Making 16-18 year olds do something.
What do you think?
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Yes - make them do my washing up.
Was it Churchill who said that "Whatever is not forbidden is compulsory"?
I can't believe what I'm hearing.
"If the government doesn't consider you constructive enough, we will punish you"???
Smacks of 'get on yer bike' to me.
True colours (blue!!!) and all that.
I'm not sure I want to live in this country any more... I certainly wouldn't want any children of MINE growing up in this climate!
Fifi :o(
I'm horrified by the minister's assertion that 16-18 yr olds must "do something" even if they are not receiving any benefits. Are we sleep walking into a dictatorship?
What does the minister think should happen to all the 16-18 year old single mothers?
Regards
AS
Finally we are going to get to grips with the bone idle teenager who wants to contribute nothing to society! You dont like it? Well try national service then! Other European countries have a much more draconian measure!
It is now frightening that with calm arrogance a Minister is preparing to order us one by one into new lanbour camps. He seemed unaffected by your questionning. First they came for the young, then the disabled, then the poor .....
A very good thing to increase the school leaving age, but if the child does not want to stay nothing will make the stay productive. Why not give this child vouchers to enable a return to education when ready?
That is not liberty, that is control. Granted, its probably in the child's best interest to do what they are proposing to make mandatory, but what if that child was destined to be the next great poet or novelist, only the life experience that would give them a place to write from was going to happen while they were bumming around at 17?
Saying this is freedom in insanity.
I've listened to the interview with the Schools Minister on this afternoon's PM, and agree with most of what he said about youngsters taking some part - either further education, paid or voluntary work after leaving school in society. It's too tempting for them to 'bum around' getting into trouble, rather than make a contribution to their community and learn to take their rightful place in the world.
Jim Knight sounded like an 80's tory tonight.
I listened aghast at Jim Knights attack on the fundamental rights of the individual. Clearly some conditions imposed by the state should be placed upon an individual if he or she chooses to take money or aid from the state. But if that person chooses not to take from the state and does not need to do so then they MUST have the right to do nothing if they so choose.
This is another example of the government imposing its pernicious will upon the individual. Another step on the way to a nanny state where big brother Brown gazes over all our actions, tells us what to do and records all our actions. How much longer do we have to put up with this bankrupt government?
Disastrously Draconian
Irrevocably Irrational
Belligerently Barmy
The government have already targeted the over 40 year olds by making the new deal compulsory. This is a serious breach of human rights since the penalty for non compliance can be one year loss of benefits.
Did Jim Knight actually say that 16year olds should be made to do something?
Yes. I heard him confirm it to Eddie Mair.
As Victor Meldrew would have said: "I don't believe it!
I think the schools minister has no idea!
The reason these children are dropping out of education is they dont get on with that- they really need to get out into industry and do hands on stuff.
Raising the age limit will make even more disaffected youngsters
The age limit needs reducing instead, get them out of the 'education' treadmill and into the 'doing or making' routine
The government requirement for 16-18 year olds is little different from the 1950's statutory need for young people to do 2 years National Service so why the shock-horror reaction?
A need to instill personal discipline is not a bad thing.
If I were a 16-18 year-old at school, I would immediately stop working and leave school. I think it a gross infringement of personal liberty to force people to study into adulthood. We seem now to be governed by a brigade of ghastly grammar school swats who believe that a person's worth is to be judged by his IQ.
This government is on a fools errand, the problem we have in this country is that young people think they deserve brilliant career opportunities, not everyone can be a professor, and we still need people to do jobs that do not require additional education, thats what immigrants come here to do, fill a demand...
What about these teenage girls that get pregnant before they leave school, are the government going to encourage abortions to keep them off benefits?.
New to this blogging lark, is it appropriate to make a comment saying: no comment? What I mean is there is nothing I can say in respect of this outrageously dictatorial idea? I can actually say loads but it'd get me kicked and banned from the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ entirely? Jeesus Christ, how *&^%ing dare they? Leave, now. If you've got any sense (and the cash) leave this country at the earliest possible opprtunity. Disgraceful.
I like the flexibility inherent in the system: You can do anything we tell you. Shocking. I'm incoherent with anger (like the last 10 years was any reason to be calm...) AAAARRRRGH!
Only a ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ civil servant such as Eddie Mair could
have the mind-set to argue that someone should not contribute financially to society. Being a state supported entity the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ produces nothing in the real economy and very probably could not exist without enforced taxpayer support. This has bred a mentality in the likes of Eddie and his ilk totally devoid from the real world that young people will enter to make their living and way in the world. His interview with the Schools Minister was absolutely shocking in its cocooned niavety.
Perhaps Mr Knight could have a job in Pakistan as he is more in keeping with that regime than our free country.
Shame on him...............
Just listened to the minister!! My son left school at 16 with 12 A-C GCSE's. Why? because he wants to be a professional golfer. You need to learn to do that on a golf course. For the last 3 years he has been playing golf full time (is now off +2) He may one day earn a lot of money as a golfer (for which he will pay lots of tax to the government) or he will go and get a 'proper' job but either way he will have had a chance to test out his gift as a golfer and will be able to go through the rest of his life knowing that at least he had a go.
He would not be as good a golfer if he had had to stay at school until he was 18. The same is true for many young people who want to make it to the highest level of sport. 2012?? Do we want any winners then?
I agree with this if the state is paying for your maintenance in any way but if you're living off your own funds or family funds then I find this an unbelievable proposal.
So how do I prove that the work I might be doing in my own home is of sufficient value to society as a whole? Do I not have the freeedom to have my own life any more?
A very definite infringement on our liberty. Perhaps the government's slogan should be "Work Makes Free".
What next? Instructing everyone when to visit the toilet? Can't people be allowed to think for themselves. If anyone feels they do not want to work and can look after themselves by other means, then good luck to them. I have encouraged both my sons to experience as much of life as they can. We are not rich and they have to do occasional work to fund their "adventures". But what they do they do of their own free will, and so far they (and therefor I) are enjoying life - freely. Lets get rid of these dictators!
Did Jim Knight actually say that 16year olds should be made to do something?
Yes. I heard him confirm it to Eddie Mair.
As Victor Meldrew would have said: "I don't believe it!
Whatever happened to encouragement & positive role models? Surely compulsion will only have a negative effect. People, of any age, needed to be inspired & challenged, not forced.
I suppose that Jim Knight thinks that being a 'schools minister' is a worthwhile way to spend hiw time: Ho, ho, ho!
He'd do well to take a lesson or two from the 16-18 year-olds over whom he seeks to wield his power.
I assume Eddie that you do not have a 16 year old who has left school with poor literacy skills who is hanging around doing nothing. I live near an area which is still suffering from coal mine closures and high unemployment of unskilled workers. The effect on the community of bored troublesome uncared for young adults is not good, and anything that encourages further training of some sort that may possibly end in employment must be good. One of Beveridge's hopes was an end to idleness. We still have it. Don't argue from a comfortable middle-class standpoint for a situation I bet you wouldn't tolerate in your own offspring.
Listening to Eddy Mair talking about school
leavers being cogs in the capitalist system brought back horrific memories of the seventies when the NUT dictated school policies and strikes were the order of the day.
Good to hear a government minister asked *why* we all have to be 'economically productive' members of society. It was clear he had no idea how to answer to the question. I don't think he even understood the question. I mean, the idea that people might want to be more than mere cogs in the capitalist economy.. surely that's not right?
This is an appalling infringment upon civil liberties.
At 34 I have a PhD and run my own business. It took a good year of doing nothing between the ages of 16-17 to find any sort of direction in my case, and I believe that teenagers need this sort of latitude in general - let them make the choice themselves.
Between the smoking ban apartheid, police powers of stop and search, the finger print database e.t.c e.t.c, there are soon going to be no civil liberties left.
I am appalled that any human being let alone a government minister should think it OK for the state to say once you become a young adult you must conform and do something produvtive.
So much for those in the creative arts who may be not be seen as doing something useful!
If we do not reform secondary education to make it so attractive that the majority will want to apply themselves to the full then we will be criminalising 10% of the population because the state knows best.
There will always be those who opt out and in a free society maybe we should not count them out as well -- many have produced significantly more than the well heeled university politicians who would find it difficult to make ends meet in the real world.
My son has special needs and is now in his third year at college (yes that's right - third!). He's no closer to finding a job though my understanding was that the purpose of this course was to arm him with the skills to help him get a job. He hasn't so far managed to have any work experience or even write a CV - I am now thinking I will have to arrange these for myself as Connexions haven't helped and neither has the college. Multiply this by all the thousands of other young people it is suggested should continue in education - that looks to me like a phenomenal waste of public money.
This is a ridiculous take on the story about encouraging 16-17 year olds to undertake training, volunteering etc. The young people the Minister is concerned about are much more likely to be those young people who did not do particularly well at school - and in London this year that will have been about 40% of 16 year old school leavers. Many of this group of young people will NOT go to college, or access training. They are unlikely to set up multi-million pound businesses either. They are likely to join the ranks of the rarely employed, moving in and out of low-paid casual work. After a couple of years of doing nothing they are much less likely to be able to access further training and education. What could have been an interesting debate about the large numbers of 16-18 yr olds in neither education nor employment, this item mocked what may be a serious attempt to address the problem
I don't have a problem with this idea unless the person in question is not receiving any financial benefit from the state.
If the intention is to drop out and then live on benefits then I believe they should be forced into work or education.
The benefit system already encourages people not to work, and at least this goes some way towards addressing the problem.
The ministers comments about 'encouraging' those on Incapacity Benefit, seemed 'a bit rich', to me. Coming from the biggest bunch of sorry, social inadequate and non functional misfits it has been my misfortune to tolerate. Their constant 'chasing of headlines' rather than mandated government, is reminiscent of the most insecure/unpopular child in the playground. I can personally recommend a prolonged programme of therapy, counselling and CBT.
The ideas which have been put forward by the government in this programme are repulsive to me. As a young person, admittedly one doing a fairly old-school degree at Oxford I find his ideas so offensive I would campaign vociferously against any laws as I am sure most people of any age with any sense of liberty would also. he put forward no philosophical arguments to support these proposals and indeed, they do seem to be aimed at crushing the creative, at turning young people into mindless 'cogs' in some control-freak government machine.
To accept these proposals would be to state that, although these young people can pay tax and thus fund the country they are unable to think for themselves, that their parents are inadequate guidance, that people are not individual, that there is intrinsic rightness in whatever the government says. Some young people need time and space to learn who they are and to become adults - where do they fit? The minister has narrow views and fails to accept that there is no 'right' way of life.
I personally feel that schools themselves are not the right option for so many people but they are the system we have and one which is hard to change. But changed they should be, not extended to restrict fundamental freedoms on the basis of some half-baked ideas about what will make a productive society, and indeed what a productive society even is.
We start here and we head off into the land of 1984.
Typical Gov minister completely out of touch with reality. the best thing he and his gov could do is nothing. What a control freak who is he to dictate to anyone what they can or can't do with their life. We are supposed to live in a freedom loving democracy but this undemocratic gov seems hell bent on removing all our freedoms right down to telling 16 year olds what they have to do. Typical
One of the nice things about sixth-form was that most of the tw*ts had left...
... they became politicians usually.
This goverment has long forgotten what a free society is. But the Minister is right. Society has long ago let down its lost children but can't think beyond laws and compulsion. I work with addicts, many of them young, and far from expecting everything for nothing the actual difficulty is that they have nothing to hope for at all in their eyes and a terrible lack of both confidence and aspiration. Everything else is bravado born of fear. But its easy not to see this and comforting to morally condemn.
Effectively it appears that the government is preparing to make unemployment for 16 to 18 year olds and perhaps other age groups illegal.
I was just wondering what other policies the government might be considering importing from the former communist GDR?
I suppose Jim Knight thinks that being a 'schools minister' is a good use of his time: Ho, ho, ho!
He'd do well to learn a lesson or two from the 16-18 year-olds over whom he seeks to wield his power.
WOW! just listend to the Schools Minister's interview and I am trying to think of a country or political system, outside of a totalitarian one, that would take such a position on 16-18 year olds.
I think it was Hitler and the Nazis who invented the Hitler Youth, Joe Stalin had his version for Soviet youth, Mow had one for Chinese youth, Pol Pot set up the re-education system invested in the youth of Cambodia.
This on top of all the other reactionary laws the British Government has introduced since 9/11.... do people in the UK not care anymore about Civil Rights or Human Rights???
Wake up people of the UK... you are sleep walking into a totalitarian system.
What have you done to my (polite) message?Anyway, I simply made the point that Jim Knight has made an outrageous suggestion that 16year-olds should be forced to do something. ie. work or training.
Sounds like Russia C1935.
Why should the government do anything about such things. Whatever they do will be wrong. The less government the better!
By the time I reached University I had years of experience working and knew exactly why I was there and what I wanted from it. Those undergraduates on the same course as me who had come straight from school had no real idea other than it was an extension of learning in school. I concluded their focus would have been sharper if they had gone out to work at 14 years old. The shock of unskilled work at the bottom of the ladder would lead a much greater focus at 16 to 18 years in school. Now I think this would apply to the brightest kids not just those who haven't learned to read, write and do sums by then.
Well, seeing as I'm 14, and once I've done my homework etc, I lie on my bed and . . . . yes, do nothing, I don't like this idea. But that's only my view. . . . .
Appalling Nanny State control.
The government should leave 16 year olds to grow up & make their own decisions.
It should concentrate on educating children properly before 16, so that they have the basics and are then able to do further training or work as they wish.
Focus on making sure all children can read and write before leaving primary school.
I can hardly speak I am so angry listening to the schools minister tonight.I have 2 children both now graduates who enjoyed a gap year at no expense to the country, my husband and I were more than happy to support them and allow them a freedom we had not available to us at that age.If young people are not involved in illegal past times it is no business of government to interfere.New Labour has been obsessed with social engineering us all into their own image since obtaining power,leave law abiding people alone.
The government is imposing punishments on the wrong people: they need to force companies (probably above a certain size) to take on a certain number of apprentices every year - which used to be the norm - rather than expecting to be handed fully qualified applicants on a plate.
When we were parents of post 16 teenage parents we insisted our sons were either working or studying or both.
We now have two happy successful thirty year olds: unlike some of their peer group they have not had a drug problem, or served a prison sentence, or had serious mental health problems or had their lives ended prematurely.
Having a government dictate on any of us 'not in employment, education or training' is absurd, not least because they have a limited understanding of any of these.
Having been involved in all three, management, university lecturing, teaching and training, both in business and in charities, I can say this is one of the silliest 'motivational' ideas out.
If I had suggested it in my Masters in Education I would have been told to go back and think again because I was looking for solutions without having done the research and had the understanding, still less thought it through.
I am writing a book. Therefore, presumably, I am neither in employment, training or education. So ?
William Swabey
Education should be fit for purpose otherwise it can just be a waste of money - We have too much education nowadays - This government is run by and for educationalists
Jim Knight is yet another example of the authoritarian, we-know-what's-good-for-you figures who make up far too much of the present government. Quite apart from the fact that what we urgently need is a sensible, properly-funded, humanist, broadly-based education system (why are such obvious solutions ignored in favour of centrally-planned, legally enforced directives?), pupils at the age of sixteen have a wide range of needs and interests by no means all of which are served by further education or training. Some will choose it, of course, and should be encouraged, not compelled. That the minister thinks he knows what's best even for financially secure individuals who must be prevented from doing what they prefer when that is at no cost to the state and presumably not yet illegal beggars belief. The extent to which schools continue to fail students to the extent that they cannot bear to stay in the education system might give a clue to what kind of action is necessary. But no. Work is good for you, regardless of whether it is fulfilling, and the government always knows best. I thought this was the kind of totalitarian control we grew up learning to reject.
Neither of your contributors on the programme were talking sense ...
Jim Night - to ovague aon how this will actually be delivered
Adam Hilyard - to full of his own experience to comment on what is appropriate for the general population + what on earth did he mean when he said that business was not about understanding how to keep track of tax liability?! (I understand that failing to grasp this is one of the key reasons why small business fail).
The point is that not all 14 to 18 year olds are the same. The government do seem to be making an attempt at recognising this but also seem to get amazingly vague when they talk about how any of this 'flexible' approach to learning is going to work.
I agree that we should be doing more to provide meaningful opportunities for a wider range of people to learn relevant skills during their teenage years but I do not agree that these should be school based. I teach in a secondary comprehensive school and regularly come across pupils who would perform much better if they were given, at the age of 14, the chance to do a job that offers training (bring back old fashioned apprenticeships!). I also meet pupils who are well prepared to cope with further academic study and should be given the opportunity to develop themselves in this area, go on to university and so on.
Further more ... we should stop talking about infringements of liberty with regards this issue - we are talking about children and they do not always make the most sensible choices when left at liberty to make them - and on this note can we also put to death the thought that we should lower the voting age to 16 - has anyone who recommends this ever met a 16 year old?
ciao
Matthew
At 05:53 PM on 05 Nov 2007, Harriet wrote:
'When we were parents of post 16 teenage parents we insisted our sons were either working or studying or both.'
So, Harriet, when your grown-up ( 'post-16') children had children of their own, i.e. were parents, you still thought it fit to tell them what to do with their lives?
'We now have two happy successful thirty year olds,'
... brave words. I hope they don't come back to haunt you. They must now be approaching the age at which so many people question and regret the consequences of the directions in which their parents pushed them.
Jim Knight's comments . oh dear - where is Tom Hodgkinson of "The Idler" fame when you need him? Tom makes many valid points about today’s society but one that stands out is that education is a mechanism for the capitalist system to be provided with the labour force it requires. If we were still working in mills or labouring on farms there would not be such outcry about training and education. OK, certain people benefit personally from being able to better appreciate literature, art form, etc with education; but for the majority of us we were seduced into acquiring skills to fuel the needs of the large corporate organisations.
Surely, with the threat of global warming we should be trying to reduce growth in the developed countries.
Really, do we need 100 mobile phones to choose from, or a new computer every year, or to wear a different dress on every occasion? Very soon I think we will be thankful to the idle classes for not contributing to what looks like the inevitable crunch of global warming if the capitalist system rules apply for much longer!
Is Jim Knight for real? How can anyone let alone a minister think that criminalising a 16-18 yer old for 'doing nothing' is not an infringement of liberty? You rightly asked him if Labour was going to impose the same approach on other age groups and he seemed to say yes !!!!(all be it that he seemed unable to conceptualise an individual who chose not to work but didn't claim benefits)! What next forced labour and workcamps or is he asking for the return of National Service?
My son left school at 16 because he was disillusioned with education. It did not stretch him or engage him. Now after a year of work he has re-entered eduction with some valuable life experiences and an understanding of what he really wants.
Was it because he was not academically minded - No. He achieved 8 grade A's with no work.
This government hasn't a clue of the real world and what it has done to education over the past 10 years. This is a charter for more disaffected youth dragging down those few who still want a decent education.
What next compulsory education to 21 - oh but we will charge you for that!
A friend attempted suicide post after starting 6th form. A year out let them see a new direction. What outcome under compulsion?
Young people in rural areas will face huge problems where the sort of ongoing training being talked about may not be accessible by public transport.
In response to the Minister of Schools:
I could not believe my ears. Labour is introducing Soviet System in UK!
A famous slogan of the Soviet regime was - Those who do not work, do not eat!
There was a stringent law enforced againts so called 'lay abouts', or in Russian the 'tuniadsy.' They were either unreformed alcoholics or young folks - many black marketeer, the Berezovsky type. They used to sent them to the penal reform colonies - the labour camps.
What an irony! I am back in the USSR!
What a horror!
Irina Pond, a 58 years old Russian
This party whose members used to have Bevan and Atlee and who gave us the welfare state has now become the trotskyite party of Great Britain depriving people of real choice in jobcentres and wasting government money on potty schemes like the new deal.
It is like meeting the KGB every time you sign on.
I have a 16yr old who is very unhappy at school.
He is bilingual (English-spanish) and very IT literate.
He is worried about failing his GCSE's what can I do? Help!
I agree with the person who said these children should do something productive in life.
Are we going to go into another stage of "When they want to learn, they will do so when ready" as it was said amongst some lunatic educationists in the 70's.
Everyone, yes everyone should DO something productive in life, whether they want to is down to attitude.
what makes people think that they dont have to work and yet be payed by for the privilage out of the taxes of those who do work?
Sure everyone who is able bodied should work.
Its a wrong thing for young people or anyone who is able to think that they should be given money for doing nothing. If everyone is given the choice not to work, where would the finance come from to pay benefits to these people.
If youngsters are not claiming benefits and they have families who support them financially then its up to them not to work, they are not being a burden on the state.
So yes, learn or work but dont expect something for nothing, if you haven't paid anything into the system.
I sat through the interview you had with the labour schools minister parked in the car outside our house with my mouth open in astonishment. I would dearly love it if my 17 year old son was less lazy and less feckless sometimes and I would be upset if he wasn't productively occupied in some way. He's doing ok by the way - at college and holding down 2 part time jobs. BUT if he wasn't for what ever reason doing anything then I would be completely horrified if the government felt it was their right to make him do something. As I listened to the interview I kept thinking Stalinist Russia, labour camps - "every citizen must be productive." If a 17 year old isn't claiming state benefit and for whatever reason wants to do nothing for a while that has got nothing to do with the state - even though if it was my own child I would nagging him to pull his finger out, enquire of locals shops to get work, gets some careers advise etc etc - that would be my role as a parent which I feel I rightly occupy. But I would be completely appalled if the government felt they had a right to tell my son to pull his finger out. How dare they think they have that right - I am really affronted by this idea. If the child isn't claiming state benefits then it’s absolutely got nothing to do with the government what he or she does. Sometimes they are just getting their heads together - school isn't a great experience for many young people – it can be a rigid and unforgiving place. Some people need the space to think through their options and to even just become extremely bored by doing nothing - give young people a chance to experience this boredom. Let young people progress towards their own choices – sometimes a combination of serendipity and exploring the choices available can eventually lead to a young person sorting themselves but if the state steps in as soon as there is a gap between school and the next step then they could completely ruin and trample on this important process.
Dear sir,
It seems to me that the 'elected dictatorship', first noted during the 'rule' of the mad Margaret, is once more rearing its ugly head. Any idea that disaffected and disillusioned teenagers can be turned into useful adults by force tells us more about the fools who suggest it then it does the teenagers themselves. My stepson attended a 'top village college' in Cambridgeshire. All the teaching was aimed at academic ability. He was and is not academically inclined (yet). What he wanted was an apprenticeship in his chosen interest. forestry and tree surgery - an impossibility in our part of the country. Because of his own determination however he was able to find and pay for training himself. He now has his own business with oders well into 2008. He was considered a failure by his teachers. Would forcing him to do 'some kid of work' worked for him? Thank goodness THAT option was not on the table.
To parapharse Peter Hain ... Jim Knight's position showed the Labour Parties" Stalinist underbelly".
I never though Labour would develop so many freedom eroding policies and make such progress towards establishing a police state
The key issue is: why force people to "be productive" in a world where most of what is produced is not needed, and contributes directly to our abuse of the one and only world we have. Driving gingernuts made in Scotland down to London and gingernuts made in London up to Scotland is one example of useless work.
Doing nothing (in the conventional sense - i.e. leaving spiritual practises aside where doing nothing is known to be fiendishly hard to do and leads to enlightenment) is probably not good for the soul but then neither is much of what is served up as "work" in today's society.
If society was re-ordered around providing for human need, people would love to work, as work would be part of life.
Conventional politicians just seem to have no idea of how deep is the disconnect between the world as it is and as it should be
im a 15 year old. and i go to a respectable school and i have a slight idea on what i wanna do. i have friends who dont have a clue. regardless of that i feel that teenagers should not be suppressed into a society where work is something resembling a rule, whereby everybody must adhere to it.
i feel that teenagers should not be forced to do training, work, or whatever the hell this guy is trying to make them do. even if it is a waste of educational resources and money i feel that regardless of social status that rule over teenagers cannot be allowed and essentially these kids cannot be forced. i conclude by leaving you bloggers with one note.
"a teenager is not a pawn in the governments 'idealistic rule' but a fellow human being who is just like you and i, with the same hopes and dreams- but only different.
One of the disasters of the move towards education until 18 is the consequence that employers are going to avoid taking on under 18’s.
No one appears to see how this will actually reduce the number of jobs available to young people. As things stands people with learning difficulties are driven to claim benefits when they would rather be normally employed because employers are not encouraged to take on disabled staff. People with mild learning difficulties make really excellent workers in a supermarket or a hotel precisely because they are people who have chosen to follow a normal life instead of living off benefits. In the past it was possible for them to get work because employers were offered money for taking them on. It was noticeable once that incentive was withdrawn employers stopped taking on disabled staff.
I notice that no money is being offered to encourage employers to give jobs to under 18’s. Given the restriction of those workers only being part time and given the need to set up formal education and training rather than the informal training on the job that is normal for a new employee, the chances are that they will not be taken on at all
I have no problem with 16-18 "not contributing to society' as long as they are not a drain.
However, I do NOT think it is acceptable for the govt. to be insisting that they MUST have some kind of training/work - this is a step too far in state interference.
No benefits, no child support (in case they think getting pregnant is a career choice) etc. may be a better move.
When they realise that the state (us) won't pay for them to doss around on street corners they may decide that something else is more attractive.
If pupils are truanting at 12 years onwards, what makes the minister think that they will willingly attend further education from 16 to 18 years? The fault lies in the lack of ability to read and write. There is no point in a child being sent on to secondary education if primary education has not succeeded in teaching the basics. Reading has to come first, for how can a child make sense of any other subject if he/she can't read? The recent TV programmes on synthetic phonics were powerful evidence of how the improvement in behaviour and motivation followed when the non-readers became readers.
Having read all the comments on the blog, after listening to the interview with Jim Knight. I have to say that I was annoyed by the interviewer repeatedly asking the minister , who was he to insist that youngsters should not be allowed to live their lives with no purpose in view. How many families can support their teenagers indefinitely? What happened to that splendid institution of volunteering? Of course, youngsters should be encouraged ( not forced) to find an aim in life. My admiration for my own son was initiated by the fact that after quite a sheltered childhood, aged 17 as a student, he continuously made a great effort to work and help support himself. A lot of the indignant remarks come from a comfortable middle class point of view. I can understand the comment about young people without jobs in the area where coal mines have closed. It's ridiculous to suggest that the next step is something resembling Hitler youth etc. In my young days, we just couldn't wait for our 16th birthday, so that we could start Saturday jobs, even though we continued at school until 18. What was wrong with that? We got a taste of what real life was like and the things that we did not want to do in future life!
This Minister really has lost the plot & shown New Labours true colours.
We are not drones only to be used to generate wealth for a few. This Government already has us working until we are 68. If they get away with this the next will be to stop people from retiring early.maybe they will want to fine people for not turning up to work when they are dead.What exactley does the minister understand a free society to mean. 1984 does not even come close to this. in one word NO
Entirely in agreement with number 12. Infact, so much so that I must say that Gabriel Grant is an absolute genius. I've read his stuff before and it's truly fabulous. He should become a published poet.
Winningly witty.
A nightmare scenario!
And yes the pun was intended.
OK minister we heard you on the Knightly news and oh how we laughed at your vision, get youngsters into apprenticeships!
For those who have sympathy with the governments view can I bring them into the real world of the government’s modern apprenticeship.
Currently in the construction industry, apprentices are given an allowance of £80 for a 39 hour week. They are not paid any wages, just this allowance. Now the employer can get away with paying the equivalent £2 an hour but does not need to concern themselves with tax, National Insurance, etc. Currently my son who is an apprentice has to pay £39 a week public transport costs, and also has to pay for his tools, so as an 17yr old is left with roughly £30 in his pocket for a weeks work. If he was a student studying the application of rubber technology in the modern media world he would entitled to help with a students travel card and other support benefits, but apprentices are the modern equivalent child workers of a bygone industrial revolution.
Didn’t our forefathers reject such abuse of child labour, yep they did, now I come to think of it, and didn’t it bring about the birth of a caring political party, now what was it called?
Anyway I won’t Labour the point.
Danm right the 16+ year olds should be doing something! Of course doing nothing should NEVER be an option! What a shame! Liberty of choice??? They do have the choice, they just MUST learn that NOTHING is NOT an option.
About time we did something real to stop the drop-out culture in and out of school. How about teaching them a bit of self-worth in the process???
I was APPALLED when one 16 year-old prospect even before leaving school was, in her very words: 'I'll just go on th dole'.
So many children now have learning difficulties for one reason or another. Almost from the time they enter school they're tested and they fail. They're tested again, and they fail. Long before secondary school they know they're the failures, the thickoes, the dumboes. They change school and become corridor roamers, don't turn up, fail more exams that we insist they take. However much it's needed on both sides they can't learn things like building, painting & decorating or gardening on site - our councils no longer own the property. No, unitl they're 16 they have to be academic, no matter how unrealistic that is and no matter what could be offered to them if it weren't for the relentless government interference in education. And now this farce has to continue another two years? Words fail me at this point.
If 16-18 year olds want neither training nor work then that's fine by me as long as (a) it's not at my expense and (b) they don't try and pinch my wallet.
Having worked in this sector for a number of years both in england and scotland, I can honestly say this will not work and will never work. 16 to 18yr olds who have done nothing at school and been excluded etc will never toe the line becuase they know that nothing, yes nothing will happen to them regardless of what the minister says. Time after time I got training positions for these young people and they constantly failed to turn up. One commentator spoke of National Service and I'm sure that something along those lines is needed. Once the government and authority realise that what is lacking in this country is DISCIPLINE then we might make progress. Stop pussy footing around and sort the problems out before they reach the age of 16. I am a parent who had a problem 16yr old but I sorted it and found him places where he could get on and he then thrived. Maybe if parents, not the youngsters, were penalised by this nanny government, then things would improve.
finland starts students on the road to learning later than we do here but their children achieve far more by the time they leave primary school. why? well, they support their teachers and test far less. perhaps the 'dark knight' would do well to look at european models for improving participation in education and training at Post 16, as opposed to issuing senseless threats and voicing vacuous opinions. new labour gauliters like him educate, medicate and recreate privately in any case- so why doesn't he stop interfering with what he so clearly does not understand
Making 16-18 year olds do something.
Main objection:- I am appalled that Jim Knight is advocating coercing 16 to 18 year olds to stay on in education or training. It is an infringement of a young person’s liberty and should be taken seriously and opposed strongly. The government has no right to force young adults to live a certain way.
Also such a plan would create a very angry, rebellious and disaffected section of society.
A much better idea would be to put this plan’s implementation cost of millions of pounds into a fund which could be accessed by the young adults up to the age of 23, when they realise that they have made a mistake and want to return to college to gain qualifications.
In fact speaking from 30 years of teaching it would be far more beneficial for all concerned if the leaving age were to be lowered to 15 and the fund up to 23 introduced, for no matter how we teachers try, some kids just hate school and obscene amounts of money are wasted on pupils who don’t want to learn, and stop others from learning.
Let them go and give them a later chance but don’t take their freedom.
I have lived and worked in many countries and would not have been surprised to hear a government minster saying something like this in many of them, but to hear it in Britain seems unbelieveable. It reminded me of statements heard in communist and totalitarian states. Incredible to hear it here now.
I for one will happily stand up and be counted for being against it. Can I now expect to be tortured, shot and my house bulldozed just as Sadam would have done when he was in power.. oh sorry I forgot , I am back in the U.K.
I agree with 50% of these statements. I'm not going to say which ones...
This whole movement smacks of impatience. It's about a government who can't admit that it's assumptions are wrong so it wallops people like naughty children.
You can be as entrepreneurial as you like, if you're in a town without interest you'll fail...
Equally, if you try and make people more "competitive" at a young age, what happens when they realise they're in a pointless fight all at the same time?
We can't all be rich accountants, estate agents or (even worse than estate agents) consultants.
I'm almost speechless about this government's big-booted authoritarianism. I really can't think of anything to say ...
Sid
What has this government got against liberty and freedom? Their education policies have already stifled creativity and innovation,do these career polititians really believe they are superior in all aspects of life!! "You will obey!"
Amazed
I have never felt strongly enough to blog before after listening to such a program but is Knight for real? Sure we need to get youngsters involved and working etc but this is a direct attack on everyone's rights.
My son left school disillusioned after his first year of A-levels at the local comp, which was useless. Yes he sat on the sofa and did nothing at zero cost to anyone. He decided to join the army at 17 was in Iraq for 7 months at 18 risking his life! He is a man at 19 that does not need telling what to do; he is too busy trying to defend other people’s rights!
Point being is that all youngsters are not the same and this smacks of a desperate vote winning exercise.
What's next "get those idle pensioners working instead of sponging off the rest of us????"
Good night Knight.
Re: Gerard (19)
YES! Of course you can
Cracking response to this one!!
My tuppence worth is that freedom to do nothing should be inviolable. People (however regretable it may be) have the complete and utter right to spend their time and money however they choose, and can spray it up the wall if they so wish.
I want neither to force them into education or training, nor force them to save for a pension or health insurance.
My choice is mine, and so another's choice is theirs - and we can disagree completely.
Education does not lead to people making the 'right' choices. In my view, a good education is when you can justify your 'own' choice.
nikki
PS I still am finding hard to believe a minister said what he said live on air.
Well, this thread drew some fire! And hardly a peep from the 'clique'! I'm with the Inoxydable Feline (as quite often!)
I didn't hear the bit, so I'll have to listenagain....
I'm also with Sid (again, as quite often)
We should form a ???
xx
ed
Disco is to music what Etch-A-Sketch is to art.
I had the programme on in the car tonight, and my passenger was appoplectic. I was pretty pissed off, but my enjoyment of his reaction was putting a bit of a damper on my indignation.
If the Liberals or Conservatives decide to enter the next election with a message to the effect of "18+? Like to smoke or drink? Fed up with being bossed about? Then lets get these stalinist fascists out! Vote for us, and we'll restore your freedom."
Then they'll walk it. No brainer.
I was dissapointed to see the number of posts supporting the minister. Thought I was on the Telegraph website for a while.
We fought wars to protect our freedoms. It seems our people died for nothing in the end.
Well, it's an idea. Note that i don't say whether it's a good or a bad one...
I have a couple of questions, though.
[1] More teachers will be needed: where are they to come from?
[2] A disruptive and unwilling child in a class can make life very difficult, and learning nigh-impossible, for the other 29 pupils as he or she battles it out with the teacher: has Knight stopped to consider the rights of the rest of the population to getting an education?
The Dark Knight has missed the contradiction in his out-of-touch semi-rant. It is that any self-respecting, intelligent young person has to look no further than today's politicians, whatever shade of red or blue they may be, to conclude: If that's where 'education' leads then I want no part of it.
Fortunately for the future of the country, the planet, young people often see much more clearly what works and what doesn't. Their vision and perception have not yet been tarnished and distorted by the treadmill of 'respectable work'.
Of course, there's often little respectable about it... rat-race-running... back-stabbing... self-interest-seeking...
Those entrapped on the treadmill often want, as much as any young person, to find a worthwhile purpose in their lives. However the vision of their youth has clouded. They imagine that chasing their tails around the maze they have created will lead somewhere worthwhile. After a while they don't even imagine, they just hope, in desperation.
Some of them become politicians. If they start that journey with high aspirations, it isn't long before their own self-interest wipes them away. And then they spend their years trying to justify their existence to unconvinced citizens who haven't yet lost their sight. Who, we wonder, are they trying to convince? Themselves, only themselves.
Clique Ed I ??
Haha
I just wish I still had those two years back - when I could lay in bed till any hour and stay up 'far' later than I can these days.
Let em live and enjoy those very special teenage years - If they so wish to do that in a 'so called' timewasting style so be it.
I did - and don't regret a minute.
We are dead a long time.
I have given freely of my time by doing practical charity work and fighting for my own and other people's human rights, whilst being dependent on the sate for my income support, when I have been unable to avoid this. I see my role as a vaild contribution to my local community. However, I am all for making people who sponge off the state do something usefull, preferbly proper jobs. I suggest we start with those pariahs and sponges off the state who call themselves MPs, MEPs, and all the other hangers on who don't have a clue about how we live and contribute. Jim who?; lets call him in first! The truth is folks they see helping the poor and needy and ideas of equality as a vote looser.
...perhaps it was just me, but I felt particularly uncomfortable listening to this interview
The ideas put forward by the "Minister" are so inherently wrong I still cannot believe I heard him speak the words...
...well, if the "Minister's" intent on having his way, perhaps he could use our hapless youth in searching for this... at least they'll likely be occupied for a few (light) years
"A big chunk of the universe is missing - again (11/05/2007)
Not only has a large chunk of the universe thought to have been found in 2002 apparently gone missing again but it is taking some friends with it, according to new research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
The new calculations might leave the mass of the universe as much as ten to 20 percent lighter than previously calculated..."
After a certain period in power all governments, cocooned as they are in their private world populated only by 'special advisors', lose touch with both the electorate and, in extreme cases, reality. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the point than this proposal. The response on the blog underlines it clearly.
I've thought of something to say at last. It's this:
In the old days, you could use the first year of A-level studies to explore things you were interested in, because there were no exams. (The second year you had to buckle down, of course, but with a broadened mind.)
One of the achievements of this government has been to remove that luxury, so that students have exams three years in a row - GCSEs, then AS and A2. Mix in the age we're talking about (16-18-year-olds) and the stunning lack of creativity in the curriculum - a recipe for disaster.
The notion that this kind of mindless compulsion is to be extended really is quite horrifying. We should be (a) designing a new, flexible curriculum which meets the needs of our students, (b) encouraging and enabling them to pursue a wide range of interests, and (c) not poking our noses in where they don't belong.
Sid
At the risk of being cliched and hyperbolic till the point is lost, welcome to the 'Brave New World'. Where politicians think it quite reasonable to suggest that young people should be put on enforced work orders to stop them 'doing nothing' and it is called 'presenting opportunities'. Where governments seem to believe that it is right to legislate making it criminal to do nothing, regardless of whether or not those people are being supported by the state.
It's a good aim, getting every person contributing to the community they live in, but poor Mr Knight and the government he is a part of has overstepped the boundary of what what is acceptable to achieve that aim.
To borrow further from the arts:
'They' promised you order, 'they' promised you peace, and all 'they' demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent." (V for Vendetta)
Clique Ed I?
Some of us were too busy working to respond last night, and really too busy to respond now (but was checking emails.....)
No-one should be forced to do *anything*. That is totalitairan, oh, I forgot, that's the way we're heading, what with ID cards and the rest.
The fault is an education system so dire that it fails kids by the age of 12, let alone 16. Improve the alternatives to academic education (which does not suit everyone), and you might even find a home-grown supply of plumbers etc so we don't need to import them as we do now.
This issue is so much bigger than the strange solution provided by Jim Knight. As other posts have pointed out, it doesn't take into consideration those 16-18 year-olds who are parents, those who are disillusioned with traditional education, those who have aspirations to be sportspeople, or those who simply haven't found their niche yet - and honestly, which of us has by that age?
I'm sure teachers and headteachers who listened to this report are concerned about where the teachers, the funding and the space will come from to push teenagers into more education; and how they can keep those kids interested who have other things they'd rather be doing.
I'm inclined to agree with those who have suggested funds or vouchers to help those who aren't ready for more education or training at 16 to take it up later on, and to provide real support in those areas where uninspired children have nothing to do, little help from their families and very few work opportunities.
"16 - 18 year olds to be made accountable to the state for what they do."
And the other big debate?
"16 - 17 year olds 'groomed for terror' need to more exciting opportunities or they'll join Al Qaeda."
Aha! says the Government: we'll seduce them into line with our new forms and quotas: you just see if we don't!
Er...
"You may put 'em on the list--you may put 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed--they'll none of
'em be missed!"
Certainly putting Knight on that list...
The very idea that a government could force law-abiding citizens into doing *anything* if they are not taking state benefits is so completely abhorrent to the idea of liberty and freedom that 'the West' is supposed to stand for, that I'm amazed that not only does our government contemplate it, they are planning it and intend to implement it! Not only that, but (so far) it seems to have gotten away with barely a mention in the media!
The Slippery Slope is often spoken of, but in this situation it can really apply. If you can argue for not allowing 16-18 year olds this sort of freedom, why not the people who take gap years in between careers? Pensioners? Those lucky enough to have enough cash to live without working (heck, double the fun there, take their money for more pointless state mechanisms)? Who cares if any of the above have plans of their own, no no, not contributing to the workforce, get back in there.
We already pay taxes for the upkeep and running of the country. No government has the right to compel people who may never have voted them into power into any action when their inaction harms no-one.
This is just another in a long line of policies akin to using a piledriver to get that square peg through the round hole. This ardent belief that everyone is the same, and a one-size-fits-all approach can work, is both wrong and harmful.
If Labour gets in again, that's it, I'm gone. Those who are left can deal with the hell they'll have created.
Deborah Orr full of common sense on this topic:
Sid
Hmmm.. Aren't 16-18 year olds too busy having sex to be causing that much aggravation anyway ?
As a regular clicker (Ed I) I haven't had time to read all these entries, but I am delighted that so many rare posters have contributed.
4 wotits wrth my view is that they should not draw cash from the State and do nothing. Even Schools Ministers don't do that, though obviously the value of what they do is questionable.
If we can't make them do anything at school what makes us think we can after school?
Kids with ability and the parents support continue in education, if they're lucky until graduation with a degree. But not all kids can go that far. Others get tech qualifications and go on to get technical jobs, yet others make their way in various other directions into the adult world. Making those who hang about the streets, without aspirations or direction, are a nuisance and mostly end up as criminals, thus costing all of us a great deal of money; in crime and prison costs. What to do? For anyone lacking an education, training place, or apprenticeship or private means [gap year supported by parents] there should be national service, not necessarily in the armed forces, there are plenty of socially desirable jobs to be done. No way should a fit young person be paid benefits to sit on their arse, watch TV all day, hang about the streets or commit crime.
No point forcing them to stay in school or college where they were already disruptive, make them work for a living and instill in them a proper sense of the value of things, and that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
So, what does the minister say to a (real) 16-year-old from a council estate, who has spent the past year building up an IT consultancy business? "Stop being a contributor to the economy, you must go to college and be grateful for your student handout"???
The problem that many "low-performing" schools in "deprived" areas have is that certain pupils give up once they become teenagers. Making the pupils hang around for another two years will only allow them to disrupt the education of those that want to study for even longer.
Maybe my comment is a bit too late, but it always puzzles me that people say that those who claim benefits shouldn't be allowed to sit around all day doing nothing. This shows a remarkable misunderstanding of the benefits system. You have to be actively seeking work or provably unable to do work in order to qualify.
Oh and those on benefits pay VAT whenever they buy anything subject to that TAX. They too have to buy things so their benefits are making profits for others however small. People on benefits do not get enough to salt them away in some offshore account or claim tax relief or similar.
And if people are surprised that the government are proposing to criminalise inactivity why? This government has brought in many many new offences, would dearly love to have our DNA on file (a bit of our bodies). They want to introduce ID cards so that the police would have a given right to require production of identity at any time.
I could go on forever, it's not necessary others have made the point better than I.
Mary
I can't see what the fuss is all about, really....If the Government were to raise the school-leaving age, then presumably it would be an offence if any 16 - 18 year old didn't attend school - and that would be on a full-time basis. Why make a fuss about a couple of days a week spent in work-related training or further education? At the very least the teenagers could be given valuable lessons in communication, relationships and simple financial management.
At the very best, it would be directly related to their present or future employment - after all, a large number of long-serving professionals are contracted to do in-service training or personal research as part of their terms of employment. Why would it be wrong to compel teenagers to do the same?