Posted on 07/20/2008 9:29:37 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued
If college students can take more than four years to graduate, why not high school students?
State educators are considering a proposal to raise the number of years before graduation for some Michigan high school students.
Under today's regulations, students count as "dropouts" in state records if they don't finish high school in four years -- even if they receive their diplomas within the next year.
But that could soon change.
"This is great news," said Mary Beth Handeyside, director at Omni Adult and Alternative Education, the alternative high school of Carrollton Public Schools.
"It's not only in the interest of the students themselves, but of the state and their communities" to have as many high school graduates in Michigan as possible, she said.
Students take five years to graduate for a variety of reasons, Handeyside said. Some must compensate for habitually skipping class. Others come back after dropping out entirely. Still others missed school because of a chronic illness or long-term suspension.
The state Board of Education is mulling a plan that would allow these students five years to graduate rather than the traditional four. Students would have to seek approval for the one-year extension on a case-by-case basis.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.mlive.com ...
Right now, they’re calling it an option, but give them time. If this passes, it will gradually become mandatory and new classes on things the students don’t need to know will be imposed so the schools will have an excuse to keep them in.
This proposal is coming out of Michigan.
“If college students can take more than four years to graduate, why not high school students?”
Answer: College students (or their parents) are paying the bill. High School money comes out of ALL of our pockets.
I’ve known of 21 year olds who could not graduate, and yes they were still in public schools with 15 and 16 year olds.
Why not just report the number that take 5 years? I don’t think the number is that breathtaking, but this has been going on for a long time and not unheard of. I know some one who did the 5 year plan for high school more than 20 years ago. She had some serious issues and after intervention repeated 10th grade.
My oldest finished in three and still didn’t spend as many hours a day on her work as public school kids do in school.
And she took Physics and calculus in her third year homeschooling.
The teachers’ unions want to waste another year of childrens’ time. The only benefit would be for the teachers, who would have more time to teach Political Correctness. More teachers would have to be hired too.
The idiot doesn't realize that it will only increase the dropout rate. If they can't get kids to stay in school for four years, what makes them think they'll want to go for five?
Correct. This is being driven by the teachers unions.
More student-years = more jobs.
If they didn’t make it out in 4 years, an extra year isn’t going to help measurably. In fact, schools that have a large percentage of their students requiring 5 years should be classified as “underperforming” and faculty & administration should get a 20% compensation penalty.
This is the computer age, why does it now take five years to do what we used to do in four when we only had a slide rule?
Should special ed teachers be classified as “underperforming”, and suffer a 20% compensation penalty?
People have a lifetime to complete High School at present. It’s called a GED.
It doesn’t - my son just finished Algebra, in the seventh grade. I took it in 9th grade.
“My oldest finished in three and still didn’t spend as many hours a day on her work as public school kids do in school.”
That’s because she and you were able to find well-written books and also because she was spared the ordeal of bullies, bad teachers, and intentionally boring classwork & homework.
All adding an extra year to high school will accomplish will be to prolong dependancy, put off self-sufficiency, increase tax liability, and give more business to teachers, administrators and the NEA.
Didn’t say special ed.
Said this:
“schools that have a large percentage of their students requiring 5 years should be classified as “underperforming””
please... it's not the same thing...
There are schools in this country, that are 100% special ed. Just about nobody graduates in 4 years - in fact, they are put out the door when they turn 21.
Shall we then cut the pay of the teachers in these schools by 20%?
It was, after all, your proposal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.