The article “Obama
Wades Into Issue of Raising Dropout Age” by Tamar Lewin, discusses Obama’s
mention of raising the high school dropout age to 18 instead of the more
popular age of 16. Obama’s argument focuses on students staying in school
longer and getting at a minimum a high school diploma. However, the counter argument
focuses on the impact to states’ economies having to support even more kids on
a limited budget; kids who don’t want to be there.
I think
that both sides have good arguments, but when viewed in the larger scheme of
things, some of those arguments lose credibility. Looking at the opposing side’s
arguments the only real point that has validity is the strain that would be put
on an already fragile system. School systems are already over capacity and
desperately lack the appropriate funding, with more kids staying in school
longer, the schools’ resources would be stretched even thinner. Unless the
federal government is willing to increase the funding that they give to states
for their school systems, this agreement has a lot of strength. However, the
opposition’s point that keeping kids in school who don’t want to be there is a
waste of resources could be spread to every student in a school. No high school
kid really wants to be there so its hard to see how that is a credible argument.
Looking on Obama’s side of the debate, kids really don’t have the maturity at
the age of 16 to end their schooling career. Students at the age of 18 might
not be any more mature, but as legal adults they are responsible for their
actions and legally make their own decisions.
So what
do you think? Should a student have to stay in school until they are legal
adults and at least get a high school diploma, or should that student be able
to leave school at the age of 16, thus putting less strain on the school
system?
I believe raising the age to 18 is a good idea. It is hard to make an intelligent decision about whether or not to continue high school as a sophomore. When you are 16, you arent thinking about your future and school does not seem as important as it should. Its not till the end of high school approaches that one can see the actual benefit of graduating and even going to college. A rebellious 16 year old can screw his life over with one single rash decision. There is a significant jump in one's maturity level between the beginning and end of high school and the benefits of education become much more evident. 18 is when you become a legal adult and that is when you are expected to take the reins and start moving into the real world. A 16 year old is not ready for that jump and should not be allowed to make that decision. It may cost a little more money at first but in the long run it will allow Americans to get better jobs and stimulate economic growth.
ReplyDeleteI think Iver brings up a very good point, when deciding whether or not kids should be allowed to drop out of school we have to take into account the lasting effects of that decision. The article constantly refers to the economic strain that forcing more kids to stay in our education system would cause. The rationale behind this is that kids who don’t want to be in school will be a distraction to others and thus waste the school system’s valuable resources, which are already stretched thin, such as teachers and equipment. But allowing our population to drop out at an earlier age will no doubt have an effect on this country’s literacy rate and average level of education of our citizens. With this decrease in education might come a decrease in higher paying and more demanding jobs. This lack of jobs will have an even larger rippling effect on this country economy in that we will no longer attract the forerunners of technology to do business here. All of these factors are inversely related to the amount of tax revenue our government will be able to obtain. So in the long run it might be more fiscally damaging to let young kids drop out of high school, which is why I think the drop out age should be raised to 18.
DeleteMy immediate response is no, we shouldn’t raise the drop out age. Do I mean I want people to drop out at 16? No, of course not, every should work towards getting diploma. However, if they don’t want to be there they are wasting their time, their teacher’s time, their classmates time, and the schools resources. It is unfair that resources should be wasted on the students who don’t care when there are many motivated students trying to excel. In my senior year all of my classes had 30 students in each class. In previous years we usually had 20-25. The overcrowding made it more difficult to get one on one attention from the teacher. For students struggling to make the grade, those extra 5 people who maybe don’t care about the class make a big difference. Therefore, I do not think that they should raise the drop out age to 18, the parents of those students need to be held accountable and ensure that their kids are growing into responsible young adults.
DeleteHowever, I do think Iver makes a very good point that raising the drop out age “may cost a little more money at first but in the long run it will allow Americans to get better jobs and stimulate economic growth.” I agree with this statement, however this is assuming that those 16 year olds forced to stay till they are 18 change their path and their mindset. Who is to say that raising the drop out age will encourage these students to pay more attention in school in do well. If we force them to stay they will resent the work more.
You guys bring up really great points. Maybe the problem isn't the drop out age, but the fact that once someone drops out it becomes increasingly difficult to later get the educational resources needed. I imagine that for a high school drop out working multiple minimum wage jobs it's difficult to find time or money to get a GED or go to college. Perhaps if there were more resources available to people later in life who want to make a change the drop out age wouldn't be an issue.
DeleteThis does bring up a very valid argument; both sides have pros and cons like most debates. With this, I believe that changing the drop out age is a waste of energy. Kids can't drop out without a parents signature therefor whether the age is 16 or 18 does not really matter. If a student is 16 and is putting zero effort into school then they don't deserve to be there. Yes, I understand that they are young and may not know what is best for them but by the age of 16 you are either going to succeed or fail. There work ethic is ingrained by this age.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion on dropping out is that anyone should be able to do it if school does not interest them, but I think we should try to take these people and give them an opportunity to go to technical schools that teach working on cars or things of that sort because many people would argue that these same kids who drop out will be in gangs or sell drugs that puts society at harm, but these kids give cops jobs. My idea of technical school could work, because honestly school sucks. The only reason I still do it because I am good at it but if I wasn’t I would be wasting my time when I could serve my society better as someone who does not need a formal education such as a chef or mechanic.
ReplyDeletePersonally i would choose the lesser of the two evils, the dropout age to be 18. In a perfect world there would be no dropout age in the sense that the Dept. of Education would make dropping out a zero to nothing possibility. Education serves as preparation for the supposed "Real World". By reducing the drop out age, there would be socio-economic consequences. (higher unemployment, as james mentioned scaring away foreign investors). I really don't agree that young adults should be given the choice to dropout whenever they choose to do so. I think that another function of education is that it gives us a sense of professional focus, guiding us to our interests and capabilities. We as a society need to consider if saving some money now is worth dealing with an illiterate generation in the future
ReplyDeleteI believe that this legislation will only be successful if it was accompanied by a reform of the education system. If this legislation was enacted it would not be successful because it would only be forcing the students who do not care about their education to stay in a place they don’t want to be. These students would get frustrated that they have to stay in school and as a result, make it harder for those students who truly want to learn. These students would be a distraction and would not become better citizens in the long run. The only way to ensure that these students have a successful future is to show them the value of an education and to show them how many doors are opened to them when they have a diploma.
ReplyDeleteGreat point!
DeleteI come from an inner-city high school which had many low-income families. Prior to my senior year, there were many fights, lots of gang violence, drug busts, you name it. The kids simply did not want to be there; their parents had dropped out of high school and started working to support their families; the logical next step for them was to do the same. But they were confined at school till 3:00; there was no real way for them to get a job due to the time constraints of school. So they were apathetic and rude; after all, why should they respect a system that forces them to be in a place that has no benefit for them?
ReplyDeleteMy senior year, the school enacted a program that would allow students to only schedule three periods if they did not wish to stay. As soon as this policy went into effect, violence dropped, gang fights became almost non-existent, drug busts were a rarity, and the school was altogether a better place. Therefore, I cannot see forcing students to stay in school until eighteen as anything but an extremely bad idea.
I feel as though you should have to earn a high school degree. I think that making someone stay in school till you are 18 is a good start though. Making a kid stay till he is 18 doesn’t necessarily achieve anything if the student was held back 3 times. Then you have a 18 year old freshman. I don’t agree at all with allowing kids at 16 to drop out of high school though. I think a lot of the blame should be taken off the students though and placed on the parents. They are the ones allowing their children to pick that life style.
ReplyDeleteI think that the drop out age should be 18. People would be able to get more education with the extra two years of schooling. However, a majority of kids just skate by high school and never really learn anything. At my high school there were many kids that just simply did not try or care. These kids barely graduated, if at all, and did not go to college. If the student is not going to try at school than why should they waste their time there when they could be out making money? I think that for some students school is just a place they are forced to go. The drop out age of 18 may just make kids skip school and not pay attention in any of their classes. It should not be controlled by the government, but it should become to students decision on whether or not they wish to graduate from high school.
ReplyDeleteAn High School education is something that is extremely important to a student's future career and life. Althought it is critical for a future, it is something that has to be earned and not given to freely. That is why I believe that student's should be able to make their decision to stay or not at the age 16. I think that if a student doesn't want to be there, they shouldn't waste our time and rescources. That is why our education system is so corrupt, we would rather see a student who barely passed graduate high school than a student make the conscious decision at 16 to drop out. If students who didn't want to be there dropped out, we could focus our time and rescources on those students who strive to achieve.
ReplyDeleteFrom my particular point of view, there is no one system that serve to satisfy the whole American nation. A high school education might not be as important for a young boy in Montana whose father and grandfather and generations before have been dedicated to farming, as to a young girl in New York whose parents are lawyers. Be that as it may, a minimum education should be required for all citizens of the state despite their future plans and careers. I find that it is not so much as a matter of when they dropout, since students ate the age of 16 may already have a much more developed maturity than some fellow peers of 18 and above. During my time in high school, well actually high school's (3 of them) I find that the real purpose is not to teach you any craft in particular, but to familiarize you with the concept of learning and education so that those pursuing a career in the future might be more adapted to such a system. The solution I propose would be to look at the students particular needs and plans, yet by the time they leave high school, make sure that they have acquired the necessary skills to become well functioning citizens even if they're dreams is to drive a lorry truck. Particular courses dedicated at implementing a students particular needs instead of general ones which he or she may disregard as useless should be integrated into the educational system, so that all students may come out prepared.
ReplyDeleteI think raising the dropout age to 18 is not a bad idea at all. Age 18 is when you are considered an "adult" by the law and that is when you can supposedly make your own decisions for yourself so why not raise the dropout age to 18? At age 16, you're still just a teenager. You wouldn't know what's best for you. Even at age 18 I don't think that people are necessarily "mature" enough to make decisions for themselves but you have to draw a line somewhere to be considered an adult so it might as well be 18.
ReplyDeleteDropping out of school is a huge responsibility and an extreme case that can't just be left to a 16 year old to decide. There may be several implications that arise as a result of that. There is of course, no doubt that there are, as Ignacio said, some 16 year olds that are more mature than some 18 year olds, but that does not hold true for that entire age group.
Raising the dropout age to 18 is a good idea. It does have it's ups and downs though. I think there should at least be an attempt to teach everyone up to that age. Whether they really want to be there or not, they will get something out of going. A percentage of kids would not turn 18 until after they graduated anyway so they may as well keep going to school. Besides, a lot of kids don't even mature until they've had a chance to experience the world outside of high school. There are people who have certain situations at home that would need for them to not have to be at school 5 days a week, but rarely are the 16 year old kids actually mature enough to make such a big decision without parental or guardian input.
ReplyDeleteI don’ think kids should be forced to stay in school until they graduate or turn 18, because the kids that don’t want to be in school are wasting their time and the teachers’ time. The public school system is already strained and it is unlikely that this is going to get fixed any time soon. If anything the kids who are bringing down the test scores and selling drugs on school campuses should not go to school period, but then to force them into school is just a bad. President Obama’s idea is a good one that in a perfect world would work, but this isn’t a perfect world and therefore In my opinion it is a terrible idea to force students to stay in school if they don’t want to.
ReplyDeleteMany people say kids don’t want to go to school in the first place. In one respect most kids don’t like school, but it is something we do because we have to in order to have a good life. Also many people say that kids aren’t able to decide for themselves if schooling is necessary or not. Well, obviously school is very important, because it is very hard to get a job if you are illiterate. Most people are educated in America today, but if you aren’t going to use your education for anything useful in your life and you don’t want to be there in the first place, then I don’t believe you should be at school. Those kids are the ones who end up dropping out, and it is completely unnecessary to keep them within the school
Raising the dropout age to 18 years is a very costly idea for the United States, because why should the government pay for resources for schools that are just going to be wasted on students who want to start life on their own without future education. There are students who believe that they do not need a formal, standardized education to prove that they are educated.
ReplyDeleteWhy should students spend countless days, months, even years on learning material that isn’t related to what is required to their future career choices? If I were to become a professional chef, why would I need to learn how to calculate trigonometry functions or learn about the causes of the French Revolution? In my opinion, the best way to learn a subject or a certain concept is to appreciate and to take interest in subject matter. Most people don’t want waste time learn about facts that have no relation to their life or interests so why waste money trying to force feed irrelevant information to students.
I think the dropout age should be 18, because at least at this age they are legal adults and they at least made it through most, if not all of high school. At 16, students are mainly confused on what they want to do when they grow up so they become stressed and just give up easily. Most technical schools that specialize in certain fields of study are only available for students during their junior and senior year. These schools help students take classes they want to take, and gets them interested in learning about things they never thought they'd even like.
ReplyDeleteIt really depends on the situation, if a family is really struggling and a child needs to help out, why stop them. Yet, if people just don't want to be their, why force them. Give them the freedom of choice, and most of them will realize that graduating is the best way.
ReplyDelete