Kids Are Not Dumb - We Should Trust Them With Their Future

Voting at 16 is still a fairly extraordinary situation globally, with only eight countries globally (excluding British overseas territories from the count) allowing it. This week, I have been awash with experiences of dealing with kids, and it got me thinking about something that I first thought of when I volunteered in education in 2015. At that time, I was 17 and desperate to vote in the election, and whilst in hindsight, I would have voted for a party that aided and abetted the Conservatives in austerity, the right for me to have that vote would be no different than a far more seasoned voter. We trust that those elected will follow their manifestos. Whilst only eight countries have done so, the move to a more globally connected world means that kids are becoming more engaged in media and technology from an increasingly younger age. Kids have all the harmful effects of it, so they should at least get some benefit. Suffrage has been extended before, and there was an enormous amount of opposition to it. Just over 100 years ago, the right to vote was extended to women, and that right should now be extended to 16-18 year-olds. 

I understand that it is a perplexing prospect for your child who only just collected his GCSE results to be allowed to take part in the election of the next government. But I have been reminded of the thoughts I had back in 2015 just this week, when I was responsible for showing relatives from abroad around town, with two in the group being aged 15. The 15-year-olds, to my astonishment, had better knowledge of the political situation, both abroad and domestically, than many adults I know. One of those adults (another relative) frequently spouts anti-vaccine, racist and conspiratorial views, saying palpably false views that the whites are being replaced; as of the 2022 census the white population of the UK stood at 81.7% with 74% of that 81.7% being white British. I’m not denying that these people do not deserve a say in the democratic process of our country, however, they are doing it from a spot of misinformation, whilst our politicians are claiming that those under an arbitrary age lack the common sense and education to vote for our leaders. 

As ideas go, voting at 16 is a fairly inane and mundane issue to be against, considering the overall impact this group could make in the first place. Whilst their influence cannot be understated, we are an ageing population, and there are only 2.19 million in the 16-18 cohort, and only a fraction of this number would likely vote in the general election. Furthermore, the vote would not be concentrated in particular areas, given that 16-18 year olds would likely still be at colleges in their home towns rather than in university towns. 

What this plan requires, though, is proper civic education. A further subject should be added to the remit of PSHE (Personal, Social Health and Economic Education): the political. Politics is not a simple subject. Serious time would need to be invested. A Civic Education class encompassing Personal, Political, Social, Health and Economic information would include the basis of what our democratic system is as well as an embedding of core civic values. Education, Education, Education was a mantra of the former Blair administration, the most successful government in a generation, and it needs to become the mantra for the current Labour government. A proper civic education could make a world of difference not just to this generation but future generations, as anecdotally those I have spoken to in the past of my generation have a severe lack of education in this area, but crucially they want to know more about politics. 

The thirst for knowledge is an innate one. However, contrary to my own opinion, it is important to note the opposition that could be present for those who have not passed certain benchmarks, such as GCSEs, being granted the opportunity to vote. The pass rate for GCSEs in English and Maths this year is at its lowest in a decade, with around 30% of those who sat their GCSEs this year not passing these core subjects. There are fears the departments are already overstretched by a resit crisis. One could argue that the understanding of a large body of text such as a manifesto, to be properly informed, is not possible without the core grounding in English that a GCSE pass provides. This method, of course, has big flaws, as the exam room and the real world could hardly be further apart.

It also tests your seriousness on adult literacy and mathematics skills; will you require those who have previously failed maths and English to resit? If so, at what age do you cap the requirement to resit these exams? Indeed, this goal (of improving adult literacy and numeracy) was only set in 2015 by the then Conservative government overseen by Matt Hancock, the Minister for Skills and Enterprise at the time. Presumably, before this time, it was not deemed necessary or essential. Equally, andragogical education can include the teaching of functional skills, which can help alleviate concerns with English and Maths. But these qualifications are not necessary to vote, and it is important to understand the pressures on young people in society. These concerns are far greater than when I was 17, merely 11 years ago, and financial and economic inequality can play a profound role in overall attainment. These have only deepened. Votes for 16-year-olds will not likely ameliorate the issues facing the mainstream political parties of appealing to a broader base. Jeremy Corbyn’s new political outfit does not seek to help the mainstream parties either. We are increasingly seeing the departure from two-party politics, and so perhaps voting at 16 is the start of a realisation process for traditional politics. I’m not holding my breath on this prediction, it is a vain hope. A good education can aid political engagement, but can only take you so far, as I know, having a postgraduate education in my specialist subject. 

Image: Eliot Lord

Licence.