We Have to Think of Something Else to Offer Them

WE ARE immensely proud that the Government is the first ever to undertake to abolish child poverty over a 20-year period. Progress has been made, and although it has stalled recently, the record is second to none.

But the number of the very poorest has increased. If we consider various health indices, the Government has generally made good progress, but the very poorest are not benefiting equally with other groups.

The gap between the very poorest and the rest of us – let alone the rich – is widening.

We know from the Government’s own data that four in 10 children leaving junior school for secondary school do not have the qualifications expected of them for that age group. However, they go on to secondary school, where many of them fail. We also know that more than five out of 10 of our constituents who leave school at 16 do not get the minimum education qualifica-tions the Government want every-body in that age group to get. The position has improved in the past 10 years, and although we should not make absurd claims about that, the numbers are truly great.

One of my suggestions is to introduce a leaving certificate, because those young people might well knuckle down and do some work. It could cover the basic skills in maths, education and IT and, as soon as young people gain the certificate at 14, they would be allowed to leave school provided they could get a job. At the moment, any money that we taxpayers put towards them are wasted.

That group should have the pounds 20,000 that we would spend on them between 14 and 16 if they turned up to school – although they do not – held as a dowry, which they would control.

When they realised that it is quite tough, even if they have a job, they might change their views about wanting to acquire skills. They would become buyers of skills, rather than the consumers of the training skills that Jobcentre Plus buys in job lots.

In Birkenhead this year, 38 young people left school with no qualifications. The cost to taxpayers of their education was a little over Elm. I asked whether we could not do something different with that Elm – as we know there will probably be 38 such young people next year and asked if we could have an experiment with a small technical school that might engage their interests.

The reply was, “No, we could not possibly do that. We could not teach the national curriculum in a school that size.” I reminded them we are not teaching those young people the national curriculum now, so what is the point of pretending? I agree the aims benefited most young people, but they do not benefit most of the young people who do not fit into the box.

We will not solve these problems pretending we have it right in our junior and secondary schools, nor make things better with a system that engages them on the current terms after the age of 16. A small but significant number of young people are failed by our education system. We have to think of something different to offer them.

YES Frank Field, Labour MP for Birkenhead

(c) 2008 Daily Post; Liverpool. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.