An interesting item on The Today programme this morning reminded me of a suggestion I made some years ago, when Blair was giving free rein to his obsession with university for everyone. James Naughtie toured some manufacturing workshops in Birmingham and interviewed their executives. They claimed that there are two big problems faced by small manufacturers of quality goods, access to finance and a lack of trainees to learn the necessary skills.
It is the second problem that I address. Why do we not allow children to leave school at fifteen if they obtain an apprenticeship at such a company? In my view, insisting that all children remain in school later than that age is a facet of the intellectual snobbery of those decision makers who have never worked with their hands. Many children simply do not wish to continue schooling after that age and some, through boredom, become disruptive and interfere with the education of more studious classmates.
As well as ensuring the continuance of crafts and relieving teachers of the uninterested, the system would produce income in families that really need it.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Because, your suggestion smacks too much of common sense and practicality, that’s why.
Yeah Tom,
Have a word with yourself.
You keep on talking sense like that and the men in white coats will be at your doorstep. 🙂
Quite so, Bravo. If I had my time again I would train as an electrician, plumber, carpenter, gas boiler installer, bricklayer or any other trade and put any residue into property instead of pension funds. Would have made an effin’ fortune.
University, Shmuniversity!
OZ
“Introduced in 2000 was the Vocational GCSE (VGCSE), which encouraged students to take the work-related route and included courses such as Engineering and Manufacture, Applied Business, ICT, and Leisure and Tourism. From September 2004, the word ‘Vocational’ was dropped and a Vocational GCSE is now known simply as a GCSE.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education
Talking of Bliar, NuLab et al.
I see Cambuffoon is trying to divert the angst of the clapham mas transit consumer by exclaiming he inherited a catastrophic public balance sheet.
Well excuse me David, but who the flying frick was in opposition all that time? Who were we relying on to keep gormless bruin in check? Oh yes that would have been you and your li’l lib dem Toto too.
Just another example of parliament pishing on our shoes but telling us it’s raining.
Tom:
You are quite right. When I went to University, I think it was only about 6-7% of school leavers went there. This figure is probably too low now, but the target of sending 50% there is just plain ludicrous. We need all the technicians, and craftsmen we cab get and could do with rather fewer Media Studies graduates.
Pseu. Jokes.
Is there a vocational training for stand up?
Btw, Araminta, it can be provoking when someone seems to make light of something you feel strongly about, can it not?
Oops, that last comment is on the wrong post, blush.
Ferret, re #5, you forget perhaps that the UK voters had provided Labour with an outright majority, and Cameron and his coalition partners could have done diddlysquat about anything Labour wanted to do. In our form of “democracy” an outright majority is effectively a dictatorship. So perhaps your ire would be better directed at all those who voted Labour in such large numbers that they provided them with the power to do what they wanted, having emasculated the opposition, by providing Labour with the opportunity to bludgeon through whatever legislation they wanted.
CWJ,
Utter twaddle. The opposition has access to the books, the shadow chancellor has to be made aware of the credit/debit situation. As an opposition leader Cameron was riding the smae gravy train as NuLab and happy to do so.
To turn around now and say we didn’t know how badly NuLab were squandering public funds is quite frankly a bare faced lie. He was part of the problem and no amount of schoolground finger pointing changes that.
oops “same”.
CWJ, you are of course correct.