Abstract

This paper problematises the official discourse of economic competitiveness and social inclusion used by the 2007 Education and Skills Bill to justify the proposal to extend compulsory participation in education and training in England to the age of 18. Comparisons are drawn between this attempt to raise the age of compulsion and previous attempts, which took place in a significantly different socio-economic context. It is argued that the needs of those most likely to be affected by the current proposal -- young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) -- are subordinated to the needs of an English economy that is increasingly based upon low-skill, low-pay work relations.