These reluctant learners will probably be bribed with the EMA account and its attached bonuses. Who in their right mind would want to teach "key skills"to such a demotivated group?

Posted by: JimmyMac at December 6, 2006 10:30 PM

I once wrote to Charles Clarke with a suggestion for disenchanted working-class boys who caused the problems you outline here. He never replied, of course. My suggestion followed the usual flood of applications to my husband's business, every summer, for a job in the construction industry - tiling, plumbing, plastering etc.. Some are so desperate that they offer to work for nothing in return for the training.

We are told again and again that there is simply not enough affordable housing for first time buyers. They rely on private development companies and housing associations to provide the small amount available.

The Government should undertake to supply affordable housing and use our 14 year old youths to help build them. Each youth could be taught a general amount in each trade until age 16 and then, if they have ambitions beyond general labouring/handyman they could choose a further trade in which to specialise for a further two years or maybe elect to be mentors for new recruits. They could be paid a training allowance whilst in the scheme and then be eligible for a profit-share (if the houses were completed on time and within budget). They could be taught the basics of estimating, measuring and surveying and simple book-keeping - including tax returns - (which will improve their understanding of mathmatics and simple economics) and they could be taught how to read, understand and supply simple quotations (which will help with their literacy skills). They could even be taught how to drive and how to present themselves to prospective customers. This is real, on-the-job training for which they actually see a result.

By the time they reach age 18 they will have the skills to be a self-employed, self-sufficient wage-earning tax-payer as opposed to a life on the dole. Maybe they could have priority in buying one of the homes they have helped to create. Surely they would feel a pride in their neighbourhood that they would never feel for a council house on a sink estate.

I've spoken to kids like these and their ambitions are not huge - to own their own house and be their own boss is considered so unlikely for them that they see it beyond their reach and become hopeless about their situation. I think this would truly be a hand-up as opposed to a hand-out. I believe this would keep us tax-payers happy as well. Depending on the quality of the trainers, it could well be the first time some of these youths will have encountered a positive male role model in their lives - and if the job's done properly they will be too tired to hang around the streets at night causing trouble.

Of course, we would have to stop importing tradesman from the rest of Europe - but with our own skilled workforce we wouldn't need to.

It would also leave our colleges and universities to those who really want to be there.

I considered it was worth a thought - obviously Charles Clarke didn't!

Posted by: sue at December 6, 2006 11:29 PM

I work occasionally as an invigilator for the examinations department of our local FE college. I was initially amazed to see the large number of desks unoccupied at examinations in basic skills, students of which supply the college’s bread-and-butter. Those who do bother to turn up often bring no pen or pencil. It’s clear that many would rather be doing something else – and that’s without compulsion.

There are also many students on vocational courses who are genuinely interested. Sadly, some of these, who may be good enough with their hands at, say, beauty therapy or woodworking, are unable to cope with the written tests – even where these entail little or nothing beyond multiple choice. “Dyslexia” is generally no more than a euphemism for illiteracy. I’ve seen a would-be carpenter vainly punching his calculator at random, evidently incapable of working out the materials he would need for a job, yet, for all I knew, he might have been usefully employed working under supervision on a building site.

So I agree - extending the age of compulsory education is a daft idea, but it would make sense to reintroduce trade apprenticeships in some form, as Sue proposes.

Posted by: Philip Talmage at December 7, 2006 09:38 AM

To quote JimmyMac:

'Who in their right mind would want to teach "key skills" to such a demotivated group?'

Well, I spent (lasted?) a year teaching key skills to kids of school-leaving age, and, as you imply, it's pretty much pointless. Philip was spot-on with his observation about the lack of interest in doing basic skills: this lack of interest frequently borders on hostility - agression even. Often this is due to pride: many kids can't allow themselves to be *seen* to be interested in anything academic - particularly in doing maths - let alone to admit that they could learn something from an old fart with no dress-sense. When singled out, and freed from the gaze of their peers, they usually tend to be quite different people, and are rather more educable. However, one-on-one tuition is clearly not a workable option - the huge numbers involved would make it ruinously expensive.

The worst part is that in just about every key skills group, there *are* students who really do want to learn (most mature students fall into this category), but so much of the lecturer's time is taken up with vain attempts to encourage the couldn't-cares (and to try to prevent them from disrupting the class). Unfortunately, with the way things are set up, colleges are never going to kick out or turn away such time-wasters: numbers mean money and colleges (and universities) are run like businesses. Furthermore, the government uses FE to massage the unemployment figures - they're not "unemployed"; they're "students"! Dropping into your local FE college during the daytime might cause you to think otherwise...

On a more optimistic note, I must say that I love Sue's idea - it would be *precisely* the kind of thing that would work with the less motivated kids. It's no coincidence that this superb idea comes from someone actually involved in industry (and who is self-employed, by the sound of it). Sadly, it is invariably politicians who decide what happens - the vast majority of whom have never had any experience of working outside the rarefied environment of "government" (and many of whom are doubtless so incompetent as to be unemployable elsewhere).

Obviously though, the problem of the three Rs needs to be tackled much earlier than school-leaving age. One suggestion I would make is that, when schooling less able (and less willing) children, the National Curriculum be waived. It has been a disaster for these kids - how can a child be expected to do an essay for geography or history, when written English is a complete mystery? Or tackle a numerical problem in science when they cannot perform basic calculations? It would be far better for these kids simply to concentrate on literacy and numeracy, and once they've acquired a sufficient grasp of both, they can either continue with other studies, or do an apprenticeship (or something of the kind outlined by Sue). It should also be permissible for kids who aren't academically inclined to leave school at fourteen. But the human rights caucus would probably shout that one down...

Posted by: Paul H. at December 7, 2006 02:00 PM

Linking this discussion to James's piece (above) about ownership and control of schools, I'd suggest that most parents of non-academic children would be happy for their children to follow a non-academic curriculum and perhaps to do an apprenticeship part time whilst still at school, provided the school managed to get their children to a reasonable standard of literacy and numeracy. If parents wielded the purchasing power, and could hold schools to account for meeting these standards, I suspect the system would work fairly well. Much better than forcing chidren to stay at school whether or not they were numerate and literate to their parents' satisfaction.

Posted by: HJHJ at December 7, 2006 09:37 PM

1. Forcing people to stay atschool till they're 18 means that more 'teachers' will need to be employed. Which is a good thing, for teachers. Also think of the extra officials needed.

2. Reducing the size of the workforce is good for those already _in_ the workforce. It keeps wages from falling, at a minimum. Otherwise, it helps push wages up.

Posted by: Sudha Shenoy at December 9, 2006 04:13 PM

Hello. I just "happened" upon this site today as I was looking for information on non-academic jobs for my oldest son. I know you're all writing in response to the Welfare State We're In" article but I thought I'd just share my experience with my son. He is now 30 and happily married (to a wonderful girl) for 7 years and has one daughter. I'm happy to say he has grown up and become a very responsible husband and father. He was a terrible student in school because he has Attention Deficit Disorder and a mild language deficit (speaks well but can't always think of the right word when he wants to) but has quite a good vocabulary. He has been employed for the past 6 years with a cable company here in the U.S. as an installer/troubleshooter and is now getting "antsy" to move to something else. He tends to be impulsive but his wife keeps him pretty grounded as well as I. He has a brother 3 years younger who is very bright and has a college degree and already has a house and makes quite a nice income, who he is always comparing himself to. And, my youngest son, 19, is currently going to college on a partial scholarship. Anyway, the job my 30 year old son has is a good job for him as it requires some verbal communication, not a lot, and little writing skill. He did poorly in school and pretty much gave up trying at all when he began the 10th grade. He started hanging around with bad friends and got into drugs and drinking. He dropped out of his senior year (a mutual decision between him and the school and my husband and myself) but did go back to complete his education 6 months later with my urging and his realizing that making pizza for minimum wage wasn't what he wanted to do for the rest of his life. With my help (in math, in particular) he did graduate from high school. I know my son. He will never go to college. Though the job he has now is good for him, there's nowhere to go in terms of moving up in the company he is with. He works hard, is known often to help coworkers out if they're running late on a job. Though they like him, he doesn't have friends outside of work other than one who he's known since high school (one of the good kids, thank God). His verbal skills and ADD have prevented him from feeling at ease "BSing" (American term for bullshitting) with the guys. Anyway, he needs a trade that will provide him a good living and make him feel good about himself. Unfortunately, it seems that even some of the trade schools incorporate "academic" classes (English, Writing, etc.) into their programs. What my son needs is ONLY hands on training, that's it. He is smart but has little confidence about actually attending a school He did complete training at the Police Academy and, according to the Commander there who taught many of the classes, did well. However, when it came to taking the State Exam he failed it the first time by 3 or 4 points. He re-took it (students were allowed one re-take) and he missed passing by 2 points. He was devastated. He had gone through a 9 month program working full time and going to school at night to complete this. He was embarassed about not passing (he was the only candidate who didn't pass) and refused to go back through the program again. The little confidence he did have was completely eroded. Even if he had passed the exam, he would have then had to interview with several Police Stations for the job and had to take other writeen exams to apply. As we learned later, they put a zillion people through the Police Academy but don't tell them that there are 100 applicants for maybe 5 jobs when they complete the program. Anyway, sorry for dragging this out but I understand what you all are saying about these kids who shouldn't be kept in the typical school environment any longer than they have to be there. There are so many kids who have so much to offer the world by learning hands-on, practical skills that would boost their confidence and make them feel like they really are providing something worthwhile and feel like they really belong.

Posted by: Hudak at January 21, 2007 09:09 PM

I agree with most of the comments which have been expressed so far. If young people aren't well enough educated by the time they're 16 to be able to go out and earn a living, they're unlikely to be able to do so at 17 or 18. Raising the school leaving age will achieve nothing more useful than helping to conceal unemployment. Whilst I support post 16 education wholeheartedly, I feel that it should be voluntary and only for those who genuinely want it.

Adrian

Posted by: Adrian at September 3, 2008 11:15 AM