get it home page promo

Greater expectations

2011-01-13T00:21:00Z Greater expectationsBy ALANA LISTOE Independent Record Helena Independent Record
January 13, 2011 12:21 am  • 

A bill before the Education and Cultural Resource Committee would increase the legal dropout age from 16 to 18.

Proponents, including State Superintendent Denise Juneau, say the change will set a state expectation that all Montana students will graduate, which in today’s economy is imperative for a good job and a secure future.

Opponents say that the bill doesn’t fix the cause of the problem. They argue that attempting to force students to stay in school when they don’t want to be there will take away from the students who do. Furthermore, critics argue, it simply wouldn’t work because students can’t be forced to attend.

Sen. Taylor Brown, R- Huntley, is carrying the bill. He said current law does not adequately prepare today’s young people for a successful future. The dropout age of 16 may have been all right when enacted in 1921, he added, but it isn’t in 2011.

Taylor says the bill, including a drafted amendment, would not affect the home schooling community or home-schoolers’ ability to finish early. The amendment would require home-schooled students to report at 16 for the last year.

“I brought the bill because I’m concerned about the high school dropout rate,” Brown said. “The goal is to raise expectations for parents, teachers, students and the community.”

He noted that he is not a fan of expanding government, but rather is thinking about students who don’t have families at home setting high expectations for their children.

Helena Superintendent Bruce Messinger spoke in favor of the bill saying it will lead districts to find new and innovative practices to engage students in their learning, motivate them to success and graduate.

Karen Sullivan, a Butte mother of two high school students, encouraged the committee to support the bill.

“This would keep our young folks where they belong — in environments of learning, preparation and engagement,” she said.

Cathy Burwell, president of the Helena Area Chamber of Commerce, said it will build a stronger and well-prepared workforce for the business community.

Many of those in opposition were from the home-schooling community around the state.

“This will not improve the graduation rate,” said Steve White with the Montana Coalition of Home Educators. He said students should stay in school, but they should also understand the value and have involved parents.

White, of Bozeman, said the passage of SB 44 will undermine a home- or private-school parent’s right to direct their decisions for the instruction of their children. He pointed out that the two states with the highest graduation rates — New Jersey at 84.5 percent and North Dakota at 83.1 percent — have a compulsory age of 16.

The fiscal note for the bill is about $1 million, which White says, represents an expansion of government, and more spending with less results.

Retired educator Barbara Rush said increasing the age will not keep students in school.

“We can try all kinds of policing activities, but in the end, if they don’t want to come, they simply won’t,” she said.

Opponent Jonathan Barbagello said the bill would simply treat the symptom and not the problem.

“This bill is based on the flawed assumption that the children who drop out are the problem,” he said. “We need to fix the system. The system is the problem, not the children.”

Anaconda High School student Teryn Green said more than 20 percent of her graduating class has dropped out, and most tell her it’s because they don’t care.

“Expectations should be raised in one’s self and one’s home, not by the government,” she said.

Ten-year-old Matt Tuma from Cut Bank said there are simply better things to do with $1 million.

Home-schooled student Georgia Lindgren, of Helena, gave this analogy.

“If you have a tree with a leaf problem you don’t try to fix the leaves, you go to the root,” she said.

Brown closed in saying he never saw the money as a big issue during his drafting and editing process.

“It’s ludicrous,” he said. “It’s like saying we want to save money, so we want more kids to drop out.”

An executive decision from the committee is expected on Monday.

Reporter: Alana Listoe: 447-4081 or alana.listoe@helenair.com

Copyright 2015 Helena Independent Record. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(5) Comments

  1. TheresaLode
    Report Abuse
    TheresaLode - January 13, 2011 5:10 pm
    I think Georgia Lindgren's reasoning made the most sense here. And what's with the opinion from the 10-year-old? Why was a kid cited here and not on the other side of the issue? ("Eight-year-old Johnny says, 'We need more funding for schools so kids will graduate!'")

    It always comes back to the ole "we need more money for the kids' sake" argument doesn't it?

    The biggest crisis in our education system is its irrelevancy for the times we live in. It worked (somewhat) 50-75 years ago but that time is no more.

    I think some of these drop outs are to be applauded for their bravery to call a spade a spade and buck the system. The saddest part though is they are directionless many times on alternatives.

    I suggest every educator, parent and administrator read Seth Godin's book "Linchpin" for some refreshing thoughts on education and how to prepare kids for today's changing work model. (And pssst...it doesn't include the "go to school, get good grades so you can get a good job" advice.)
  2. dietz1963
    Report Abuse
    dietz1963 - January 13, 2011 1:39 pm
    I agree, how does increasing the age guarantee anything other then perhaps higher attendance? It won't guarantee higher grades, won't guarantee they will get smarter. The question should be why are kids dropping out at age 16. I doubt the reason is "because they can".

  3. clancykid
    Report Abuse
    clancykid - January 13, 2011 12:48 pm
    The GED test that a 4th grader could pass, broken schools with 1/3 drop out rate and keeping them in the same dysfunctional school two years more will certainly fix the problem. Not likely. If you keep doing the exact same thing and expect a different outcome, you are wasting your time.
  4. imadad
    Report Abuse
    imadad - January 13, 2011 9:16 am
    Once again our "leaders" are looking at the result instead of the cause. I have no problem requiring children to attend school until they graduate or reach the age of 18. But that is not the problem. Has anyone paid attention to the focus of our schools? It is funding. They will send a letter the day your child has 5 absences, but they are unable to send a letter when your child has a "C" or "D" in a class. Why do they worry about days in attendence? That is one of the factors used to fund the school. Our local schools had an alternative school available where they would "encourage" "at risk" students to then attend. It would change student from "drop-out" to "transfer" and then keep the schools drop out rate lower, thus keeping their funding in place. Our schools need to re-focus on the student. This is not a bad teacher problem but rather a problem with administration. Are there sub-par teachers? Sure. Are there administrators who focus on the student? Absolutley. I attended school here, graduated from school here and can name the administrators and teachers I had the honor to have teach me. Messinger and the others need to stop, look at the cause and then focus on that. Their determination to blame the child and not themselves is evidence to the fact that they are not worried about falsifying facts in order to continue receiving a paycheck.
  5. caribouboy
    Report Abuse
    caribouboy - January 13, 2011 6:09 am
    Please, anybody with 1/4 of a brain knows this is nothing but another way for the education lobby to grab more money. Yeah right, "it's for the children".

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps:

    1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

    2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

    3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

    4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

    5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at editor@helenair.com. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

    6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

    7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

    8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

    9. Don't write a novel. If your comment is longer than the article you're commenting on, you might want to cut it down a bit. Lengthy comments will likely be removed.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

BestOfHelena-Bug-300px

Follow the Independent Record

Great Helena Businesses

Clipped From The Newspaper