The UK education system is evolving on many fronts. Standard Assessment Tests (SATs) at Key Stage 3 were phased out in 2008. A new numerical system of GCSE grading will be introduced in 2015.1 And under current government plans, the Advanced Subsidiary (AS) component of the A Level will be downgraded and “de-coupled” to form a stand-alone qualification, with AS marks no longer contributing to students’ final A-Level grades.2
As the great exam shake-up continues, it is perhaps not surprising that another, arguably more substantial change has received much less attention – indeed, a survey performed in 2013 revealed that a quarter of parents were unaware of it.3 Yet, having already been increased from 16 to 17, at the start of the 2015-16 academic year the school leaving age in England rise to 18.
In this particular context, the term “school leaving age” is something of a misnomer. The circumstances are not the same as those that surrounded the last increase (from 15 to 16 years) in the early 1970s. School pupils will not be obliged to wear the same uniforms and return to the same classrooms; rather, all those born from September 1997 onwards will be required to pursue some kind of further education or training at least until their 18th birthdays – be it attending a sixth form, undertaking an apprenticeship or entering work-based training.4
But weren’t most teenagers already doing that? True – in 2007, while the previous government was still drafting its proposal to raise the school leaving age, roughly three-quarters of 16- to 18-year-olds were in further education or training.5 By contrast, only about one in ten were classifiable as so-called “NEETs” (young people “Not in Education, Employment or Training”).5 Why, therefore, choose to enforce the pursuit of further education or training by law? At the time, the high level of voluntary participation prompted some politicians and commentators to point out that such legislation would essentially target only a minority of young people.
The answer is economic. The number of unskilled jobs in the UK has fallen to less than half of what it was 50 years ago, and may – according to the 2006 Leitch Review of Skills – stand at only 600,000 by the end of this decade.6 Demand for skilled jobs (and, by extension, skilled workers) is now stronger than ever, and has made it more and more difficult for 16-year-old school leavers, armed only with GCSEs, to get a foothold on the jobs market. As Alan Johnson, then Minister for Education (who left school at 15) stated in 2007: “I regret not staying on in education … when I left school there were loads of jobs you could walk into without qualifications. That’s not going to be the case in the future.”5 It is hoped that by making post-16 study or training a legal requirement, more young people will make a smoother transition from the world of education to the world of work and that fewer will find themselves unemployed (or worse, effectively unemployable) through little fault of their own.
But how likely is it that this aim will be achieved, and does this change cover all the possibilities? Seven years ago, the Department for Education and Skills (now the Department for Education) stressed that raising the school leaving age was not about “forcing young people to do something they don’t want to”, explaining that “we are letting young people down if we allow them to leave education and training without skills at the age of 16”.7 Such a statement appears to ignore the fact that some teenagers prefer to go straight from education into full-time employment on their own initiative – and may be encumbered, rather than aided, by having to combine their new-found work with a further education or training element. It also fails to take into consideration the importance of acquiring experience as well as qualifications. In the post-recession world of the 2010s – where jobseekers, faced with a fiercely competitive market, are perhaps more conscious than ever of the need to match impressive qualifications with solid, real-world experience of work – could extending compulsory education by two years prove to be as much an obstacle to future generations as it is a helping hand? While the law continues to bind young people to the education system – in a way, preventing them from taking full advantage of the job opportunities (and related experience) that may be available to them – is it merely postponing the problems caused by lack of employability, rather than resolving them?
Furthermore, regardless of whether or not young people’s employment prospects are improved, to what extent will the rise in the leaving age tackle problems in the education system itself? British children start school at the age of five – a year earlier than in most other European countries. However, with the window of compulsory education extended from 11 years to 13 years, they now leave the education system no sooner than most of their counterparts abroad. The decision to make this long stretch in education even longer may lead one to ask whether a more effective solution to the qualifications and skills problem would be to restructure the British education system rather than simply add another layer to it. Over the years, the succession of various governments and education ministers – each introducing various small-scale, incremental changes – has served to fragment this system, with the next five years to see the introduction of a number of sweeping changes to exams in particular (two of which are alluded to at the top of this article).8 Given the concerns regarding employability, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the lengthening of compulsory education be accompanied by a “single-motion” upheaval and streamlining of secondary education to ensure that the students of today are fully equipped for the challenges of tomorrow. Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), has called for “radical changes” to the way in which the education system is structured, and in particular for the establishment of a “14-18 pathway” to end with a “single baccalaureate-style qualification”.9 What use is greater quantity of education if it remains incoherent, and is not reflected by improvements in its quality?
And lastly, on the level of personal rather than professional development, what are the implications of this change with regard to the position of 16- to 18-year-olds in wider society? From a certain point of view, it is somewhat curious that while a child in the UK is free to leave home permanently on their 16th birthday, by law they must remain in education (or undertake training) for an additional two years. The 16- to 18-year period has long been a “grey area” from a legal, social and cultural perspective: members of this age range have moved beyond childhood, even if – technically – they are not yet adults. Pushing back the upper limit of compulsory education will do little to silence the noise created by the mixed messages that modern society throws their way.
One thing that we can fairly sure of, however, is the accuracy of Alan Johnson’s words: the future will see no increase in demand for unskilled labour. On top of the Leitch Review finding, the magazine The Economist recently predicted that nearly half of all jobs will become automated within the next 20 years – with workers under increasing pressure to stay head and shoulders above not only their fellow human beings, but also new and constantly-improving technologies.10
Footnotes
Let us know your thoughts at Kings Tutors.
Ivy Education, 126 New Kings Road, London SW6 4LZ
+44 (0)207 736 6977
Previous Post
