2007-03-22 06:04:12 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Other - Education
A pretty idiotic idea.
As it is, many students who are 15 and 16 (or even younger) do not want to be in school, skip continually, or cause class-room disruptions (which have a strong negative impact on others), or simply stop coming. Schools, in this age of cutbacks, do not have the resources to deal with the current problems. This would simply add more problems and difficulties for schools, and would probably not make much difference to the problem of people leaving school.
After all, if a 17 year old does not want to go to school, how will you make him? Are you going to jail him for not going to school? I doubt it. If a student is not living at home -- and nearly all school dropouts are also not living at home -- there is no way to put any pressure on him/her to return
It has been suggested that, if a student is not at school that their driving licence be suspended, but there is no indication how this would be handled, or how it would influence those who do not have a licence to drive, or access to a vehicle.
All in all, it seems like one of those ideas (like "get tough on crime", and "stop welfare fraud") that is designed to appeal to a certain element of the electorate but which has very little significance.
2007-03-22 06:25:54 · answer #1 · answered by P. M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Long overdue, as well as the elimination of 'summer vacation'.
School children should be in school 5 days/week 9 hours/day with the only days of being those of a normal work environment.
Also the testing setup is wrong. There should be no bell curve grading, just a straight linear scale base on 70% correct answers being a D-.
The current, government led, corrupted system definitely does not prepare them for the real world.
2007-03-22 06:18:14 · answer #2 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should be 18 or completion of school whichever is later. Children without education cannot earn a proper living, they turn to crime or live on government handouts. When younger than 18 they are too immature to realise that they need education.
The government needs to be tough on this as an ignorant population has less of the skills to maintain civilization. Truancy laws need to be enforced. If the parents cannot keep their children in school, then send the truants to a government residential school. If the children misbehave in order to be put out of school, send them to the residential school. If they misbehave or run away from there, put them behind fences, barbed wire and bars, they will then attend school with guards present.
Every child should be educated to his/her capability and to be able to work at gainful employment. If they are allowed to quit school they are headed for poverty and crime. Children do not have "rights" or "free will" due to their age. What happens to these ignorant ones when they suddenly turn 18 and become subject to adult laws and responsibilities? What happens when they are all taught the value of an education and pass that value down to their children? It has to start somewhere.
I taught at a government residential school and the students were better behaved than in regular schools. They had the teachers, the counsellors and the house parents all working together on them. They also knew that the next step would be juvenile prison. Very few took that next step.
2007-03-22 16:17:32 · answer #3 · answered by Taganan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While raising the drop-out age to 18 might be in the best interest of some people, I believe in free will.
You can't force an education on a person who doesn't want one. Changing the law to make the drop-out age 18 won't guarantee higher graduation rates, either. Some students would just become truant, fail classes, or leave part-way through their senior year.
What really needs to happen in this country is to encourage parents to place a higher value on their children's education. Children who drop-out are being failed by their parents. Economics have nothing to do with it - I came from a family on welfare and I was always told to go to college. Here I am, a semester away from a degree, because my family encouraged me to make it work. Parents need to take more responsibility for the educational encouragement of their children.
2007-03-22 06:15:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Excellent idea - I think it will be better for them in the long run. I used to be against it as they are in school for a long time however after living in an area where they leave school at 16 and then bum around for a couple of years getting into trouble I am now all for it
2007-03-22 06:08:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
you don't need to do that .
the exams and things are a lot easier than when i took them
just let the teachers teach the same way as 3o years ago.
its well known if you put today's kids up for the same exam most would fail so you give them an extra 2years to achieve the same results as 30 years hence
2007-03-22 06:11:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well see, there is that unspoken rule that you should atleast graduate before you leave, but some people can't even make it past their 1st yr- so the rules are there, but it's all up to the kids' foundations.
2007-03-22 06:08:52 · answer #7 · answered by HappilyEverAfter 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Personally, I think it's a waste of time. Those who want to continue in school to that age do at the moment, those who don't will continue to play truant.
2007-03-22 06:07:06 · answer #8 · answered by flyingconfused 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why should we have to pay to babysit adults when they could be working. If they cannot get into college by grade 12; then they need to get a job.
2007-03-22 06:11:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Long long long overdue
2007-03-22 06:07:17 · answer #10 · answered by Misha-non-penguin 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋