The Debate: Should pupils be able to leave school at 14?

Jan 29 2008 by David Higgerson, Liverpool Daily Post

Allowing pupils to end studies early is a new radical idea. David Higgerson reports

YESTERDAY, the Liverpool Daily Post revealed how up to a thousand 16-year-olds every year are leaving schools in Merseyside without a single qualification.

In Liverpool, one in 20 – or at least one in every high school class – leave the school gates for the final time without a qualification.

And with government warnings that qualifications are essential to secure work in the future as unskilled jobs move abroad, politicians are now calling for action.

Cllr Paul Clein, executive member of education at Liverpool, believes the Government needs to continue pumping more money into education so schools can better tailor learning to support the needs of the individual.

“We want every child coming through Liverpool’s schools to leave with qualifications which give them the best possible chance in life.

“What we do need is greater flexibility within the education system. Things are getting better, some youngsters now spend two or three days a week gaining practical skills in the workplace while still at school.

“We need to expand that, so children have a learning programme which is best for them, but to create that flexibility costs a lot of money. The Government has been good at putting more money into education, but we need at lot more if we are going to help those youngsters who currently leave without anything.”

Frank Field, the MP for Birkenhead, has proposed a more radical idea – letting children leave school at 14, with a bursary to spend on training.

So, today, we’re asking the question: Should children be allowed to leave school at 14?

davidhiggerson@dailypost.co.uk

NO: The Case Against - Young people need to develop advanced skills

by Jim Knight, Schools minister

WE HAVE announced our plans to legislate to ensure all young people participate in education and training until the age of 18.

The most landmark reforms to secondary education since the Butler Act in 1944 raised the leaving age to 15 and “made provision” for it to rise to 16, although this provision was not actually implemented until 1972.

We haven’t got 30 years to spare now. The challenges that tomorrow’s world will present to today’s young people mean they will need to develop advanced skills in order to thrive – and not just survive – in the increasingly global and ever more competitive marketplace.

While more young people are now staying on in a range of different educational institutions, we still lag well behind other countries in post-16 participation. The UK ranks 24th out of 29 OECD countries for participation of people aged 17.

And the challenge ahead is starker still.

By 2020, there will only be around 600,000 unskilled jobs left in Britain – but 4.6m extra highly skilled jobs to fill.

Many of the highly skilled services, such as law, software programming and finance, can now be delivered electronically from anywhere in the world.

If our young people are to compete, they will need the advanced skills they can only develop by staying on post-16.

But this is not just an economic necessity; it’s also a means to delivering social justice.

Currently, one in 10 young people between 16 and 19 does not participate in education, training or work, although that’s down from the 1985 high. Last year, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds not in education, training or employment fell by 20,000.

But educational opportunity for all still remains an aspiration.

And because the majority of those not remaining in education are from disproportionately poor families, we have a moral obligation to make it a reality.

We know those who leave school early without good skills and qualifications are less likely to get a good job. Less than half those with no qualifications are in work compared with nearly 90% of those with graduate level qualifications.

Those who get five or more good GCSEs or the equivalent will earn about £100k more than those who don’t. The first year of children who will all carry on learning after 16 are still in primary school now. We need to make sure all 11-year-olds have the skills in reading, writing and maths they need to get the most out of the broader secondary curriculum.Š

We need to make sure all 13 and 14-year-olds continue to be motivated and inspired in their education.

All schools, colleges and support systems need to improve opportunities for all young people.

This isn’t about chaining young people to their desks, but giving them the choice to do what’s right for them – whether that’s in the classroom, a lab, an office or a workshop.

But we need a new way of learning to do that.

YES: The Case For - We have to think of something else to offer them

by Frank Field, Labour MP for Birkenhead

WE ARE immensely proud that the Government is the first ever to undertake to abolish child poverty over a 20-year period. Progress has been made, and although it has stalled recently, the record is second to none.

But the number of the very poorest has increased. If we consider various health indices, the Government has generally made good progress, but the very poorest are not benefiting equally with other groups.

The gap between the very poorest and the rest of us – let alone the rich – is widening.

We know from the Government’s own data that four in 10 children leaving junior school for secondary school do not have the qualifications expected of them for that age group. However, they go on to secondary school, where many of them fail. We also know that more than five out of 10 of our constituents who leave school at 16 do not get the minimum education qualifica-tions the Government want every-body in that age group to get. The position has improved in the past 10 years, and although we should not make absurd claims about that, the numbers are truly great.

One of my suggestions is to introduce a leaving certificate, because those young people might well knuckle down and do some work. It could cover the basic skills in maths, education and IT and, as soon as young people gain the certificate at 14, they would be allowed to leave school provided they could get a job. At the moment, any money that we taxpayers put towards them are wasted. That group should have the £20,000 that we would spend on them between 14 and 16 if they turned up to school – although they do not – held as a dowry, which they would control.

When they realised that it is quite tough, even if they have a job, they might change their views about wanting to acquire skills. They would become buyers of skills, rather than the consum-ers of the training skills that Jobcentre Plus buys in job lots.

In Birkenhead this year, 38 young people left school with no qualifications. The cost to tax-payers of their education was a little over £1m. I asked whether we could not do something differ-ent with that £1m – as we know there will probably be 38 such young people next year and asked if we could have an experiment with a small technical school that might engage their interests.

The reply was, “No, we could not possibly do that. We could not teach the national curriculum in a school that size.” I reminded them we are not teaching those young people the national curric-ulum now, so what is the point of pretending? I agree the aims bene-fited most young people, but they do not benefit most of the young people who do not fit into the box.

We will not solve these prob-lems pretending we have it right in our junior and secondary schools, nor make things better with a system that engages them on the current terms after the age of 16. A small but significant num-ber of young people are failed by our education system. We have to think of something different to offer them.