Chris Northover PHOTO/FILE
When I was getting ready to leave school at the tender age of 16, I had three jobs on offer in my home town of Marton, but I enjoyed the extravagance of turning them down for a better offer in Auckland.
Those were the days, huh? The luxury of choice, so rarely enjoyed today.
The global economy has changed, but something far more sinister has emerged. Over 50 per cent of our kids starting school this year will not get an education tailored to them; they will not reach their potential at school; and so will not reach their optimum in the workplace. They are called "boys."
It has long been a concern that boys have fallen behind in academic rankings - they just don't seem to be able to foot it with the more academically inclined female students.
The authorities have largely just shrugged their shoulders and said they are doing their best to deal with the problem. But results prove that they clearly are not.
The acid test is to go to any larger regional airport and take a count of the well-dressed, important-looking, slightly smug young executives on their way to change the world.
Fifteen or 20 years ago they would have been mostly young men with a smattering of young women, usually from government agencies. Now it is likely to be all young women with a few older men still surviving in the more senior roles.
There has been a total turnaround in the job market and, while it is right to give women a fair chance at employment, surely this "petticoat ceiling" is beyond the wildest dreams of all but the most strident and single-minded of feminists.
Could this have something to do with the education being given to boys?
Some teachers I know claim there has been a fierce feminisation of the education system - to the extent that our schools can now be seen as a service by girls for girls, with a few male teachers brought in to teach areas traditionally not excelled in by women. Girls are revelling in this environment, with boys being just a boisterous distraction in class.
Certainly boys are far more physical and get bored easily. Their need to learn about computers and engines and rockets and guns doesn't suit their teachers, who are largely arts graduates and, by definition, aren't interested in such things and have difficulty relating to someone that is.
A boy will give one of his mates a playful kick in the pants and be quickly exiled as a "little animal" by his teacher - and, in effect, be made to apologise for being a boy.
There has clearly been a groundswell of change in the education of our children. Decisions made to do things differently - to institute a whole new philosophy in education and to throw out the old and produce a different product.
A change such as this one doesn't just happen. It usually comes about through many hours of policy work and consultation: with Green Papers, White Papers, expert committees, or even Royal Inquiries. Then ultimately, a decision.
Do you remember this change being put to the vote? I don't remember voting, either for or against it. I certainly don't remember it even being discussed during its formulation.
Some changes are not decided in this manner. They happen slowly through development of ideas, with new methods found to work better, or to be cheaper or generally more efficacious.
But such changes are lorded by the proud inventors and publicised as triumphs - not arranged in secret rooms as this one has.