shropshire 0 #1 September 3, 2008 From today, new secondary school pupils will be legally required to stay in education until they are 17 (this will rise to 18 in a few years time). Is this a good thing or a cynical way of reducing unemployment figures? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #2 September 3, 2008 I am wholly unqualified to guess at the sociopolitical motivation for that decision. Could be something like you said, or it could be as simple as they really think it will create a better, more educated class of graduates.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 September 3, 2008 Quote Is this a good thing or a cynical way of reducing unemployment figures? well, how bad is unemployment now? As bad as on the Continent? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #4 September 3, 2008 Actually, it's not that bad ( 5.4% ) and has only risen by <1%. But expected to rise with the current Economic issues hitting all of us. But as that could not have been foreseen at the time of the educational changes were planned, I'd guess that they were not an issue. But, I don't have the unemployment figures for 16-18 year olds. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #5 September 3, 2008 QuoteI am wholly unqualified to guess at the sociopolitical motivation for that decision. Could be something like you said, or it could be as simple as they really think it will create a better, more educated class of graduates.I think more "INDOCTRINATED" is the word. If it is public education anyway.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 September 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteI am wholly unqualified to guess at the sociopolitical motivation for that decision. Could be something like you said, or it could be as simple as they really think it will create a better, more educated class of graduates.I think more "INDOCTRINATED" is the word. If it is public education anyway. Any and every education system or method indoctrinates the pupils. It's all a matter of which flavor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #7 September 3, 2008 Quote Quote Is this a good thing or a cynical way of reducing unemployment figures? well, how bad is unemployment now? As bad as on the Continent? Europe's economy has been shrinking for god-knows-how-long... How's that Socialism workin' there, Lucky? Oh, like gangbusters, right?! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #8 September 3, 2008 QuoteFrom today, new secondary school pupils will be legally required to stay in education until they are 17 (this will rise to 18 in a few years time). Is this a good thing or a cynical way of reducing unemployment figures? If one really wanted to be cynical, one might posit that it's an insidious way by the Labour govt of justifying high taxes, as more students attend publicly-funded schools than privately-funded ones, and thus this will inflate the student population, thereby justifying the need for tax funding. If it's that, it would put it in the Cynical category. Or, on the other hand, one might simply attribute increasing the age for compulsory education as an attribute of an enlightened society that wishes to reduce dumb-fuckism among its ranks. And that would put it in the Good Thing category. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #9 September 3, 2008 Keeping kids in school (especially when they do not really want to be there) will not make then any less dumb but could make them disruptive and reduce the other kids chances of a worthwhile education. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #10 September 3, 2008 I think you'll find that as school leavers aren't entitled to unemployment they don't enter in the figures. Another example of the governments numbers game. Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #11 September 3, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Is this a good thing or a cynical way of reducing unemployment figures? well, how bad is unemployment now? As bad as on the Continent? Europe's economy has been shrinking for god-knows-how-long... How's that Socialism workin' there, Lucky? Oh, like gangbusters, right?! Must explain the decline of the $US against the Euro since goodness knows how long.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #12 September 3, 2008 QuoteKeeping kids in school (especially when they do not really want to be there) will not make then any less dumb but could make them disruptive and reduce the other kids chances of a worthwhile education. Bollocks. Name me the society that has suffered a net detriment from compulsory education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #13 September 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteI am wholly unqualified to guess at the sociopolitical motivation for that decision. Could be something like you said, or it could be as simple as they really think it will create a better, more educated class of graduates.I think more "INDOCTRINATED" is the word. If it is public education anyway. So, exactly what, in your experience of the UK secondary school system, are our pupils being indoctrinated with?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 September 3, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Is this a good thing or a cynical way of reducing unemployment figures? well, how bad is unemployment now? As bad as on the Continent? Europe's economy has been shrinking for god-knows-how-long... How's that Socialism workin' there, Lucky? Oh, like gangbusters, right?! Must explain the decline of the $US against the Euro since goodness knows how long. They may be related - strong Euro hurts their imports to the US. And their hedge types lost a good fortune just like the financials over here. btw, the decline isn't that long lived - it started this decade, after initially doing poorly against the dollar for the first couple years. And there was a decent upsurge in the last couple months, timed nicely for my trip next week. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #15 September 3, 2008 Quote .... They may be related - strong Euro hurts their imports to the US. And their hedge types lost a good fortune just like the financials over here. ?? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #16 September 3, 2008 Quote Must explain the decline of the $US against the Euro since goodness knows how long. Not at all. Bernanke was simply printing too much money. Now that he's stopped, look what's happening.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
