It was Sherlock Holmes who once famously said that what was so strange about the dog in the night time was that there wasn't one.

The same might be applied to the extension of the school ‘participation age' next month to 17, the fi rst time it has been raised since 1972, which is ploughing ahead admidst almost complete silence from the political world (apart from our own columnist John Healey in The MJ last week).

If you were to conduct a high-street vox pop you can bet there would be complete ignorance from the public that the school age was changing at all.  Even among the cognescenti until recently there was uncertainty about whether this particular Labour policy had been scrapped by the coalition or was still on target.

It is indeed on target, starting next term.  Anyone beginning year 11 then will have to stay on until he or she turns 17 in summer 2015 rather than leaving in summer 2014 at 16.  The participation age will increase again to 18 from autumn 2015.

Admittedly this is not quite the same as the leaving age in that 16-year olds can become apprentices or even be working full time, so long as they are also undertaking some form of part-time education or training.

Nonetheless the practical implications of this change are enormous.  A report last year from the Institute of Education warned of absenteeism among disgruntled 16-17 year olds and difficulties finding work or training.  There is also concern about a funding shortfall for local authorities having to track, engage and support extra students who are unwilling or unable to pursue post-16 education or training.

Furthermore, when the policy was first developed by the last government, a minority of schools were academies.  Now the programme has ballooned and many local authorities, whatever Sir Michael Wilshaw is urging, believe it is up to schools to manage their problems.

The timing is politically helpful, though the current government can hardly be blamed for this, in that youth unemployment figures should fall just before a general election from next summer as those 16-year olds that might have ended up on welfare now remain in education or find work.  The raising of the participation age, in its intention to reduce NEETS, has cross-party support.

The criticism, however, as John Healey noted in last week's MJ, will be that the change has been insufficiently planned and that cuts in careers advice services will jeopardise its laudable aims to prevent young people vegetating