Tom Richmond and Robert Sharp (London, Social Market Foundation): Education: the moment that you mention the word, emotions join force with party politics and this combination makes for a fiery debate. On the evidence of an event held Thursday in the Houses of Parliament Committee Room 11, this fighting spirit is very much alive and well. Two of the country's top think tanks, the Social Market Foundation (SMF) and Policy Exchange, tackled the thorny yet incredibly important issue of raising the school leaving age to eighteen, supported by a panel of expert speakers and politicians. The event marked the launch of a new book on this subject: Staying the Course is a collection of essays published by the SMF, and edited by former Blair adviser Conor Ryan.
Ironically, Thursday's debate made one thing abundantly clear - the debate is not about the vision for education in this country; it is simply a disagreement over how we get there. The desire to give everyone the opportunity to succeed and excel is universal, as is the commitment to raising the aspirations of young people. The problem centres on whether legally compelling someone to stay in school or training up to eighteen is the best way to go about achieving these goals.
Speaking for the proposition, both Barry Sheerman MP (Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee) and SMF Director Ann Rossiter, were adamant that raising the participation age was essential to create "equality of opportunity", with the commitment to everyone having the chance to make the most of the doors that can be opened through Further Education. Only through legislating this change that the necessary cultural shift will be achieved. Indeed, Rossiter noted that leaving school at eighteen was first proposed almost 100 years ago in the aftermath of the First World War, and was revisited after World War II, thereby demonstrating that society is well aware of the need to fully train and support the workforce. It is hard to ignore the predictions that the number of unskilled jobs in the UK will fall dramatically in the coming decades. Both speakers used this point to emphasise the need to equip those entering the workforce with qualifications.
Speaking against the motion was David Willets MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Universities, Innovations and Skills, and Professor Alan Smithers, Director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham and one of the contributors to the SMF publication. They were equally adamant that an entitlement to two more years of education is more effective than an obligation. They argued that should the school leaving age be raised, truancy and disaffection with education will only get worse. Professor Smithers said that raising the leaving age is more about "bureaucratic tidiness" than helping young people.
Two themes emerged from the debate. The first is the degree to which sixteen year-olds should be treated as adults. Both Sheerman and Rossiter were in no doubt they are still children, and should not be thrown out into the world without sufficient guidance or qualifications. Meanwhile, Willets and Smithers were concerned that sixteen year-olds are already constrained adults, and that attempting to control them to such a large degree was bound to be counter-productive.
The second aspect concerned quality of the qualifications on offer to young people. Currently, the A-Level is held in much higher esteem than other types of certificate, and those who would choose to study for that qualification would probably have made the same choice regardless of what the Government legislates. Yet those who are currently leaving education age sixteen will almost certainly require some form of vocational diploma or apprenticeship scheme, and provision here is currently lacking. Since the participation age will not actually be raised to eighteen until 2015, there is plenty of time to improve the quality of offer. It is clear that the policy will stand or fall on whether the Government can get this aspect right.
Its also clear that many people are highly cynical about the Government's policy. Anthony Browne, Director of Policy Exchange and former Chief Political Correspondent for The Times, alleged that raising the leaving age is nothing more than a political ploy, to cover up Government embarrassment over the growing number of NEETs. Getting the qualification mix right would also be an effective way for the Government to silence its critics.
