4ofus Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 So, I admit, I did not watch this. But I heard he had on tons of bad makeup:tongue_smilie: Today, I got an email that I don't know what to think of. It said in the State of the Union Address our President proposed compulsory high school education until the age of 18. Is this different/new? Does this mean you can't choose to pursue post-secondary education early? Did this even happen? If I have mis-information here or simply un-important information or even made-up information, I apologize. I just thought this might be a useful place to pop in & ask. If there is already a thread on this, please direct. I did a search & did not come up with anything. Thanks for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie G Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Until age 18 OR until the student graduates. Graduates can go on to college as soon as they're done with high school. It's just an effort to prevent kids from dropping out at a younger age. I believe here kids can quit at 16 with parental permission. Which I'm ok with- the parents should have the right to make that call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnitWit Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Until age 18 OR until the student graduates. Right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinmami01 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I think I got the same email you did...and I'm honestly a bit unsure of it...I really starting to believe thats a fear tactic by the organization that sent it, but I'm curious as to what others have to say as well. :bigear: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4ofus Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 I'm not a member of the sending organization, & immediately felt that it was a fear-tactic as well. That is why I was hoping to invoke a voice of reason from the Hive :). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photo Ninja Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 This proposal does bother me. First, states have the right to set their own age minimum for leaving school. I know that the federal gov't does not agree with that and sets education requirements anyway, but states should be setting the age that a student can leave compulsory education. If a state has age 16 as an age to leave school, then that should remain. Parents and states need to make the decision, not the federal government. Second, states already have minimum ages set for being able to leave school without graduating. Has that stopped students from dropping out? No. States still have students leaving school before they reach the minimum age or graduate. So will the federal gov't increasing the age to 18 solve the problem of students dropping out? Not likely. It will just be another mandate that does not help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabrett Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I thought the email was odd since it stated 18 or once a student graduated. If a dc graduates at 16 the age of 18 shouldn't matter. Right? Why would you want to fight for the right for a dc to quit school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staceyobu Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I was just trying to search and see if there was a thread on this. I had multiple emails about how what Obama said was horrible for homeschoolers. Can you stop reporting (if you are in a state that requires it) when your kids are 16? I was trying to determine if this would increase reporting in some states. I read the quote and it said 18 *or* graduates. I don't really get how that effects homeschooling. Unless there are a lot of homeschool drop outs. My only question is what happens when a 16 year old refuses to go to school. At that point, parents can't really make a kid go against their will. I'd personally rather 16 year olds who don't want to be in school drop out than be forced to stay in and make the environment worse for the kids that want to be there. But, maybe I'm not looking at things in the best way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 High school withdrawal age was just raised here from 16 to 17. astrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Any claims made about the State of the Union are easily fact-checked. Here is the transcript of the speech and here is a video clip of the relevant part of the SOTU. "We also know that when students don’t walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better. So tonight, I am proposing that every state -- every state -- requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18." Edited January 26, 2012 by WordGirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Sounds like scare tactics. In Virginia if a student drops out before age 18, he or she looses his driver's license or cannot get a license. I'm all for trying get young people to finish school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmom Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Wyoming is trying to get a new law passed like this. I think it is wonderful. Here they are wanting to discourage dropouts by raising the age to 18 and making it where if you drop out before 18 you cannot hold a Wyoming drivers license until you are 18. But if you are in school you can have a drivers license. Now the law they want to pass will exclude homeschoolers (yeah ). I think raising the age is a wonderful idea. Way too many children are dropping out at too young of an age then realizing way too late that they should not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnTeaching Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I was puzzling over this as well. I think what has me (and possibly "the e-mailing organization")agitated is the fact that once again, the Federal Government is stepping into areas that SHOULD BE state and local decisions. I believe the fear is that we as parents continue to allow the Federal Government to take more and more control over our decisions. These are decisions that have historically been made by state and locally elected officials and involve the our tax money that goes to our local school districts. If the e-mail actually is a "fear-tactic", then I think it may be warranted. We may shrug our shoulders and say, "So what's wrong with trying to get kids to stay in school? 18 sounds like a reasonable age to me." Fine then- put it on your state ballot - do not allow the Federal Government that power. My grandmother used to say, "Give them an inch, they will take a mile." If we want to continue to have control over our children's educations, then we need to stand up and stop the continual chewing away of those rights by the Federal Government. And I mean from BOTH sides of the aisle! As homeschoolers, I would think we should be even more sensitive to the erosion of these rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onceuponatime Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Am I the only one who thinks that State of the Union addresses are more rhetoric than reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Until age 18 OR until the student graduates. Graduates can go on to college as soon as they're done with high school. It's just an effort to prevent kids from dropping out at a younger age. I believe here kids can quit at 16 with parental permission. Which I'm ok with- the parents should have the right to make that call. I agree. This proposal does bother me. First, states have the right to set their own age minimum for leaving school. I know that the federal gov't does not agree with that and sets education requirements anyway, but states should be setting the age that a student can leave compulsory education. If a state has age 16 as an age to leave school, then that should remain. Parents and states need to make the decision, not the federal government. Second, states already have minimum ages set for being able to leave school without graduating. Has that stopped students from dropping out? No. States still have students leaving school before they reach the minimum age or graduate. So will the federal gov't increasing the age to 18 solve the problem of students dropping out? Not likely. It will just be another mandate that does not help. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWOB Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Am I the only one who thinks that State of the Union addresses are more rhetoric than reality? Nope. He didn't say he was going to FORCE states to raise the age. He just PROPOSED the suggestion that states raise the age. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalmama Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I worry about them then extending it and saying that if you homeschool you must go until age 18 as we don't have "proof" you graduated before then. It isn't the feds business - it isn't even really the state's business. It's the parents and the child in question's business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I'm not sure if this is crossing the line into politics a bit too much, but I can't help wondering- those of you who say you'd be fine with the state mandating such a thing but not the federal government, what is the difference? I hear this all the time, that people are okay with the states passing "intrusive" laws but not the federal government. I've never really understood the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In2why Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I lean towards parental permission. My oldest son dropped out of HS at 16, took his GED 2 weeks later with a near perfect score, and went to work and college. I didn't know anything about homeschooling and gifted kids back then, but he was bored out of his mind. He and my other son were the reason I looked into home schooling for my youngster. I really believe that if I hadn't let him "quit" school he would have self destructed , he was already starting to. Now he is a wonderful successful man, with an excellent job and great relations. So staying in school isn't always the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I thought the email was odd since it stated 18 or once a student graduated. If a dc graduates at 16 the age of 18 shouldn't matter. Right?Why would you want to fight for the right for a dc to quit school? :iagree::iagree::iagree: Who wants to fight for the right to be stupid? :confused::confused::confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I lean towards parental permission. My oldest son dropped out of HS at 16, took his GED 2 weeks later with a near perfect score, and went to work and college. I didn't know anything about homeschooling and gifted kids back then, but he was bored out of his mind. He and my other son were the reason I looked into home schooling for my youngster. I really believe that if I hadn't let him "quit" school he would have self destructed , he was already starting to. Now he is a wonderful successful man, with an excellent job and great relations. So staying in school isn't always the answer. But isn't getting your GED essentially the same thing as graduating? I'm assuming that, if this did ever become an actual law, that's how it would work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 But isn't getting your GED essentially the same thing as graduating? I'm assuming that, if this did ever become an actual law, that's how it would work. I'm wondering the same. My parents signed for me at sixteen and I also received my GED just weeks later. If that stays the same, I have no problem. I ended up getting a job in HR and was making more than both of my college educated siblings until I married and became a mom. I don't think things would have turned out well for me had I been forced to stay another two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhonda in TX Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 "We also know that when students don’t walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better. So tonight, I am proposing that every state -- every state -- requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18." It doesn't sound like he's talking about a federal law, but rather encouraging states to change their laws. I didn't hear the SOTU address, though, so I can't be sure. We have a friend who is a high school principal. He told us that principals get in trouble for having high dropout rates, so they will encourage parents/kids says they're withdrawing in order to homeschool, rather than dropping out completely. Our friend doesn't do that, but he knows some who do. Isn't that just lovely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 My oldest son dropped out of HS at 16, took his GED 2 weeks later In many states, mine included, students are not eligible to take the GED test until they have been withdrawn for six months or their class has graduated, whichever comes first. astrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Am I the only one who thinks that State of the Union addresses are more rhetoric than reality? More? I thought they were *all* rhetoric! I didn't realize they had to put any reality in there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photo Ninja Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I'm not sure if this is crossing the line into politics a bit too much, but I can't help wondering- those of you who say you'd be fine with the state mandating such a thing but not the federal government, what is the difference? I hear this all the time, that people are okay with the states passing "intrusive" laws but not the federal government. I've never really understood the difference. It is not an issue of being okay with intrusive laws (I am against intrusive laws). It is an issue of who has the authority, states rights vs the federal government. Constitutionally, the federal government has no authority to make laws regarding education. Constitutionally, that falls to each state. There is a difference. That is the basis for my comments. I realize that the president has not written or signed any law that institutes his idea, so it is just a proposal - at the current time. He could institute it at any time. He can propose that each state can make its own choice on the issue, but must adopt this policy if it wants to receive federal education funding. Would that leave it as optional or a de facto mandate since states want their education funding? So even if it is just a proposal right now, it is serious. I don't know if this will affect hsers at all. It will all depend on the details once the law/proposal is written. But I don't think it will make any difference in the number of high school drop outs, which appears to be the reason for the proposal in the first place. If the solution/proposal/law won't solve the problem, then there is no reason to institute it. If states with an age of 18 or graduation in order to leave school have drop outs currently, then another law/mandate stating the same thing won't make a difference. I want children to have an education, however if they won't go to school, then another law or proposal telling them they must be there won't change their minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starr Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 So encouraging kids to graduate is now a bad idea? Come on ladies. Time for this to be closed - politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 It is not an issue of being okay with intrusive laws (I am against intrusive laws). It is an issue of who has the authority, states rights vs the federal government. Constitutionally, the federal government has no authority to make laws regarding education. Constitutionally, that falls to each state. There is a difference. That is the basis for my comments. I realize that the president has not written or signed any law that institutes his idea, so it is just a proposal - at the current time. He could institute it at any time. He can propose that each state can make its own choice on the issue, but must adopt this policy if it wants to receive federal education funding. Would that leave it as optional or a de facto mandate since states want their education funding? So even if it is just a proposal right now, it is serious. I don't know if this will affect hsers at all. It will all depend on the details once the law/proposal is written. But I don't think it will make any difference in the number of high school drop outs, which appears to be the reason for the proposal in the first place. If the solution/proposal/law won't solve the problem, then there is no reason to institute it. If states with an age of 18 or graduation in order to leave school have drop outs currently, then another law/mandate stating the same thing won't make a difference. I want children to have an education, however if they won't go to school, then another law or proposal telling them they must be there won't change their minds. I understand the Constitutionality of the issues here, but I'm just wondering what the practical difference is for someone. In my day-to-day life, it really doesn't affect me much if a law is passed by the state instead of the federal government, but some people are really adamant that state laws are good, federal laws are bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 In many states, mine included, students are not eligible to take the GED test until they have been withdrawn for six months or their class has graduated, whichever comes first. astrid I didn't know it had changed so much! The state I received mine in at 16 is now allowing at 17 with parent permission. The state I'm currently in is now 18 or permission from school board.:001_huh: I'm so glad it wasn't this way when I needed to get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 It doesn't sound like he's talking about a federal law, but rather encouraging states to change their laws. I didn't hear the SOTU address, though, so I can't be sure. We have a friend who is a high school principal. He told us that principals get in trouble for having high dropout rates, so they will encourage parents/kids says they're withdrawing in order to homeschool, rather than dropping out completely. Our friend doesn't do that, but he knows some who do. Isn't that just lovely. That's just lovely. :glare: So down the road then homeschoolers have to be more accountable to which entity? The state, the federal gov? What would that do for kids who get expelled? Force them into alternative schoolings? It's a fluffy superficial statement to a problem that is bigger than drop out rates. Keeping kids in school that no longer wish to be there isn't going to make education better. It's a diversionary statement, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnTeaching Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I'm not sure if this is crossing the line into politics a bit too much, but I can't help wondering- those of you who say you'd be fine with the state mandating such a thing but not the federal government, what is the difference? I hear this all the time, that people are okay with the states passing "intrusive" laws but not the federal government. I've never really understood the difference. I think where I have a problem, in this specific instance, is that the original intent was for the state and local governments to take care of these kinds of matters. I feel that when the decisions are concerning education - the decisions should be made by the parents, school districts, and states. Locally-elected officials (school, city/county, and state) are a whole lot "closer" to the action. Votes actually mean something when it comes to local decisions. They have to listen to us a bit more if they want to keep their jobs. When the Federal Government starts to take education decisions away from my locally-elected officials, to me that essentially takes away that much more of my ability to effect change. If my huge chunk of property taxes are going to my local school district...I want to be able to have a say in the way it is used, be allowed to vote on mandates, and have more of chance of having my voice heard at a school district meeting than trying to catch the ear of the President or my Congressman. And as a homeschooler, every time the Federal Government makes a blanket decision regarding education, it gives me the "shudders".;) (Also hoping this is not getting too political, but I do think that issues pertaining to education and homeschooling freedom can be discussed in an polite and engaging manner. I am personally always interested in hearing the opinions of the people on the forum and in seeing their point-of-view. That is how we learn and grow! I may not always agree with them, but I respect all of the opinions here. There are some incredibly intelligent and insightful people on this forum and I am thankful to have found them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Any claims made about the State of the Union are easily fact-checked. Here is the transcript of the speech and here is a video clip of the relevant part of the SOTU. "We also know that when students don’t walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better. So tonight, I am proposing that every state -- every state -- requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18." Yes, that's the exact quote that was in the email. I don't belong to the organization, either, but it was forwarded to our homeschool group. Michigan just dealt with this recently. Our age is 16, and there was a proposal to raise it to 18. Homeschoolers were up in arms here. While I believe education is a state issue, and I believe parents should determine their children's education, I see the other side of this issue in dh's job. A part of his job and educational research is drop-out prevention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 We have a friend who is a high school principal. He told us that principals get in trouble for having high dropout rates, so they will encourage parents/kids says they're withdrawing in order to homeschool, rather than dropping out completely. Our friend doesn't do that, but he knows some who do. Isn't that just lovely. This is a very popular strategy around here. Gives homeschoolers an awful name, too.:glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) . Edited January 26, 2012 by WordGirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Here's a report from a task study done in Maryland several years ago. The team concluded that raising the compulsory attendance age to 18 would not reduce the dropout rate, but they offered many other recommendations for addressing the dropout problem and implementing the plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Here's the video. Besides the fact that the President can propose all he wants but that doesn't mean he'll get it, I don't know how any government can force children to stay in school. What kind of policing might need to go on to do that? How far-reaching might the policing be? It's a scary thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 :iagree::iagree::iagree: Who wants to fight for the right to be stupid? :confused::confused::confused: Right. Because geniuses do great in school. :glare: Staying in school for 12-13 years has nothing to do with how smart a student is. You'd think a home schooler would know schools aren't the only source of learning or an accurate measurement of anyone's smarts. That's just lovely. :glare: So down the road then homeschoolers have to be more accountable to which entity? The state, the federal gov? What would that do for kids who get expelled? Force them into alternative schoolings? It's a fluffy superficial statement to a problem that is bigger than drop out rates. Keeping kids in school that no longer wish to be there isn't going to make education better. It's a diversionary statement, imo. I agree. There is a difference between the obvious statement that continuing education is good and important for any person's future. It is another to suggest forcing a limited offering on a student until they are 18 is the same thing as them continuing their education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 There is a difference between the obvious statement that continuing education is good and important for any person's future. It is another to suggest forcing a limited offering on a student until they are 18 is the same thing as them continuing their education. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In2why Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 But isn't getting your GED essentially the same thing as graduating? I'm assuming that, if this did ever become an actual law, that's how it would work. I don't know how it all works, but I remember that we had to show proof he had unenrolled in school before they would let him as a minor take the test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I understand the Constitutionality of the issues here, but I'm just wondering what the practical difference is for someone. In my day-to-day life, it really doesn't affect me much if a law is passed by the state instead of the federal government, but some people are really adamant that state laws are good, federal laws are bad. I always figured because it would be easier to leave a state if you disagree with the laws rather than leave a country. It seems to make law makers more accountable to the people the closer they are to them. I think of it that way, anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Who wants to fight for the right to be stupid? :confused::confused::confused: What happens if you drop out before the set age? Juvie? I was really happy the kids-headed-for-jail left starting about age 14. Violence and scariness dropped when they did. No more fights. I remember kids at college telling me it was the same in their school. I was a high school drop out. If juvie was on the consequences list, I would have hidden. As it was, I moved and just never enrolled. P.S. I didn't do it because I wanted to be stupid. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blondeviolin Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I'd much rather our energies to towards making our high schools more effective so we lessen the percentage of high school graduates who have to take remedial courses. I too don't see the point in keeping these kids in school if they don't want to stay. Above all, however, I believe it is a local and state issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negin Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) nm Edited January 26, 2012 by Negin in Grenada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I'd much rather our energies to towards making our high schools more effective so we lessen the percentage of high school graduates who have to take remedial courses. I too don't see the point in keeping these kids in school if they don't want to stay. Above all, however, I believe it is a local and state issue. :iagree: I would agree with him if he said something like "Let's make schooling so effective that kids want to stay in and learn more." (Fluffy, yes, but we agreed that's what the SOTU was anyway.) I think his intention was good but wrong idea of how to implement it, imo. Oh! Or how 'bout if he said something about encouraging states to bring back vo-tech to schools? I'd be leading the on-board train. Off topic - did anyone else play SOTU bingo? It was going around fb. My BIL (still in school) said that he and is friends made it a drinking game. Welllllll I guess at least they were listening to SOTU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMomof4 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 We have a friend who is a high school principal. He told us that principals get in trouble for having high dropout rates, so they will encourage parents/kids says they're withdrawing in order to homeschool, rather than dropping out completely. Our friend doesn't do that, but he knows some who do. Isn't that just lovely. This is why my SIL hates hsing. That is her entire experience with hsers - people who basically let their kids drop out and don't do anything with them. Of course, her school is in trouble for their high drop out rate too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meriwether Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I understand the Constitutionality of the issues here, but I'm just wondering what the practical difference is for someone. In my day-to-day life, it really doesn't affect me much if a law is passed by the state instead of the federal government, but some people are really adamant that state laws are good, federal laws are bad. It is easier to move to another state than leave the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 :iagree: I would agree with him if he said something like "Let's make schooling so effective that kids want to stay in and learn more." (Fluffy, yes, but we agreed that's what the SOTU was anyway.) I think his intention was good but wrong idea of how to implement it, imo. Oh! Or how 'bout if he said something about encouraging states to bring back vo-tech to schools? I'd be leading the on-board train. It wasn't in the SOTU, but he is encouraging states to bring back vo-tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meriwether Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 It doesn't sound like he's talking about a federal law, but rather encouraging states to change their laws. I didn't hear the SOTU address, though, so I can't be sure. We have a friend who is a high school principal. He told us that principals get in trouble for having high dropout rates, so they will encourage parents/kids says they're withdrawing in order to homeschool, rather than dropping out completely. Our friend doesn't do that, but he knows some who do. Isn't that just lovely. My MIL told me this was happening in her town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldskool Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Right. Because geniuses do great in school. :glare: Staying in school for 12-13 years has nothing to do with how smart a student is. You'd think a home schooler would know schools aren't the only source of learning or an accurate measurement of anyone's smarts. I agree. There is a difference between the obvious statement that continuing education is good and important for any person's future. It is another to suggest forcing a limited offering on a student until they are 18 is the same thing as them continuing their education. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meriwether Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Almost 1/3 of my class dropped out when we hit high school. They were sixteen because they had been held back once or twice. They had left education behind long before they reached the legal dropout age. I taught high school. 10% of the students take 90% of the time. The schools bent over backwards to keep those kids in to keep the federal funds. My aunt and uncle dropped out of school. Formal schooling wasn't for them. They aren't stupid.;) In fact, they are millionaires. It is a complex issue. The more localized the decisions are, the better chance they have of succeeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts