Staying on rates

I am known for being a pedant, particularly about numbers and their use or abuse.  Today's rant is about pedantry when using jargon and jargon that is highly emotive to boot.

The article on the BBC that has caused today's raised blood pressure is sadly not the brief but depressing article on GCSE languages, that would normally have me ranting for Britain (or England at least).

Today's annoying article is a supposed scoop on raising the school leaving age to 18, which will apparently feature in the Queen's speech.  If that were the case - if young people were going to be forced to stay in school until the age of 18 - it would be truly radical, I expect it would entail a fairly radical increase in school costs (particularly for those schools currently without a sixth form), and a pretty large increase in family allowances as well.  It would be expensive.

It would also be unpopular with a large part of the non-school education sector.  The unsung jewel in the crown of English education, the FE College, would lose a large part of its full time student base, the flexibility to deliver a range of qualifications to those not aged 16 to 18, and a huge wedge of its funding.  The much maligned private training provider who supports the national apprenticeship system would also find their funding cut, their market dried up and would be looking at how to close without becoming insolvent first.

I think I have made my point - it would be radical, unpopular and would have serious implications.

What Schools Secretary Ed Balls is actually looking to do, is to formalise the current objective that all young people stay in some form of education or training until they reach the age of 18.  Currently about 10% of 16 year olds do not progress into education or training, but some go into work without training, while others  fall into the NEET category (Not in Education, Employment or Training). 

For years in Coventry and Warwickshire, we ran something called the Success Index, which monitored as a shared measure of success for partners in education and training, the proportion of young people in education, training and employment WITH training.  Then when NEET became the target of choice, as being not quite so difficult and being monitored at national level for Connexions performance indicators, Coventry and Warwickshire had to lower their standards.

Mr Balls - you are now advocating what we used to monitor and strive for - about time and well done.  HOWEVER can you please get the terminology right, as at least in this case it is highly important.

Comments

[Jane Holland]

The Queen's Speech has been delivered and there is some clarity now on what is involved in the staying on thing. If approved, the Education and Skills Bill will mean that young people will have to stay in education or training until the end of the academic year in which they turn 17, and in 2015 that will change to the 18th birthday. A duty is placed on the young person, their parents (or guardians/spouses??) and local authorities to make this happen (though custodial sentences will not be involved in cases of non-compliance). Employers will be required to allow young people to attend training for the equivalent of one day per week.

There will also be an increase in apprenticeship places, and by 2013 all school leavers will be entitled to an apprenticeship place, while employers will be encouraged to offer apprenticeships and public bodies will have a duty to offer them.

We shall see!!