Talk:Raising of school leaving age in England and Wales/Archive 1

Wales
The bill will give the Welsh Assembly the right of opt-out and to legislate on the matter, which means the age might remain as 16 in Wales (according to BBC News sources on their website). Could this be mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.221.164 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Reports published in November 2006 suggested that England's Education Secretary Alan Johnson was exploring ways to raise the school leaving age in England and Wales to 18" might I state yet again and make it clear that even though it might be England and Wales right now, this actual comment is not exactly the truth, someone is yet again working on old facts. The coming Education and Skills bill will devolve the authority to change the school leaving age to the National Assembly for Wales of whom said they have no intention to rise the school leaving age to 18. There's a possible case where there will be different school-leaving ages between England and Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.221.164 (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether it an "old fact", the fact that it states it was an official report published over a year ago makes it quite applicable for inclusion, yet may no longer be applicable now or quite soon, but for the sake of development on the act, it's necessary to include such publications. When such changes to the above statement are made (and they may even have been at this moment), then of course add such content into the section to mention as much, but the development of the act and its history is applicable and keeping such a statement is applicable for this reason. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

GA comment
Toroboro wrote: I would also add that there are numerous stylistic or grammatical mistakes in the prose of the article. A few examples:

"in recent years, it has come apparent that" - (should be "become apparent")

"The British Government is hopeful to change this attitude" (should use a "that" clause after the adjective "hopeful")

"The introduction of the Elementary Education Act 1870 (applying to England and Wales), commonly known as Forster's Education Act having been drawn up by William Edward Forster, created the concept of compulsory education for children under thirteen, although didn't insist on compulsory attendance initially," - (although should be followed a noun phrase)

"The solution to the problem was to construct a new building for these schools (often referred to as ROSLA Buildings or ROSLA Blocks) that needed to extent their capacity[3], providing them with the capacity to cope with the new generation of ROSLA students (ambiguity surrounding "that needed" - "these schools...that needed" should in any case be "those schools")

These are just a few examples of the sloppy use of English in this article, which almostr seems at times to have been written by a non-native speaker. Not a good article, yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.66.108.71 (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "2013confirm" :
 * School leaving age set to be 18 news.bbc.co.uk, 12th January 2007
 * BBC NEWS | Education | School leaving age set to be 18
 * "2013proposal1" :
 * School leaving age may be raised news.bbc.co.uk, 10th November 2006
 * BBC NEWS | Education | School leaving age may be raised
 * "neet-oct06" :
 * NEET graph readingroom.lsc.gov.uk
 * http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/National/45_-_2006_NEET.pdf
 * I've cleaned these up - the links aren't confused they're just included even in the second instance of the ref name tag (which is unnecessary and kind of misses the point of using ref names :). -- SiobhanHansa 10:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

EMA?
With the school leaving age going up, will the Educational Maintence Allowence be abolished? Maybe this info could be added in the article. Thanks. Liquinn (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"may not represent a worldwide view of the subject"
We read:
 * The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

That's for sure. The whole thing seems to be about one or two little islands at the western periphery of Eurasia.

How about retitling the article "Raising of school leaving age in the UK" or similar? -- Hoary 15:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * With my recent nomination of the article, i'm not sure how this will affect the "broad coverage" point, with the tag being placed some time ago. Most of the information available online with regards to this topic is specific to the UK, as is many of the search results found when searching for material on the topic. The article was started with the UK specifically in mind, though if there is information about the topic outside of the UK it could still probably be adapted suitably. A name change might be suitable only if noone else is able to find sufficient information from outside of the UK, although any articles about the subject for outside of the UK may remain relatively small. Bungle44 15:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is nothing but propaganda for the British government. Let us consider the facts. 1) home education is legal in the UK 2) persons 16+ can choose to home-educate 3) there are no legal definitions that define compulsory courses or curriculum for the education of any age of 'child'.

Therefore, by a simple application of logic, the ONLY consequence of Tony Blair's (he was the politician that set this whole process in motion, under the oversite of his depraved lieutenant Blunkett) raising of the school leaving age is that 16 year olds (and later 17-year olds) may not work in full-time employment.

Otherwise, from 2013, any 16-year old need merely state they are educating themselves (legally, in any way they care to define for themselves), to avoid so-called legal penalties. The UK has many laws that only apply to people if they self-confess, there being no legal test otherwise that can ascertain guilt. This includes the concept of common-law relationships (with respect to so-called benefit fraud), the reception of broadcast TV services, and (in 2013) being a 16-year old not getting 'education'.

This 'loophole' has hardly escaped the notice of those that rule the UK. The so-called 'free school' movement is the trojan horse that is to be used to destroy the concept of home-education in the UK. The UK government is currently encouraging and funding so-called 'free schools'. These are intended to become the formal replacement for the old right to home-educate. Within a couple of years, 'free schools' are to be declared as the only permitted model for home education, and by law, all those that wish to home educate will have to follow every regulation that applies to a 'free school'. This change in law will be accompanied by a massive media campaign, demonising those that wish to maintain the previous rights to home-school. Those that do not, or cannot meet the new regulations will be described as potential child abusers, and the public will be encouraged to cheer the end of the old framework of home-education. Self-educating 16 and 17-year-olds will be out of luck, because all free school regulations define the need for separate teachers. The 'free school' movement will allow the UK authorities to pretend that the rights to home educate have been preserved, while ensuring that 16 and 17-year-olds do not have this option for themselves.

The next stage in this process is the introduction of 'national service' (under whatever new name is deemed fashionable). Again, Blunkett has defined and rolled out pilot programs attended by increasing numbers of pupils in the months between the end of the last GCSE term, and the beginning of the first A-level term. 16 and 17-year-olds are to be increasingly demonised in the press (consider how many times they are demonised in this state-sponsered wikipedia article). The public will be told that their young adults face either being jailed for not going along with uncertain state education rules, or the state can suck-up the refuseniks in a nice simple clean 'national service' program.

Consider 2014. The 16-year-olds of a type that previously wouldn't have gone to further education or found a job, are now being portrayed as a growing 'problem' in the press, and the press is whipping up 'public indignation' demanding the government acts. These young adults are not smart enough to back of the government with a 'home education' plan, and anyway, new 'free school' regulations make it unlawful for a young person to educate themselves. With the destruction of union power, and rights-organisations in the UK, the only voice the public hear is that of the press. The press pretends to reflect the concerns of the public, but in reality follows the government propaganda program (like this article). Parents of refuseniks feel under horrific pressure, as the potential legal sanctions of themselves and their children mount. Given that these parents will be, by definition, the least powerful or influential in society, the state-attack on their families will be devastating (by design). The intent is to have these parents themselves see 'national service' as the solution. In the meantime, the legal pressure will either cause massive conflict and violence in the family home, or cause the parents to eject the 16-year-old child.

Alabama, Texas, and Pennsylvania are all US states that give clear insight into what will follow. Each of these states criminalises school age children for offences directly connected NOT to criminal or civil acts, but to actions against the rules of the education authorities. Each of these states have draconian penalties for both parents and children up to the age of 18, feeding increasing numbers of victims into a private prison system. In each of these states, recent years have seen the most appalling scandals linked to these factors. However, little is done to remedy the situation, because powerful middle-class parents bypass all the oppressive regulations, leaving as victims those that have least political clout in society.

Since Tony Blair was in official charge of the UK (and his policies have been perfectly executed to this very day, regardless of who seems to run the country), a massive increase in criminal penalties and prison facilities for children was activated. Prior to this mass murdering war-criminal taking power, children's rights were at a peak, and the criminalisation of children was at an historic low (a result of hundreds of sickening scandals involving the state abuse of children, mostly under areas controlled by Liberal or Labour politicians). Blair reversed the trend at a stroke, and began a program to rebuild children's prisons (under various names), and to create the framework where the courts and social services could massive expand their list of 'victims' to fill these facilities.

The raising of the school leaving age to 16 and then 17 is simply part of the same program. As the article states, the government argued strongly that from the off, 16-year-olds should be imprisoned for the vague offence of being a refusenik (as I explained, under home-education laws, this prosecution could only occur after a 'confession' from the victim. A refusal to 'confess' would leave the state with no case in law). However, fines and community service serve the government much better in the short term, because these will be applied by special courts that will happily ignore all principles of the law, just as happens with the school courts in Texas, Alabama and Pennsylvania. Fear of these 'hanging courts' is intended to devastate the safety and stability of many of the most vulnerable families.

Blair's legacy (by complete design) has been the destruction of the secular states of Iraq, Libya and Syria, as preparation for a massive war of extermination against Iran (leading to a much wider conflict). Why mention that fact here. Because Hitler, Stalin and Mao all reworked aspects of their education policies, as part of much wider geo-political goals. The article intentionally pushes the concept of stand-alone government policy, where nothing ever connects, or is planned for a wider purpose. Blair's people, and Blair's programs are more powerful and successful in 2012 than they were when the public saw Blair as official leader. This is the consequence of entrenched power that seeks to become permanent in every way possible. The extermination of opposition has been its greatest achievement. We saw the same process exactly under the regimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. In each of these three cases, the nation they corrupted previously had multiplicities of control organisations, with a plurality of opinions and desired goals. Across time, Hitler, Stalin and Mao either smashed them, or brought them into the fold, until each of those nations responded to only one 'voice'. The UK is exactly the same now. Blair's voice and Blair's will rules over all. His people now head every significant organisation in the UK. His demand that the people of the UK will cheer the demonisation of their own children (something that Mao, Hitler and Stalin also required) has been met. When parents won't cherish and protect their children, the state can then step in. Young people are the most important resource a vile regime needs to control. The mob is everything, but the ultimate mob to control is that formed by the young people of a nation.

77.98.38.164 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)