Argument: Raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society's future

Doing so increases the economic potential of the future workforce, and so will bring increased tax revenues in the long term to more than cover any initial costs. Although some countries would experience a more dramatic change than others, it is worth noting that in many states a very large majority of young people voluntarily stay in education beyond the end of compulsory schooling (e.g. France, Germany and Japan). In the UK 84 per cent of pupils in year 10 stated that they had intentions to stay on in further education. [1] If these countries can already bear the extra cost without economic collapse, it should be possible for others to cope as well.

[1] Office for National Statistics. Social Trends. 2009, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Social_Trends39/Social_Trends_39.pdf , ch 3

Candidate 1: "The cost of extending the period of compulsory education is just too high. In many countries the number of students in the last two years of formal schooling would at least double, requiring a huge investment in teachers, books, new school buildings, computers, etc. And this is just the direct cost - there are also potentially enormous indirect losses to the state in terms of the taxes and pension contributions which it currently receives from young workers but would forego if the school-leaving age was raised."
Candidate 2: "UK statistics plainly show “There is no evidence that raising the minimum school leaving age made people who had not intended to leave at the minimum age raise their educational standard. This is consistent with the view that education raises productivity and not with the view that productive people get more education.” [1]

[1] Zhu, Y., &amp; Walker, I. Education, earnings and productivity: recent UK evidence, 2003, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/education_Mar..."
Candidate 3: "Practical Skills can be taught in school. Many school systems have vocational schools. For example the German system vocational schools, Berufsschulen, have been around since the 19th Century where students spent part of their time in vocational training in the school and part of their time as apprentices, these are attended until at least the age of 18. [1] It is possible for Schooling to be flexible while still continuing to 18.

[1] Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany London, ‘Education’, 2011, http://www.london.diplo.de/Vertretung/london/en/06/Study/Education__seit..."
Candidate 4: "This argument suggests that children whom Britain's state schools have failed to teach even to read and write should be compelled to stay at those schools for an extra two years. It will not suddenly bring new opportunities just because children are forced to sit in a classroom for longer.

This is absurd. It is re-enforcing failure. It is an idea according to which, if climbing a mountain on your hands and knees does not work, then you should be made to go on doing it. [1]

[1] Bartholomew, James, ‘Raising the school-leaving age would be crazy’, 2006, http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/archives/2006/12/raising_the_sch.php"
Candidate 5: "Unfortunately equality in the job market is unlikely to emerge simply because everyone now stays in school for the same amount of time. As noted above, not everyone will get the same out of school for being there the same time. Those who achieve the best exam results will still be the most employable, especially if they go into tertiary education before finding a job."
Candidate 6: "Leaving school early is not necessary. Simply in a few cases there is a need for more government intervention in order to make sure that everyone is able to afford to remain in school up to the age of 18. If children are unqualified at 16 then there is all the more reason to teach them the basics that they have failed to grasp for two more years. There could also be some exceptions as in the British system where there are exemptions for under-18s who are caring for parents or relatives, and for teenage mothers. [1]

[1] Browne, Anthony and Webster, Philip, ‘School leaving age goes up to 18’, 2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article1292132..."

The cost of extending the period of compulsory education is just too high. In many countries the number of students in the last two years of formal schooling would at least double, requiring a huge investment in teachers, books, new school buildings, computers, etc. And this is just the direct cost - there are also potentially enormous indirect losses to the state in terms of the taxes and pension contributions which it currently receives from young workers but would forego if the school-leaving age was raised.
