Republicans to Obama: "It's none of your business" if high school kids dropout

maybe tallorder didn't complete reading comprehension in high school.

I actually didn't love this particular SOTU suggestion though. Yes, we have an epic problem with (boys in particular) dropping out of school, and it will keep us falling versus other nations, but it's totally cultural and no one rule is going to fix it.

It just seems like leading a horse to water thing.

Maybe to drop out you need to show evidence of a job. Otherwise, it's straight to welfare as the OP said.

 

Yep.... "Propose" is not the same as "require" and no where in Obama's statement did he say "Federal Government".

 

I don't think this really is a state vs. federal issue.

Question is does allowing kids to drop out at 16 result in more kids dropping out and never going to college. I bet it does. So there is both a state and nation cost to dropouts in terms of crime and dollars spent on social programs.

A callous attitude might sound great but it's terribly inefficient and is a threat to the nations long term health.

I do however thing some students are quite hopeless in terms of getting much out of high school. There should be an option for some sort of alternative education...trade school or whatever to take people who are really behind and let them learn a craft that is in demand. But it has to be done carefully.

While I agree it isn't govt role to watch over kids....it does have a stake in reducing drop outs as part of the nations long term health especially in the 21st century. Yes the parents have in most cases failed these kids. But people at this age are also adaptable and still worth investing in.

But they need more than jobs training, they need mentorship and probably therapy. I think that investment upfront will get repaid in helping them become proactive members of society....n terms of lower crime and such, and the fact that they turn into revenue generators for the federal govt in terms of a lifetime of paying taxes.

Someone earning 40k may pay 10k in taxes a year which can be 300k in a lifetime.

So even if you can turn the tide of just 1 in 9 potential dropouts, taxpayers will likely come out ahead....I.e. make a profit on keeping kids in school.

 

Why do people argue with this clown? Is it that boring around here now? Frankly, I'd prefer seeing the Rush Limbaugh radio broadcast videos, rather than listen to tallanvor's relentless crap regurgitations. At least Rush can be funny, from time to time.

Oh, with all due respect to tallanvor, of course, if not respect for his crap.

 

I can't argue that point, I have a few kids who did and currently do work for me (service industry of course) that didn't graduate high school. Many a conversations I've had wondering how you don't at least finish high school which I find basic education. Sadly none of them so far fall into the "family struggles" scenario that Bleed points out. Two stopped going "because the teachers were stupid and I knew everything" Both don't work for me anymore, neither one is working anywhere because they can't get hired. Both live with their parents, one is a chick who has a kid, neither one has a car. Yeah, those stupid teachers, what do they know with their education, car, own living arrangements. Too many kids today think they can make it, and make it easily, filling out an application and putting Highest Education Completed: 10th grade. Pathetic.

 

They will require it. That's how government works. Specifically they will say 'any state that fails to meet this standard will lose X amount of federal funding' then they claim they are not forcing since they are giving them the ultimatum of not receiving federal money. Again, that's how Washington works.

 

"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

President Obama on GOP

 

So people must conform to these rules for other people's sake, even though the very structure of 99% of schools continues to generate mass debate amongst those studying it?

Frankly, I never plan on sending my kids to school and would be irritated with something like this. The mere fact that it hints that institutional schooling is superior, is insulting.

While your points are valid, IMO they are only valid as long as people don't have their own will and their own way. Only as long as they are assets or numbers or statistics. Only as long as the collective well-being of the nation is measured collectively rather than individually.

Why should opting out of school early have any kind of detriment on those who have been screaming, shouting, at the millions of things wrong with education system?

I guess it's true what they say. The more you spend time with a certain group, the more you become like them. The scary thing about these types of changes is that they seem to mimic (in style, quality and quantity) the same steps that were taken by various "conservative" governments in the Middle East when I was much younger.

It seems the rules are always becoming more conservative, but never less conservative. Then again I'm Middle Eastern, so I'm probably harbouring my own evil interests while poorly masking them with my post.

 

Well, another predictable tallanvor beat-down.

 

O never said a parent couldn't pull their kid and put them in a different educational framework. There is a difference between optig out into something else and dropping out ya know.

 

That's because it isn't.

This is the President using the bully pulpit to push an issue he is interested in and thinks has political traction. I doubt its something that even he thinks will happen anytime soon. Compare this issue to most of the other issues that he brought up in the SOTU. In the ones that are under the Federal purview he tells Congress to bring him legislation or says that his admin. is going to do something about it through executive order. On this issue he does neither. If this was a state vs. federal issue given the structure of his speech he would've said he is going to do something about it or Congress should. Instead he calls on the states.

 

Forget this being a state or local issue for a minute. I think this is a bad idea. I believe that forcing kids to stay in school until they are 16 is a major part of the degradation of high school education in America. The kids that have dropped out of school but are still forced to attend (and everyone knows who I'm talking about) take a huge amount of attention from teachers, with little positive result. I'm sure that requiring them to stay until they are 16 or 18 means that a few more of them are reached, get some level of education, and become more productive members of society. I'm not so sure that it's worth it for the degradation of education for the kids that want to learn.

I'm sure that someone will come back and point to the damage that high school dropouts do criminally to society, but I'd argue that forcing those individuals to go to school two more years won't change that much for them.

 

Furthermore, this wouldn't affect Texas, because we have compulsory education until 18: link

That's working just beautifully, right?

 

Pretty much. This is a problem that stems from things like the income/wealth gap and gutted social services, mainly education. It's a politically expedient gesture, kind of like a proposal to stop abortion (yay we like babies! yay we like kids staying in school!), but in the end, it does little to solve the actual problem. The way you stop things like that is to make sure no one ever feels the need to do it (i.e. has a higher standard of living), not to put some arbitrary rule that prevents it from happening after the damage is already done.

 

Actually, I agree with this far more mature perspective than the drivel that seems to be perpetually quoted from the other side of the conservative coin.

I've argued on this board before that high school students should have a choice between a 2 yr "trade" degree and the 4 yr "prepare for college" degree.

 

That's an interesting point. Lets face it but a big function of school is as detention for kids so they aren't out on the street causing problems. I have no info off hand how much juvenile crime can be avoided if kids have to stay in school until 18. Does anyone know what the juvenile crime rate is when school is not in session versus when it is?

 

That would be marvelous (with a few tweaks). Academia is not for everyone. I can guarantee you that kids who can't/don't want to go to college (assuming under this new system college is still ridiculously f***ing cost prohibitive) would take a lot more pride and be much happier knowing that their education is actually going towards what will be their livelihood.

 

I think this goes back to Santorum's argument on "black poverty". Statistically, it's shown that finishing high school (along with getting married before having kids) dramatically reduces poverty. Now, this has some chicken vs the egg stuff in that it could be that people who do that are simply more responsible and less prone to poverty the first place. However, if it does make a difference, then there are real societal benefits here. At 15 or 16, we don't consider kids able to make life decisions - it's under the age of consent - presumably because we don't think they will make rational long-term choices. If that's the case, then I think this type of decision would fit right in.

Would you agree that requiring kids to attend elementary school is a good thing? If so, what do you feel the proper line would be? I'm not saying 18 or 16 is the right limit - just curious where that limit should be.

 

I agree completely. To me, the next kind of charter school would be one where kids go for 2-3 years, get a GED and can repair electronics when they're done. If we want to lead the next 50 years in manufacturing, having one of those kids educated to that level would be worth more than 10 hipsters with degrees in Early Irish Cinema.

 

Repped for this awesome bit of prose.