Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f5P3Mkf01116; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200106242218.AA1543767206@mail.tvcc.cc.tx.us> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Barbara Gosnell" <bgosnell@tvcc.cc.tx.us> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3556] Re: Encouraging Kids to Drop Out X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: <IMail v6.05> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: O Content-Length: 5539 Lines: 84 Perhaps I missed seeing this broached in the current conversation. My concern about students being "counseled" out of public school to "just get a GED" is that the new GED test will be FAR more challenging than the current test. My understanding is that the passing level for this new test will be set (as was the older level) by administering the test to current high school graduates this spring. These are students who have passed the exit test for high school graduation in their respective states. Only 70% of those students will pass the new GED. In short - under no condition will it be "easier" to "just get your GED." High schools who are counting on students to follow through with that GED to get them off the "drop-out" list will find rather quickly that this is not a reality. We are asked in this new test to see that students relate to workplace and adult civic documents (tax forms, voter registrations, etc. - material not generally required prior to high school graduation,) have core social studies and science knowledge, read at a 12.0 grade level and can respond to questions at the highest cognitive levels. Any of you who have not actually sat down with the new material coming out for this test need to do so ASAP. We are asked to accomplish this with adults (our programs are not directed toward the needs of adolescents) who have generally had negative experiences with education to start with, (including a much higher percentage of those with learning disabilities,) may have been out of school for some time, and may have dropped out before ever having been exposed to many of the ideas that would have been presented (core knowledge) in all those high school classes. And we are asked by federal legislation to accomplish this in as little as 6 weeks (WIA I)and with only 10 hours a week that may be devoted to education (TANF). We are to accomplish this miracle with part-time instructors, in multi-level classes, frequently with all subjects covered "holistically" within the same class by the same teacher (aren't we all experts in all subject areas?) And in our state, the funding level falls somewhat below $300 per student per year! Students who cannot be served adequately by a K-12 system with considerably higher funding and public attention than the AELS will not find it easier to accomplish this goal in adult education. The system needs a reality check - which is likely to occur rather quickly after Jan. 1, 2002. Barbara Gosnell Program Coordinator Trinity Valley Community College Athens, TX ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Woods" <woods@ncia.net> Reply-To: nifl-ld@nifl.gov Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 09:54:02 -0400 (EDT) >Several VERY important points in my view: >>From Constance Rahe... >> When a student has reached the point where he wants to drop >> out of school, the adults should have been asking ,"Why?" > >>From Millie Kuth... >> I sure don't know how to meet the needs of either group of >> students in the traditional school system. > >>From Karen Stange... >> why doesn't the education community try to actually live the "life >> long learning" rhetoric and allow people to move in and out of >> education with need and desire and with no "drop out" labelling? > >>From Art LaChance... >> reality tells us on this end that if we choose not to go there >> [adequate counselling] we will pay the price one way or the other. > >I ask each of my students why they dropped out. A few patterns have emerged. >Often, there is a complicated mix of several reasons: 1. He got in trouble >in school (drugs found in locker) and they told him he could either drop >out, or they would call the police; 2. Retained a year. Next year, never >went back; 3. Kicked out of home, had to work to support self and others; 4. >Got a job. Liked it better than school; 5. Expelled because of a zero >tolerance policy and never went back. > >Art's point about paying the price one way or another is very true, >considering the cost of incarceration (and that's where many of these kids >end up). You can send someone to Harvard or you can send him to the state >pen -- same cost. > >I'm sure that schools are under great pressure to protect their children >from harm and to demonstrate they are doing a good job educating the >children AND to do so with limited financial resources. Getting rid of the >trouble makers, the students who represent costly expenditures, as well as >those who will "bring down" a school's average on mandated state-wide tests >may seem to be a pragmatic and expedient means. It is also a situation where >the school is forced by higher political pressure to put its own needs above >the student's. The problems schools face because of this pressure and the >solutions they have found to respond to them will eventually bankrupt us. > >The traditional education system would benefit, I feel, if these political >pressures could be alleviated and if more tolerant more flexible ways of >working with these kids could be implemented. > >Constance, since you are in a position to talk to principals and others >about these problems, I hope one part of your argument for increasing the >flexibility of the education system is that dropouts go to prison. States >pay for prison using dollars that would otherwise go to school systems. >Hopefully Art is wrong when he says, "ninety percent of us see absolutely >nothing wrong with the way we do business." If he's right, we're all in deep >do do. > >Tom > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:00 EST