Michigan Votes Forum

The people spoke on this issue the last time it came up and they over whelmingly said forget it.  But you guys can't let things go and seem to have nothing better to do than make dumb legislation.   That's another good reason for part-time legislators.   Check it out, there are states that have done this and it didn't do any good.       On top of that we have an education system that can't seem to get it right now, why add more trouble to the pot.  There is not money enough to go around now.

 because they want to flex their muscles and criminalize what used to be legal.

if an 17 year old is not in school, he is a criminal, and either he or his parents owe the government some money.

raising revenue on 'invented crimes' is THEFT.

This bill is a response to the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which idiotically uses high school graduation and dropout rates to appraise school success and quality.

Dropout rates are a poor measure of school quality or performance. They far more likely reflect family structures and values prevalent in the community.  Where strong families that value education overwhelmingly predominate, dropout rates are likely to be low.  When the opposite community condition exists, dropout rates are likely to be high.     

Michigan kids now can drop out of school at age 16 with parental permission.  So the quick fix is to increase the compulsory attendance age to 18, which is the age at which most who graduate will graduate. 

Of course, that will fix nothing.  It will not upgrade or improve schools, and well may make them worse as we compel attendance by more and more poorly motivated students.

Wate.  Pure and simple.   Raising the "mandatory" attendance age in schools has failed to improve graduation rates / scores / schools in ANY of the other states that have tried it.

Michgan Leads !  Becasue they refuse to learn from the mistakes of others...  and no one is following. 

This is just another scheme by the MEA. Schools get a lot of their money by how many students they have.

And all the MEA is concered about is their wages and benefits .They diguise it by always saying "Its for the children", or Our children are our future".

It is totally unfair the the students who want to be there, as the ones who are forced to be there will no doubt be disruptive.

 if everything they do is FOR THE CHILDREN, why do they decide to do so many things that are AGAINST THE CHILDREN?

THIS BEING ONE OF THEM.

Bump:

This bill is a response to the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which idiotically uses high school graduation and dropout rates to appraise school success and quality.

Dropout rates are a poor measure of school quality or performance. They far more likely reflect family structures and values prevalent in the community.  Where strong families that value education overwhelmingly predominate, dropout rates are likely to be low.  When the opposite community condition exists, dropout rates are likely to be high.    

Michigan kids now can drop out of school at age 16 with parental permission.  So the quick fix is to increase the compulsory attendance age to 18, which is the age at which most who graduate will graduate.

Of course, that will fix nothing.  It will not upgrade or improve schools, and well may make them worse as we compel attendance by more and more poorly motivated students.

Ask the question: Why do they want to drop out in the first place?

All true educators who aren't drunk on power know that you can't force someone to learn.  Children who reach the age of 16 and hate school are a nightmare in the classroom.  Ask any teacher.  They make it impossible for the other students to stay focused on what the teacher is trying to accomplish, they sometimes take out their frustration at required attendance on others via violent means (when bullied into being there, they bully those "under" them).  And even if these issues aren't present, and the young adult decides to be compliant, they still waste years of their time--important time--staring out the window wishing they were somewhere else. 

Kids who drop out can get a job working in retail, and that is a wonderful education.  I know, because my first real job was as a greeter in a clothing store.  I was shy; it taught me to communicate with strangers.  I didn't know what clothes to wear and didn't understand fashion; it taught me how important first impressions are, and showed me how to make good ones.  I learned to sell; I learned how crucial good business relationships are, and how to keep them from getting too personal; I  learned business math; I learned to do quick calculations in my head when a customer asked for a price; I learned how to break down and count a drawer, and how to trust a co-worker to double-count me because we need each other to see things we can't.  I learned about display, how to set them up and what works to get good attention and leads to a sale.  I learned about marketing and promotion.  I could go on, but the point is that I learned MANY lessons that I could never have learned in school, and they were the kind of lessons that actually helped me be a productive citizen.

I went on to attend college and graduate, because only those with college degrees became store managers, and as soon as my diploma was in hand, that's exactly what I became.  I was motivated because I knew it would help me.

Truly thoughtful educators know that the more rules you impose on an unwilling student, the stronger his or her resolve becomes to break those rules. You may be able to enforce control over what happens with their bodies, but you lose influence over their minds.  On top of that, you force them in a confined environment with the other young adults who really want to learn.  Kids who are on track become influenced by those who are not; this can lead to unintended pregnancy, exposure to drugs or addicts as peers, and worst of all, rebellious or nontrusting attitudes.  All the dangerous things bored kids get involved with stare the focused kids in the face, making it that much harder to stay on track and get into college.  How can we imagine that we can help or influence those who don't trust us?

If kids know they will use information, you can hardly keep them from learning it.  Try to stop an infant from teaching him or herself how to talk; try to stop them from crawling and walking.  You can't stop them because they know it's in their best interests, and they learn because they want to and they enjoy it.  Great teachers who are empowered to make decisions in their own classrooms, and exciting curriculum that deals with real-life challenges in and out of the classroom make a great education not only possible, but irresistable. Kids drop out because school isn't capable of teaching them, for whatever reason.  More research needs to go into that problem.

Two more mandatory years of forced institutionalization won't solve the problem of why kids aren't learning in the current system.  That's the real "drop-out" issue.

This bill ignores the rights of young adults to control their own future.  It forces them to waste years in a situation that can only become worse due to rising frustration.  This doesn't make sense; we need to find another way to support education; this just broadens the power of the state over those who are weakest, without regard to what will really help them.

 once again, the contrast between FORCED, COMPULSORY learning and the FREEDOM TO MAKE LEARNING DECISIONS BASED ON PERSONAL CHOICES leaves the public school system wanting.

 THIS sounds like a job for VOUCHERS.

that way, the public schools could MANDATE ATTENDANCE BY THOSE THAT DON'T WANT TO LEARN, and the PRIVATE SCHOOLS could succeed at teaching THOSE THAT DO WANT TO LEARN.

the PARENTS OF FRUSTRATED KIDS get what they want, their kids out of the bad learning environment of the public school system. and the SOCIALISTS get what they want, more control over whoever is left.

Bump:

This bill is a response to the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which idiotically uses high school graduation and dropout rates to appraise school success and quality.

Dropout rates are a poor measure of school quality or performance. They far more likely reflect family structures and values prevalent in the community.  Where strong families that value education overwhelmingly predominate, dropout rates are likely to be low.  When the opposite community condition exists, dropout rates are likely to be high.    

Michigan kids now can drop out of school at age 16 with parental permission.  So the quick fix is to increase the compulsory attendance age to 18, which is the age at which most who graduate will graduate.

Of course, that will fix nothing.  It will not upgrade or improve schools, and well may make them worse as we compel attendance by more and more poorly motivated students.

 way to repeat yourself..

crazycajun:

 way to repeat yourself..

Your inanity leaves little choice.

Bump:

This bill is a response to the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which idiotically uses high school graduation and dropout rates to appraise school success and quality.

Dropout rates are a poor measure of school quality or performance. They far more likely reflect family structures and values prevalent in the community.  Where strong families that value education overwhelmingly predominate, dropout rates are likely to be low.  When the opposite community condition exists, dropout rates are likely to be high.    

Michigan kids now can drop out of school at age 16 with parental permission.  So the quick fix is to increase the compulsory attendance age to 18, which is the age at which most who graduate will graduate.

Of course, that will fix nothing.  It will not upgrade or improve schools, and well may make them worse as we compel attendance by more and more poorly motivated students.

 the way to handle the inanities of life is to prove them wrong.

i've done it dozens of times for you. here i go again.

this bill is a response to the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which idiotically uses high school graduation and dropout rates to appraise school success and quality.

<unless and until every teacher everywhere standardizes grading, it's the only measure of success or failure we have. in fact, it's the BEST measure of success or failure we have. grades and G.P.A's are subjective. passing, failing, and dropping out are concrete numbers we can use to improve schools, if that is what the goal actually is.> 

Dropout rates are a poor measure of school quality or performance.

<bull.>

 They far more likely reflect family structures and values prevalent in the community.  Where strong families that value education overwhelmingly predominate, dropout rates are likely to be low.  When the opposite community condition exists, dropout rates are likely to be high.

<every student that drops out has their own reasons for doing so. if your theory was correct, dropouts would be localized around such communities, but they aren't.>    

Michigan kids now can drop out of school at age 16 with parental permission.  So the quick fix is to increase the compulsory attendance age to 18, which is the age at which most who graduate will graduate.

 <but of course, dropout students 'telegraph' their intentions YEARS before they drop out. grades drop, attendance falters, attitude tanks, and co-operation with 'authorities' is nil. very few students that exhibit such 'symptoms' can be stopped from bailing out on education by mandating their attendance.>

Of course, that will fix nothing.  It will not upgrade or improve schools, and well may make them worse as we compel attendance by more and more poorly motivated students.

<now you're catching on. now, read my post on vouchers and private schools as an alternative to the quagmires of education that public schools represent.>

crazycajun:

 the way to handle the inanities of life is to prove them wrong.

No.  The best way to handle the kind of inanity you dispense is to simply move on past it.

Bump:

This bill is a response to the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which idiotically uses high school graduation and dropout rates to appraise school success and quality.

Dropout rates are a poor measure of school quality or performance. They far more likely reflect family structures and values prevalent in the community.  Where strong families that value education overwhelmingly predominate, dropout rates are likely to be low.  When the opposite community condition exists, dropout rates are likely to be high.    

Michigan kids now can drop out of school at age 16 with parental permission.  So the quick fix is to increase the compulsory attendance age to 18, which is the age at which most who graduate will graduate.

Of course, that will fix nothing.  It will not upgrade or improve schools, and well may make them worse as we compel attendance by more and more poorly motivated students.

 but you can't do that... can you?

NO...

you and i agree that this bill will do nothing. you just can't quit fighting with me. if all you can do is keep 'bumping' the same message over and over and over, you are wasting time, and energy. very counter productive.

is that the best you can do???

probably.

Bump:

This bill is a response to the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which idiotically uses high school graduation and dropout rates to appraise school success and quality.

Dropout rates are a poor measure of school quality or performance. They far more likely reflect family structures and values prevalent in the community.  Where strong families that value education overwhelmingly predominate, dropout rates are likely to be low.  When the opposite community condition exists, dropout rates are likely to be high.    

Michigan kids now can drop out of school at age 16 with parental permission.  So the quick fix is to increase the compulsory attendance age to 18, which is the age at which most who graduate will graduate.

Of course, that will fix nothing.  It will not upgrade or improve schools, and well may make them worse as we compel attendance by more and more poorly motivated students.

 what sane is TRYING to say, but failing miserably, is that he doesn't agree with the passage of this bill either.

After reading the text and analysis of this bill, and understanding that a child who reaches the age of 16 and has parental permission to leave school may still do so, I still am against this bill. The answer to the school drop-out rate has little to do with compulsory attendance, as we see by examining stats from other states that have the best and worst graduation rates as compared to their compulsory attendance law.  If a teenager doesn't want to be educated in a particular setting, no amount of compulsion will educate that child.  He or she will become a liability to the school by being disruptive or apathetic in the classroom, and an economic liability to the state. This isn't a good use of state money, especially now.

This bill is probably the idea of the MEA.

It's all about the money.

The more years a student is in school, and the more students that are there, the more(taxpayer) money they get.

Notice how they bribe students with goodies on the day they count the number of students to see how much money they will get?

 With a Democrat administration, coercion was the first thing on their minds-- i.e. using the power of the state to further intrude on people's rights in the name of their liberal progressivism-- i.e. robbing the people of liberty and property, in the name of some politician's absurd fantasy.

Compulsory attendance for any age is already involuntary servitude and false imprisonment, and it gives school a captive, paying audience with zero competition- and gives school bullies a free lunch" in more ways than one; likewise, the schools can governmental claim immunity from most lawsuits, and in any event they don't care if they get sued since the bill goes to the taxpayer. Basically, they are above the law, while imposing laws on everyone else that violate the US Constitution-- whether the Supreme Court agrees with it or not; remember this is the same Supreme Court that said that confiscation of all privately owned gold, was a federal power granted by the Constitution. All extensions of government coercion should be fiercely resisted-- particularly in bad economic when politicians will be going straight for the people's liberty, appealing their fears in order to pass laws that further infringe on liberty in the name of "necessity."

Parents-- not the state-- should be required to provide education for children;  just like parents are already required-- and trusted-- to provide food, housing, clothing, medical and dental care for their children; but somehow they can't be trusted to choose and finance a good school for them-- or collect assistance if they can't afford it, even though they can also do this for all the other expenses.

This is probably just a ploy by the MEA lobby to increase the money spent on schools, by closing off the means by which unsatisfied students can escape their forced-fed learning-centers.