't got behind and lost motivation. China and Russia have some very well educated people so if this method is proven to work it's probably worth considering. I believe you can tell at a young age you can tell how clever someone is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

Sounds like me, throughout Primary School I was consistently top of my year group in Maths and Science (And I wasn't at a one class school or anything). At the beginning of secondary school I was pretty much still top and then when I got to GCSEs I got B in Maths and Science's and I'm currently failing AS Maths. So I accept the premise things change but I think it shows I'm probably capable if I hadn't got behind and lost motivation. China and Russia have some very well educated people so if this method is proven to work it's probably worth considering. I believe you can tell at a young age you can tell how clever someone is.

---

It can be said that any country "has some very well educated people". I thought i had said it in my earlier post, it appears i didn't, but this method hasn't been proven mainly for the reasoning i gave earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

It can be said that any country "has some very well educated people". I thought i had said it in my earlier post, it appears i didn't, but this method hasn't been proven mainly for the reasoning i gave earlier.

---

No it can't, China has many intellects who have done great things, much like Russia has. Look at the world's leading laboratories and places of scientific research and there's plenty of Russians and Chinese in them. Or even just leading University's in the UK and you'll find many Chinese have enrolled. On the whole, many Chinese receive excellent education and can therefore compete with Europeans and North Americans these days. In China for instance, there's five times more people learning English than there is people learning English in the UK. Of course it's a much bigger country but it's remarkable how so many people are learning a second language very different to their own.

To an extent, yes!

I'v forgot nearly everything I learnt at school (apart from the things I use in my life). I can't remember any of the crap in maths - Pythagoras, Algebra. I can't remember anything I learnt in music, can only remember a few things in history and geography.. think that's the only subject I can remember haha.

I think the main reason I can't remember anything from maths is actually because it was compulsory. In my maths classes, there was a few people who used to mess around in class, making it difficult for other people to learn.

I would also have hated to stay into school until I was 18. When I was 16 and went to college, it was nice to be able to learn something i'm interested with other people who are interested and not some people who are there because they have to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

No it can't, China has many intellects who have done great things, much like Russia has. Look at the world's leading laboratories and places of scientific research and there's plenty of Russians and Chinese in them. Or even just leading University's in the UK and you'll find many Chinese have enrolled. On the whole, many Chinese receive excellent education and can therefore compete with Europeans and North Americans these days. In China for instance, there's five times more people learning English than there is people learning English in the UK. Of course it's a much bigger country but it's remarkable how so many people are learning a second language very different to their own.

---

Look at the populations of Russia and China, and then look at the population of the UK. No more needs to be said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative,

Up to a certain age or ability, yes. However I think it's stupid to keep people on (as the previous Government decided) until they're 18, when some people clearly HATE school.

Education is obviously a necessity and people in some countries would DIE for education. However, it is not worth the money or time or effort if someone is being forced to go there and just disrupt it.

My view is, school should be compulsory up to a certain standard - ie; you are tested yearly with a few exams that are the minimum standard (so you're fluent in english, can solve basic mathematics problems etc.) then you can leave - for some people that may be 12, for some that may be 18. However there should also be an age limit, ie; if you don't pass the test by age 16, you can go anyway.

To me, that seems fair. It's hardly fair to let a kid with 1 GCSE leave at 16, and a 12 year old of the same standard be forced to go to school for another 4 years.

Also, I think schools should be ability classed, not age, that way those who constantly fail "the test" could be helped while those who pass it can extend their knowledge.

My opinion is probably controversial but I hate the fact that stupid (sorry couldn't think of a better word) 16 year olds are allowed to leave when very intelligent 12/13/14 year olds aren't.

---

I disagree with this as I feel it takes away equal opportunities when it comes to Education. If we make everyone stay on until they are 16 then this is fair. Everyone receives the same chance, they're able to get some GCSE's and then once they've completed year 11 they should then have the option as to what they would like to do next, but I think that it should be the schools responsibility to ensure that students who have completed their GCSE's and are moving onto post-16, have somewhere to go/something to do.

On the other hand you've mentioned intelligent 12/13/14 year olds. What I think could be done for them is an advance/fast-track system put into education. So that, say when you get to year 8 or 9, it may be an option to let you begin a GCSE course(s) in subject(s) that you excel in. In no way however do I feel it would be right for children to be allowed to leave school just because they might be considered "more intelligent" than others. What would they do when they leave school? Most employers wouldn't be willing to recruit 14/15 year olds on a fulltime basis, imagine the changes they'd have to make to company insurance policies. Then I think of the young intelligent people fast tracking to college and uni - this just doesn't seem real to me.

In my own opinion, the current schooling system in the UK needs to be tweaked and changed, however I think major changes such as school leaving dates are not necessary and will just create unwanted hassle in the country, which isn't what we need. What we need is the money and funds to ensure that the current education system is up to scratch and that all children have an equal and fair education.

It's the natural instinct of people made to do something for them to not want to do that thing - hence why so many people hate school... If we had the choice in our younger years, a large number of people would take days off school and become Uneducated when they don't know what they are doing to themselves. School should be compulsory - we miss it when we leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

No it can't, China has many intellects who have done great things, much like Russia has. Look at the world's leading laboratories and places of scientific research and there's plenty of Russians and Chinese in them. Or even just leading University's in the UK and you'll find many Chinese have enrolled. On the whole, many Chinese receive excellent education and can therefore compete with Europeans and North Americans these days. In China for instance, there's five times more people learning English than there is people learning English in the UK. Of course it's a much bigger country but it's remarkable how so many people are learning a second language very different to their own.

---

That would assume that the education system that China and Russia has is succeeding however. There could be other factors such as parents attitude to education, for example, that contributes to that rather than because they test pupils at 3/4 years old. If I recall correctly, the chinese value education highly whereas education here is beaten with a stick constantly imo. I think it'd be a very dangerous path to take to test 3/4 year olds and then, by the time they've got to 16, their education is based on a test they did 11/12 years ago.

I think it is revellent for a child to get taught general knolage, so then they can decide themselves for what they want to do in the future. Which I believe is called Primary school. I believe after they finish Primary school, they should have options to what they want to learn, and need to learn for what they have to know in the future, for their own carer.

Maybe meaning there is no secondary school, and that child stays into that school, untol they have learned what they need to know to choose where they go next, with support. I mean, when I was 11 I wanted to be a police officer.... and I swear some kids have even worse things like a lorry driver as such. So just until they learn what they need to know, and pass the exam. And the options would be, carry on education, which is going to secondary, or going down your carer routes.

-- my other side --

In primary school and secondary school, I was a 'naughty' boy, and was eventually kicked out of secondary. Basically because I was being taught how others are better than me because I'm in a lower class, and how to add up cubes, and learn how to draw cicles. I find my self lucky that I got into the course I always wanted to do, only because of experience I had outside of school with time-part jobs, and also because I use computers in every day life since I was young.

But aye, some have got of worse, and got no where, simply because they were young, and didn't understand why they had to go to school. At 18, I regret being naughty, and think that school would of been a great help with my life... but what 40 year old polition would think a 9, 11, 14 year old will know that at that current age? oh right.. all of them.. obviously not. Which means that child is down the hill, most likely on the doll because they didn't understand schoolin at a young age, and didnt get the right grades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

First sentance is a bit contradictory there. Maths developes your mind and teaches you to think, even if most of the stuff you learn is useless the actual subject isn't



These people usualy get expelled, so they end up not going anyway.



It is widely known now that people change hugely in their first twenty years of life mentally. People develop and change mindsets vastly during these ages. So taking a test at 3/4 years of age is very unreliable. Sure some people who are good at maths at 3 may still be good at maths at 15. Likewise however, a guy in my class was top of the class in our early maths years. However now he's 17 and he's very average, in fact he's struggling to stay in the class he's in.

---

That's most likely due to the fact he doesn't try/can't be bothered. If you test them when they don't understand why they will do their best because children are very competitive. Then you can maximise their potential. Just because some kids don't try hard doesn't mean they couldn't do better. I've seen kids be incredibly clever but dropped down several sets because they just can't be bothered. Doesn't mean their abilities have changed, personally I don't think it's possible to lose a natural talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative,

[B]

That's most likely due to the fact he doesn't try/can't be bothered. If you test them when they don't understand why they will do their best because children are very competitive. Then you can maximise their potential. Just because some kids don't try hard doesn't mean they couldn't do better. I've seen kids be incredibly clever but dropped down several sets because they just can't be bothered. Doesn't mean their abilities have changed, personally I don't think it's possible to lose a natural talent.

---

I don't know what he does at home with regards to study, however i can tell you that he does try in class. He never messes around and always does his work. People if they aren't bothered will end up doing worse, however it doesn't mean peoples ability cannot change over time. It most certainly can as i've experienced it too myself over the years.

I remember when i first began primary school there were people who tried in class, and there were people who didn't try just like there are in my classes today. So this statement cannot be true, some might try their best but some might also take the easy option out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative,

Up to a certain age or ability, yes. However I think it's stupid to keep people on (as the previous Government decided) until they're 18, when some people clearly HATE school.

Education is obviously a necessity and people in some countries would DIE for education. However, it is not worth the money or time or effort if someone is being forced to go there and just disrupt it.

My view is, school should be compulsory up to a certain standard - ie; you are tested yearly with a few exams that are the minimum standard (so you're fluent in english, can solve basic mathematics problems etc.) then you can leave - for some people that may be 12, for some that may be 18. However there should also be an age limit, ie; if you don't pass the test by age 16, you can go anyway.

To me, that seems fair. It's hardly fair to let a kid with 1 GCSE leave at 16, and a 12 year old of the same standard be forced to go to school for another 4 years.

Also, I think schools should be ability classed, not age, that way those who constantly fail "the test" could be helped while those who pass it can extend their knowledge.

My opinion is probably controversial but I hate the fact that stupid (sorry couldn't think of a better word) 16 year olds are allowed to leave when very intelligent 12/13/14 year olds aren't.

---

One day you will look back and realise how stupid some of the things you say are, ever heard of emotional intelligence, social aptitude, common sense? Things that a 16 year old will have more of than a 12 year old. If you let all academically intelligent 13 year olds out of school at 13 you realise that they won't have been educated to the same level as someone who stayed on until 16, they won't have developed the same social skills or maturity and will have few options available to them.

You're 14 aren't you? And I'm sure you think you're very intelligent. I only need to read 3 of your posts to realise you definitely aren't fit to leave education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

I think it should be compulsory to a certain age. At the moment, if the education system changes to make it voluntary for, lets say 16+, it would be difficult as that 16 year old would need to find a job of some sort to keep them occupied (not everyone has a farm or family run business to keep them occupied :P) and many businesses refuse to take on 16 year olds as it is at the moment due to the financial costs and the Government cannot be expected to fork out for each 16 year old going into apprenticeships and work experience. I know of some people who hated education, but in some cases forcing education upon children is a good thing because not all children know what they want or like in life until they begin to see the bigger picture, and learning about certain things like science, english and maths is a good thing - of course, some children do know what they want to be but you have to blanket cover everyone to insure yourself. I don't think everyone should have to go to college unless they feel they need to, but at the moment the college education system seems to cater for everyone - academic or practical. The only problem is that some practical courses tend to ask for a bit of theory, which some people may despise.

---

In the UK, you finish school at 16, it isn't compulsary after that, I have a friend who is 16, she is an accountant now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syphon

In the UK, you finish school at 16, it isn't compulsary after that, I have a friend who is 16, she is an accountant now.

---

Personally, i think this should be raised. It would contribute to making a smarter more high paid economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative,

Up to a certain age or ability, yes. However I think it's stupid to keep people on (as the previous Government decided) until they're 18, when some people clearly HATE school.

Education is obviously a necessity and people in some countries would DIE for education. However, it is not worth the money or time or effort if someone is being forced to go there and just disrupt it.

My view is, school should be compulsory up to a certain standard - ie; you are tested yearly with a few exams that are the minimum standard (so you're fluent in english, can solve basic mathematics problems etc.) then you can leave - for some people that may be 12, for some that may be 18. However there should also be an age limit, ie; if you don't pass the test by age 16, you can go anyway.

To me, that seems fair. It's hardly fair to let a kid with 1 GCSE leave at 16, and a 12 year old of the same standard be forced to go to school for another 4 years.

Also, I think schools should be ability classed, not age, that way those who constantly fail "the test" could be helped while those who pass it can extend their knowledge.

My opinion is probably controversial but I hate the fact that stupid (sorry couldn't think of a better word) 16 year olds are allowed to leave when very intelligent 12/13/14 year olds aren't.

---

That is hilarious. let me make this clear you would defiantly not be passing that "test".

There is no WAY ever on earth that a 12 year old would be of the same ability of the GCSE student. Have you even taken your GCSEs? If you're 14 (previous post) then no you haven't. Let me put it this way, i am intelligent there is no two ways about it i have book smarts however when i was 12 i would have been eaten alive by the GCSE system because brains are not everything. You need a catalogue of different things to be able to leave school not just being able to use the sine and cosine rules to work out the length of the hypotenuse.

as you put it "stupid" 16 year olds are aloud to leave because they can now get a job and if they wish to "fend for themselves" when you're 12 do you honestly mean to say you expect someone to start working 9-5. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN HIT PUBERTY! School is just about maturing your mind it's about teaching you social skills and transferable knowledge which can be taken into the world of work.

Also the whole ability not age defining your school is also ridiculous because you need to be with people around your age to develop properly. Trust me if you're that intelligent you will get a scholarship to a private school and "fast tacked".

One final note on this you will never see the government lowering the school leaving age because education is basically programming the work force of the future and the government wants to make sure it's next set of doctor, lawyers, plumbers and bank managers all have the top education to enable them to do their jobs to the best of their ability, at the end of the day your Sky TV sales man may only need that one GCSE. who is to criticize him for that? he's getting what he needs for his job as the Lawyer is getting the 3 As at a level they need. If eduction is compromised it's basically the efficiency of the economy of the future which is being compromised.

that last para is rambley and i don't even expect you to have got that far but your argument justified a reply because it is so funny.

No it shouldn't, kids are dumb, parents are dumb. Everyone does stupid things, they should keep pestering students until they get their asses into school. Why would someone even ask should it be voluntary, it's just asking for trouble. It would give students the opportunity to skive off school to do idiotic things. I've learned from experience, my school doesn't really do much, they give you a few phone calls and that's that. I've skived school in the past to do stupid things like lay in bed until later hours or just do **** all basically. Why give the youth of today the option of being the bums of yesterday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative,

Some people just don't belong in school though. Because the people in my class - most of them have the IQ of a...well lets not go there, and they hate school. All they do is disrupt it. I'd rather have peaceful classes where only those that WANT to learn, can.

---

Then to be honest that is down to your school which if they're allowing that to go on sounds extremely poor. All schools that I have heard about through friends have at least 8 seperate classes differing in ability per year group in the school and my school was no different. Obviously in the higher ability groups you will have those who disrupt but its not going to upset the balance like it seems it is at your school.

Regardless if you're not going to need a GCSE is textiles or science, it is all stuff that's going in your head which will give you more common sense for the future. Often on things like The Apprentice you see people who've got all the talk and know everything as they've read the book but have no real idea what they're saying as they don't live in a common real world. Education should be compulsory up until the age of 16. Those who wish to succeed will go on to higher and further education or take an alternate route, those who don't will simply do as they wish which won't (hopefully) interfere with your plans.

I think it shouldn't because if this was the case, thousands of people would be living on the streets due to no education.. no education means to future. School is probablly one of the most important things in life because it builds up your whole future. Teenagers tend to think that school is the worse thing in their life and they want to quit highschool so badly.. well the day you get that diploma in your hand you wont regret not leaving.
I don't know what goes through some kids minds today but some people think its 'cool' to not be interested in school and not go to school when really its just being stupid. People should be educated so they have no regrets in the future.

I think people should have the right to go to school or not. Just depend's if they want an education, then again if you have the money you can alway's get a private home tutor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richie

No it shouldn't, kids are dumb, parents are dumb. Everyone does stupid things, they should keep pestering students until they get their asses into school. Why would someone even ask should it be voluntary, it's just asking for trouble. It would give students the opportunity to skive off school to do idiotic things. I've learned from experience, my school doesn't really do much, they give you a few phone calls and that's that. I've skived school in the past to do stupid things like lay in bed until later hours or just do **** all basically. Why give the youth of today the option of being the bums of yesterday?

---

This is a good point that Richie puts out.

Most young kids and a lot of older ones wouldn't choose school simply because they are too lazy/ don't know what's good for them. Likewise there are some stupid parents that don't know how to parent properly