State of the Union Address

[Elisabeth in IL]

 

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.

Would parents be prosecuted if they didn't make sure that their child was in school? That is something that I can see being very worried about.....

[Teachin'Mine]

The drop out rate in the US is atrocious. While a small percentage may be dropping out to pursue their own interests whether they be educational or entrepreneurial, the vast majority are dropping out simply because they can. These 16 and 17 year olds are now faced with getting a job. What kinds of jobs do they qualify for - especially in this economy? I don't see how asking states to raise the age at which kids can drop out is a bad thing. When kids can drop out at 16, they're probably tuning out a year or two sooner since they know they're on their way out anyway. With the age raised, maybe they'll be more teachable at 15 and 16. This won't solve the problem, but it would be a start in the right direction. JMO

[QueenCat]

Would parents be prosecuted if they didn't make sure that their child was in school? That is something that I can see being very worried about.....

 

In many states, they can be now.

[Teachin'Mine]

It wasn't in the SOTU, but he is encouraging states to bring back vo-tech.

 

Vocational training should be available to all students!!!

[mommaduck]

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.

Each state is different, with it's own set of issues. In some areas, you have kids that may not finish highschool, but are still more likely to be productive citizens (family business, independent labor, etc) and they are able to make a living at such. In other states, it takes a lot more to make a living, the culture is such that dropping out really does leave you without options. Federal regulation does not take in the diversity of the States.

[mommaduck]

Vocational training should be available to all students!!!

:iagree: I personally feel that it does absolutely no one any good to force an older student to stay in school if they don't want to be there. It bogs down the teachers, the system, and takes away from more serious students. Many of these drop outs are simply ready to move on to something that will get them prepared for an actual job and move on with life. Vo-tech is one way to do this. Not everyone is cut out for university. There will always be blue collared workers and many people are happy being just that (and there are blue collared workers that make a lot more than kids coming out of college).

Edited January 26, 2012 by mommaduck

[prairiebird]

:iagree: I personally feel that it does absolutely no one any good to force an older student to stay in school if they don't want to be there. It bogs down the teachers, the system, and takes away from more serious students. Many of these drop outs are simply ready to move on to something that will get them prepared for an actual job and move on with life. Vo-tech is one way to do this. Not everyone is cut out for university. There will always be blue collared workers and many people are happy being just that (and there are blue collared workers that make a lot more than kids coming out of college).

 

:nod: My former high school still has most of it's votec programs in place, and from what I've heard, they are making arrangements for more. I think they hung on in our area because of all the community support.

[melmichigan]

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.

 

Um, this passed. See link here. :)

 

I don't have a problem with it because it also allows for parents to sign an opt out. This allows parents who are legally responsible for a child to legally force that child to attend school or vocational training, before that wasn't the case.

Edited January 26, 2012 by melmichigan

[goldberry]

I would love to see a set academic program through 10th grade, then choice of programs for the last two years, still provided through the school system....academic for those going on to college, or choice of vocational programs for those wanting to enter the work force.

 

Why has that never been tried or proposed? You could have a ton of skilled laborers ready to enter the work force and be productive at 18.

[Murphy101]

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!

 

Well there is that aspect, but there is also the simple over looked fact that we are not just one nation, we are 50 states. And several of those states are literally bigger than some other countries. The culture in Oklahoma is just not the same culture as New York or California or Michigan or Florida and all of those states are very different from each other too. We have enough in common most of the time to be united as one nation, but no, most of those states would be royal ticked if told they had to educate their kids the same because they recognize that their citizens have different cultural opinions and attitudes about many things.

[Mergath]

I'm thinking that this proposal would be more intended to target inner city kids who drop out to become involved with gangs. Even if they aren't using their time in school to learn, it's better for a teen in a really bad area to sit in school most of the day than to go out and sell drugs or whatever.

[Murphy101]

I'm thinking that this proposal would be more intended to target inner city kids who drop out to become involved with gangs. Even if they aren't using their time in school to learn, it's better for a teen in a really bad area to sit in school most of the day than to go out and sell drugs or whatever.

 

:001_huh: what in the world? You have got to be kidding.

 

It is better for some gangster crack head wanna be to wanna be it OUTSIDE of the school instead of giving them a free market inside it! Kids who do that stuff start learning about it and doing IN school. Get them out for the sake of the kids who do want to be there to learn to be productive citizens.

[Negin]

I'm thinking that this proposal would be more intended to target inner city kids who drop out to become involved with gangs. Even if they aren't using their time in school to learn, it's better for a teen in a really bad area to sit in school most of the day than to go out and sell drugs or whatever.

:iagree: and let's just say (before I open my mouth too much and get into trouble ;)) that I almost always agree with you on such threads. Not hcg :lol: :grouphug: :), but on other issues, Mergath, you're very wise and I really do appreciate your posts. I mean this in the very best of ways. :grouphug:

[angela in ohio]

Um, this passed. See link here. :)

 

I don't have a problem with it because it also allows for parents to sign an opt out. This allows parents who are legally responsible for a child to legally force that child to attend school or vocational training, before that wasn't the case.

 

Right. I guess I wasn't clear.

[Mergath]

:iagree: and let's just say (before I open my mouth too much and get into trouble ;)) that I almost always agree with you on such threads. Not hcg :lol: :grouphug: :), but on other issues, Mergath, you're very wise and I really do appreciate your posts. I mean this in the very best of ways. :grouphug:

 

:lol: I seem to deviate on medical issues from most of the people here. I hope that no one takes it personally when I disagree with them. :tongue_smilie:

 

And thank you for your kind words.

[Mergath]

:001_huh: what in the world? You have got to be kidding.

 

It is better for some gangster crack head wanna be to wanna be it OUTSIDE of the school instead of giving them a free market inside it! Kids who do that stuff start learning about it and doing IN school. Get them out for the sake of the kids who do want to be there to learn to be productive citizens.

 

I guess I don't think we should be happy to get rid of all the troubled kids just so the good kids don't have to be bothered by them. Obviously, schools have their problems too, but at least in school, a kid who might end up joining a gang has a chance at having positive role models and can change his mind and get an education if he or she wants to. In school, they still have a chance. Once they're out and in a gang, it's too late, for the most part.

[ErinE]

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.

 

This. The proposal does nothing to make schools better. It only makes the consequences for the student worse. So if you're a student failing in a failed school you are stuck in a perpetual loop of dysfunction: choosing between unsafe holding cells or jail.

 

I'm frankly surprised at the number of people who dismiss the constitutional issue.

[Murphy101]

I guess I don't think we should be happy to get rid of all the troubled kids just so the good kids don't have to be bothered by them. Obviously, schools have their problems too, but at least in school, a kid who might end up joining a gang has a chance at having positive role models and can change his mind and get an education if he or she wants to. In school, they still have a chance. Once they're out and in a gang, it's too late, for the most part.

 

I am not happy to get rid of them, but yes, I do think if a kid is going to be in a gang and dealing drugs - he should promptly be evicted from the school. The school isn't going anywhere. Leave the gang and the drugs and going back to school and getting their life back on track is a great thing they should be strongly encouraged and given opportunity to choose.

 

But no, gangsters and drugs dealers have no right to ruin schools for other students who are trying to learn.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm frankly surprised at the number of people who dismiss the constitutional issue.

 

There is no constitutional issue. The federal government can make *proposals* all day long. On the other hand, NCLB made the federal government directly involved in education. So, I find the language by the certain fear-mongering organization fairly ironic. :glare:

[Snickerdoodle]

Being in school does not preclude one from being in a gang. School attendance and gang membership are not mutually exclusive.

[Truscifi]

I would love to see a set academic program through 10th grade, then choice of programs for the last two years, still provided through the school system....academic for those going on to college, or choice of vocational programs for those wanting to enter the work force.

 

Why has that never been tried or proposed? You could have a ton of skilled laborers ready to enter the work force and be productive at 18.

 

This is the case where I live. The high school has a dual enrollment program with the vo-tech school and starting in 11th grade a student can take most or even all classes at vo-tech as long as they passed the basic requirements in math, science, and english.

[Live2Ride]

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.

 

Yes, but I don't need the government to tell me how long my kids have to stay in...we homeschoolers will eventually, if not immediately, be affected by this.

[Murphy101]

There is no constitutional issue. The federal government can make *proposals* all day long. On the other hand, NCLB made the federal government directly involved in education. So, I find the language by the certain fear-mongering organization fairly ironic. :glare:

 

I think there should have been fear mongering over both. ;)

Frankly, I think this proposal is exactly backwards. Pity the poor PS teachers (and their students) who are stuck with even just one kid who really doesn't want to be there, and is only there because of physical coercion. If a teenager really doesn't want to learn, you just can't force them, and you waste a huge amount of time that could be spent teaching the kids who do want to be there.

 

I think all of high school should be optional, but somehow make it easy for dropouts to go back to community college/votec to study for their GED later, perhaps when they are more ready to study, and have seen a bit more of the world.

 

We're already seen the effects of grade inflation, and dropping the standards for a high school diploma, in order to maintain graduation rates. The end result of this is that students need a master's degree to get a simple office job.

[WeeBeaks]

I'm thinking that this proposal would be more intended to target inner city kids who drop out to become involved with gangs. Even if they aren't using their time in school to learn, it's better for a teen in a really bad area to sit in school most of the day than to go out and sell drugs or whatever.

 

Not sure I agree with this. I went to high school freshman year with 19yo dealers. They had no desire to drop out and stayed in as long as they could as it was better for business. They also ran the local theft ring inside the school. The guards at the school knew it and searched them daily without success of getting them out.

[Spy Car]

Since the email is said to have originated from a "fear-mongering" organization, is it safe to assume we are talking about the HSLDA?

 

Bill

[4everHis]

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.

 

 

This is the reason I think the mandates would be wrong. Obviously there are exceptions. You, as the parent, helped your son make a wise decision for his life. Kudos to you and to him!

[Krista in LA]

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.

 

Well said.

[mommaduck]

I'm thinking that this proposal would be more intended to target inner city kids who drop out to become involved with gangs. Even if they aren't using their time in school to learn, it's better for a teen in a really bad area to sit in school most of the day than to go out and sell drugs or whatever.

Yes, I think this is the reason..."keep the kids off the streets". However, having lived in the inner city, even babysitting the kids in the classroom during the day doesn't keep them out of trouble. And there are kids in the inner city that would love to work. However, the laws are such that they can't get jobs...no one is willing to hire a 15yr old, especially if they're male :glare: Thus, these kids are bored, have nothing, can earn nothing, and all that is left to them is to get into trouble or try to do what few things are available to them (sex, drinking, drugs, gangs, thievery, etc).

[Coffeetime]

I think what's bothersome about it is that it's simply a proposition for MORE Federal Gov't control over the States when it comes to education. States already have compulsory attendance laws... it's completely pointless for the Federal Gov't to impose it's own attendance laws on the States IMHO. (But then again, I'm all for the Federal Government getting the heck out of the education business). ;) I don't see how it would effect homeschoolers though. Unless they decide that your child can't "graduate" at age 16. It would depend on how it was implemented.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

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.

 

 

Not to mention that many of the same folks who cry, "keep big government out of my homeschool!" are the same folks who want to put big government into women's bodies. :confused: :glare:

[Krista in LA]

I would love to see a set academic program through 10th grade, then choice of programs for the last two years, still provided through the school system....academic for those going on to college, or choice of vocational programs for those wanting to enter the work force.

 

Why has that never been tried or proposed? You could have a ton of skilled laborers ready to enter the work force and be productive at 18.

 

Well back when I was in high school in the 80's, our school had 4 tracks you could choose from - vo-tech, business, general academic, and what we always called the smart kids classes. It worked great because the kids that had no intention of going to college could get the education they needed to get a job after high school. It also allowed the smarter kids to be in a class with others who were serious about their education. I actually was able to take classes like nuclear physics and 2 years of computer science which was unusual back then. And that wasn't even at a great school. I really don't understand why we think as a society that everyone has to go to college? I guess I got a bit off track from the original topic though, didn't I?

[mommaduck]

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 found out my senior year that a teacher wasn't graduating me due to a personal conflict. I had left home, had continued going to highschool (never told the school I had moved out of district) until GED classes started. The classes were only a few weeks long. I took my GED and graduated before the rest of my highschool class. I did not have to be out for six months nor wait for my class to graduate. This possibly changes state to state.

 

One of the issues of a GED, is that certain people look at it as "dropping out" rather than "moving forward". The military is a big offender of this.

[Murphy101]

Not to mention that many of the same folks who cry, "keep big government out of my homeschool!" are the same folks who want to put big government into women's bodies. :confused: :glare:

 

:001_huh: well if we are going off topic...;)

 

I don't think big or little government should be in my or any woman's body.

 

Nor do it think either should condone the death of any innocent citizen.

 

Nor do I think the government, any government, should be trying to force religious associations to pay for or offer procedures or services that are against that religions beliefs.

 

So I hope I at least get point for being consistent?:D

[Coffeetime]

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.

 

Because if a state mandates something with which I'm uncomfortable, I am free to move to another state to avoid the perceived intrusion. When the Federal Government overreaches it's unavoidable. This is why the powers of the Federal Gov't were constitutionally limited and states were given the freedom to choose how they wanted to govern. :001_smile:

[Murphy101]

Because if a state mandates something with which I'm uncomfortable, I am free to move to another state to avoid the perceived intrusion. When the Federal Government overreaches it's unavoidable. This is why the powers of the Federal Gov't were constitutionally limited and states were given the freedom to choose how they wanted to govern. :001_smile:

 

Well yes, but this isn't about just moving to another state either.

 

If we are to have a say in our governance, it is imperative we have a say in our local/state laws. Otherwise, the only real voices to the law are the voices from bigger states. Likewise, I'm sure big states wouldn't appreciate their laws being made my a small state on the other side of the country.

 

Federal government is limited so that every state can have a voice and the combined voices of the states leads our country vs a few loud states. (loud/big as deemed by money, population or geographical size or other factors)

[ThatCyndiGirl]

:001_huh: well if we are going off topic...;)

 

I don't think big or little government should be in my or any woman's body.

 

Nor do it think either should condone the death of any innocent citizen.

 

Nor do I think the government, any government, should be trying to force religious associations to pay for or offer procedures or services that are against that religions beliefs.

 

So I hope I at least get point for being consistent?:D

 

It doesn't have to condone it or vote on it. The decision was made many years ago. Aaaaaand now we are in the area of 'start another thread'. :tongue_smilie:

[mommaduck]

Not to mention that many of the same folks who cry, "keep big government out of my homeschool!" are the same folks who want to put big government into women's bodies. :confused: :glare:

And I know a lot of people that would cry "keep big government out of my homeschool!" AND are people that want the government to stay out of women's bodies (I'm presuming you mean pro-choice or pro-abortion).

 

This kind of comment is inflammatory and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Word Nerd]

Not to mention that many of the same folks who cry, "keep big government out of my homeschool!" are the same folks who want to put big government into women's bodies. :confused: :glare:

 

Sigh. If the discussion wasn't political before, it certainly is now. :tongue_smilie:

[Mergath]

Not sure I agree with this. I went to high school freshman year with 19yo dealers. They had no desire to drop out and stayed in as long as they could as it was better for business. They also ran the local theft ring inside the school. The guards at the school knew it and searched them daily without success of getting them out.

 

Yes, but there's a difference between kids selling a little weed to each other, and transporting large amounts of cocaine or meth while armed. I've known people who did both. The former, for the most part, turned out fine. The latter... not so much.

 

I'm not trying to argue that school is the perfect environment, only that it's better than the streets for most people. If there was a perfect solution to all this, I'd be promoting that. But there isn't.

[Mergath]

Sigh. If the discussion wasn't political before, it certainly is now. :tongue_smilie:

 

Yup. I am so not going there, lol.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Just to be clear I was truly not trying to swing the thread into the topic of reproductive freedom. I was simply trying to point out the inconsistency between "keep big government out of THIS part of our lives,.....but not THAT part". No matter what those 'parts' are....it is still intrusion.

 

I truly do not have a desire to debate that topic. It has been debated here ad nauseum and my opinion is not going to change, nor will the opinions of others.

 

I don't see this SOTU address as problematic. IMO, if other, more fundie-friendly presidents had said the same thing this announcement would have been applauded, but because THIS president said it many will be up in arms.

[Murphy101]

Just to be clear I was truly not trying to swing the thread into the topic of reproductive freedom. I was simply trying to point out the inconsistency between "keep big government out of THIS part of our lives,.....but not THAT part". No matter what those 'parts' are....it is still intrusion.

 

I truly do not have a desire to debate that topic. It has been debated here ad nauseum and my opinion is not going to change, nor will the opinions of others.

 

I don't see this SOTU address as problematic. IMO, if other, more fundie-friendly presidents had said the same thing this announcement would have been applauded, but because THIS president said it many will be up in arms.

 

Well I suppose I'm not fundie enough then, bc I didn't like bush either.

 

I'm trying to think of an area I want govt intrusion in my life...

 

Need more coffee bc I'm coming up blank...

[Kathryn]

My email about this came from HSLDA (how did they get my email address in the first place, I'm not, nor have I ever been, a member?). I watched the SOTU and the relevant part is

 

"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. (Applause.)"

 

I'm not seeing where he said anything about the federal government stepping in and setting mandatory attendance laws. To me, this reads that he's giving advice to the states about what to do with their own laws. He didn't say "I propose we require that students do this," he said "I propose EVERY STATE requires that students do this."

 

Anyway, much more alarming than the email from HSLDA is one I read about elsewhere from a woman who received a similar fear-mongering email from the Virginia organization HEAV. She was confused by it and called them for clarification and was told the following.

 

OK, so I called to get from the "horses mouth" what's going on because email was confusing. IT it about not letting children graduate until they are 18, I asked about kids skipping grade in PS (as I did I graduated right after I turned 17) and about HS IF requirements are met and test past. Again I got the it's not goign to allow any of that in PS or HS. So yeah i see that as an issue! Yes VA is and has been dealing with tryign to allow HS to do the ps sports, I came from FL and they do allow it there. So what lady told me over phone was in a nutshell, NO one, ps or hs will be allowed to move forward even if meeting requirements, you're in til you are 18 no matter circumstance and advancement. She did mention that there is issues that have come up that try to say what has to be taught in HS, I guess some more guidlines. With Obama I think alot of his stuff is hot air and let me say things and think it's going to be, but something to keep eye out about.

[Negin]

I seem to deviate on medical issues from most of the people here. I hope that no one takes it personally when I disagree with them. :

And thank you for your kind words.

Mergath, no, even on most medical issues, I so often agree with you. It's just the hcg and that's perfectly okay. I would never take it personally from you. I enjoy your posts so much and think that you're very sweet. No two people are meant to agree on every single thing anyway. :grouphug:

 

Not to mention that many of the same folks who cry, "keep big government out of my homeschool!" are the same folks who want to put big government into women's bodies. :confused: :glare:

As well as keeping so many books banned from libraries, etc.

 

I'm not trying to argue that school is the perfect environment, only that it's better than the streets for most people. If there was a perfect solution to all this, I'd be promoting that. But there isn't.

Exactly. So true. This has been the case for every town, city, and country that I have ever lived in.

[Mrs Mungo]

OK, so I called to get from the "horses mouth" what's going on because email was confusing. IT it about not letting children graduate until they are 18, I asked about kids skipping grade in PS (as I did I graduated right after I turned 17) and about HS IF requirements are met and test past. Again I got the it's not goign to allow any of that in PS or HS. So yeah i see that as an issue! Yes VA is and has been dealing with tryign to allow HS to do the ps sports, I came from FL and they do allow it there. So what lady told me over phone was in a nutshell, NO one, ps or hs will be allowed to move forward even if meeting requirements, you're in til you are 18 no matter circumstance and advancement. She did mention that there is issues that have come up that try to say what has to be taught in HS, I guess some more guidlines. With Obama I think alot of his stuff is hot air and let me say things and think it's going to be, but something to keep eye out about.

 

By "the horse's mouth," you mean HSLDA, right? I don't think that is the place to go for accurate information about the intentions of a sitting president of whom they generally disapprove.

 

From the transcript:

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.

 

I graduated high school at 17 and went on to college. My cousin graduated at 16 and went on to college (as a National Merit Scholar). In my (extremely red) home state high-school dropouts can lose their driver's license, but it doesn't apply to those who have already graduated high school.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[Kathryn]

By "the horse's mouth," you mean HSLDA, right? I don't think that is the place to go for accurate information about the intentions of a sitting president of whom they generally disapprove.

 

From the transcript:

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.

 

 

 

No, no, no! The red is not from me. It's from something someone posted on another forum I go to and the "horse's mouth" in her case is HEAV. They are apparently telling Virginians that the president said that nobody will be able to graduate until they turn 18.

 

ETA: and I completely agree with your bolded. I told her that the woman she spoke to was either grossly misinformed or was purposely misleading people to further some agenda.

Edited January 26, 2012 by kebg11

[Mrs Mungo]

No, no, no! The red is not from me. It's from something someone posted on another forum I go to and the "horse's mouth" in her case is HEAV. They are apparently telling Virginians that the president said that nobody will be able to graduate until they turn 18.

 

ETA: and I completely agree with your bolded. I told her that the woman she spoke to was either grossly misinformed or was purposely misleading people to further some agenda.

 

Got it, sorry, I read too quickly. :)