Should the drop out rate be raised to 18?
 

Ontario is looking at forcing kids to stay in school until so it can increase the number of high school grads. Currently, up to 30% (!!!!!) drop out because they find the new curriculum too "tough" (it's harder, but honestly, it isn't all that hard). If one really doesn't want to finish high school, then they're supposed to take on apprenticeships. The point is that the government doesn't want a bunch of useless people that they may have to help finance in the long term. Do you think this is a good idea? It seems that kids are mixed about it. One kid wondered 'what's wrong with dropping out of school and taking a well-paying job. " (ummm, kid, it's going to be a little difficult to get a "well paying job" without an education.....unless your definition of "well paying" isn't the same as the rest of the world's). Another kid said that if one doesn't want to learn, then one doesn't want to learn.

Link to today's Toronto Star article:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...acodalogin=yes

The problem becomes enforcement. The article says:

Currently, parents can be fined up to $200 for not ensuring their children attend school and probation orders can be issued requiring students attend class. However, failure to comply with an order could mean a stint behind bars if a judge deems it necessary, Kennedy acknowledged.

After working on adolescent psych units for 9 years, I can honestly say that if a kid is determined to not be in school, they won't go to school. If a 17 year old boy decides he's not going, there isn't a lot a parent can do. You can't pick them up and put them in the car. If you get them to the car, take them to the school and walk them into the building, there is nothing stopping them from walking back out again as soon as you're gone. And, if you jail parents for not getting their kids to stay in school, then the kid also doesn't have a parent.

I do like the idea of more apprentice or trades oriented programs and I think these can be very successful because not every kid is academic and some can really excel at a trade.

Another incentive they've tried in Michigan (and I don't know how successful it has been) is not allowing drop outs to have driver's licenses. That makes more sense to me, because it says "If you're not responsible enough to finish school, then you're not responsible enough to drive a car".

Dee

The title of this thread should be "Should the drop out AGE be raised to 18"......oops!

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how well it would work.

One thing I didn't see in the article (maybe I missed it) is - what happens if you graduate from high school before turning 18? Would you be forced to go on to college or become an apprentice? I was still 17 when I graduated from HS - not because I skipped any grades, but because I was born just before the cut-off date. Kids who do skip grades could graduate HS at 16, 15, or even 13 (I know someone who did this).

I don't like the idea of punishing the parents for the child's misdeeds. Like Dee said, there's very little a parent can do to make sure their kids actually attend class, short of marching them into the classroom and sitting there with them all day - and even then, the kid is not necessarily paying attention. (Now, if a parent is actively helping his kid play hooky, that's another story.)

I do like the idea of not allowing dropouts to have driver's licenses. Most kids that age are all about being able to drive. Threaten to take away their licenses and maybe they'll think twice about staying in school.

I like those incentives.

One reason that it may not be good to force the kids to stay in at least a traditional school setting is that many of them will make it hell for the teachers and students until they can drop out.

Florida has the drivers' license deal if you drop out.

I don't know anyone who dropped out, so I have no idea if it worked.

Why do you guys think preventing drop outs from having Driver's licenses is a good idea?

If a kid quits school to work, why add to his unproductivity by making it potentially harder to get to work?


And putting kids in jail for not going to school . . seems . . uhm . . counterproductive at best.

They are trying to legislate a social issue, we don't have a good history of doing that in the world.

Re: Should the drop out rate be raised to 18?
 

What a crock of #$%^!!!!!!! Why is that every other province in this country can complete highschool in 4 years except Ontario??? All this means is that, it's not the curiculum that's the problem it's that Ontario teenagers are dumb as nails. I think they should force them to stay in highschool till 18. I don't want to be support their welfare taking a$$es because "highschool was too hard" and they can't get a decent job because they don't have a highschool diploma. They need to suck it up and finish.

I think what they should do is bring back the different levels of courses. Before I entered grade 9 and they had destreaming they should bring back the basic, general and advanced streams...and I think they do. They have U level courses that prepare one for University and C level courses that prepare one for College. Maybe they should have B level courses for those that think school is "too hard" and prepare them for entering into the work force or the trades?

Re: Re: Should the drop out rate be raised to 18?
 

They actually did bring back streaming in Grade 9. You're divided into "Academic" (the old Advanced level) and "Applied" (the old General level). It's the kids in the applied level that find high school too hard. The drop out rate for those in the academic level is roughly the same. The "U" and "C" levels you're talking about are for Grade 11 and 12. I'll check to see what they have for those who want to work straight out of high school. I'm positive that there's something out there.

ETA: There is a workplace stream. Information on Ontario's high school curriculum can be found here: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/documen.../choosing.html

Because my birthday is in September, I'd graduate before turning 18 as well. I believe that they'll make an exception for those who finish younger (due to late birthdays) because they've already completed their diploma.

Re: Re: Re: Should the drop out rate be raised to 18?
 

Well that doesn't seem to be doing any good. I still think they should bring back the levels of basic, general and, advanced.

Or do destreaming again for grade 9 and if it's "too hard" they take the basic, or general, or advanced level courses starting in grade 10. Really it just amazes me that Ontario has such a big problem.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Should the drop out rate be raised to 18?
 

You mean they should bring back basic? "Applied" is equivilent to the old "general". I'm also wondering if there should be two separate literacy tests, one for those in the Applied level and another for those who are in the Academic stream. The passing rate for those who aren't in Academic is really, really low.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Should the drop out rate be raised to 18?
 

Yeah, that's what I mean, bring back the old basic. Because obviously there are soome kids who aren't smart enough to go to college and university, so we need to give them an education so they can go out and join the workforce.

Are there any other provinces that have literacy tests?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Should the drop out rate be raised to 18?
 

I'm not sure about literacy tests, but many other provinces have required standardized testing. I know that for a BC student to go to university (in BC, at least), he/she must pass province-wide Grade 12 level exams.

Maybe we need to have nation-wide standardized testing?