In reading this article I am reminded of the famous TV program years ago featuring Jeannie Little and Bob Hawke, where Bob was asked the show business questions and Jeannie the political ones. Asked if she had an answer to unemployment, Jeannie said that she had a complete solution - she would raise the school leaving age to 30 and cut the retirement age to 29. Bob had to admit that this would definitely solve the unemployment problem.

When boys entered apprenticeships at age 15, we had no skills shortages. They were affordable to employers and at the best age to absorb the culture of their trade. Problem! When girls became probationer nurses in hospitals at age 15, by the time they qualfied they understood exactly what nursing required of them. Nobody today will claim that RNs who did not graduate from university are less effective nurses. Graduate nurses are suffering disastrous loss of job satisfaction today and leaving for other careers in thousands. Problem! Around 30 percent of first year uni students drop out. Should they ever have entered a university? What is the Y11/12 costing us? Heaps!

Dear Mike

Thank you for an interesting and well researched article.

Young people have been staying at "school" for ages, vis a vis: for many until year 12 and then straight into university for 3 to 4 years. And so many of these young people have felt forced into the tertiary system - since many previous apprenticeships have been swallowed up by unis - such as horticulture, agriculture, nursing - all of which have a primary academic thrust, rather than skills based and pragmatic leaning.

As a previous uni lecturer in nursing, I have spoken with many young people about their educational wishes (rather than the wishes of others). Overwhelmingly, they would have preferred an apprenticeship through a TAFE system - where they could have studied "hands on" whilst marrying theory with practice. Perhaps they have a better understanding of the Kolbian Experiential Learning Cycle than do academics and politicians?

Sadly in my view, the university system sets up far too many students for failure on the one hand, and on the other, lets students down by offering a very low TER score (such as nursing).

If students are forced to remain at school until they are older - they should be offered TAFE apprenticeship programs as part of that time. I have no doubt that a large number of young people want to "earn as they learn" - and if the system won't allow them to do that - at least they should be given the chance of learning their basic trade whist they are forced into staying at school for a longer period.

Have all of we oldies forgotten what we were like? I think so. Very sad.

If young people don't have a goal where they understand they require further formal education,being forced to attend school is a futile exercise and a waste of teaching resources that are better spent on those who want to learn.
At the point where they are disinterested in continuing school,there should be introduced a 'sabbatical'of one year and the 'student' encouraged to enter employment of their choice. They should be obliged to pay for their upkeep with the wages earned and at the end of the 'sabbatical'have the option to continue their formal education full time or continue employment and part time education in a Vocational Educational Training environment.
In this day and age,many young people are distracted by an impatience to grow up and have it all;they make a hasty decision to enter the workforce and soon find themselves pouring hard earned money into consumer items and discover a year or so later that they would have been better off to obtain credentials that help secure better earning prospects. By this time at least a young person has a better idea of What he/she needs to focus on in a vocational based course.It is about this time when they are most receptive to learning and arrive at the point where they become aware of some of lifes realities like:
You do not make $65,000 a year right out of school.
Dont blame others for your mistakes, Learn from them.
Television is not real life. In real life, people have to work.

School can be a hellhole for a sizeable minority of students in my State. The category of students comprise those with specific learning difficulties, and those with generic learning disabilities. They simply do not obtain the level of specialist assistance or educational programs they require.

If students with learning difficulties are to remain at school longer, then they will need proper support to enable them to thrive. Their parents have a legal responsibility to encourage their sons and daughters to go to school, Education Departments have a responsibility to ensure that school is a safe and meaningful experience for students.

Maintaining students at school longer is a good way to keep unemployment figures down. If all students are given a meaninful education experience then it would seem a good idea. However,the likeihood of all students being catered for is rather remote.

Mike, there's extensive overseas evidence to support the thrust of your article. (Unfortunately I don't have the sources or references to hand now.} The evidence is that parents and their children generally have a much better grasp of the youngsters' potential and of employment markets, and can make a much better informed decision on the value of continuing to year 12 and beyond than can bureaucrats and governments. Conversely, there's also a wealth of evidence, particularly from extensive US research, that it's far better to help the disadvantaged/"low achievers" through well-designed early-childhood intervention rather than through teenage "catch-up" programmes and compulsorily-extended schooling. As usual, my evidence-supported arguments on these issues within the Queensland Govewrnment were ignored in favour of ignorance-based policies.