Not Everyone DESERVES Secondary School Education

[Anonymous]

I think many of us went to school back when kids could drop out at 16. Now that they aren’t allowed to drop out until 18, we have a population of disaffected and disruptive high schoolers plaguing our classes who don’t want to be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think many of us went to school back when kids could drop out at 16. Now that they aren’t allowed to drop out until 18, we have a population of disaffected and disruptive high schoolers plaguing our classes who don’t want to be there.

We can look at the impact just within the US now though--there are plenty of states that have 17 as the age. Look at the outcomes of youth with similar characteristics in both and see if this is a sensible policy. My guess would be no, but it's an open question.

[Anonymous]

Need to bring back the concept of reform schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a time when vocational training was part of a high school curriculum. There was shop class, automotive class, etc... It's too bad those were phased out because I think there are lots of kids who are attracted to that sort of hands on learning.
I agree that the Great Gatsby isn't for everyone.

They are still there--there are so many vocational programs in FCPS.

+1. There are some great academy courses in FCPS and they're well attended. The students who do well in those courses, however, are not the students OP is talking about. The ones who miss 40 days of school with no explanation and spend most of their time when they are in the building cussing out teachers or roaming the halls or playing on their phones are not going to suddenly get it together because they're placed in auto shop.

Exactly. Too many kids & families right now do not value education. I want to believe every child *deserves* an education -- but they have to *want* it. When they show up for school only once in awhile, don't take care of laptops, do not come in even a little bit ready to learn (without a writing implement day after day, for example), and just waste everybody's time roaming the halls, it isn't an "education" at all. It is babysitting on demand. May as well scrap the education system, get back to basics for those willing to show any interest and a work ethic, and then offer free babysitting for everyone else until age 18. Maybe families would value education if the slots were more limited?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[code]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like someone from flyover who wants cheap labor for their meatpacking plant.

In order to have educated voters, everyone needs to study American government. Trades people create jobs because many run their own businesses. They need secondary math. Geometry proofs help people learn logic an reasoning skills. Literature helps people to empathize with others from different walks of life. Half of the recent innovations in tech started life on sci-fi shows.

European countries silo their kids early. It's not good preparation for the more flexible US job market. It also means that a lot of voters in Europe are low info; a lot of these countries have fascist parties and vote for insane GDP-wreckers like Brexit.

Looking at the composition it reads like a well-educated immigrant who can’t afford a high performing pyramid and resents FCPS for not getting the “ bad kids” out so that their child can have a different high school experience.

Right about immigration status and relative pyramid status as one of a Westfield, Herndon, South Lakes, West Potomac. But upper quartile income. Many in the same income range cannot fathom how rapidly how down the road how heavily impoverished certain school pyramid la have become.

Presumably you are now an American, and you ought to embrace our values of equality and freedom.

Some people are citizens, yet are not Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:. Say top 70% make the cut to be able to attend high school.

So... who wants to tell all of the Langley parents that only 70% of their students are going to be allowed to go to HS????

[Anonymous]

I think these ideas are contrary to both democracy and what we know about how children develop. In my view, there is no reason a country as wealthy as the US should in any way consider limiting secondary education---what a waste of human potential. Just because there are some kids who don't currently engage the way we like does not mean they should be denied access to education. More robust consideration of alternate approaches to education including apprenticeships? Sure. Forcibly limiting who gets a secondary education? Terrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think these ideas are contrary to both democracy and what we know about how children develop. In my view, there is no reason a country as wealthy as the US should in any way consider limiting secondary education---what a waste of human potential. Just because there are some kids who don't currently engage the way we like does not mean they should be denied access to education. More robust consideration of alternate approaches to education including apprenticeships? Sure. Forcibly limiting who gets a secondary education? Terrible idea.

Completely agree.

[Anonymous]

IQ is very stable by the time kids are in middle school. It would make sense kick out everyone that scores below 85, if their grades are bad or they have behavioral issues. This group is exceedingly unlikely to benefit from further education if they are already struggling in school.

[Anonymous]

And then you want those undereducated, undersocialized people voting? With exactly the same voting power as you?

[Anonymous]

FCPS has CTE.
https://www.fcps.edu/academics/high/career-and-technical-education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. Say top 70% make the cut to be able to attend high school.

So... who wants to tell all of the Langley parents that only 70% of their students are going to be allowed to go to HS????

I think OP means Top 70 percent county/statewide. So probably 90-95 percent of Langley would pass. Versus like 50-60 at like a Justice/Mount Vernon/Lewis/ Hayfield school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And then you want those undereducated, undersocialized people voting? With exactly the same voting power as you?

They already are in the current system…… Whether you accept it or not. On the left you already have a large number of ghetto dumb inner city blacks and Hispanics voting. On the right you have Bible Belt Appalachian poor dumb whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then you want those undereducated, undersocialized people voting? With exactly the same voting power as you?

They already are in the current system…… Whether you accept it or not. On the left you already have a large number of ghetto dumb inner city blacks and Hispanics voting. On the right you have Bible Belt Appalachian poor dumb whites.

And how do people who only think in stereotypes vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then you want those undereducated, undersocialized people voting? With exactly the same voting power as you?

They already are in the current system…… Whether you accept it or not. On the left you already have a large number of ghetto dumb inner city blacks and Hispanics voting. On the right you have Bible Belt Appalachian poor dumb whites.

And how do people who only think in stereotypes vote?

accuse me of “thinking in stereotypes”. Whatever that means? I just figured that since the above poster correlated further secondary school education with greater decision making and voting behavior, I wished to showcase that there are large swaths of groups that ON AVERAGE that already fall into a category he/she is trying to exclude.