Chicago mayor proposes new rule - No high school diploma without acceptance

[Audrey]

​I think this is a terrible idea.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/chicago-mayor-no-high-school-diploma-without-acceptance-letter/ar-BBzrR8W?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

 

Why should the high schools be able to dictate what students do after​ high school and deny them a diploma if they choose not to continue their formal educations? Some kids just want to get a job, not attend college or trade school, do a formal apprenticeship, or join the military. Heck, even if a kid wants to live in his parents' basement and play video games all day, if he earned that high school diploma, he should still receive it.

 

I agree with you. It's a terrible (and short-sighted) proposition. 

 

You do not need education beyond high school to be a productive, employed person or earn a living wage.  You don't even need a high school diploma for that.  There is a great myth out there that post-secondary education is some kind of guarantor of success in employment and life.  It's too bad this mayor is buying into that and trying to perpetuate it further.

[JulieA97]

I could see adding a lecture requirement or a post graduation planning type of class. A class on applying for college, non college options and financial counseling like how to budget, etc would be great. But applying to college and bringing the acceptance letter is overkill.

 

I have worked at many colleges, including a large CC and the amount of work this would add to the college is staggering. And I don't believe just filling out an application will do that much good for the students.

Edited April 5, 2017 by JulieA97

[Guest]

Bad idea. All it will do is encourage kids to drop out.  Some kids are just D.O.N.E with school.  Some don't have the money to do the applications.  Good grief.  Who died and made this guy a dictator????

[ErinE]

I'd rather they finish formal schooling by age 16, then have job training, apprenticeship or college prep for years 11 and 12. It's criminal that high schools graduate kids who are unable to get a job unless they attend even more schooling.

Edited April 5, 2017 by ErinE

[shawthorne44]

What if someone's post-graduation degree is to work on the family farm?   There are options for being an adult that don't involve more training or schooling.  

[Guest]

I'd rather they finish formal schooling by age 16, then have job training, apprenticeship or college prep for years 11 and 12. It's criminal that high schools graduate kids who are unable to get a job unless they attend even more schooling.

 

I'm not too familiar with European schools, but isn't that similar to what they do in some countries over there? Makes so much more sense. 

[umsami]

I guess to me if this is necessary it shows how useless a HS diploma is.  This is why we should look at other models (such as Germany) which offer a true viable career path for those who do not choose to go to college.

[ErinE]

I'm not too familiar with European schools, but isn't that similar to what they do in some countries over there? Makes so much more sense.

Marcus Samuelsson (a Swedish-raised chef with restaurants here in the States) has an excellent description of a similar education system in his autobiography, Yes Chef. It's a great book by itself, but he talks about how he spent the mornings in class learning proper food preparation and the afternoons working in a prep kitchen. By the time he was eighteen, he was an adult and treated like one, with the skills and the capability of getting a good job assisting great chefs.

 

Where I live now has a confusing, but promising graduation process where students graduate with computer certification, basic medical training, cosmetology licenses, bookkeeping training, Office suite training, beginning apprenticeships, etc. They can graduate and actually get a job as opposed to paying another company to teach them the skills that the school district should have been teaching anyways.

[LucyStoner]

Eh. The headline doesn't match the article. It's a bit of sensationalizing. He's proposing that every high school student "make a post graduation plan". That plan can include work or whatever.

 

I don't know of any quality private school that doesn't make an effort to make a post graduation plan. It's also part of the curriculum or advising services at many of the most highly regarded public and charter schools. My son's high school (which is a very sought after public school to the point that people actually move their entire families here from other states to have their child attend) has all entering students sign a letter of understanding that while at high school they will make a plan for transitioning to work or school or the military and one of the required classes freshman year is a career class. They are paired with mentors in their sophomore year and given ample time to take paid and volunteer jobs with major corporations and non-profits before they leave school. Some students incorporate a gap year as part of their plan.

 

I think it's a higher level of service to the student and accountability for the school.

 

And I hate it when people go by the headline and headline alone. Headlines are often written to generate interest/outrage/clicks. Don't fall for it. Read the whole story and perhaps a second from a different source before forming a conclusion.

Edited April 6, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Noreen Claire]

Ugh. At what age do people finally get to be independent adults??

 

THIS. My oldest squeaked out of high school - to this day I am still astonished that it actually happened. I was so happy watching him graduate! BUT - he wasn't interested in college, CC or otherwise, and just wanted to work. Family and friends wanted us to push him towards taking CC courses - actually expected us to fill out the forms and enroll him ourselves! - but our philosophy was that he had graduated high school and was 18 years old. He was an adult and, as such, needed to be treated as an adult. 

[Catwoman]

Eh. The headline doesn't match the article. It's a bit of sensationalizing. He's proposing that every high school student make a post graduation plan. That plan can include work or whatever.

 

I don't know if any quality private school that doesn't make an effort to make a post graduation plan.

 

I think it's a higher level of service to the student and accountability for the school.

Based on what I read in the article, the plan can't just include "work or whatever."

 

It seems like the requirements are far more structured and restrictive than that. The article specified that under this proposal, "students would have to show an acceptance letter to a four-year university, a community college, a trade school or apprenticeship, an internship, or a branch of the armed services in order to receive their diploma."

 

So if a kid completes the requirements for his high school diploma, but is going to get a job working full time at a gas station after he graduates, he won't meet the school system's official requirements and he won't receive his high school diploma.

 

I think that is ridiculous.

[readinmom]

I can't believe this is even being considered.  

[dirty ethel rackham]

Given that Chicago has schools that only require a HS diploma, have 100% admissions, and don't have an admissions fee, I think this is fine.

 

I would have a problem if the rule was that you could only graduate if you were enrolled, planning to go, etc . . . But a rule that says that you need to at least investigate the idea of college, and learn what your options are?  And to demonstrate that knowledge by filling out the application to a school that will accept you?  I think that's fine.

 

Many kids grow up without ever knowing that college is an option for them.  This communicates otherwise to them.

 

Our school system has a graduation requirement that you take one of the following: PSAT, SAT, ACT, or Accuplacer (placement test for CC, can be taken for free at the HS).  Seems reasonable to me.  Requiring a specific score would not.

First of all, who is going to pay the application fees ... or if the fees can be waived, do all the paperwork to get the fees waived?  High school counselors?  Yeah, right.  Even kids at high performing magnet schools get very little help from their guidance counselors.  Parents?  The parents who are equipped to help with this are already focused on this.  The parents that are not aware of options are not really equipped to guide them.  All this will do is increase the drop out rate and make CPS students unemployable. 

 

Um, how about doing something about the already terrible dropout rate before making getting a diploma even more difficult for some students? And where are they planning to get the money to administer this?

Yes.  THIS.  CPS is on the verge of bankruptcy.  Our state is broke.  Pie in the sky ideas are not going to make the money appear out of thin air. 

 

This is just absurd. Aim to make college an option for all kids, absolutely. But our whole cultural mentality around college for all makes me ill. And particularly for lower income people who weren't served well by public schools, it has led to a culture of preying on people to push them into for profit institutions which milk them dry and make them accrue insane amounts of debt. Do a better job for those kids so they're not at risk for those schemes later in life. And so they're equipped better in the first place. And let kids take time before driving them into a career path. Gah. Absurd. Just absurd.

Yes.  The kids that this is aimed are sitting ducks for predatory lending and are the least equipped to discern whether or not they are getting a raw deal.  Many of these kids cannot afford college, nor can they afford to not work as they are contributing to their households.

 

I think it's silly but the few articles I've read all state it's just a way to make them aware and think about continuing after high school. It says all CPS students are automatically accepted into certain colleges (the CCs I guess?). No article says they have to go, just do enough of the paperwork to get an acceptance letter. 

There are other ways of increasing awareness without denying a diploma from students who have earned it.  They need to stop moving the bar and help more kids over the bar.  All this will do is create a new class of drop-outs ... students who work hard to graduate and are denied.  This just burns my rear.  CPS cries about how cash-strapped they are and wants our broke state to bail them out and then they want to do this? 

[LucyStoner]

Based on what I read in the article, the plan can't just include "work or whatever."

 

It seems like the requirements are far more structured and restrictive than that. The article specified that under this proposal, "students would have to show an acceptance letter to a four-year university, a community college, a trade school or apprenticeship, an internship, or a branch of the armed services in order to receive their diploma."

 

So if a kid completes the requirements for his high school diploma, but is going to get a job working full time at a gas station after he graduates, he won't meet the school system's official requirements and he won't receive his high school diploma.

 

I think that is ridiculous.

From the Chicago Tribune:

 

Asked whether a student who doesn't get one of these letters of acceptance would be prohibited from graduating from high school, Jackson said that "if a student graduates from a Chicago public school, they are automatically accepted into one of our City Colleges."

 

I hate knee jerk reactions. The articles I read all mentioned a post high school plan. Distilling that down to just an acceptance letter, if that is what they are doing, seems to miss the point of why great schools do this but it also seems like ANY Chicago high school graduate has access to an automatic acceptance. They don't have to actually attend.

 

This does not, in any way preclude a young graduate from farming or traveling or working. To state that it does is an exaggeration.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Based on what I read in the article, the plan can't just include "work or whatever."

 

It seems like the requirements are far more structured and restrictive than that. The article specified that under this proposal, "students would have to show an acceptance letter to a four-year university, a community college, a trade school or apprenticeship, an internship, or a branch of the armed services in order to receive their diploma."

 

So if a kid completes the requirements for his high school diploma, but is going to get a job working full time at a gas station after he graduates, he won't meet the school system's official requirements and he won't receive his high school diploma.

 

I think that is ridiculous.

And then, he may not be able to keep that job because he won't have a high school diploma. 

[LucyStoner]

What if someone's post-graduation degree is to work on the family farm? There are options for being an adult that don't involve more training or schooling.

This doesn't preclude non-college options.

 

But it's also CHICAGO Public Schools. I dare say very few, if any, farm kids are in attendance. 😂

Edited April 6, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Catwoman]

From the Chicago Tribune:

 

Asked whether a student who doesn't get one of these letters of acceptance would be prohibited from graduating from high school, Jackson said that "if a student graduates from a Chicago public school, they are automatically accepted into one of our City Colleges."

 

I hate knee jerk reactions. The articles I read all mentioned a post high school plan. Distilling that down to just an acceptance letter, if that is what they are doing, seems to miss the point of why great schools do this but it also seems like ANY Chicago high school graduate has access to an automatic acceptance. They don't have to actually attend.

 

This does not, in any way preclude a young graduate from farming or traveling or working. To state that it does is an exaggeration.

It seems that we must have read different articles. My posts have been based on the article I linked in the OP. Nowhere in that article did it state that young graduates could farm, travel, or work without having first met the "letter of acceptance" requirement or one of the others I quoted in my last post.

 

I see no reason whatsoever for kids who don't want to attend college to be forced to go through the application process for college, because it doesn't matter if they are guaranteed acceptance if they have no interest in going to college. It's a complete waste of the kids' time, as well as a waste of the college admissions departments' time.

[LucyStoner]

But if they have no interest in attending, the kids shouldn't have to jump through hoops and fill out a bunch of useless forms, just so they can get the high school diploma they have already earned.

They are automatically accepted. Do you know what the forms to enroll in most community colleges look like? It's shorter than checking out an online shopping cart from

Land's End.

 

Why make a big deal out of a small thing?

[Catwoman]

And then, he may not be able to keep that job because he won't have a high school diploma.

Yes, exactly.

 

But apparently the poor kid would first have to apply to a college that guarantees acceptance so he has that all-important acceptance letter, so he can actually get the diploma he already earned by completing and passing his high school courses... and then not go to college anyway because he has no interest in college.

 

But he'll have that valuable letter... that every other kid who completed high school will also have... :rolleyes:

[Catwoman]

They are automatically accepted. Do you know what the forms to enroll in most community colleges look like? It's shorter than checking out an online shopping cart from

Land's End.

 

Why make a big deal out of a small thing?

Because it is ridiculous, unnecessary, and intrusive.

[dirty ethel rackham]

For people who may not be aware of how dire the funding issues are for Chicago Public Schools ... they are considering shortening the school year because our nearly bankrupt state does not have the money to bail them out.  They will not have extra funding for the City Colleges because they are billions behind in paying their bills.

 

CPS needs to fix the problems they have before adding more hoops for high school graduation.  This is like throwing an extravagant party when you can't afford to keep the lights on or buy food. 

[Guest]

 

Yes.  The kids that this is aimed are sitting ducks for predatory lending and are the least equipped to discern whether or not they are getting a raw deal.  Many of these kids cannot afford college, nor can they afford to not work as they are contributing to their households.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Maybe the people behind ITT Tech found a new venture. 

[LucyStoner]

Because it is ridiculous, unnecessary, and intrusive.

Those are strong words for the actual limited impact this policy will have. I don't understand the catastrophizing in this thread.

 

80.22% of CPS students are economically disadvantaged. Four in five.

 

I have a niece and nephew who are very economically disadvantaged. There's a lot of stuff that WTM families take for granted that they aren't getting at home or school. Basic information like Americorp or trade school. College information like financial aid and free tuition for students with their limited resources. And so much more.

 

I don't consider, as part of the process of attending high school and graduating, that it is intrusive to teach students how to research options and set goals.

 

If anything, I think what is being proposed is less than needed. I'd like to see the sort of proactive, early planning and career exploration/internships/mentorships/paid work experience/making a cohesive post graduation plan like at my son's school, be made available to every student. Not because every kid needs college. But outcomes are better and lifetime earnings higher when students have a general idea of more options than fast food and/or going on welfare. They need access to the same information that kids with educated and middle class parents are getting by default.

 

Looking back in my time in high school, as the first high school graduate in my mom's family, I could have benefitted from this sort of planning in a major way.

 

Even if you still think it is stupid maybe try, just for a minute, to look at it from a different way and think about how it could be better than merely complaining.

Edited April 6, 2017 by LucyStoner

[AnnE-girl]

Because it is ridiculous, unnecessary, and intrusive.

And CPS has enough other things to worry about before they add more administrative hoops to jump through. Seriously, their credit rating is in the toilet and teachers have been laid off. Not to mention that the last superintendent was recently convicted of a kickback scheme that cost CPS tens of millions of of dollars. They need to focus on basic functioning right now.

[LucyStoner]

Yes. The kids that this is aimed are sitting ducks for predatory lending and are the least equipped to discern whether or not they are getting a raw deal. Many of these kids cannot afford college, nor can they afford to not work as they are contributing to their households.

This sort of information is exactly what needs to be diseminated and actively taught to the vast majority of CPS graduates. So that perhaps they know that this apprenticeship will lead to a better paying job and pay them better than minimum wage while training. Or that if they are college bound, they need to protect their college aid eligibility and how to avoid bad lenders and bad schools.

 

I think there's a potential for post graduation planning to be great. This doesn't sound like it will be great. It sounds like checking off a box and that makes me sad for the students who need it the most.

Edited April 6, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Catwoman]

Those are strong words for the actual limited impact this policy will have. I don't understand the catastrophizing in this thread.

 

80.22% of CPS students are economically disadvantaged. Four in five.

 

I have a niece and nephew who are very economically disadvantaged. There's a lot of stuff that WTM families take for granted that they aren't getting at home or school. Basic information like Americorp or trade school. College information like financial aid and free tuition for students with their limited resources. And so much more.

 

I don't consider, as part of the process of attending high school and graduating, that it is intrusive to teach students how to research options and set goals.

 

If anything, I think what is being proposed is less than needed. I'd like to see the sort of proactive, early planning and career exploration/internships/mentorships/paid work experience/making a cohesive post graduation plan like at my son's school, be made available to every student. Not because every kid needs college. But because outcomes are better and lifetime earnings higher when students have a general idea of more options than fast food and/or going on welfare. They need access to the same information that kids with educated and middle class parents are getting by default.

 

Looking back in my time in high school, as the first high school graduate in my mom's family, I could have benefitted from this sort of planning in a major way.

 

Even if you still think it is stupid maybe try, just for a minute, to look at it from a different way and think about how it could be better than merely complaining.

I think you're being a bit condescending here.

 

No one in this thread has suggested that the students shouldn't be provided with information on post-high school career and educational options.

 

But this program isn't doing that.

 

It's simply mandating that the kids jump through specific hoops in order to get their diplomas. Where are you getting the idea that the kids will be receiving all sorts of wonderful guidance in order to meet the proposed standards? And why do you think the kids should be obligated to make these formal, restrictive plans in order to receive their diplomas?

 

I'm all in favor of students having counselors available to help them with their post high school plans. I am not in favor of forcing ridiculous new regulations on those students in order for them to graduate from high school with their diplomas.

[shawthorne44]

I just now figured out that CPS must stand for Chicago Public Schools, and not Child Protective Services.   In earlier posts, I was wondering why CPS needed to get involved.  LOL

[AnnE-girl]

I just now figured out that CPS must stand for Chicago Public Schools, and not Child Protective Services. In earlier posts, I was wondering why CPS needed to get involved. LOL

Yeah, in Illinois CPS is Chicago Public Schools and DCFS is the Department of Children and Family Services, which does what Child Protective services does in other states. We're weird like that.

[LucyStoner]

I think you're being a bit condescending here.

 

No one in this thread has suggested that the students shouldn't be provided with information on post-high school career and educational options.

 

But this program isn't doing that.

 

It's simply mandating that the kids jump through specific hoops in order to get their diplomas. Where are you getting the idea that the kids will be receiving all sorts of wonderful guidance in order to meet the proposed standards? And why do you think the kids should be obligated to make these formal, restrictive plans in order to receive their diplomas?

 

I'm all in favor of students having counselors available to help them with their post high school plans. I am not in favor of forcing ridiculous new regulations on those students in order for them to graduate from high school with their diplomas.

I think you are overstating the degree to which this is actually onerous. You think I'm being condescending. We are probably both right. One of my pet peeves is people jumping to conclusions off of one headline or one article. That's my bias.

 

When something is a graduation requirement the school is more likely to make sure it happens and is incorporated into the curriculum. Having high school counselors merely "available" is not, in my experience anyways, enough for economically disadvantaged students. If it were, outcomes for high school graduates from districts like CPS wouldn't be so bad in terms of income potential, incarceration rates and other long term economic indicators.

 

There was a lot that was *available* to me that I didn't know about. There's a lot available to my niece and nephew that they only know about because of their Aunt Katie. Mere availability is not enough for students who have a deficit of knowledge about post high school planning/options.

[Daria]

Oh and how about people (like me) who can barely force themselves to stay in school past their 16th birthday because traditional school isn't fun for everyone? What are those people going to do when they find out they have to do it for an additional 2 more years just to get a stinking piece of paper?

There is no requirement to attend the school. People are admitted to schools they do not attend all the time.

[unsinkable]

Hey! Maybe these kids can get to the bottom of who's really behind this. :)

 

Kansas School Head Quits Over Student Newspaper Probe

Why wasn't any of this uncovered during the hiring process?!

 

Incredible.

 

Reminds of the school district that hired a super who was let out of his contract...why would the previous school district let him out out of his contract? Bc he was an awful super! And the new district let him out of contract after a couple years, too!

[unsinkable]

There is no requirement to attend the school. People are admitted to schools they do not attend all the time.

"Screws fall out all the time. The world's an imperfect place."

[gardenmom5]

Why wasn't any of this uncovered during the hiring process?!

 

Incredible.

 

Reminds of the school district that hired a super who was let out of his contract...why would the previous school district let him out out of his contract? Bc he was an awful super! And the new district let him out of contract after a couple years, too!

 

that comes down to what previous employers are allowed (and NOT allowed) to say when talking to a potential employer. . . . . if you say negative stuff, the employee can turn around and sue you.  some of the strongest warnings they can safely give are "I wouldn't hire her."

[sbgrace]

I'd rather they finish formal schooling by age 16, then have job training, apprenticeship or college prep for years 11 and 12. It's criminal that high schools graduate kids who are unable to get a job unless they attend even more schooling.

 

 

Yes! I've been out of the classroom (HS) for 12 years now, but I'm sure this is still going on. 

 

We would boast how many of our graduates went on to post-secondary education. I can't remember the percents, but it was high (83% type high). But the percent who actually graduated from college or trade school? Closer to 23%. That's a lot of wasted money, even if those kids only attended for a semester. 

 

Worse, they were then coming home with no training to do anything. Schools used to do a better job training kids for actual post high school careers--automotive mechanics, construction, welding, cosmetology, computer science, secretary, etc. That switched when schools began pushing college level prep on everyone graduating, with the expectation those kids were going on to more education. Harmful. 

[Catwoman]

I think you are overstating the degree to which this is actually onerous. You think I'm being condescending. We are probably both right. One of my pet peeves is people jumping to conclusions off of one headline or one article. That's my bias.

When something is a graduation requirement the school is more likely to make sure it happens and is incorporated into the curriculum. Having high school counselors merely "available" is not, in my experience anyways, enough for economically disadvantaged students. If it were, outcomes for high school graduates from districts like CPS wouldn't be so bad in terms of income potential, incarceration rates and other long term economic indicators.

There was a lot that was *available* to me that I didn't know about. There's a lot available to my niece and nephew that they only know about because of their Aunt Katie. Mere availability is not enough for students who have a deficit of knowledge about post high school planning/options.

The thing is, I just don't think this is fair to the kids, nor is it a practical program to attempt to implement when Chicago public schools are already having big problems. How could they possibly afford to pay for this extra addition to the curriculum? Who would pay for it? What other programs would have to be cut in order to be able to implement this one? And who would pay for the extra college and university admissions staff that would be required to process all of those applications for thousands of students who would never even be attending their school? They couldn't realistically charge those high school students an application fee because many of them would only be applying so they could produce the acceptance letter they needed for their diploma -- and many of the low income students couldn't afford to pay an application fee, anyway.

 

I think we both agree that high school kids should be as informed as possible about good career and educational opportunities they can pursue, and that many schools aren't providing them with that information. But the proposal discussed in the article isn't going to solve that problem. If anything, I think it will backfire and result in fewer kids getting the high school diplomas they earned and should have been awarded.

 

Basically, I'm saying that if the school system wants more kids to be aware of post-high-school opportunities, they can provide that information to the students without having this ridiculous "letter of acceptance" requirement for a diploma.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Catwoman

[FaithManor]

Short sighted, costly, and not addressing any of the deeper issues in CPS that so negatively affect education.

 

Sigh....

Edited April 6, 2017 by FaithManor

[SKL]

I have nothing against career counseling, whether in the form of advisors or a class.  I could even see requiring the class, provided that such requirement doesn't make things more burdensome for kids who already are working seriously toward higher education.

 

But I do not agree with requiring students to choose higher education, and I don't agree with holding their diplomas over their heads until their future plans align with what the mayor thinks they should do.

 

And the "just fake it until you make it" suggestion I keep seeing is unethical in my opinion.

 

The article states that the mayor thinks everybody needs to go to school for at least 14 years.  That's what this is all about.  Either that or he is lying about his actual motivations.  I'm fine with a policy that supports, even encourages 14+ years of school.  But not with one that forces a choice between coercion and dishonesty.

[Storygirl]

I find it unfortunate that the exemptions do not include students with special needs. I have a child who will likely not be a candidate even for community college, due to LDs and other learning issues, who will also not be a candidate for the army, and likely will not be able to pursue a traditional trade, again due to disabilities. Should he have a post-graduate plan to gain employment? Sure, absolutely. But it will probably not look like any of the options listed. Why should he have to apply to community college if he will never go, in order to receive his diploma?

 

Adding a required component to the curriculum to introduction options and teach the skills of applying to jobs, college, etc. would be a fine idea. Making kids prove they were accepted into a program is switching the burden of complying to the student and family, instead of having TEACHING about the options the goal. I think the plan is well meaning but not well thought out. I'm glad we don't live there.

[Ellie]

What a really, really bad idea.

[chiguirre]

I find it unfortunate that the exemptions do not include students with special needs. I have a child who will likely not be a candidate even for community college, due to LDs and other learning issues, who will also not be a candidate for the army, and likely will not be able to pursue a traditional trade, again due to disabilities. Should he have a post-graduate plan to gain employment? Sure, absolutely. But it will probably not look like any of the options listed. Why should he have to apply to community college if he will never go, in order to receive his diploma?

 

 

 

Kids with disabilities have access to more than K-12 education. Depending on the state, they attend job training/life skills programs until they are 22 or 26. In Texas, they hold your high school diploma until you either age out or accept employment. There is also extensive transition planning starting in middle school. There's also vast quantities of paperwork to get your child on the waiver waiting lists and SSI and the waiting lists for desirable living arrangements. A 15 minute online application is a drop in the bucket compared to what you need to do for a high school student with disabilities that will inhibit them being an independent adult.

 

Knowing all the planning that transition entails if you have special needs, I really don't think it's unreasonable to make neurotypical students come up with goals and a plan to reach them. If nothing else having to go to the community college web site might get students interested in their career options and let them know there are short term, job training courses that will give them skills for a better than minimum wage job.

[Storygirl]

Yes, students with disabilities already have to go through a transition process. My point was that they should be exempt in this proposal but there is no mention that they are. Why add a new requirement for them?

[Guest]

Eh. The headline doesn't match the article. It's a bit of sensationalizing. He's proposing that every high school student "make a post graduation plan". That plan can include work or whatever.

 

I don't know of any quality private school that doesn't make an effort to make a post graduation plan. It's also part of the curriculum or advising services at many of the most highly regarded public and charter schools. My son's high school (which is a very sought after public school to the point that people actually move their entire families here from other states to have their child attend) has all entering students sign a letter of understanding that while at high school they will make a plan for transitioning to work or school or the military and one of the required classes freshman year is a career class. They are paired with mentors in their sophomore year and given ample time to take paid and volunteer jobs with major corporations and non-profits before they leave school. Some students incorporate a gap year as part of their plan.

 

I think it's a higher level of service to the student and accountability for the school.

 

And I hate it when people go by the headline and headline alone. Headlines are often written to generate interest/outrage/clicks. Don't fall for it. Read the whole story and perhaps a second from a different source before forming a conclusion.

 

I don't know of any quality private schools that leave post-graduation to the whim of the student, either.  But this is part of what parents demand from a private school and I say Good for Them.  They were super helpful to our family when we were looking at our options.  However, when a senior class has  40 students in it, and the *expectation* is that no one will do anything to SCREW UP the 100% rate of students-accepted-to-colleges, you BET the counselors pay attention. As do the parents.  ;0)

 

I taught in 5 public high schools in my day.  Out of the five, I respected ONE of the counseling departments.  That school's counselors got so many students ready for post-high school life, talked to the kids and found out what they wanted to learn more about and by golly, they found schools for those kids, whether vocational or university.  And of the students that went to university, at least, 80% had *scholarships* of substantial size *because that counseling department rocked."

 

My last year teaching secondary school, I taught at the high school I graduated from, and just like when I was a student there, the counselors were sooooooo concerned about students' self-esteem, their collective and individual psyche.  They wanted my innermost thoughts (nope) and so on...and did NOTHING to help me or the students of the next generation get to the next step.  And when I taught there, they were living in the PAST of the students, cajoling teachers (like me) to pass cheaters and slackers, rather than telling those kids to get off their butts and helping them find their way to the future.

 

The other three schools were somewhere in between. 

 

If I had a kid and I lived in that first school's area, I would send my kid to public school.  It's the only school of the 5 I felt that way about and a LOT of it was because of the counseling department.

[SKL]

I agree good college and career counseling are so important.  My high school (going back 35 years now) did almost nothing, especially for kids who weren't already gunning for the ivy league.  They did not inform students that there is a thing called financial aid, let alone how to apply to it.  There was no general discussion about college selection, information on how to apply, etc.  If you didn't have family encouraging you to go to college, chances are you didn't think you could go.  (I should note that some of the teachers did encourage kids; the "guidance counselors" however were not proactive at all.)

 

I would hope it's better in most schools now, or at least interested kids can get what they need from the internet.  The role of the school is to inform kids and equip them for what they need to do.  Not make adult decisions for them.

Edited April 6, 2017 by SKL

[Lanny]

The Mayor of Chicago should try to make his city much much safer than it is now and not jump off onto something like this.  

[Ellie]

The Mayor of Chicago should try to make his city much much safer than it is now and not jump off onto something like this.  

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

[TechWife]

This is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time. They are going to see their dropout rate increase because students will now give up long before they get to the point of considering further education because they see it as unreachable and/or undesirable. 

 

For those of you who are wondering about AmeriCorps - it may not matter. The current administration wants to cut that program, so it will be a moot point if that succeeds. AmeriCorps simply won't be an option. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kiana]

If what he were proposing was a system that gave all these kids access to counseling to help them figure out something that they are interested in, that they could do, or something that they could tolerate doing while they follow their real interest that's difficult to capitalize on (for example, one of my friends is an aspiring writer who works at a big-box store because he doesn't have to think about his job very much and instead thinks about his short stories he's writing), including access to job shadowing, career exploration, technical schools, and the like, I'd be all for it.

 

But what I'm afraid it's going to end up being is the overworked and jaded counselors who are already there having one more box to check off with a rubberstamped admission to a community college, where a large number of underprepared students (let's face it, CPS really isn't getting them college-ready -- here I have direct, personal experience with students who came from there) who don't actually have an idea of what to study and are just following a general ed program because they were told "you should go to college" drop out and have nothing to show for their time other than some loans that they can't discharge and a few semesters of financial aid eligibility gone. And the government keeps tightening the rules on financial aid eligibility, making it much harder for someone who's had a bad couple of years at a young age to go back and start again. And this makes me so sad, because I believe that we should HAVE access to a "restart your education" option. 

[Ellie]

A high school diploma indicates that the recipient has worked hard for [insert number of years] and has *earned that diploma.* He should receive what he worked for. If he goes to college, he'll get a diploma for that. Being acknowledged for graduating from high school should not be predicated on what his plans are after graduation.

[scrapbookbuzz]

He seems to be coming from the mindset that the government is responsible and in charge of what our kids do with their futures.

Sorry, this is not a Communist country. And, oh yeah, he's a CHICAGO government figure. Chicago has a LOOOONNNGGGG history of

corrupt government officials. I agree with a previous poster, help the poor kids not get shot on the way to school. That's a much better use 

of time and energy then tellling those same kids that, "Hey, sorry, just 'cause you can't afford to go to (whatever school) and/or may not qualify

to enlist, we're not going to give you the diploma you worked for in the past four years." #smh

[kiana]

And, oh yeah, he's a CHICAGO government figure. Chicago has a LOOOONNNGGGG history of corrupt government officials. I 

 

"Welcome to Illinois -- where our politicians make our license plates".