Education expert Professor Stephen Gorard, from Durham University, considers whether changing the law to ensure young people stay in education or training beyond the age of 16 is necessarily the best way to encourage a more equitable education for all.

HAVING abolished the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), which was intended to help young people from poorer families to stay on in education at the age of 16, the Government is presiding over a quiet revolution started by the previous Government in 2008.

From September 2013, all young people currently in their first year of secondary school in England must remain in education or training until the age of 17. Young people in primary school must remain in education until aged 18.

This is the most recent raising of the education leaving age in a long-term historical trend. In 1880, the school-leaving age was originally set at 10.

In 1893 it was raised to age 11, and then to 13 in 1899. In 1918 it was raised again to 14, then 15 in 1944, and 16 in 1972.

On each occasion the same three kinds of arguments were made for the increase in compulsory education.

It would protect young children from exploitation by employers, it would make the system fairer by increasing participation among the most disadvantaged families, and it would improve 'human capital' both for individuals and for the state.

The latter is apparently necessary to meet the demands of international competition and the nature of modern employment.

And on each occasion the same kind of opposition was voiced.

It was an erosion of liberty and choice, it would be expensive (extra staff and classrooms), and it was only being done in an attempt to improve the unemployment figures.

The latter point was particularly important in 1918 and 1944 with large numbers of conscripted service personnel suddenly released onto the job market.

It may also be a factor today with England still in the grip of an economic downturn.

Overall, is this revolution a good idea? What does the evidence suggest?

It is true that previous voluntary post-compulsory participation in England is heavily stratified by social class, ethnic origin, region, school type and prior attainment.

It has been this way for as long as records are available.

This is unfair and inefficient. It is also true that those who are more likely to stay on past age 16 - middle class, high achievers, fee-payers etc. - are also likely to earn more later and have better health and life outcomes.

The dispute is about whether this link is causal. Will making everyone stay on in education past the age of 16 cause them to earn more, and have generally better lives?

Or is this treating the symptom rather than the cause? We know from numerous studies that achievement at school by the age of 16 is stratified by the same factors such as class and ethnicity, and that higher achievers are more likely to stay on.

It would probably be better and relatively simple to remove the structural and other barriers in compulsory schooling that lead to the stratification of achievement in the first place.

This would mean more balanced intakes to schools, less diversity of schooling, and an entitlement for all - almost the exact opposite of current education policy.

Given that some young people already wish to leave school by the age of 14 or even earlier, raising the education leaving age to 18 may cause short-term resentment for those forced to stay on.

And this could lead to disruption for other students who would have wanted to stay on anyway. As with the prior achievement gap, it might be better to sort out why people want to leave school even before the age of 16 and try to solve that problem (if it is a problem), rather than just increase their 'sentence'.

We could then offer something like a 'voucher' guaranteeing the free extra years of education or training to the minority who might still want to move to work aged 16 and then change their mind later.

Of course, for the first time this new age for compulsory education does not just apply to school or college.

It includes apprenticeships, and those in part-time education or training while in full-time employment.

Full-time employment means more than 20 hours per week, including self-employment and even volunteer work.

It is hard to see how this could be policed.

The cost of enforcement will be added to the cost of the extra provision itself, plus the opportunity and other costs borne by the learners (without even their EMA to assist them).

The human capital advocates had better be right about the eventual payoffs, or this could be a lot pain and very little gain.

The evidence on the causes of unequal participation rates is reviewed in the forthcoming book by Professor Gorard entitled 'Overcoming Disadvantage in Education' which is published by Routledge.