Comments on: Christmas Leavers

By: Norman Roxburgh

Norman Roxburgh — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:26:33 +0000

I agree with these concerns.
I suppose there is a problem with the age when young people can enter employment. It would not be sufficient to say that they could enter employment when they had completed four years at school.
Regarding the suggestion that the youngest pupils might have disadvantages in education, I am sure that is true. In the early years at Primary school, a year difference in age must be very significant for 4 and 5 year old children. No doubt some disadvantages continue to the other stages of development.
Could this affect boys more than girls. Girls are now well ahead of boys at all stages. Should boys start school a year after girls?? Do we cause some learning problems by trying to get the boys (in particular) to learn things too soon?

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:28:26 +0000

Perennial problem! My first year of teaching in Edinburgh 20-odd years ago meant I was “entrusted” with 2 different groups of S4 leavers, and the relative freedom to “tailor the curriculum” to their needs (there’s an idea!!) was balanced by the reality that they didnae really care although I’m convinced they were more polite and better humoured than my last class last month..

We’ve tried college links, extended work placements and a huge variety of vocationally-based courses. While it would be wrong to generalise and say they were all the same, (many students are perfectly reasonable, and some are very needy and I worry about their ability to handle life after school), but some become totally disillusioned with the compulsory education and maybe authority in general. Would this disaffection spread if we LOWERED the leaving age? I mean are they already so anti-authority?

I’m up for a comparative study to California or New Zealand, or the Caribbean. How do these enlightened countries manage this issue?

By: Dorothy

Dorothy — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:07:37 +0000

Don’t you think that the problem begins as Eilidh Brown begins to indicate, when we happily encourage parents to send children who are barely 3 (and sometimes are not even that) into the pre-school environment?

By: Don Ledingham

Don Ledingham — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:49:32 +0000

Thanks to all who have commented. I think I’ll make this topic my next article for TESS and will use (anonymously) many of your comments to shape the piece - if that’s OK with you?

By: Jane Peterson

Jane Peterson — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:49:48 +0000

Folk who’ve studied the Kindergarten system abroad would argue that 5 years old is too young to start full-time formal education anyway. In my opinion we would be better providing nursery-style education for longer. I think the stumbling block is the difference in hours between nursery and P1, which would have to be sorted out. I can see an outcry from working parents if P1 became a shorter school day.
On the subject of secondary, I went to school in England and so I can’t understand why Highers are taught in just one year. We all did 2 years for A-level, so there was a bit more time for us to cope with all those adolescent problems as well (aaargh!)

By: Eilidh Brown

Eilidh Brown — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:16:16 +0000

We have in place a system that does not always appear to support parental wishes to retain there child for an additional year in pre-school ” If a child is born in January or February is entitled to an additional year in Nursery, it should not be seen as automatically the best way forward for the child.” This could be read, “even if you want to retain your child don’t assume that the local authority/school willl support this.” I would argue that if a parent feels strongly that there child should be retained in Nursery then they should be allowed to allow this to happen regardless of the opinion and view of the school, after all they have an entitlement to an additional year. Local Authorities have continues discretion over children with birthdays between Autumn and 31st January if their parentrs wish to defer them. I have 2 boys who fall into both sides of this and this issue is there from day one. My suggestion is that parents should be able to defer if they wish.

By: Brian Cunningham

Brian Cunningham — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:24:52 +0000

Having being born on the 28th of Feb I was never really aware that there was a difference between myself and my classmates. I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to stay on after s4 to attempt five highers. Soon after I returned from the summer holidays circumstances dictated my departure from school. It was only at this point I was informed that I would have to stay on to Christmas.
The outcome; I simply stopped going to school. No social workers in those days to knock on the door. When the education authority did catch up with me they found I was working full time and studying for my highers at night school at the same time and therefore took no action.
I have since then never really understood why pupils arent allowed to leave on the actual day of after their sixteenth birthday., but then again i may be missing something.

By: Janet McDougall Welch

Janet McDougall Welch — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:24:06 +0000

I have recently been discussing this very issue with some fellow parents of 4 year old boys labouring over the decision to start them in school this year or to hold off. My advice has always been to wait.

I have for many years maintained that boys who start school at 4 seem to suffer in Standard Grade. Those that have not yet matured have a lost, sort of ‘left behind’ feel about them in 4th year. While their classmates move on some of these boys lose interest and focus and end up turning into ‘Christmas Leavers’.

I wonder if any research has been done into this?

By: Ronnie Summers

Ronnie Summers — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:41 +0000

I think you strike a chord with many people on this one, Don. For me, there’s a simple solution - complete 11 years of full-time education and you are free to leave at the end of your S4 year. I think a lot of difficulties boys have with reading can be traced back to P1 and am absolutely in favour of a less formal curriculum for early years.

Craig’s point about early presentation at S3 is interesting - I did wonder that if you had a set of formal qualifications at the end of S3 but had to stay on until the end of S4 if it would actually encourage the staying on rate from the point of view that ” you’ve covered over 50% of the course why not finish it?” I certainly think a two year Higher course would suit far more children - less pace, more reinforcement of difficult concepts, more room for staff and pupils to go off at relevant tangents - two term dash becomes five term progress.

By: Craig Stebbing

Craig Stebbing — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:47:27 +0000

There is of course another serious problem not mentioned here that is associated with the statutory school leaving date. Some have mentioned “disenchanted young people” having to stay on for four months after sitting exams. We also have young people in crisis who are also eligible to leave in the December of their fourth year if the started school at the age of 5.5. These young people essentially can and do leave without ever sitting exams. Maybe young people should have to stay at school for a minimum number of years, rather than being allowed to leave on a certain date.

I mentioned another thing I have been pondering recently to Don when he visited ELIS yesterday and wondered if anyone had any views on the subject. One of the problems I encountered as a teacher with “Christmas leavers” is the fact that some felt they had sat their exams and didn’t see any point in staying on as they already had their grades. I am aware that some East Lothian Schools have S3 pupils sitting exams. Do these schools find the “Christmas Leaver” issue rearing its head for more pupils but in their fourth year rather than their fifth year of school. Unfortunately it’s not 4 months but 1 year and 4 months for some until they leave?