A Waltham principal worries it’ll be an unfunded mandate.
“To put another burden on local communities and towns without funding is unfair,” Graceffa said. “How can we add new programs? Let’s be realistic.”
In today’s Globe, Yvonne Abraham says deal with teen moms.
For about a quarter of dropouts, it’s a little simpler: They leave school because they’re having children. And the girls who are already mothers need someone to care for their babies while they go to school.
That’s obvious to Beth Anderson. Her Phoenix Charter Academy, on the Chelsea-Everett line, specializes in working with the dropouts who have state officials wringing their hands.
Sixteen of her 180 students are pregnant or parenting. They get the same intensive teaching and counseling as everybody else, and are held to the same standards: They can’t graduate without a college acceptance letter. They also get on-site day care.
I know Beth and 2 teachers at her school. Young moms are often unusually GOOD students if day care is provided. That population is “low-hanging fruit” in that so many go through a gigantic shift in self-efficacy once they become moms.
The nuttiest idea on dropouts was in the Washington Post last year.
Some crazy guy wanted to let kids drop out at 16, but hold the $10,000 to $15,000 per year for his schooling like an IRA, with his name on it, that he could use a few years later to return to school.
Luckily, this is the perfect issue for BMG. Rennie Center found there’s really not any reliable research on whether raising the age, in net, works.
(Not that studies contrary to our opinion stop us BMGers anyway from commenting).
So what do you think?
In my school, a student who is actively withdrawing must get signatures from all of his/her teachers. I’ll tell you, that’s an awful paper to sign. In these cases, the students generally have attendance issues that preclude graduation. One student last year, a bright boy with serious tardy and attendance issues, dropped out but had already signed up to take his GED exam. I made him promise to write me and let me know how he did. He actually followed up and wrote me that he passed with flying colors. He’s now at a local community college.
<
p>The other scenario is the passive dropout, the kid who doesn’t bother to officially withdraw. That kid just doesn’t come to school. Those kids must stay on the enrollment roster for a period of time before we can actually consider them withdrawn. Not a whole lot can be done, though, as there are no resources dedicated to forcing high school kids to go to school. In any case, even if that kid DID come back to school, the absences would result in loss of credit anyway, so the kid still can’t graduate.
<
p>The attendance policies have a lot to do with where these kids end up. Mandatory attendance is required by law, and high schools must have an attendance policy that reflects this law. Kids cannot get credit for classes they don’t minimally attend–even if they are bright enough to do the work and pass anyway. Our school has a loss of credit review board (I sat on it last year) which listens to appeals from kids themselves who have lost a quarter’s credit due to tardies and absences. Sometimes we generate contracts for those kids that essentially states that their credits will be restored if they a) come to school on time more regularly and b) keep their absences to the allowed four unexcused. That has worked pretty well and has enabled to save a few kids from themselves and their circumstances.
<
p>On the bright side, we don’t have the pregnancy issues noted above. In fact, I’m not aware of a single pregnant girl in the school at this time. We usually get one or two a year, that’s all.
<
p>I don’t really think raising the age will do anything except create a hassle. Better to provide resources to schools with serious dropout issues with the age where it is than create a monster no one will be able to enforce or manage.
On the fact of the matter, I doubt there are too many people in teaching who think it’s a good idea for somebody to foresake two years of basic education. For that reason, first-glance reaction is to support raising the truancy age to 18.
<
p>However, as as is mentioned, it opens up a whole host of challenges. Accommodating pregnant teens and young mothers. Handling behavioral issues from 17 year olds who don’t want to be there. Chasing them down for attendance reasons, and adding many CHiINS (child in need of services) cases to our strained justice system. Not to mention the dozens of high schools that would suddenly be declared failing because their test averages are no longer lightened by getting low-scoring dropouts off the books.
<
p>This is not to say that changing the dropout age is a bad idea. Rather, it will clearly have extensive reprecussions on high schools around the state — frankly, by giving them many of the problems that middle schools deal with every day already. Given that much of Massachusetts’ education policy over the last several years has been based on politicians’ whims, there’s reason to be nervous. I can imagine a Deval Patrick or Charlie Baker changing the dropout age at a campaign event and grabbing several headlines in the process, and leaving school systems on their own to deal with the fallout.
Satutai’s post is on targer. All this would do is exhaust truan cy prevention and court resources unless housing and mental health supports and daycare [etc.] are funded with such a mandate.
to help the homelss teens we both care about. On Thursday The Governor will announce some additional cuts in DPH prevention programs including tobacco control, youth violence prevention and substance abuse programs.
<
p>Have you called the Governor yet and tell him he could find some new revenue sources in the tax expenditure budget?
Yeah, I called. I will write too but I am not at all sure doing THAT makes any difference at all – no response to letters other than one staffer call last year.
for $500,000 and the family intervention and care program for $150,000,000 and the substance abuse step down program for almost 2,000,000 and finally cuts the last 1,000,000 that funds the growth and nutrition clinics that serves 1340 severly underweight children and creates a wait list for WIC………….
<
p>all on the list to be announced Thursday.
<
p>unless the Governor finds some money elsewhere in the budget — like ………….or finds some revenue sources.
<
p>
for $500,000 and the family intervention and care program for $150,000,000 and the substance abuse step down program for almost 2,000,000 and finally cuts the last 1,000,000 that funds the growth and nutrition clinics that serves 1340 severly underweight children and creates a wait list for WIC………….
<
p>all on the list to be announced Thursday.
<
p>unless the Governor finds some money elsewhere in the budget — like ………….or finds some revenue sources.
<
p>
Another reason I think this is a bad idea is the impact on the rest of the students.
<
p>Teachers and staff are already over-burdened, and this can only make things worse — and surely it is the comparatively well-behaved students who will suffer. Boys and girls who need help to keep up, and will get less of it. Boys and girls who will experience more bullying, teasing, and ridicule for being “too smart”. Teachers and staff for whom this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back — hurting the many students they do so much for.
<
p>I feel that society has an obligation to do everything possible to insure that anyone who wants to attend school can do so. I think that forcing school attendance on young men and women who do not want to be there is bad idea, at least until we are able to provide adequately for the needs of those students who do want to be there.
<
p>
…is if attendance policy is enforceable at 14 or 15, why is it all of a sudden not at 16 or 17? I’m also concerned that this is one of those things where if we don’t do this right for teenagers we just end up paying more in both money and social ills down the road. It will be a tough transition no doubt, but with opportunities so limited these days without a diploma it seems it will be worth every effort and penny.
Do you really think DFS is getting involved when a freshman or a sophomore has poor attendance? I’ll tell you something: they’re not. Hell, we’ve got boys who are responsible for feeding and caring for their younger siblings–at the age of 15. DFS is in the home, but they’re concerned about the little ones, not the 15-year-old boy. As I said in another post, DFS or the courts are not interested in kids this age. Filing a CHINS or dropping a 51A call are not going to get teenagers in high school help. The limited time and resources available are focused on younger children, grades 8 and below.
<
p>Of course we want kids to stay in school, but a kid who cannot graduate has no incentive to stay in school. And I hope I don’t need to tell you what follows when a kid is in school who sincerely, and I mean sincerely, does not want to be there.
<
p>Some of these kids will simply be late bloomers; some will rue the day they didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t concentrate on their school work. Some of them will vent their anger in antisocial ways. Some will have learned the hard way.
Getting kids hooked up with a GED as soon as possible is critical in helping kids who drop out due to attendance/credit loss issues.
…to whatever extent it’s enforceable earlier, though I take your point that that aspect may need work as well. I’m not terribly sympathetic to the idea that some might not want to be there. I’m not saying that’s not true, but I’ve substitute taught at the elementary level and some of them don’t want to be there either and we don’t just wash our hands of them. We’re probably closer to agreement than it sounds. Basically for the things that you are saying are not the case I am saying such things SHOULD be the case and we need to get to that point. We need to address the reasons for kids not wanting to be in school rather than just give up, but it does take that proverbial village and everyone needs to step up.
Our laws only allow court truancy actions to be filed with regard to kids up to age 16.
<
p>Our laws do not allow the court to send out six burly guys with ropes to tie up a kid and take them to school, either.
<
p>I disagree with Lightiris though – if school is working for a kid, that kid WANTs to be in school. If the kid has no clean clothes – they are probably too embarassed to go.
<
p>If the kid has been passed year by year without learning, after a while, they are so lost and behind they are to embarassed to go to school, so they quit. I saw a lot of that as a GAL, and not just in Boston – in fancy suburbs as well.
<
p>If a kid is a “Cindarella” and the real housekeeper, they are home taking care of toddlers for a parent.
<
p>But if school is working, compared to some homes, school is cleaner, safer, and the kid’s friends are there.
<
p>Christopher, how do you “make” a kid – esp. a kid without functioning parents, go to school? The kid needs to want to go to school because being in school is better than not being in school. Right, Sabutai?
<
p>What does that mean? I don’t think I’ve stated anything that would suggest the opposite. I did say that kids sometimes have overriding reasons why they don’t meet the minimum attendance requirements–which, btw, has nothing to do with truancy–but they do like school. And, candidly, I don’t know of anyone hauling kids through courts. Not in my neck of the woods.
<
p>Not meeting the minimum attendance requirements means that even though you may have a B in that class and you generally like school, you will not get credit for the class. And you are not truant. And that is a common and serious problem.
You are correct even if a kid has good grades and does their homework, schools flunk kids on attendance issues.
<
p>Probably we agree more than we disagree – I hope we talk in person on this topic at some point.
It would be fun talk about these issue more full in person some day. I hope we get an opportunity, too.
“Our laws only allow court truancy actions to be filed with regard to kids up to age 16.”
<
p>I am advocating a change in the law that raises the number in that sentence to 18. I very much agree about the school working leading to the kid wanting to be there. I think everyone agrees that is what the goal is; at least I hope so.
but this statement:
<
p>
<
p>is revealing.
<
p>There is absolutely no valid comparison between an elementary school student and a high school student. None whatsoever. And creating some sort of equivalency between the two is simply silly.
I should probably also caution you against reading more into that line in terms of a comparison. All I meant was that not wanting to be somewhere is hardly a reason to simply let them go.
wanting to be there. When a high school student doesn’t want to come to school, s/he generally understands the cost of acting on that impulse. And there can be a lot of reasons underlying their desire to be someplace else. I don’t think anyone is suggesting we “simply let them go.” Certainly not I. I voted for more than a dozen attendance contracts last year in an effort to give kids a reason to stay in school. There’s a fine line between saving a kid from him or herself and enabling irresponsibility. Each story is unique.
<
p>That said, I think it’s important to understand why bright kids don’t come to school. Sometimes a parent is sick, neurotic, needy, and depends on the adolescent for emotional support. We have a lot of those kids. The parent actually undermines the value of school so that the teen stays home. These kids are torn; they know they should be in school but they also are worried about what’s going on at home. They have the parent’s persmission not to go. They love the parent and feel responsible for taking care of him or her. These students generally far exceed the minimum number of allowed unexcused absences. These are the kids at risk we see. The parent asks the student to stay home from school when the parent is having a “tough time.” That’s what I mean when I say truancy is not the issue.
<
p>I had a student last year who only came to school roughly two days a week. Naturally, he didn’t have enough credits to graduate, and, of course he didn’t. He came for a little socializing. The parents were out of their minds, but there was nothing, really, anybody could do. You see, the kid was always “sick”–sore throats, fevers, aches, pains, nausea, you name it. The kids used to joke when I called out the kid’s name for class attendance. Sometimes they’d say he’s home trimming his beard or it’s Wednesday, his shows are on…. You get the idea.
<
p>
I wonder if there is some way to regulate and formalize the arrangements you refer to above. In other words, could we create a procedure whereby the student in question (or advocate on said student’s behalf) can petition either a designated school-district official or a family court judge to allow the student to not attend school based on the merits of a particular case and instead receiving in-home tutoring paid for by the district? Yes, this means more money, but I firmly believe that ultimately it is lack of a formal education is what is really expensive, both for the individual and society, while getting an education is priceless.
Another blue ribbon committee of the usual types of suspects?! I checked out the report, and I noticed that no research (and I can tell that you that there is a boatload on drop outs) was cited. I’d love to think that this esteemed committee read some research before suggesting upping the mandatory age for dropping out.
<
p>I teach in a school where dropping out isn’t a huge problem, though I had two girls drop out of my tenth grade class a month ago. Without having read much of the research on dropping out, I’ll say that the plan to raise the drop out age from 16 to 18 sounds stupid.
<
p>First, consider the penalty of breaking the law. Do we punish students, parents/guardians, or schools? How will they be punished?
<
p>Second, school isn’t working for the dropouts I’ve known. Most of the dropouts I’m acquainted with are involved in drugs and on their way to some sort of addiction. Forcing them to stay in school won’t make it suddenly work them.
<
p>Third, many of the dropouts I know were behavior problems in school. Forcing them to stay in school would preserve those problems, if not exacerbate them.
<
p>Fourth, dropouts can return to school until they are 21. So the opportunity is there if they should happen to change their minds.
<
p>And if money and programming will be made available, and are presumed effective, why do we need to increase the age to 18?
<
p>
Have to agree with the process behind most of the “no” votes among the comments.
<
p>I don’t accept the premise that raising the age will help teenagers in the long run. If someone has learned to “check out” from school, most likely it didn’t happen over night. Most of these students have been disengaged from school for many years.
<
p>What really needs to happen is a concerted effort from all sides. Schools, elected officials, parents AND students need to all put forth the effort to keep these students from wanting to drop out. I’d imagine that some cannot be reached, but the levels are not nearly as high as the drop out rate.
establishment admitting that there’s more to education than what happens in high school.
The educational establishment admits every day that there’s more to education than what happens in high school.
No need to stuff strawmen right in front of us.
but the educational establishment admits to out of school factors when? When it labels schools, rather than communities, as underperforming or failing? When it publishes MCAS scores as the sole criteria of effectiveness?
<
p>I may be a teacher, but I’m not part of the educational establishment. That’s for all those eastern Massachusetts college presidents, bureaucrats, politicians, and business people who appointed to set educational policy in Massachusetts. Straw men? We have them as policy-makers.
I always assumed that a cornerstone of progressivism was that by hook or crook we would get to the point where everyone had a basic education. If there was one thing the Founders agreed upon it was the importance of an educated citizenry to an enlightened and democratic society. We will ALL be better off if everyone had at least a high school diploma. I agree with your last paragraph, but overall I find myself more disheartened than I have been in awhile over the direction of a BMG discussion.
Hearing any group of professionals in a field talking specifics and pragmatics can be really disheartening. I have a close family member who is a cleric, and talks often about the shock and disappointment people feel when they start working in a religious organization and learn that their co-workers are in the end, well, people. The man so peaceful and noble in a robe turns into a jerk if they come out to an empty coffeepot. One thing that happens here at BMG is a group of us voluble teaching types who (too?) often speak frankly about what they see in schools. A lot of it is stuff that a lot of people try hard to keep swept under the rug.
<
p>Personally, the main reason I keep a pseudonym is that school administration wouldn’t like me saying some of what I say on here. Such as the fact that several schools in this Commonwealth are treading on DESE protocols by remaining open with 20-30% absentee rates at the moment. (What, you thought Grafton High was the only one facing widespread swine flu/hysteria? Ha!)
<
p>To name a parallel, imagine if we had a lot of nurses and doctors on BMG talking health care, I’d come away really depressed about the state of our system. Heaven knows AnnEM depresses me often enough on her occasional posts.
<
p>I am gravely worried that these conversations affect others’ images of the hardworking teachers that are my colleagues every day. However, I think that is outweighed by contributing to one of the few serious and honest conversations about education that many visiting non-teaching types will see.
<
p>My practicality should be buffered by others’ idealism to keep me from turning into a naysayer. Just as pure idealism fades as a substitute for any serious political discourse actually exists on education. (Note how the only mention in the Senate debate was Pags bringing it up in a closing statement).
<
p>I daresay every single teacher on this thread wants everyone to have a high school diploma. However, based on what many of us see regularly, legally declaring school attendance a law isn’t the way it’s really going to happen. Politicians don’t know that, and if they don’t they almost never have the guts to admit it. And finally, given the long list of “reforms” thrown at schools with no training, funding, organization, or thought, many of us hear this latest campaign-idea-cum-reform, and it will be much the same vein.
<
p>I hope this doesn’t come off as elitist or overly myopic.
…that I don’t want to hear a teacher’s perspective when it comes to matters of education. Nothing can be further from the truth. I absolutely want to hear about how things are, but once we’ve laid that groundwork, the discussion must then move toward how to improve. As RFK said at each campaign stop (quoting George Bernard Shaw I believe), “Some look at things as they are and ask why; I dream things as they never were and ask why not.”
After 35 years in this biz, the very thought that a 17 year old disaffected youth will think “but, geez, I HAVE to go to school because they passed a law. And I suppose if I am there, I might as well take that high level calculus course!” make me laugh. Ruefully, for sure; but laugh nonetheless.
I reject your implicit assumption that opposition to this proposal means opposition to assuring that everyone is offered a basic education.
<
p>Even the proponents seem to agree that this proposal is counterproductive without investing more in the education system that it would further strain. In a time of severe fiscal constraints, I suggest that our extraordinarily limited resources are better invested in improving the education that every Massachusetts resident is offered than in attempting to mandate and enforce attendance of reluctant 16-18 year olds.
…that such a mandate should probably come with additional programs and funding, etc. I will push back, however, on your use of the term “offered”. That makes it sound like education is a nice-to-have thing that only impacts the individual. I fundamentally believe that education is not only an individual right, but just as much a societal obligation. In this day and age there are precious few jobs, and I can’t think of any real careers, that don’t require a diploma, and most of those are low wage. Even with just a diploma and no college degree your options are limited. My concern is that people who do not get a diploma will become even more of a burden to society later on than they would be if they were kept in school even if reluctantly.
There is a middle ground between “nice-to-have” and coerced.
<
p>In my view, “offered” means “realistically available.” Good teachers, safe and healthy physical environment, all resources that are needed, etc.
<
p>I argue that the resources needed to coerce a reluctant 17 year old are better spent improving the education of his or her wiser peers. I see it as a comparison between the marginal gain society reaps from the two.
<
p>We already invest enormous resources in our prison system. We should not, in my opinion, make our public schools an extension of it.
You’re close to advocating that some kids get left behind.
“I argue that the resources needed to coerce a reluctant 17 year old are better spent improving the education of his or her wiser peers. I see it as a comparison between the marginal gain society reaps from the two.”
<
p>Bottom-line thinking doesn’t play well among public schoolers. On the one hand, I never give up on a kid, and I want every day to OFFER that kid an education that is not merely good for government decision-makers, but empirically and meaningfully good in the kid’s own opinion. But I realize we DON’T offer every kid a fabulous opportunity, or the kid’s life doesn’t allow them to take up, or even recognize a fabulous opportunity. I just don’t see how forcing the kid, to the pathetic extent that would work (not much) adds at all to societal or that kid’s benefit.
<
p>You can lead a kid to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.
we’ll always have a macro system where this happens. There’s positive correlation between school performance and parental income. Parents make more money, move to a “good schools” community despite the higher real estate prices and taxes, and then fund better school for their kids.
<
p>In the macro sense, we’re already offering more resources for the kids who are more focused on learning, and offering fewer resources for the kids who aren’t. The philosophical problem with this is that it reinforces the medieval European class system — to whom you were born dictated your lot in life, not abilities, talents, or hard work. How do we ensure that all the best kids get access, not just the kids whose parents are willing and able to live in high-school-tax communities?
My original comment in this thread was (emphasis added here):
<
p>Christopher took issue with my posture of “offer” — Christopher argues that this should be coerced.
<
p>How do you possibly read my comments as “close to advocating that some kids get left behind”? I strongly advocate investing in public education. I think that attempting to strong-arm 16-18 year-old would-be drop-outs is wrong.
<
p>Let me be as specific as I can:
The costs of ENFORCING mandatory attendance would be better spent improving the schools in question.
<
p>Are you really asserting that anything short of COERCED attendance is “leaving some kids behind”?
Your last line is interesting. I’m arguing that if we fund school resources and get more people to graduate, we’ll have less need for prison space down the road. You know the saying: “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” This is exactly why every effort, including legal requirements, should be brought to bear on keeping kids in school. We risk spending more on such people on, if not prison in every case, government assistance down the road.
I am not arguing that education is too expensive.
<
p>I am arguing that attempting to enforce coerced attendance is boneheaded. Our court system is already bursting at the seams from too much reliance on enforcement, mandatory minimums, extreme sentences for minor infractions (such as the marijuana possession laws), and so on.
<
p>I think that every dollar you spend on court costs and all the rest in enforcing this misguided idea would be far better spent in the school.
…the enforcement side of this equation is worth every penny IMO.
What does enforcement accomplish, Christopher? I don’t understand your unwillingness to acknowledge the complexity of this issue.
<
p>Moreover, what does enforcement look like? Do you really believe that hiring more police simply to track down truants–those who skip without parental permission–is the best use of police?
<
p>Would you support laying off teachers in order to hire renta-a-truant-officer types who do nothing but drive around all day?
<
p>Would you really want to force a child to run away rather than face the hassle of being strong-armed into school?
<
p>Do you really think a 17-year-old is going to learn anything under these conditions except to HATE education and to view school as a prison?
<
p>Do you really think that putting a student at a desk means they’ll do ANY WORK WHATSOEVER? Here’s what they do. They put their heads down and ignore any direction to work.
<
p>Teenagers are people. They have choices and can refuse to do things. Strongarming kids into a school building and guarding them so they don’t leave is preposterous. You’re going to make some of them very angry. You are going to make the kids who are there to learn very angry, too, about the disruption these students cause.
<
p>Very angry teenagers can do bad things.
<
p>
The law currently says that as long as you’re 15 you must be in school, but the day you turn 16 it’s no longer practical? Sorry, just not buying it. I never said it won’t take more resources. To me the 16 cutoff is like the current 6-hour day, 180-day-year, a relic of a bygone era that is long past time to update to meet the current needs of society and a factor in why we don’t measure up to other advanced countries. School districts already have truant officers; they may just get a handful more kids to track down.
<
p>I’ve made other suggestions in various comments as to how to accomodate various extenuating circumstances. In an earlier comment I used words like disappointed and dismayed and it was exactly the pessimism attitude you have had that I was talking about. I am completely convinced that we can and must do better if we put our minds to it. I also think that in some cases a change in law will be all it takes for some kids if the option of dropping out is taken away.
<
p>It will no doubt be tough for the first generation that can’t drop out to work full time to help support the family, but the short term pain will be worth the long term gain, so that they can get a good career and the next generation won’t feel the need to drop out.
LOL. They most certainly do not. Large urban districts might, but the rest of us, no way. In all my years of teaching I’ve never encountered a single district with a truant officer.
<
p>We’re not going to reach any common ground here, I see, but I do appreciate having had the discussion. Thanks.
I believe the suburban district I both grew up in and substitute taught in has one, so I guess I did jump to the conclusion that such was common. This may be a position to consider pooling resources among contiguous small towns even if the school district itself isn’t regional.
herein lies the reality. Educators want to save people from themselves; it’s their nature. We are also, however, trained in making data-driven decisions as well as in making judgments about human nature. We all agree that a basic education is an intrinsic requirement of a functional democracy; however, on an individual basis, there are some adolescents and young adults who are not ready–for a host of reasons–to participate in their own education. There’s only so much we can do and there is certainly only so much the student can do once s/he has passed the point of no return, i.e., no diploma.
<
p>How about you convert your sincere disappointment into something that might help you feel better and do some good? You’re trained, I believe (?), as a teacher, no? Perhaps you might volunteer at an adult ed center where young people are studying for their GED or tutor a kid at a library who needs help keeping afloat?
<
p>High school is a complicated place and time. Sometimes we can fish and sometimes we have to cut bait. And those are the times teaching really is tremendously emotionally difficult.
that education is a cornerstone of progressivism (or more precisely, liberalism), but there’s nothing like a quick fix through education. Unfortunately, liberalism/progressivism generally ends with idealizing education as a panacea. Progressivism is also about acknowledging communities and individual differences. Our education system is still a one-size fits all system, and when it doesn’t fit a kid, they sometimes leave. Our American system is geared to progressivism, though compared to the rest of the world it’s much better.
<
p>The processes of learning and teaching are extraordinarily complex. They aren’t necessarily hard to do, but seriously difficult to comprehend. What happens to students’ minds, the process we call education, is a mystery. Do you remember when you the quadratic equation? Maybe. Do you know how it affected your brain? No. We forget most of the specifics we learn, but somehow we get smarter.
<
p>Many of us are lucky to have students tell us how much we impacted them emotionally. That’s very rewarding and most of what they remember as adults. But they don’t usually know how I’ve affected their minds. Does class discussion of Great Exptions, for example, lead to improved performance in college or at work? I’d like to think so, but I don’t know.
<
p>At my high school, the administration bends over backwards to get a kid through high school. Sometimes this means they end up enrolled part-time in community college. Other times, kids who would ordinarily not graduate due to a lack of credits are encouraged and helped into a program in Springfield which results in a diploma. In my suburban school, there isn’t a dropout problem per se, but we do our best by the kids just the same. Am I saddened when one or two drop out? Yes, but as the Serenity Prayer suggests, I change the things I can and accept the things I can’t. I take on faith that I do not know the limits of my students’ abilities and push them as hard as I can. At minimum, I want them to recognize me as an adult that personally cares about them. Sometimes that’s about all I can achieve at that point in time.
<
p>Talking to practitioners can be depressing. We see and deal with the actual work, something it’s hard to appreciate from a distance. I wouldn’t want to view social problems only from the perspective of a beat cop, but I would value the perspective nontheless. The perspective of teachers isn’t the correct or only perspective, but it’s a generally unknown or misunderstood perspective.
<
p>If you’re lacking in faith from our discussion here, try to content yourself with the fact that you have a handful of educators here who care about their students and have an informed opinion on educational policy. I don’t know personally any of the teachers who post on here, but I’m confident in sayin that they have these qualities. In them, you can believe.
<
p>Mark
While I continue to believe that there is a baseline of knowledge every student should have (hence my support of testing) I favor experimentation in the methods of getting to that point. I’ll freely admit to thinking of education as panacea. I’ve thought for a long time that if only we could get education right almost all of our other social ills would take care of themselves. Throw in universal healthcare for good measure and we could truly have a Great Society. Congratulations on a well-articulated comment; it gets a rare 6 from me for something that I have a couple of nitpicks with.
Especially in urban areas where there’s sufficient density to have a large enough school and short enough travel times, why don’t we have different kinds of high schools?
<
p>Why don’t we have schools for trades, for art, for math&science, for history and language? Some could be more college track, others don’t have to be.
<
p>It just seems to me that we’ve forgotten that there’s real honor in working a good job, be it plumber or clerk or postman. Why don’t we acknowledge this at the high school level and allow kids who won’t ever give a damn about inorganic bonds more time to work on wood, a clarinet, or on their conversational Farsi?
<
p>
<
p>Yeah, I know this naïvely ignores funding issues, school district issues, and the like. I just don’t think that the public should leave this kind of work to the charters — let’s do it properly, with appropriate funding, and celebrate when kids who would have meandered through local high school (or worse) graduate and get a good job making the world a better place.
Went through thirteen years K-12. What are you going to do with 17 YO graduates?
I presume that a GED or diploma or school until 18 will be the requirement.
We have some kids who graduate at 16 because they’ve accelerated their course load.
<
p>But you’ve identified a flaw in the solution. Many kids graduate at 17. Why should a kid who cannot graduate be forced to stay in school until s/he’s 18? Punishment? Opportunity to disrupt? Sleep? If no diploma is coming their way, what’s the point? Like their vegetables, they’re good for you?
<
p>The whole notion is well intentioned but misguided, as has been pointed out by the educators posting on this diary.
Glad to hear it, but that option was never offered to me. Of course graduating prior to one’s 18th birthday should moot the point about staying in school until then. Disagree on the part about not being able to graduate. Just because you might not make it all the way doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to get as far as you can. In fact I would argue that those are exactly the kids we need to most pay attention and reach out to so they can acheive something worthwhile and discover how they can best contribute to society.
<
p>This presumes a certain level of engagement by the student. If a student does no work, refuses to engage, disrupts classes, is a behavioral issue, then what is the point of supposedly making that kid come to school? He or she is not learning anything; indeed, he or she is making it difficult for teachers to teach and motivated students to learn.
<
p>An alternative setting is reasonable but we don’t have those in any real sense.
<
p>I really think, Christopher, until you’ve spent a few years in an American high school on a daily basis, day in, day out, responsible for hundreds of students a year, that you will never be able to fully appreciate the fact that this is not a simple problem. Forcing a 17-year-old kid to school does not force a 17-year-old kid to learn. What it does, do, though, is lull well-intentioned people into believe they’re supporting something useful. Well, this isn’t about making other people feel good; it’s about the needs of students, and the forcing a 17-year-old student into a classroom he or she doesn’t want to be in is not meeting the needs of students.
Even when I substitute at the elementary level I encounter students that I would love to nominate for a hypothetical boot camp class taught by a retired drill sergeant. They should be separated as such behavior and attitude absolutely detracts from the experience of others. I still believe, however, that education is just as much about what’s good for society as for the individual.