My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Secondary education

Do children have to stay in education until 18?

14 replies

SingleMum01 · 29/12/2009 19:32

was chatting the other day with some mums and a couple said that kids have to stay in education now until 18, not 16. Have I missed something?!

OP posts:
Report
SleighGirl · 29/12/2009 19:35

Hmmm yes it was introduced/is being introduced shortly

Report
hocuspontas · 29/12/2009 19:36

No, 16 still applies. Most students IME go on to study vocational qualifications at a college if they leave after GSCEs but it's not compulsory.

Report
hocuspontas · 29/12/2009 19:36

Is that true? Has it been applied?

Report
badgermonkey · 29/12/2009 19:37

The current Year 7s and under have to stay in education or training until 18. They don't have to stay at school though.

Report
badgermonkey · 29/12/2009 19:38

www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_173002

Report
brimfull · 29/12/2009 19:40

yes is true

Report
hocuspontas · 29/12/2009 19:42

So currently you can still leave at 16 but not for long!

How will they enforce it?

Report
Ivykaty44 · 29/12/2009 19:46

So EMA will also finish as the goverment will not have to "keep" teenagers in education it will be compulasry.

Although you will be able to marry and have children yourslef legally but still stay in education

Report
CardyMow · 30/12/2009 02:21

My DD is in the first year group that has to stay till 18, in either school doing A-levels, or college doing vocational training. I don't see how they can enforce it for someone like my DD, I see it as being very expensive for the government to provide all the additional support SEN children will need for an extra 2 years, Where will that extra funding come from? And it also means that Child benefit will be paid for two further years as well, and also an ex-partners liability for maintenance continues for an extra 2 years. She is currently in Y7. My friends daughter is EXACTLY one year older than my DD (same birthday), she will be able to leave school in July 2013, where my DD will have to stay in some form of (probably NOT very useful to her in particular) education until July 2016!!!

Report
CardyMow · 30/12/2009 02:26

And Ivykaty has a point, at the moment, if a teenager falls pregnant before the end of compulsory education (i.e. before the end of Y11), The LEA has to provide a home tutor and allow the teenager to sit her exams. Will that be true if a 17/18yo does the same? WHERE would that money come from?? And, another sore point locally is that whilst we have a very good secondary locally, it has no more room to expand, is already only Y7-Y11, where are they going to put an extra 2 yr groups, the local college hasn't got the space, as there will be 3 other schools having the same problem, now this thread REALLY has got me thinking...may have to do some research on this topic...

Report
Ivykaty44 · 30/12/2009 11:11

So by keeping teenagers in education the goverment saves

EMA
private tutor
Dole money
apprentiship funding

Report
badgermonkey · 30/12/2009 11:52

They don't have to stay at school or college! They can be in workplace-based training which is the same as apprenticeships. When you look at it, the vast majority of 16-18 year olds are in education or training anyway. They're trying to deal with those who fall through the cracks, as it were. So they can get a job at 16, but it must come with training - nothing wrong with that, surely?

Report
CardyMow · 31/12/2009 00:58

No, nothing wrong with that for the vast majority of people, but what about DC's like my DD, who won't even scrape a c-grade at GCSE, and also have problems in that they aren't very able with their hands either, so wouldn't even gain 'vocational' qualifications, what do THEY do for an additional 2 years, sit in a classroom doing nothing? And are they going to expand special school to cope with an additional 2 years groups? Or are those SN kids meant to suddenly be NT and go and do 'work based training'??!! I know it's now that 'thems the rules' but where is all the necessary funding going to be 'magicked up' from? SEN are already underfunded in schools, and now the funding is going to have to cover an extra 2 years. I personally DON'T see the logic. The schools will just have even more truancy, as if you're married with a baby at 17 (which is perfectly legal) are you likely to still be going to school every day??

Report
CardyMow · 31/12/2009 01:02

And in my local area, there wouldn't be enough places, even with college/sixth form college& work based placements, so where do the rest of these teenagers go? My area doesn't seem to be (from the googling I've been doing) organising enough placements/college places for these children. Hmmmmm....may just ask the LEA THAT one....

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.