Comments on: School drop-outs delayed to 18 years old is useless

By: CentralMNGuy

CentralMNGuy — Thu, 22 May 2008 02:58:04 +0000

I absolutely agree with what “Chip” posted (bravo). Children no longer have to “earn” diplomas; it’s expected! And god forbid a teacher informs a parent that “Little Johnny” is “not smart” and won’t be passing the 4th grade!

The high school diploma has not had any meaning for many, many years. If a kid wants to drop out of school at age 12, let them! What good does it do to keep a kid in school who doesn’t want to be there? It’s “natural selection.” Not everyone can be an astronaut!

The entire school system needs a drastic overhaul. Forget the overhaul! It needs to be “blown-up,” figuratively speaking, and rebuilt from scratch! The world has changed immensely in the past 10 years and the only thing that is going to “save” our schools is fresh, out-of-the-box thinking. The problem is, too many of our politicians and administrators are stuck in a time warp and have zero sense of what the real world is really like.

Our politicians can continue to pass crap like this to make themselves feel good, but the fact of the matter is, if you keep these “drop-outs” in school, all you’re doing is hurting the staff and the students who really want to learn.

Just my 2 cents…

By: Chip

Chip — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:46:08 +0000

I went to high school in the late ’80’s, when kids that didn’t want to be there simply left. Education was more meaningful, disruptions were rare, and it never crossed anyone’s mind that a disgruntled student would shoot up the place. The concept of “lockdown” is so foeign to me, and yet it is something practiced in schools regularly.

If our schools would go back to that line of thinking instead of mandating they stay there, it might make for stronger graduates from our schools. Yes, it might also make for a wider gap between the haves and the have-nots. I think it might make this country competitive in the global market again, knowing that our kids entering college accomplished something on their own, and didn’t have it handed to them. By removing the “mandatory” label, the education the kids get has value again.

By: Stephen Wiblemo

Stephen Wiblemo — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:58:20 +0000

Interesting conspiracy theory, but I don’t really have any problems with funneling more tax dollars into education. If communities can’t or won’t support their own schools, then maybe it wouldn’t be so bad for the state to redirect some funds.
I don’t think that is necessarily the reasoning behind this though. I think they legitimately believe that forcing students to stay in school until they are 18 well help with the overall drop-out rate. Kids can do a lot of maturing between 16 and 18 and it is a little cynical to think that if they didn’t care about their education at 16, they won’t at 18 when they are seniors.
Imagine schools as being like prisons (many students already do). The main purpose of prisons are to incarcerate and rehabilitate, with an emphasis on the later. I don’t think it is naive to believe that students who wants to drop out at 16 could be rehabilitated by the schools and have a complete change of heart at 18 and be grateful they stuck it out — especially when it is their turn to walk up on stage and receive a diploma.

By: HikingStick

HikingStick — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:12:43 +0000

I actually think it’s a good move, but it won’t work if there is no meaningful enforcement. Let’s face it–you can’t expect to penalize the parents of kids that age, either. The penalties will need to be paid by the kids. How about this one: if you drop out of school, your license is cancelled.

I believe it won’t be long before two years of college will be mandatory. I see this as the first step in that direction, rather than being some way of buoying school funding.