| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Raising Expectations Consultation

Page history last edited by starkfamily1@... 16 years, 4 months ago


 

 

Here is the the consultation summary and the response of AHEd posted Wednesday June 13th 2007

 

Executive Summary:

 

Raising Expectations:

Staying in education and training post-16

 

This Green Paper sets out proposals to require all young people to remain in education or training until their 18th birthday, from 2013. There are significant benefits to be gained from young people staying in learning for longer – for individuals, the economy and society. Introducing compulsion could be the way to get beyond our existing stretching targets for increasing post-16 participation. The document sets out for consultation our proposals for implementing such a requirement in a way that ensures everyone can benefit. The proposals apply to England only

 

AHEd Response

 

Name: ( )

Email: ahed@ahed.org.uk

Address: ( )

Organisation: Action for Home Education (AHEd)

 

Response on Behalf of an organisation: Yes

 

Keep response confidential: No

 

Allowed to contact in the future: Yes

 

Request a response acknowledgement: Yes

 

Request to be informed when the consultation results are published: Yes

 

Which of the following best describes you:

 

Checked Other (please specify)

 

Answer/Comments

 

Action for Home Education is an Internet based home education group, supporting elective home education freedoms. www.ahed.org.uk

 

Chapter 2: The benefits of requiring participation

 

1 Do you agree that there is a case for introducing compulsory participation to age 18?

 

No

 

Answer/Comments

 

There is no case for compulsion. AHEd is opposed to the extension of compulsion in education up to adulthood. Young people should be provided opportunity and encouragement but no compulsion should be involved. If the scheme is desirable and effective, young people will choose to take part. Compulsion will hamper the natural response to an ineffective or harmful system, which is to walk away, and will therefore predispose the new provisions to stagnation, lack of innovation and increasing measures of force to coerce your unwilling market into compliance against their wishes of interests.

 

Chapter 3: A new requirement to participate

 

In paragraphs 3.2 – 3.10 we set out our central proposal for a requirement to participate.

 

2 Do you agree that participation should include participation in school, college, work-based learning and accredited training provided by an employer?

 

Checked No

 

Answer/Comments

 

Participation in any provision must be voluntary and not limited to those that are listed by government. Non-participation must be an option, as well as independent provisions chosen by the people. AHEd is opposed to the imposition of compulsory participation of any kind. AHEd is opposed to the invention of an extended compulsory system in which everything that young people do must be subjected to a system of government accreditation and approval, outlawing any independent provision for young people and thus transforming young people into the servants and property of government. We object to the proposed system of approval for all provisions made for young people whether it is in education, training or work.

 

Parents have the responsibility to provide education for their children suitable to meet the age, ability and aptitude of the child and any special educational needs they may have. Many parents elect to fulfill this responsibility by choosing an education that is based at home and outside the school system, in accordance with their own beliefs and philosophy. This does not require approval or accreditation from government. The government must not seek to replace parents' duty to be responsible to provide for the needs of their children according to their own philosophy and beliefs with a system of compulsion for all young people

 

3 Do you agree that the requirement should include a requirement to work towards accredited qualifications?

 

Checked No

 

Answer/Comments

 

No. The opportunity to take qualifications should be open to all young people without hindrance. However, this decision must be left to the young person.

 

4 Do you agree that for those who are not in employment for a significant part of the week, participation should be in full time education?

 

Checked No

 

Answer/Comments

 

No. Young people require opportunity, not compulsion. The proposal interferes with the availability of the young person for work and restricts their freedom of choice regarding work and learning. For example, a young person may choose an informal apprenticeship or a programme of voluntary work or independent study combined with part time work of their own choice. Young people should be encouraged to make the choices that suit their own abilities aptitudes and preferences and to be in charge of these decisions themselves. No requirement for education should be imposed.

 

5 Should full time education be defined for this purpose as at least 16 hours of guided learning per week?

 

Checked Not sure

 

Answer/Comments

 

No. (We are sure of the response we would like to make but your options for reply appear to be an attempt to manipulate the results of the enquiry by excluding a 'No' option, just as your proposals for young people aim to exclude the option for them to decline.)Young people not in employment for, “a significant part of the week,” has no proper meaning. The government should not propose to prescribe the proper use of a young person’s time and to compel what it considers to be approved activity. The effect of points 4 and 5 would be that, where the government considers a young person to be insufficiently employed, (in government accredited and approved employment,) that young person will be compelled to undergo a prescribed number of hours of (government accredited and approved) guided learning per week in addition to their employment.

 

AHEd supports freedom in education.

 

6 Do you agree that a young person who is employed could participate part time?

 

Checked Not Sure

 

Answer/Comments

 

A young person should choose his or her own level of involvement in the available opportunities.

 

7 Is a minimum of 280 hours of guided learning per year appropriate for a young person who is employed?

 

Checked Not Sure

 

Answer/Comments

 

No minimum should be set.

 

The central proposition outlined in 3.2 – 3.10 would require a young person to participate until their 18th birthday. An alternative described in para 3.11 would require a young person to participate until either their 18th birthday or they achieve qualifications at level 2, whichever is the earlier.

 

8 Which version of the policy do you prefer?

 

Checked No Response

 

Answer/Comments

 

Neither. (We do have a response and are sure of the response we would like to make but your options for reply appear to be an attempt to manipulate the results of the enquiry by excluding an option to prefer neither suggestion, just as your proposals for young people aim to exclude the option for them to decline.)No compulsion should be imposed.

 

Chapter 4: A suitable route for every young person

 

9 Do you agree that, taken together, the routes outlined in this chapter mean that there will be an appropriate and engaging option for all 16 and 17 year olds by 2013?

 

Checked No

 

Answer/Comments

 

No. If the routes outlined were engaging no compulsion would be required. You have no options in these proposals; you only have a range of compulsions.

 

10 Should there be requirements for young people who are training to do more than just an accredited occupational qualification? (for example, should they be expected to do functional English or maths and/or wider technical education?)

 

If Yes, what requirements?

 

Checked No

 

Answer/Comments

 

AHEd is opposed to any extension of compulsion in education up to adulthood.

 

Chapter 5: Enabling all young people to participate

 

11 Do you agree financial support should still be provided to young people from low income households, if participation is compulsory?

 

Checked Not Sure

 

Answer/Comments

 

The question assumes the imposition of compulsion. Participation should not be compulsory. Financial support should still be provided where young people from low income households choose to participate. EMA should be provided to young people in full time further education, including qualifying young people whose full time further education is based at home. Currently, in England, these children are unfairly discriminated against because their full time further education is outside the school system.

 

12 What would be the right financial support arrangements for young people required to participate to age 18?

 

Answer/Comments

 

Participation should not be compulsory. Financial support cannot compensate for the loss of one's freedom of choice.

 

13 Should we consider other incentives, such as withholding driving licences from 17 year olds who are not participating in education or training?

 

Checked No

 

Answer/Comments

 

This is not an incentive, it is bullying. Driving licenses should only be affected by matters related to driving and not as a bribe to coerce compliance to a compulsory system not otherwise related to driving.

 

14 Would the proposals outlined here about support and guidance be enough to ensure that all young people are able to participate, regardless of their personal circumstances?

 

Checked No Response

 

Chapter 6: Employers playing their part

 

15 Would the proposals outlined in this chapter provide employers with the right framework to help make sure all 16 and 17 year olds are participating in valuable learning, including those who want to learn as they work?

 

Checked No Response

16 Given the benefits of a better skilled workforce, what responsibilities should employers have to encourage young people to participate in education and training?

 

 

Chapter 7: Making sure young people participate

 

17 Do you agree that there should be a system of enforcement attached to any new requirement to participate, used only as a last resort?

 

Checked No

 

Answer/Comments

 

No. AHEd is opposed to compulsion and enforcement in education.

 

18 Is it right that the primary responsibility for attending at age 16 and 17 should rest with young people themselves?

 

Checked No Response

 

Answer/Comments

 

This question removes choice from responsibility and substitutes a duty to comply. The primary responsibility for their lives should rest with young people. To be responsible they must be free to make a choice and not subjected to coercion and enforcement to comply with a system for which they are not responsible.

 

19 Do you agree that if a parent of a young person is helping them to break to law, it should be possible to hold them accountable as well?

 

Checked No Response

 

Answer/Comments

 

AHEd is opposed to state compulsion in education. Individuals should be held liable for their own criminal offence and not the failure of another person.

 

20 Is the process outlined in this chapter the right way to try to re-engage young people and enforce the requirement?

 

Checked No

 

21 On breach of an attendance order, should criminal sanctions be pursued, or civil/administrative ones?

 

Checked Not sure

 

Answer/Comments

 

We are sure how we would like to respond, but once again the options are manipulative and exclude our choice. You have excluded the option to follow no sanctions having previously asked if there should be any sanctions! You appear to have already worked out a system of sanctions and criminalisation of young people. AHEd is opposed to the proposal to extend compulsion in education up to adulthood. AHEd is opposed to attendance orders and the criminalisation of young people for non-compliance with compulsory education.

 

22 Please use this space for any general comments you would like to make.

 

Answer/Comments

 

Ahed believes these proposals are disastrous and will lead to a substantial increase in legal proceedings against young people and/or their families for lack of compliance. Furthermore, it seeks to remove all freedom and flexibility by bringing all provisions under the control of government accreditation and approval. Home Educating families will vigorously oppose these proposals should they become law. Elective Home Education must maintain its status as equal in law to state provided and accredited education.

 

23 Please let us have your views on responding to this consultation (for example, were the number and type of questions about right? Was it easy to find, understand and complete?).

 

Answer/Comments

 

There is an apparent attempt to manipulate the result of the consultation by restricting the options so that a respondent might appear to agree with the proposals. This made responding more difficult. For example, asking if the compulsory education should continue until 18 or level 2 qualification, rules out an answer that says the education should be optional and not compulsory until 18!

 

END

 

Conservative Party Comment

From the Office of David Willetts, MP

 

Many thanks for writing about raising the compulsory education age to 18.

 

We are sceptical about simply forcing young people to stay in education or training until 18 because this does not of itself improve the education of young people, raise their skills or increase their chances of getting a job. In fact, it runs the danger of keeping teenagers in education, but not giving them a qualification. Even if they do gain qualifications, these may not improve their career and earnings prospects, since some NVQs have a negative value for their holders. And if they want to work, teenagers may be priced out of a job market because some employers will simply stop hiring 16-18 year-olds if they have to train them. Labour ignores that being in employment itself improves employability and social mobility.

 

The Government needs to explain what compulsion would really mean. Will non-complying teenagers be jailed? Or their parents? Alan Johnson has spoken about the potential withdrawal of benefits for non-compliance, but would strict enforcement of compulsion to 18 really be feasible? Also, this comes at a time when Labour considers dropping compulsion from the New Deal programme which was once considered integral to its success.

 

Instead of conscripting teenagers into education and training until 18, we should address the problems of young people not in employement, education or training (NEETs) and educational underachievement at each stage of young people's development: school, career choice, vocational training and support for getting into work. First, we should raise standards in our schools by introducing synthetic phonics in all primary

schools and promoting greater use of setting in secondary schools. Rigour needs to be restored to school exams and league tables should focus on the core subjects. Second, we should introduce a more effective careers service in schools so pupils can make informed career and training choices. For example, advising pupils choosing their GCSEs at 14 will help them to avoid picking subjects that are unsuitable to the kind of job they would like to do later in life. Third, we need to improve the quality of apprenticeships and NVQs, for example by making sure their curriculum teaches what employers really need. Fourth, we need to reform the New Deal to ensure participants don't immediately slide back into benefits once they leave the programme.

 

Specifically with regards to home education, we believe that parents should be free to choose the best education for their children, including home education, and that the Government should make sure that all the options are able to work properly.

 

I hope this addresses your questions.

 

Kind regards,

Dr Fabian Richter

Chief of Staff to David Willetts MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Education & Skills

 

 

Consultation Report

 

the report on the Raising Expectations consultation results from the DCSF (pdf)

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Raising%20Expectations%20Consultation%20Report.pdf

 

OR Down load summary of results from this page: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/conResults.cfm?consultationId=1474

 

 

News Report

 

News report

 

From
November 4, 2007

Teenagers who refuse to work face on the spot fines

 

TEENAGERS who refuse to work, attend training or go to school are to be issued with on the spot fines under government proposals. Any who still fail to comply would then be taken to court where they could face further penalties.

 

The measures are designed to enforce a new law which will be outlined in this week’s Queen’s speech. It will say that all teenagers must remain in education, training or employment until they are 18.

The change will be phased in by raising the age to 17 in 2013 and to 18 in 2015. Details of the new “age of participation” will be outlined by Ed Balls, the children’s secretary, in a television interview today and in a speech tomorrow.

 

The new law will effectively outlaw “Neets”, teenagers and young people who are “not in education, employment or training”. In a speech to the Fabian Society tomorrow, Balls will put the proportion of Neets at about 10% of 16 to 18-year-olds.

 

On today’s Sunday Programme on GMTV, he will argue that the change is “the biggest educational reform in the last 50 years”.

 

Balls will admit that Britain performs poorly in terms of the numbers of teenagers who drop out of the system at the age of 16. In international league tables, he will say, Britain is “pretty much at the bottom, despite the rise in participation we’ve seen . . . the vast majority of countries have more people staying on [after 16] than we do”.

The first group to be affected will be today’s 10 and 11-year-olds and the change is likely to provoke strong arguments. When Brown first put it forward in July, a senior union figure, Geraldine Everett, chairman of the Professional Association of Teachers, said that the move was a “potential mine-field” that would “compel the disaffected to, in their perception, prolong the agony”.

 

Frank Field, the Labour MP and former minister, wrote in last week’s Sunday Times that a group of teenagers in his Birkenhead constituency “rolled around laughing at the idea that any government could try to lock them up in school until they became 18”.

 

To provide places for the teenagers, Balls will announce the creation of an extra 90,000 apprenticeships by 2013 for 16 to 18-year-olds to add to the current 150,000. There will also be 44,000 new places at further education colleges.

Tomorrow he will also issue a pamphlet detailing how the changes will be put into practice: “These new rights must be matched by new responsibilities . . . young people are responsible for their participation and this can be enforced if necessary.”

 

If someone drops out of education or training, their local authority will try to find them a place.

According to Balls’s department, if they refuse to attend, they will be given a formal warning, in which the “local authority will clearly explain their duty to participate and the consequences of not doing so”.

 

The next step will be to issue a formal notice, followed by a fixed penalty ticket. The Neet could then be taken to a youth court and fined, but the sanction will not go as far as imposing a custodial sentence.

 

Balls’s proposal to give children the opportunity either to train or stay at school reflects the policy of both him and Brown to blur the distinction between vocational and academic education in the hope that the skills of the whole workforce can be improved.

 

Last month, the schools secretary announced that the government’s new diplomas, to be introduced in 2011, would include not just practical subjects such as travel and tourism but also academic topics.

Critics have accused Labour of diluting the rigour of A-levels and GCSEs to ensure more young people gain qualifications.

 

But Balls will say today: “For decades we’ve been bedevilled by a two-tier view, which was that getting a skill, going to university, was for the few, and that for most young people excellence wasn’t for them, that they would end up with a second-class route into either vocational learning or an unskilled job.” Balls says today. “We’ve got to put that view behind us.”

 

~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

 

Enforced participation in work, education or training. There is a word for that and it's not "opportunity."

Aren't we talking about enslaving the nations young people further?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.