PP, no one will touch this. This is a federal issue and we are living the consequences locally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then at age 22 when they get this degree, what can they now do that they couldn't before? Do they then need more schooling? When will they be able to start working? Most kids are done with college by age 22.

By this logic, why should we care if anyone not going to college graduates from high school?

We generally believe there is value in finishing high school/earning a high school diploma, regardless of future plans. If it's valuable for Tom Smith to get a high school diploma, why isn't it valuable for Tomas Juarez?

It may be beneficial for Tom Smith to finish high school too even though he dropped out, but once he's 18 he's not allowed to come back. He has to get a GED. Why does Tomas Juarez get to stay in school? Why should either of these people who by 18 have a high school diploma or a GED as their only option? Why not a vocational option?

I think the issue is that Tomas may not have had the opportunity to progress in his education, whereas Tom did. That's not a punishment for Tom, but rather a recognition that Tomas might benefit from a similar opportunity, even if he is no longer under 18.

Vocational training is great, but many fields are not possible without English literacy and mastery of basic math.

But Tom is a citizen of Tomas is not. If a US citizen, Tomas would have had to have been educated past 3rd grade. Don't we have an obligation to Tom first?

Anonymous wrote:http://www.wusa9.com/videos/news/local/fairfax%20/2014/05/19/9299137/

Full day Mondays are on the way! Maybe next year.

This deserves its own thread.

http://www.wusa9.com/videos/news/local/fairfax%20/2014/05/19/9299137/

Full day Mondays are on the way! Maybe next year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2013 Siemens Finalists.

http://www.siemens-foundation.org/pool/siemens_com...2013_web_listing_sfs_final.pdf

California has fifty-one students represented among the finalists. Most of those students attend California public schools.

Of course, I recognize that California is the most populous State, but these national achievements (among others) are but one recognition of the fact that California schools are doing an increasingly excellent job in educating its diverse student population, and leading as an example for the others to follow.


2014 Intel Finalists

https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-sts-2014-finalists

There are eleven student finalists from California public schools alone. The second-place finisher, New York, has eight student finalists, and I believe that Maryland has four or five.

The Siemens link doesn't show any students. A quick look at the Intel list and the high schools represented by those California students are some pretty wealthy areas of California. I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions about California public schools, but I don't see how this data shows much, if anything at all.

At least two of the CA finalists are at private schools. And the others listed are widely known as the best schools in the state. It's like people from another state looking at Langley and TJ and assuming our whole state is like that.

Yes, and the fact is there are always people who are going to succeed and some of them are immigrants or children of immigrants. But there are also many kids who are not succeeding and this is true in CA as well as FCPS. My high school in FCPS has a lot of success stories, but it also has kids who drop out or just coast through high school and get out with the bare minimum of skills. We always push our kids toward going to college, and this is the right path for many, but there are also many kids who just need skills so that they can succeed outside of school without a 4 year college degree.

And so why is FCPS trying to educate 16-22 year olds at a 3rd grade academic level to be ready for college? If there is no federal requirement, isn't there another path for them that will still make them successful but not be so daunting for the teachers or students?

No, there isn't. At least not in FCPS. My department members and I talk about this all the time - the model we have does not work for these types of students. Students with a 3rd grade education who arrive in the U.S. at age 18 will age out before graduating from high school. There is no way they can get all the credit/SOL requirements completed in that period of time - even with being able to stay until 22. We need something different for them - yes, it benefits everyone for them to be educated, but a regular high school with all its strict testing/graduation requirements doesn't work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then at age 22 when they get this degree, what can they now do that they couldn't before? Do they then need more schooling? When will they be able to start working? Most kids are done with college by age 22.

By this logic, why should we care if anyone not going to college graduates from high school?

We generally believe there is value in finishing high school/earning a high school diploma, regardless of future plans. If it's valuable for Tom Smith to get a high school diploma, why isn't it valuable for Tomas Juarez?

It may be beneficial for Tom Smith to finish high school too even though he dropped out, but once he's 18 he's not allowed to come back. He has to get a GED. Why does Tomas Juarez get to stay in school? Why should either of these people who by 18 have a high school diploma or a GED as their only option? Why not a vocational option?

Can Tomas pass a GED if he can't read English well? Is this even an option for him?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then at age 22 when they get this degree, what can they now do that they couldn't before? Do they then need more schooling? When will they be able to start working? Most kids are done with college by age 22.

By this logic, why should we care if anyone not going to college graduates from high school?

We generally believe there is value in finishing high school/earning a high school diploma, regardless of future plans. If it's valuable for Tom Smith to get a high school diploma, why isn't it valuable for Tomas Juarez?

It may be beneficial for Tom Smith to finish high school too even though he dropped out, but once he's 18 he's not allowed to come back. He has to get a GED. Why does Tomas Juarez get to stay in school? Why should either of these people who by 18 have a high school diploma or a GED as their only option? Why not a vocational option?

I think the issue is that Tomas may not have had the opportunity to progress in his education, whereas Tom did. That's not a punishment for Tom, but rather a recognition that Tomas might benefit from a similar opportunity, even if he is no longer under 18.

Vocational training is great, but many fields are not possible without English literacy and mastery of basic math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then at age 22 when they get this degree, what can they now do that they couldn't before? Do they then need more schooling? When will they be able to start working? Most kids are done with college by age 22.

By this logic, why should we care if anyone not going to college graduates from high school?

We generally believe there is value in finishing high school/earning a high school diploma, regardless of future plans. If it's valuable for Tom Smith to get a high school diploma, why isn't it valuable for Tomas Juarez?

There's a reason why federal education ends at age 18. The idea is that we educate our children and then they can have many years of labor to pay back for their education and support themselves and their children. By the time they are 22, shouldn't they be ready to go out and make money if they need to? We're taking these children at 16 and teaching them for 6 more years so they can achieve a high school diploma. I'm just asking is this the best use of their time?

First of all, there is no "federal" education. Education is a state function. Second, there is no law that I'm aware of that says that education ends at age 18. There are plenty of US-born and raised students who, for whatever reason, were held back and don't finish high school until they are 19. Neither am I aware of any policy or philosophy that says that children should complete their education by age x in order to be able to work for y years to pay back their debt to society. What?

Third, what is so magical about age 22? Do you think that a 22-year-old without a diploma is in a materially better circumstance than a 19-year-old without a diploma? The issue is not the AGE of the person, it is their education and experience. I will ask again: by this logic, why do we bother encouraging 16-year-olds to finish high school if they aren't pursuing higher education? Aren't many 16-year-olds ready to go out and make money at any of the sub-minimum-wage jobs that are available to people without a high school diploma?

A 19-year-old with a 3rd grade education is one who may have never learned long division. What alternative to additional schooling would be a "better" use of his time? He can't learn a trade without mastery of basic math. Should we just teach him to push a broom and be done with it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then at age 22 when they get this degree, what can they now do that they couldn't before? Do they then need more schooling? When will they be able to start working? Most kids are done with college by age 22.

By this logic, why should we care if anyone not going to college graduates from high school?

We generally believe there is value in finishing high school/earning a high school diploma, regardless of future plans. If it's valuable for Tom Smith to get a high school diploma, why isn't it valuable for Tomas Juarez?

It may be beneficial for Tom Smith to finish high school too even though he dropped out, but once he's 18 he's not allowed to come back. He has to get a GED. Why does Tomas Juarez get to stay in school? Why should either of these people who by 18 have a high school diploma or a GED as their only option? Why not a vocational option?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can't imagine why anyone thinks Fairfax County or our society in general would be better off if these students were denied these educational opportunities.

I think the argument could be made that the schools would be safer without 22 year old men hanging around in the same classrooms as 13 year old girls? I don't really see why it's the taxpayers' responsibility to foot the bill for high school education for people who reached adulthood four years ago, sorry.

Sometimes it's 20-year-old men with 16-year-old boys as with this incident last year at Marshall:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/20-Year-Old-High-School-Student-Faces-Child-Porn-Charges-215301651.html

I agree that any adult in a HS is not a perfect situation, but the charges in the above mentioned case were dismissed.

That does not mean the conduct was appropriate, only that there was not a criminal prosecution.

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to teach ESOL children over 18 in high school so they can achieve a high school diploma. According to one of the posters if children are not ESOL, they have to get their GED certificate instead of a high school diploma. If we are not allowing non-ESOL children who are probably ahead of a 3rd grade level at 16 to achieve a high school diploma over 18, why are we allowing ESOL children to work on this till age 22? Of course they should have training, but I'm not sure I agree it needs to be a high school diploma to go onto college.

Tell us again, what foreign country was it that you moved to so you had to be educated in another language? Non-ESOL students have not had a language barrier,and they've probably lived in the U.S. most of their lives as well so presumably would have been required to start attending school at 5. Do you think a student who is 2 or 3 years older than his classmates would choose to be in that situation?

Agree with 14:44 it is to our benefit as a society to educate immigrants. Period. People here need to stop begrudging ESOL students their chance at an education and acting like these students are taking something away from our pampered and very fortunate kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then at age 22 when they get this degree, what can they now do that they couldn't before? Do they then need more schooling? When will they be able to start working? Most kids are done with college by age 22.

By this logic, why should we care if anyone not going to college graduates from high school?

We generally believe there is value in finishing high school/earning a high school diploma, regardless of future plans. If it's valuable for Tom Smith to get a high school diploma, why isn't it valuable for Tomas Juarez?

There's a reason why federal education ends at age 18. The idea is that we educate our children and then they can have many years of labor to pay back for their education and support themselves and their children. By the time they are 22, shouldn't they be ready to go out and make money if they need to? We're taking these children at 16 and teaching them for 6 more years so they can achieve a high school diploma. I'm just asking is this the best use of their time?

Anonymous wrote:And then at age 22 when they get this degree, what can they now do that they couldn't before? Do they then need more schooling? When will they be able to start working? Most kids are done with college by age 22.

By this logic, why should we care if anyone not going to college graduates from high school?

We generally believe there is value in finishing high school/earning a high school diploma, regardless of future plans. If it's valuable for Tom Smith to get a high school diploma, why isn't it valuable for Tomas Juarez?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can't imagine why anyone thinks Fairfax County or our society in general would be better off if these students were denied these educational opportunities.

I think the argument could be made that the schools would be safer without 22 year old men hanging around in the same classrooms as 13 year old girls? I don't really see why it's the taxpayers' responsibility to foot the bill for high school education for people who reached adulthood four years ago, sorry.

Sometimes it's 20-year-old men with 16-year-old boys as with this incident last year at Marshall:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/20-Year-Old-High-School-Student-Faces-Child-Porn-Charges-215301651.html

I agree that any adult in a HS is not a perfect situation, but the charges in the above mentioned case were dismissed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can't imagine why anyone thinks Fairfax County or our society in general would be better off if these students were denied these educational opportunities.

I think the argument could be made that the schools would be safer without 22 year old men hanging around in the same classrooms as 13 year old girls? I don't really see why it's the taxpayers' responsibility to foot the bill for high school education for people who reached adulthood four years ago, sorry.

Sometimes it's 20-year-old men with 16-year-old boys as with this incident last year at Marshall:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/20-Year-Old-High-School-Student-Faces-Child-Porn-Charges-215301651.html