Thinking of dropping out? No so fast, kid
With Montgomery County now on record as supporting raising the age at which Maryland students can legally drop out if school, Baltimore state Sen. Catherine E. Pugh says the city has gained a powerful ally in its push to require students to continue their education until they reach 18. Sen. Pugh, a Democrat from the 40th District, says that by joining Prince George's County and the city in pushing to raise the drop-out age, Montgomery County will add a large bloc of delegates supporting new legislation in the General Assembly next year, making passage of some kind of reform more likely.
"I see a continued groundswell of support around the issue," Pugh said Monday, adding the "we are hoping to focus this year on moving compulsory attendence to 17, and then raising it to 18 the following year."
The argument against raising the minimum age at which students can legally leave school has long been that it would cost the state more to educate the additional kids who otherwise would have dropped out -- up to $40 million a year more a year, according one estimate by the state legislative services department.
"What that amounts to is planning for our kids' failure," Ms. Pugh charges. "Instead of planning for them to succeed in school, the state is basically projecting a certain number will drop out each year and then calculating how much it will save by not having to educate them."
But does allowing students to drop out at age 16 really save the state money?
When you count up all the other costs associated with high school dropouts -- higher rates of unemployment and incarceration, physical and mental health problems, lower lifetime earnings and tax contributions -- it's not at all clear that Maryland comes out ahead by letting kids drop out. For example, it costs about $10,000 to keep a kid in school for one year, but it costs more than $40,000 to keep that same kid in a drug teatment facility, juvenile detention center or prison for a year.
Nor is it certain that kids who drop out would spoil their classmates' chance to get an education by being disruptive. Baltimore, P.G. and most other jurisdictions already have programs to deal with disruptive students. In Baltimore, for example, students on short-term suspension are required to attend an alternative school in the department's North Avenue headquarters until they are deemed ready to be returned to the classroom.
The bill Ms. Pugh and her colleagues are contemplating won't prevent educators from removing a disruptive student from the classroom, nor will it prevent teachers and principals from suspending or otherwising sanctioning students with serious behavior issues. On the other hand, it recognizes that in a knowledge-based global economy that depends heavily on having a well-educated work force, it makes no sense to enshrine in stone a legacy of the state's rural past when teenagers typically left school at 16 to work on the farm.
As Ms. Pugh noted dryly, "there are no farms in Baltimore City."
Comments
"...the state is basically projecting a certain number will drop out each year..."
As it has always done. There has always been a percentage of the population which is NOT academically oriented. Forcing them to remain in an academic environment is not going to help them; let alone help the other students who do appreciate the academics.
The problem with a legal drop out age of 16 is NOT that it puts 16yo's out on the street. (at least not directly). The problem is that these particular 16yo's have been so woefully under served in meaningful education up to that point that they don't have many the ability to get or hold one of the few jobs available to them. The second problem is that there are so few jobs available to them.
The schools can't do anything about the jobs situation but turning the schools into detention centers or using them to project infantalist view of incompetence on these teens abilities doesn't serve society or these teens any better.
I get the sense that educators don't want to accept that there are alternative means to honestly and decently provide for yourself and your family outside of the academic and collegiate track; let alone that a person choosing this could quickly earn more than the teacher who didn't actually teach them.
Posted by: MrRational | November 3, 2009 8:57 AM
Keep the kids in school. Even the ones who don't want to be there.
Force the 18 year old wanna be drop out to sit next to the 16 year old who takes their education serious. The good kids will influence the bad kids by taking them under their wings, or beat the crap out of them. Either way everything will be wonderful and we can all live happily ever after, amen.
Posted by: Carole | November 3, 2009 10:38 AM
If a child drops out at age 16 against his/hers parent's wishes then the parent should be freed of all legal liability for that child. Acting like an adult -dropping out- should make them an adult.
Posted by: jay | November 3, 2009 1:24 PM
Any public official who argues against raising the minimum age at which students can legally leave school because it will raise the cost of education for the state is beyond cynical and should seriously consider resigning their office. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, remember? And money should be no object when it comes to education.
Posted by: Sean Tully | November 3, 2009 2:36 PM
Sean, what the public officials will be arguing for is to have more students bound to the building for longer times (after 18 18 they'll go for "graduation") so their dollar per student funding can be increased.
They have no intention or capacity to actually educate these extra 'children" any better than if they do now.
If the schools are actually interested in doing something meaningful to help these and probably another 30% of most students then society can develop an entirely different curriculum and facilities that will challenge these "children" and teach them things that will actually be meaningful in their lives.
Posted by: MrRational | November 3, 2009 5:48 PM
We should educate kids like in Germany. Those who are not mentally suited for geometry and algebra should at least learn work skills. Teach them what they want to learn; what they are capable of learning; and make them productive citizens. We need machinists, bricklayers, carpenters, auto mechanics and roofers. Many are not students who can deconstruct post modern American poetry. They care two hoots about the mysteries of calculus or dissections in a biology class. Yet, they can visualize in 3-D and are talented with their hands and with fixing and repairing broken hardware of any sort. Our public education warehouses the bored, the disruptive and the those disinclined toward book learning. Our "one size fits all" mentality is destroying the human capital we should be educating and utilizing. A complete overhaul is long overdue and I don't expect Maryland's educators, who are stuck on book learning for all, to do anything innovative. "Let them drop out at 16 years" and "they should stay till they are 18 years in school" are both two sides of the same coin. When tossed this coin comes up "heads" useless and "tails" the same.
skeptictothecore
Posted by: Skeptictothecore | November 4, 2009 10:48 AM