Education is among the most politically debated subjects in the United States. There are many facets to the education argument. For instance, the how-to best educate people of varying ages, levels (pre-school to post-graduate), social economic status, and special education needs are part of the education debate. In addition, factors such as teachers, environment and parent teacher cooperation are also considered in the debate. Considering the effects of crime, pregnancy, learning disabilities and drug use and dropout rates are among important variables to the debate as well. An issue that received presidential attention on January 25, 2011 in the State of the Union address to Congress and to the nation was education and the issue of student drop-outs. In the address, President Obama advocated for States to require High School students to remain in school until graduation, or until they reach the age of 18. The President’s point of contention for a mandatory attendance age policy is the belief that students that are not allowed to walk away from their education are more likely to complete school and receive their diploma. President Obama believes that making sure that High School students remain on campus is a determining factor in graduation.
On the other hand,
In the January 29, 2012 issue of Chicago Tribune in the News Columns editorial Steve Chapman provides a perspective to President Obama’s State of the Union address on the topic of mandatory attendance age proposal. As Steve Chapman sees it, the proposed mandatory attendance age policy is wrong for all High School students in the United States. Chapman paints a grim picture of children being forced to endure harsh physical and emotional conditions in High School. Chapman argues that if students who typically dropout are required by law to remain, these students will be unlikely to learn and unfairly exhaust the resources of teachers. Furthermore, these disgruntled students become a disturbance to other students who want to be in school and a daily interruption to the learning process. Chapman offers an alternative — make education improvements so that students are more likely to stay in school and more kids will “choose” to stay in school and not opt to dropout. Chapman is convinced that the President’s policy proposal will fail because it does not take into account students who are better off dropping out. Chapman brings into question freedom to choose and poses the question of whether (in some circumstances) students should be allowed to drop out early. Chapman cites that some students are better if they do drop out early. To substantiate his claim Chapman cites a study from John Hopkins University where six states raised the mandatory attendance age: three saw no increase in graduation rates and one saw a decline. Chapman also points to Nobel laureate economist at the University of Chicago who specializes in education and who is skeptical of the proposal. Chapman claims that the highest dropout rates are in the worst schools and those who graduate from these schools graduate barely able to read. Chapman questions how it is that President Obama believes that these students would want to stay in school even longer and moreover “reap a rich harvest of learning.” Perhaps the most controversial argument Chapman makes is that of the consequences to students who do not drop out, but are doing “the right thing.” Chapman boldly states that, “One of the best things you can do for students who want to do the right thing is to remove those who would rather goof off or make trouble.” Chapman does not believe that the majority ought to sacrifice for the minority. In Chapman’s eyes, if a person is headed in the wrong direction, it doesn’t help to keep going in that direction. Furthermore, Chapman notes that most States already allow teens to drop out at age 16 or 17. Chapman is not only advocating against the proposed mandatory requirement, but also questioning the wisdom behind the push. Chapman does not advocate that kids drop out of school. Chapman believes that kids should stay in school for economic and future employment opportunity. For Chapman, the question has to do with questioning whether the kids who otherwise would drop out are better off being forced to finish high school.
Chapman’s alternative to President Obama’s proposed mandatory attendance age policy — to take the money intended for enforcement of the proposed policy and utilize it instead for “education improvements” –seems rather simplistic to me. The what, when, who, and how much is not explored. For instance, should an inner city school receive more money? Should performance be the indicator for distribution of funds? Who decides basic, yet complex questions, such as what is fair? The editorial is compelling, but Chapman’s point of view is narrow and simplistic. I don’t believe that President Obama has the wrong remedy for dropouts nor is Steve Chapman completely wrong; I think that it’s a complex issue with no easy answers or a simplistic solution. Perhaps some sort of hybrid solution based on the specific needs of a community and school district may prove to be better suited to meet the current and future challenges of educating students. I do not believe Chapman goes far enough to argue the complexities involved. There are too many factors not considered. For example, the differences between inner city, suburb, poor, rich, and privileged, and underprivileged students must be considered. Understanding different environments such as inner city student’s needs and suburb student’s needs is important because they each will have a different and unique solution. The effects of crime, pregnancy, learning disabilities and drugs on dropout rates must be thoroughly understood in order to design the appropriate interventions. I don’t believe in a one size fits all model, but rather allowing local autonomy to thrive and chart the course of their own educational destiny. Therein lies the debate: how much and should the Federal government impose policies and regulations on education? How much autonomy should each school have in how they educate? I don’t believe President Obama’s proposal nor Chapman’s alternative are sufficient to satisfy the educational needs of the country. While Obama may offer “no parole,” Chapmen may be offering “too much autonomy.”
Reference:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0129-chapman-20120129,0,2315527.column