Raising high school dropout age is not the answer
This is a neat thesis by the President’s administration, but the equation is not nearly so concise. Even if students are required by law to stay in school until they are 18, there is no guarantee that extra time spent in school will make them more prepared to get a job or attend college. For unmotivated students to be required by law to attend class not only robs them of their autonomy as citizens, but is also unfair to already-beleaguered teachers. If a student is in class because he is required by state law to be there, that doesn’t mean he is learning. He is probably far less motivated to participate in a class the state requires of him than he is in one he chooses to attend.
Though the government would like to think of its citizens as perpetual children incapable of choosing for themselves, a student who drops out of school is making a choice. The factors that influence that choice are a far more pressing concern than the age at which a student is allowed to leave school. The factors that lead to a student dropping out are of far more consequence than the age at which a student is allowed to leave school.
If a student is not being prepared by his school to attend college, requiring him to wait a few more birthdays to leave school will not change that. If a student knows at 16 that he won’t have the resources to finance higher education, or if his community does not value higher education, a high school diploma by default of his birthday is unlikely to convince him to work hard and go to college. This proposed policy is unfair to the limited resources of teachers and students who do care to learn and pursue higher studies. If a student does not believe in the value of a high school diploma, using the law to enforce it upon him is unlikely to convince him of the value of learning.
Dropping out of school is, of course, a personal choice. However, it’s a choice precipitated by many complicated factors that would be a much better point of attention for education reform than personal rights of high school students. If area schools, beginning with grade schools, are not preparing students to do well enough to get into college and qualify for scholarships, that’s not because of a lack of motivation from 16-year-olds. If a community does not believe college is possible for its children, that is a far better point of attention for state reform than passing a blanket law that not only doesn’t fix the problem, but reduces dramatically the rights of students and the value of their conscious attention.
Increasing the number of high school graduates by passing over broad state laws will not automatically turn around the economy. If schools continue to fail to educate students and be required pass them regardless of their performance until their 18th birthday, young Americans will continue to be disillusioned by a school system that sees them and their concerns as an equation in which administration and leadership does not factor. Instead of passing a law and absolving responsibility, education leaders should take a look at why students drop out at 16 and whether two more years of cursory attendance will really do anything to fix their problems.
This column was originally published by USA TODAY as part of its Collegiate Correspondence Program.
Source: http://www.desertlamp.com/?p=10811
I agree with the USA Today article that education leaders should take a look at why students drop out at 16 and whether two more years of cursory attendance will really do anything to fix their problems. People really have to get in touch with what is happening. As a school administrator myself, this is why I get pissed off sometimes because with all the wisdom and knowledge we claim to have on this forum, PEOPLE REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EDUCATION OF OUR CHILDREN AND OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN!!!
The public school system of today is set up to make a pathway for our children (especially our Black boys) to become disconnected from school and end up in prison. Our black boys have no fathers in the homes, thus having no role models in their lives.
The teachers are barely qualified to teach, but none are equipped to deal with aggressive Black boys. So as soon as a young man becomes active in class he is labeled a discipline problem (or ADD) and while other students are being taught he gets busy work or becomes the errand boy.
Once they start falling behind in fifth and sixth grade it is over. In every class they become labeled as the dumb kid. Unlike the streets where they see a collective effort in class all they see is individual achievement. So as they dropout, it is nobody to hangout with other than other dropouts. Is it any wonder why so many Black boys try to gain respect through gang banging?
They have no choice but to succumb to gang banging because no father - or father figure - is around to mold and shape him into the MAN he is supposed to be. Our sons are frustrated because they have the potential to be what ever God has planned them to be, yet no loving and responsible adult is around to help make that happen.