'Youngsters must stay in education until 18...'

Hey guys! For today's society dictates post, I'm going to be talking about how young people must remain in some form of education until they're 18. Saying that, it doesn't mean they have to suffer in classrooms for another 2 years after their academic school years. This could be anything! From Level 1-3 diplomas and more hands on learning, youngsters are having to find something to fill an extra two years which may encourage their futures. But what if you don't know what to do? How many will take what they consider to be the 'doss' and easier options...

For example, take the childcare courses at college. These courses are often slated for being easy and, often, people will go on this course as a last resort as they don't have any other option despite the fact the might not even want a career in childcare. What is the point? People see this course as an easy way out as it fills up the two years easily and gets them a good career at the end of it. Admittedly, the lower level courses are a lot easier than the higher level courses (the level 1 childcare course is a lot simpler than the level 3 course) but why waste your time if you're not interested?

Personally, I had no definite idea of what I wanted to do as a career at 16. I had a vague idea but I was never 100%. Schools and colleges expect you to know what you want to do straight away, but not many people do. Sure, they can find courses that they enjoy or that they might need for uni, but what if they discover what they want to do and it's too late?

A lot of people go onto the easier courses, such as childcare or hair and beauty, as it will get them a career a lot easier than some courses. What if they're not right for that work base though? Some people who take child care are being recognised for not being as 'academically challenged' as those on courses such as Biology or Psychology. Admittedly, there has been some evidence to support these claims as some settings have been noted for their worker's lack in spelling on display boards or being unable to help the children they work with. 

In any career, you need to be suitable for the job. If you don't like children or don't like being in a child-based environment, why take the course? At the end of the day, you are in that setting to help scaffold a child and their learning. Imagine what impact you have on them if you are unable to do the simplest of things, like spell simple words? That can easily affect them if they don't have the right role models. It's the same with any course. If you don't like cars, why do a motoring course? If you don't like working with elderly people, why do health and social care?

To sum it up, I think it's great that there are so many courses for these youngsters to do at different levels to suit their own ability. But why label some courses are being 'doss' and easy when you could impact someone else's future? You need to think how your actions could impacts someone else... 

For more on this story, check out the BBC News article here.