phxcat wrote:
I teach in a school with a similar dynamic, I would assume, to Northeast. We have a huge refugee population on top of a generally inner city neighborhood. I don't know how many languages are spoken, but it is probably similar. Some of those kids come from war torn places such as Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq, and have seen things that no child (or adult) should ever have to see. Many had never been in school before 8th grade. On top of the issues that Northeast has, we have a larger non-refugee ELL population and the added issue of having a large number of separated families, with parents often being picked up by Sheriff Joe and put in tent city or deported. Walking around campus, though, you really wouldn't know that it wasn't a normal suburban school (racial profiling aside) and we perform well. I have substitute taught in Kansas City Kansas, which has similar schools, but is under control. Good teachers and good administration can have a very large effect- walk into any school, urban or suburban, and you will see a huge difference from classroom to classroom. It is true, though that the students also have a large impact. I think that it is important to have a strong AP program at each school. Even if the school is not able to attract enough strong AP teachers (which will be hit or miss wherever you go), at the very least those classrooms will be under control and will allow students who want to learn to learn. On the other end of the spectrum, especially in KCMO, there needs to be a place for the kids who are not going to behave the way they need to to go. At a lot of poorly performing schools, there will be maybe three kids per classroom who will control the room and prevent learning from happening. Those kids either need to change or leave. And I think that KCMO needs to be aggressive in doing this, but it needs to be LRE and any tracking needs to be permeable because you can't just dump these kids into the streets and you need to give these kids the opportunity not to have already ruined their lives before they are old enough to vote. First, there needs to be strong technical education offerings to keep kids who just are not college bound engaged and career oriented. School has to have meaning, and to many students, it doesn't. There needs to be a strong school within a school program for credit recovery and for a site-based program for students who are choosing not to behave in a way that is conducive to classroom based instruction to fall into. There also needs to be a strong off site alternative program. IN addition, at every step of the way there needs to be social workers and psychologists who can intervene and try to save the kids that can be saved. Everybody behaves the way they do for a reason. If we can determine the reason, that makes it possible to change the behavior, but we need the resources to change the behavior.
For those who want to talk about the cost of doing all of this, yes, it would be expensive, but Fang's last statement puts the cost in perspective.
The other thing I think we should change is our policy of allowing kids to drop out of school once they reach age 16. This is an antiquated idea, and no child of that age is old enough to make that decision about their life.
I think many troubled kids give up before age 16, because they know they can drop out a in a couple of years, and are just coasting until they can. They have no parent telling them they can't in many cases.
This falls into your statement about "School has to have meaning." I think some kids see this dropout thing as a solution in their life. If we want kids to see school as having meaning, that means we can't let them drop out at 16 just because they want to.
The State has to place more meaning on education by not allowing kids that young to drop out.
We no longer have situations where farm kids need to drop out to help on the family farm, or kids needing to go to work in sweat shops to help their family survive.
Dropping out isn't necessarily a choice based on kids not wanting an education. Some kids might drop out because they are afraid to go to school, or are threatened in the environment.
I have a cousin whose son is gay. He wasn't in the worst school of all time either. He was bullied every day at school to the point that he wanted to kill himself. The school did nothing about it, even though it was brought to their attention. My cousin's son dropped out at age 16 just to get way from the bullying and violence towards him. Being a teenager, he wasn't responsible enough to follow up and get at GED, and he's struggled since keeping a job. He realizes now that it was a mistake to drop out of school, and not get a GED. However, he's caught in that cycle of needing to survive in a minimum wage job situation. He hasn't yet been able to right himself financially to be able to devote time to getting a GED. His mother is not in the position to help him either, because she struggles financially herself.
In sure in some urban schools, there are kids who drop out just to get away from the stressful environment.
My point is that kids, and their irresponsible parents, shouldn't be given such an easy out. By law, kids should have to stay in high school until they graduate, or unless they can legally prove there is some reason why they can't (functional learning disability). I am even hesitant to put an age limit on this because some kids might need to attend school past the age of 18. If they fail to attend school to order to graduate, then the parent must be called in front of a family court judge, and their children are then sent to a state-run boarding school that they cannot leave until they do.
The "out" must be finishing their education.
But again, we have to place a value on education to fund the alternatives.
The thing I always think of is the commonly-cited: "American imprisons more of its' own citizens than any other country." Is this really the country we want to be?
And that's mostly because of drug offenses. When I was in college, a fairly large number of students in my dorm were doing various drugs regularly--mostly pot, but also cocaine, LSD, and mushrooms. Probably the vast majority got blasted out of their minds on alcohol regularly as well, and I saw drinking cause as much trouble as doing any other drug.
Drug usage is not always a fair indicator of anything. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both did LSD in college.
http://theweek.com/article/index/248371 ... o-do-drugs