Wyken boy, 4, banned from school over 'David Beckham-style' hair cut

[Aura]

Hi I came across this link and wondered what the rest of you would think. i think it's sad a young lad should miss out on his education just because of a haircut.

Wyken boy, 4, banned from school over 'David Beckham-style' hair cut - Coventry News - News - Coventry Telegraph

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -hair.html

http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/06/28/ ... hawk-hair/

[Clodhopper]

Generally I would support a school attempting to maintain standards of dress, hairstyle, makeup and acceptable body modification. The mother should have known about this - poor communication somewhere.

That the child is autistic and has trouble with haircuts makes things more complex, but allows a way out: an exception could be made - should be made - because of his autism.

[LarsMac]

Seriously?

a four-year-old?

[spot]

His hair's a trivial problem compared to going through life with Kain as his name. The hair can change. Being named after the world's first murderer is rather more blighting.

The notion that a primary school educates four year olds is laughable.

I needn't even comment on "“Kain is autistic and is scared of having his hair cut. He goes into a fit and I usually have to have him in a head-lock or pin him to the floor".

[Betty Boop]

Ridiculous. I assume the child is statemented and recieving one to one help at school. So not only is the child missing out on his education his TA must be hanging around kicking her/his heels together.

Oh, silly me, if like the schools here, the TA will be dealing with the other three kids who are also under their care and classed as having one to one (that sentence is hanging with heavy sarcasm!)

Wonder how many attempts it takes his mum to get his hair cut, I remember my son at that age, getting a hair cut was a nightmare, thankfully we've had the same hairdresser for many years and she's great with my son so it's not such a big issue now.

[Snooz]

spot;1398236 wrote: His hair's a trivial problem compared to going through life with Kain as his name. The hair can change. Being named after the world's first murderer is rather more blighting.

The notion that a primary school educates four year olds is laughable.

I needn't even comment on "“Kain is autistic and is scared of having his hair cut. He goes into a fit and I usually have to have him in a head-lock or pin him to the floor".


That's a style that needs weekly touch-ups, she chose the wrong hairdo for a kid that allegedly has a phobia about his hair being cut.

[Betty Boop]

SnoozeAgain;1398238 wrote: That's a style that needs weekly touch-ups, she chose the wrong hairdo for a kid that allegedly has a phobia about his hair being cut.


She may well have but I read it that as it's mum cutting his hair maybe it's not such a big problem. I was going to say that it could be the change of style that's a problem for him, but he will have been attending school since September, so this is evidently a new style for him. Surely a chat explaining she'll allow the rest of the hair to grow back and won't create that style again is enough to allow him back in. He can't stay off for weeks whilst they wait for his hair to grow and it would look awful if it's all shaved off the top, he'd look like a mini thug :wah:

[Blackslax]

Four years old? Really?!

I remember when the style was 'crew cuts'. Then the Beatles and mini skirts hit the scene. Long hair was not accepted by the hard core establishment. Progressive school were OK with it as long as it was neat and clean. Those in the middle struggled and acceptance came about through arguements for equity (or equality if you will) as women had long hair - but by virtue of their sex men couldn't? Entwine that with women stammering for equality in pay and opportunities and now you have conflict in what you're trying to teach: more equality for one group and less for another.

This also reminds me of my son while he was in 7th grade or so. He came home and told his mother he wanted to dye his hair purple. My wife cdomes to me for an oppinion on the subject. I only had one question: How are his grades in school? The answer was As and Bs. My next question: When do you want to dye your hair?

So I looked on-line for what this kind of haircut could look like. I didn't see anything radical. The worst was some kind of tussled centrally located short spiked thing. THIS - is what is keepinig an autistic child from school? The parents of all of the children at that school should get together, identify who is responsible for this child's expulsion and have him or her fired - pronto. Unless, of course, at the beginning of the school year all of the parents were notified that no child will be allow in school if they have a Beckham style haircut. If not, then let the heads begin to roll.

[Oscar Namechange]

There are many reasons children attending school are expected to follow a dress code Including haircuts and the ban of unsuitable shoes and adornments.

The school has a duty of care and unfortunately due to some children being bullying little s.hits, codes are enforced so that all children look the same. If a child stands out at school due to a ridiculous haircut, then they are more likely to be bullied. Children get bullied when they look and are different than the rest of the class.

To set a child up by making him stand out Is a reckless and cruel venture.

It sounds to me as though the excuse of the child having difficulties Is akin to playing the race card after the fact. Snooze Is right... that's a haircut that needs constant maintainance.

Some parents just don't get It. Rules are rules but some parents believe they are exempt. The rules are not there to piss off parents, they are there for a variety of reasons. Children entering school at 4 years old have to learn conformity and discipline and that will never happen If one parent bends the rule book.

If her child entered school with that ridiculous haircut which Is not ' A Beckham' It's a mohican and then was subjected to bullying, no doubt the parent would be blaming the school.

[YZGI]

After looking at it, I can't say I would call that hair do extreme. I'm sure not every kid in school has the Tony Blair cut (or as we call it in America) The "Spot"..

[Oscar Namechange]

It's about bending the rules. If the rule of the school Is no shaved heads or mohican's, then that the rules. All schools here are the same.

The problem arises also when the school makes allowences as In this case and then you have a child arriving In unsuitable shes that could cause him to come to harm on the school steps.

When the school then tries to enforce the sensible shoes rule, you've got the parent arguing ' hang on, you let that kid break the rules with the haircut so why are you having a go about my kid'?

You set a precedent by bending the rules for one, the school Is leaving themselves open to all sorts of silliness.

[Bruv]

spot;1398236 wrote:

The notion that a primary school educates four year olds is laughable.




What ?????

Being at school amongst other children is an education, being picked out as different is an education.

Not all education comes out of books or is able to be 'taught'

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1398252 wrote: What ?????

Being at school amongst other children is an education, being picked out as different is an education.

Not all education comes out of books or is able to be 'taught' Absolutely !!! School Is also about social Interaction.

[Bruv]

I would like to see a picture of the mother.

I suspect she is a glitzy red or bleached streaked hair type of mother with long painted nails and attitude.

Can picture her rolling around on the floor snipping away at poor Kain's hair, trying to get it level each side......as an accessory to her own glamorous image.

[Wandrin]

It is comforting to see that schools are returning to their ways of 50 years ago and placing a higher value on conformity of appearance than learning. If students learn to tolerate anyone who looks slightly different than themselves, think of the danger to society! The school is absolutely correct in teaching children that superficial style is of utmost importance.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1398255 wrote: I would like to see a picture of the mother.

I suspect she is a glitzy red or bleached streaked hair type of mother with long painted nails and attitude.

Can picture her rolling around on the floor snipping away at poor Kain's hair, trying to get it level each side......as an accessory to her own glamorous image.


I can't believe that a four year year chose that hairstyle. Yes, he may have said he wanted to look like Beckham but I suspect the Mother thinks her kid looks cool and probably tell the kid he looks cool whilst actually setting the kid up to look like a prize tit at school, draw attention to himself and possibly become the subject of ridicule.

[along-for-the-ride]

" codes are enforced so that all children look the same. If a child stands out at school due to a ridiculous haircut, then they are more likely to be bullied. Children get bullied when they look and are different than the rest of the class.

To set a child up by making him stand out Is a reckless and cruel venture."

I have a problem with that statement, oscar. Why should all children look the same? They aren't. It think this bullying phenomenon needs to be dealt with harshly, not the way children are dressed or wear their hair. JMO

[Oscar Namechange]

along-for-the-ride;1398271 wrote: " codes are enforced so that all children look the same. If a child stands out at school due to a ridiculous haircut, then they are more likely to be bullied. Children get bullied when they look and are different than the rest of the class.

To set a child up by making him stand out Is a reckless and cruel venture."

I have a problem with that statement, oscar. Why should all children look the same? They aren't. It think this bullying phenomenon needs to be dealt with harshly, not the way children are dressed or wear their hair. JMO


When I say ' all children should look the same' I was not referring to Individuality per se.

All children will be different, by colour of hair, height, colour of skin, personality etc etc etc That Is their Individuality. I am not talking about a race of Stepford wives and children.

In schools, If there are rules that children wear a uniform, wear safe shoes and don't have shaven heads, then those are the rules.

Another reason for Instilling these rules especially with very young children starting school fr the first time, Is that because they all look similar, the child can Identify with his surroundings and with the other children and It gives the child a sense of belonging while he Is In school. When you take that away during school hours, the child could lose a sense of Identity with his surroundings and why he Is there.

This does not In any way, remove the childs Individuality and personality.

[spot]

It's fine if you get a choice what school your child goes to, so you can pick a set of rules which suit the child. I've never seen a lot of choice in that regard. Ashton Court or make your own arrangements, that's what the Bristol Council Appeal hearing told me for my eldest. I didn't bother asking again when it came to the others.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398284 wrote: It's fine if you get a choice what school your child goes to, so you can pick a set of rules which suit the child. I've never seen a lot of choice in that regard. Ashton Court or make your own arrangements, that's what the Bristol Council Appeal hearing told me for my eldest. I didn't bother asking again when it came to the others. The problem In Bristol Spot and I am sure the rest of the country Is a lack of spaces available In schools for new In takes. Thus, you get no choice what so ever.

The school next to my house built two new additional class rooms last year for additional 60 new pupils and we have another 30 going In this year. Next year more classrooms will have to be built. As this made the parking situation In the residential area grid lock, something had to be done as emergency services were being obstructed.

We had new parking restrictions put In this year and we agreed on some of the field outside my home having a tarmac area extended for parent parking. Myself and local Councilors didn't want to lose the green space but we had to compromise to get the restrictions In our Close.

There was one particular nuisence parent who continued to block drives and dropped kerbs In the Close so I tried talking her. To cut a very long story short, she told me she had four children but lived In Easton. When her third child was ready to start school, due to lack of places In Easton, the child was placed In a school In South Glou. When the fourth was due to start school, there were no places again In Easton nor the school where her third child was so that child was placed In our school. She explained she had to drive from Easton every morning and afternoon and had a 5 minute window to collect the fourth child at 3pm and then get to the other school to collect the third. I ended up feeling so bad for her, I told her to park In my drive as she was only going to be 5 minutes.

This problem and the lack of choice for spaces In schools Is down to the Councils. I don't understand why they are not aware of birth rates and prepared for new Intakes for when children reach school starting age. More schools must be built... that's the only solution.

[spot]

The obvious answer to that is to lower the minimum school leaving age to 14.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398291 wrote: The obvious answer to that is to lower the minimum school leaving age to 14.


That's not the answer.

Children at 13 and 14 are not at a level In their education where they are equiped at taking GCSE's or exams for qualifications they will need to secure places at Unversity, College or a job. I very much doubt any employer could be swayed Into taking on a 14 year old .

Making the school leaving age 14 may have a short term effect of emptying Upper schools but will do nothing to address the long term effects of Increasing birth rates and shortages In Infant schools.

It would only be papering over the cracks and the entire education system would have to be changed costing millions. Far simpler to build one new school In each area where there Is population density,

[spot]

oscar;1398293 wrote: Children at 13 and 14 are not at a level In their education where they are equiped at taking GCSE's or exams for qualifications they will need to secure places at Unversity, College or a job. I very much doubt any employer could be swayed Into taking on a 14 year old .There are many 14 year olds capable of working a 40 hour week and many jobs for which GSCEs are as totally irrelevant as an ability to read would be. They're at school by reason of the law, not by reason of any desire to "continue" their non-existent education. And think how much the truancy figures would drop.

Would you like me to list worthwhile jobs for which GSCEs are as totally irrelevant as an ability to read would be? Shall I start with sorting recycled materials at the collection depot?

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398295 wrote: There are many 14 year olds capable of working a 40 hour week and many jobs for which GSCEs are as totally irrelevant as an ability to read would be. They're at school by reason of the law, not by reason of any desire to "continue" their non-existent education. And think how much the truancy figures would drop.

Would you like me to list worthwhile jobs for which GSCEs are as totally irrelevant as an ability to read would be? Shall I start with sorting recycled materials at the collection depot?


Yes you're right Spot. There are many jobs that a 14 year old could do without qualifications. But by removing qualifications you are condemning children to menial jobs and thus remove their hopes and aspirations for something better.

They then find themselves In a job they loathe down the local tip and guess what? Instead of playing truant from school, they are playing truant or pulling a sickie from work. You may cut down on a few truants from school and replace It with an unreliable, absentee work force.

[spot]

oscar;1398297 wrote: Yes you're right Spot. There are many jobs that a 14 year old could do without qualifications. But by removing qualifications you are condemning children to menial jobs and thus remove their hopes and aspirations for something better.Hopes and aspirations for something better? Are we living in the same country? What school-leaver who starts work instead of taking on further education has any more justification for hopes and aspirations than a 14 year old with no GCSEs at all? The dead end of which you speak applies equally to both.

A 14 year old is more than capable of putting in a full-time week on a useful job. By the time my grandad hit his 14th birthday he was already holding down a full time mill job that he'd learned to do over the previous year and a half, people aren't a new species suddenly. You won't, I hope, pretend that menial jobs are either unimportant or non-existent. If you won't stick all the 14 year olds who want to leave school into them, who else will you condemn in their place?

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398298 wrote: Hopes and aspirations for something better? Are we living in the same country? What school-leaver who starts work instead of taking on further education has any more justification for hopes and aspirations than a 14 year old with no GCSEs at all? The dead end of which you speak applies equally to both.

A 14 year old is more than capable of putting in a full-time week on a useful job. By the time my grandad hit his 14th birthday he was already holding down a full time mill job that he'd learned to do over the previous year and a half, people aren't a new species suddenly. You won't, I hope, pretend that menial jobs are either unimportant or non-existent. If you won't stick all the 14 year olds who want to leave school into them, who else will you condemn in their place?


How many 14 year olds have you actually employed or had working with you Spot? As I'd be Interested to know.

I however, have nearly 20 years experience of employing 14 year olds.

In my sales company of 42 branches, the set up was exactly the same. Each branch had a telephone canvassing room. Three shifts a day for three hours each ad 16 canvassers per shift. I recruited then, trained them and motivated them to make the leads for the salesmen.

Many, many marketing managers In the other branches through experience would not even consider taking on anyone under the age of 18.

I was one of very few who'd take them at 14 years old providing they had a NI number.

Over nearly 20 years, I recruited hundreds If not thousands of 14 year olds so I am In a position to speak from many years experience.

Any 14 year old coming Into the work enviroment had a completely different outlook to those older, even by just two years.

The last two years of school between 14 and 16 years old, by sitting exams etc, the child learns and understands a work ethic to prepare them for working for an employer. Take that away and kick them out at 14 years old, the child Is not equiped to suddenly go from school to the discipline of working for someone.

Kick them out at 14 years old and you are asking employers to baby sit a bunch of Immature kids... I know !!

Depending on how the rota's went for the week, I often found myself In charge of a bunch of 14 year olds which at times felt like I was a teacher with the class from hell.

My own methods of getting the kids to understand they were not In school and were there to work, was encouragement , praise and reward. Sometimes, however, It would take even the more mature kids a few months to grasp this. Some just never get It and you have to let them go before your profits suffer.

I also employed 16 year olds looking for work during the day while they sought other full time work and the difference between the two years was outstandingly noticable. They came In from the start with a discipline that quickly adapted to the work place....

Now tell me Spot... How many 14 year olds have you employed?

[spot]

oscar;1398300 wrote: How many 14 year olds have you actually employed or had working with you Spot? As I'd be Interested to know.Full time permanent employment at that age? It's illegal. I haven't raised the subject of holiday jobs. My grandad didn't have a holiday job. I, on the other hand, did have holiday jobs and seriously they bear no comparison at all to what I've suggested here, which is legally leaving school at 14 and taking up a permanent job.

As for attitude, it's a matter of expectation. My grandad didn't have the attitude you described and neither would today's youth under different education and employment laws. At the risk of repeating myself, we have not become a different species in a mere three generations.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398302 wrote: Full time permanent employment at that age? It's illegal. I haven't raised the subject of holiday jobs. My grandad didn't have a holiday job. I, on the other hand, did have holiday jobs and seriously they bear no comparison at all to what I've suggested here, which is legally leaving school at 14 and taking up a permanent job.

As for attitude, it's a matter of expectation. My grandad didn't have the attitude you described and neither would today's youth under different education and employment laws. At the risk of repeating myself, we have not become a different species in a mere three generations.


I didn't employ any 14 year old full time... we are talking about 3 hour shifts In the evenings after school.

So, what you're saying Is that you have had no experience what so ever of employing large amounts of 14 year olds.?

Further more, you have contradicted yourself.... You stated that school leaving age be reduced to 14 years old and now you're saying that 14 year old can not enter full time employment such as the local tip as you suggested because It's Illegal.

[spot]

I note that we disagree.

I fail to be surprised.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398305 wrote: I note that we disagree.

I fail to be surprised.


That's your failure to think anything through.

From October 2011, the pay structure for child labour was@:

Workers aged 21 - £6.08

the 18-20 rate - £4.98

the 16-17 rate - £3.68

Apprentice rate, – £2.60. for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship will increase to £2.60. An apprentice means the firm has to devote a certain time to training the worker. Traditionally apprentices get lower pay to compensate firm cost of training them.

So by your method of lowering the school leaving age to 14 years old, not only are you kicking out kids with no qualifications and work mindset, you would be looking at a major change In the law for anyone to employ a 14 year old full time. The cost of changing the legislation would run Into millions.

Then, If the pay structure was adjusted, those companies who do take on youngsters at the reduced rate of pay could tip them over the edge financially.

ETA.... Making the school leaving age to 14 and not changing the pay structure would lead to unscrupulous employers taking on a work force of kids full time and exploiting them for the lower wage.

How about one new school being built In densely populated area's where there Is a shortage of Infant school places?

[spot]

oscar;1398306 wrote: you would be looking at a major change In the law for anyone to employ a 14 year old full timeI'm glad you managed to work that detail out at last.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398307 wrote: I'm glad you managed to work that detail out at last. Don't try and use sarcasm Spot... Think abut the millions of pounds that change In the law would cost If your ridiculous Idea was put Into place.

Don't you think that simply building one extra school In densely populated area with school place shortages would counter-act future baby booms.

[Snooz]

Isn't unemployment a problem in the UK already? Imagine increasing the size of the workforce if they lowered the legal working age to 14.

[spot]

I reckon around one in ten 14 year old boys would actively want to leave school and work full time if the law allowed it. It's a guess, based on nothing, but it seems feasible. Somewhere between none and one in ten do, and it's not going to be none. At the moment it's illegal unless they jump through hoops to take in education as well, while (for example) performing on a film set as their full time employment, but that's not a route they can or want to take.

My concern isn't in reducing government or local expenditure while continuing to effectively imprison these reluctant pupils, it's to liberate the children. Whether they leave school two years earlier or not isn't going to change the type of job they end up doing, the streets still need sweeping and the roundabouts still need mowing and planting out.

To claim that keeping them in school for those extra two years is in their interest is, I suggest, not true for the majority. To claim that there's no economic benefit to the country is at least arguable, even during times of recession and especially so elsewhen.

[Oscar Namechange]

SnoozeAgain;1398310 wrote: Isn't unemployment a problem in the UK already? Imagine increasing the size of the workforce if they lowered the legal working age to 14.


Yes, Unemployment Is rising here.

Kicking children out of school at 14 years old would mean that those not lucky enough to get a job would be roaming the streets. Then the government would have to pay them some sort of benefit payment thus Increasing our national spend.

Unscrupulous employers would exploit the situation by hiring a child work force which would then make adult workers redundant.

But of course, Spot's got all that covered.

[spot]

oscar;1398312 wrote: Kicking children out of school at 14 years old
Where have I suggested it be obligatory?

[Betty Boop]

Just to throw a spanner in the works...

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | School leaving age set to be 18

poor buggers.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398313 wrote: Where have I suggested it be obligatory?


Posted by Spot

The obvious answer to that is to lower the minimum school leaving age to 14

[spot]

oscar;1398315 wrote: Posted by Spot

The obvious answer to that is to lower the minimum school leaving age to 14


Thank you. I wonder, would you tell us how to distinguish "minimum" from "maximum" please? And then point out where I have suggested that leaving school at 14 should be obligatory for anyone?

[Bryn Mawr]

SnoozeAgain;1398310 wrote: Isn't unemployment a problem in the UK already? Imagine increasing the size of the workforce if they lowered the legal working age to 14.


The whole issue is a political football due to past governments changing the school leaving age to adjust the unemployment figures in their favour without making more provision for additional schools or thinking through what to do with non-academic children who have no wish to continue at school.

Now we have problems with high truancy and disrupted lessons in overcrowded schools leading to falling academic standards etc.

Spot, in his usual way, is taking the solution one step beyond by going back to pre-WWII standards but it would be a perfectly acceptable solution to go back to the 1980 leaving age of sixteen and compensating for the additional workforce by re-introducing apprenticeships that were done away with when they upped the choold leaving age.

Not everyone is into book learning. That is not to say that they cannot learn but that they need a different environment in which to learn.

Instead of insisting on academic achievement we should be providing vocational training as an alternative.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398316 wrote: Thank you. I wonder, would you tell us how to distinguish "minimum" from "maximum" please? And then point out where I have suggested that leaving school at 14 should be obligatory for anyone?


Where have I said anything about maximum?

I've been discussing your post that stated lowering the minimum leaving age to 14 would be the answer Infant school places.

So If pupils had a choice of leaving school at 14, how many do you think bored with school would leave, find they couldn't get a job, become disallusioned, get Into mischief roaming the streets, miss the comradery of being In school along with the extra activities such as football and decide they want to go back to school after they have missed a vital year of fluent education.

How many more millions would It cost to country to put all that Into place?

[spot]

oscar;1398320 wrote: Where have I said anything about maximum?

I've been discussing your post that stated lowering the minimum leaving age to 14 would be the answer Infant school places.

So If pupils had a choice of leaving school at 14, how many do you think bored with school would leave, find they couldn't get a job, become disallusioned, get Into mischief roaming the streets, miss the comradery of being In school along with the extra activities such as football and decide they want to go back to school after they have missed a vital year of fluent education.

How many more millions would It cost to country to put all that Into place?


Ah.

So I haven't actually advocated "kicking children out of school at 14 years old" after all, then?

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398321 wrote: Ah.

So I haven't actually advocated "kicking children out of school at 14 years old" after all, then? Giving an bored 14 year old the option of quitting and roaming the streets with no job Is kicking them out.

Keeping them safe In school until such age where they are mature enough to deal with the work place and society In general Is the system we have now.

[spot]

oscar;1398322 wrote: Giving an bored 14 year old the option of quitting and roaming the streets with no job Is kicking them out. Ah.

Have you considered taking Remedial English at U3A?

I note that we disagree.

I fail to be surprised.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398324 wrote: Ah.

Have you considered taking Remedial English at U3A?

I note that we disagree.

I fail to be surprised.


Ah

Why don't you try answering my question. What happens when a disallusioned 14 year old finds he can't get a job and wants to go back to school after missing a years fluent education?

Who pays for this change In law? How do the schools cope with children dropping out at 14 and wanting to opt back In at 15 ?

[Snooz]

Betty Boop;1398314 wrote: Just to throw a spanner in the works...

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | School leaving age set to be 18

poor buggers.


That's the normal age here.

[Snooz]

Bryn Mawr;1398318 wrote: The whole issue is a political football due to past governments changing the school leaving age to adjust the unemployment figures in their favour without making more provision for additional schools or thinking through what to do with non-academic children who have no wish to continue at school.

Now we have problems with high truancy and disrupted lessons in overcrowded schools leading to falling academic standards etc.

Spot, in his usual way, is taking the solution one step beyond by going back to pre-WWII standards but it would be a perfectly acceptable solution to go back to the 1980 leaving age of sixteen and compensating for the additional workforce by re-introducing apprenticeships that were done away with when they upped the choold leaving age.

Not everyone is into book learning. That is not to say that they cannot learn but that they need a different environment in which to learn.

Instead of insisting on academic achievement we should be providing vocational training as an alternative.


I couldn't agree more.

[spot]

oscar;1398328 wrote: Ah

Why don't you try answering my question. What happens when a disallusioned 14 year old finds he can't get a job and wants to go back to school after missing a years fluent education?

Who pays for this change In law? How do the schools cope with children dropping out at 14 and wanting to opt back In at 15 ?


1. Exactly the same as currently happens when a disillusioned 16 year old finds he can't get a job and wants to go back to school after missing a years fluent education.

2. The taxpayer.

3. Exactly the way schools cope with children dropping out at 16 and wanting to opt back in at 17.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1398332 wrote: 1. Exactly the same as currently happens when a disillusioned 16 year old finds he can't get a job and wants to go back to school after missing a years fluent education.

2. The taxpayer.

3. Exactly the way schools cope with children dropping out at 16 and wanting to opt back in at 17.


Ah

How about building one new school In densely populated area's where there Is a shortage of Infant places?

[spot]

I'd rather commit a bit of justice if that's alright.