Post 16 choices, Perhaps not so clear as some might think... Options

[Rachel]

As a parent, I was under the impression that when our offspring finish regular school at 16, they then have to attend further education or training. Not so, it seems. The local authority is obliged to encourage them, but as a parent, you are not legally obliged to ensure their attendance or fund it. This shocked me as I had believed the hype, so if anyone knows anything different, please do advise.

[motormad]

https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school

18 if born after 1997.

[Berkshirelad]

As a parent, I was under the impression that when our offspring finish regular school at 16, they then have to attend further education or training. Not so, it seems. The local authority is obliged to encourage them, but as a parent, you are not legally obliged to ensure their attendance or fund it. This shocked me as I had believed the hype, so if anyone knows anything different, please do advise.

The relevant legislation is the Education and Skills Act 2008.

This states- amongst other things - that full/part-time employment or voluntary work is OK provided that there is a sufficient quantity of training involved.

The duty to remain in training until age 18 falls on the individual. Where a council believe that a person is not complying with this duty then they can issue an attendance order. This will specify the place and times of attendance and the last day of the order, Failure to comply with such an order is a criminal offence

[Rachel]

https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school

18 if born after 1997.

Seems straight forward, as I said. But (from Caroline Corcoran at West Berks)

Whilst there have been changes to what is known as the Participation Age - meaning that children are required to stay in education, employment of training until they are 18 - there has not been a change to the statutory school age for mainstream pupils as outlined in the Education Act 1996, paragraph 8.A person ceases to be of compulsory school age at the end of the day which is the school leaving date for any calendar year-(a) if he attains the age of 16 after that day but before the beginning of the school year next following,( if he attains that age on that day, or© (unless paragraph (a) applies) if that day is the school leaving date next following his attaining that age.

So if school is not compulsory after 16, parenrs cannot be legally responsible for their attendance, the Local Authority is not responsible for their attendance so therefore uf a 16 year old wants to get themself a job, they can-same as when I was a school leaver!

[Rachel]

The relevant legislation is the Education and Skills Act 2008.

This states- amongst other things - that full/part-time employment or voluntary work is OK provided that there is a sufficient quantity of training involved.

The duty to remain in training until age 18 falls on the individual. Where a council believe that a person is not complying with this duty then they can issue an attendance order. This will specify the place and times of attendance and the last day of the order, Failure to comply with such an order is a criminal offence

Thank you for this. As you can see, I had been unable to source this via West Berks. I get the feeling that this change was rather ill considered, and not exactly water tight? So, if everyone has to stay in education, who funds their living costs? Who pays for them whilst they're not earning? Are they entitled to benefits? How do they get themselves to the educational establishment if they luve too far away to walk? Lots of loose ends, don't you agree?

[Simon Kirby]

So, if everyone has to stay in education, who funds their living costs? Who pays for them whilst they're not earning? Are they entitled to benefits? How do they get themselves to the educational establishment if they luve too far away to walk? Lots of loose ends, don't you agree?

I would suggest that the parents/guardians should pay for their children's upkeep and transport. Are you suggesting otherwise?

[Rachel]

I would suggest that the parents/guardians should pay for their children's upkeep and transport. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm suggesting that if the government removes a 16-18 year old's ability to work for a living by insisting they stay in school, don't they have a responsibility to support them too? As it used to be, if the 16 year old CHOSE 6th form, their parent also CHOSE to support them. Now, it appears both choices are removed. There are famillies that won't be able to take that financial burden perhaps?

[Andy Capp]

I'm suggesting that if the government removes a 16-18 year old's ability to work for a living by insisting they stay in school, don't they have a responsibility to support them too? As it used to be, if the 16 year old CHOSE 6th form, their parent also CHOSE to support them. Now, it appears both choices are removed. There are famillies that won't be able to take that financial burden perhaps?

I agree: the government are effectively penalising students of poorer families.

[Simon Kirby]

I'm suggesting that if the government removes a 16-18 year old's ability to work for a living by insisting they stay in school, don't they have a responsibility to support them too? As it used to be, if the 16 year old CHOSE 6th form, their parent also CHOSE to support them. Now, it appears both choices are removed. There are famillies that won't be able to take that financial burden perhaps?

Yes, I see.

[Berkshirelad]

I'm suggesting that if the government removes a 16-18 year old's ability to work for a living by insisting they stay in school, don't they have a responsibility to support them too? As it used to be, if the 16 year old CHOSE 6th form, their parent also CHOSE to support them. Now, it appears both choices are removed. There are famillies that won't be able to take that financial burden perhaps?

HMG is not removing a 16-18 year-old's ability to work for a living.

As quoted above, the legislation allows full/part-time/voluntary working. However, the job must contain an element of training.

The choices and the outcomes remain the same.

[Berkshirelad]

I agree: the government are effectively penalising students of poorer families.

Rubbish. The cost arguments are unchanged

[Andy Capp]

Rubbish. The cost arguments are unchanged

[Rachel]

Rubbish. The cost arguments are unchanged

May I politely request evidence to support your argument?
I know a lad who has just started college, he's just 17 (birthday mid Sept) & he lives with his mother. She works to support herself & son, & was in receipt of some assistance to make ends meet. However, when her son finished full time education at 16, (son now is doing 4 days at college) she lost some of those benefits. To compound the issue, she has to pay nearly £5 per day for his bus to college-£20 per week. He is not entitled to benefits, can't work much because of college hours & therefore the family IS worse off financially. What is more, he will be 18 in September next, but will have to remain on his college course for the academic year, by which time his mother will loose all assistance AND be paying for an adult bus fare.
Berkshire Lad, please advise how this is the same as if said son had left school 2 years ago when the 'Participation Age' ended at 16?

[Rdg]

For those post 16 using own transport I have heard that insurers now consider going to and from college in a car / on motorbike/moped is commuting to a place of work so you better check insurance covers it and not just social domestic and pleasure driving

[HJD]

However, when her son finished full time education at 16, (son now is doing 4 days at college).

If the 4 days at college exceeds 12 hours per week this is still classed as full time education ( up till the age of 20 yrs. old ). Ask anyone who is having to pay maintenance through the CSA !

[Rdg]

And if using Reading/Newbury buses then they go to 19 for child fares if in education - http://www.reading-buses.co.uk/solo/

[Strafin]

4 days at college? That leaves three more in the week to go and earn £20. I appreciate that the dynamic has changed which was your point, but it's not exactly making life hard is it?

[motormad]

I left school at 16 and I'm being paid very well :-)

[Exhausted]

I left school at 16 and I'm being paid very well :-)

Yes, but you weren't forced into compulsory training/school/college for two years.

Join one of the services and it's all free including a wage at the end of the week.

[Baffers100]

I would suggest that the parents/guardians should pay for their children's upkeep and transport. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Absolutely agree. I don't feel great about a 16 year old leaving education and hopping straight on to benefits if they're not actively seeking employment.

Parents are expected to support their offspring for the 3 or 4 years they're at university (not entirely funded, but parental salary is considered when student loan amount is calculated), so why would you think a 16 year old would be entitled to financial support, or not be the duty and care of said persons parents? I understand if you struggle financially then supporting your child for an additional 2 years is an extra strain, but presumably you've supported them 16 years already- and hopefully the further education or training will enable them to access careers where they're earn more money as a result.