He who would cross the Bridge of Death Must answer me These questions three

@engineer,

Quote:

To me it looks like an excuse not to have a counselor meet with every student.

Agreeing with engineer.
This looks to me more like an excise covering schools' backs, rather than anything remotely helpful to the exiting students.

It would be much more helpful (& honest) if the schools were required to provide evidence of the following (my blue text) :

Quote:

Have you applied to college?
What percentage of the school's graduating students have applied to attend a college?

Have you applied to enlist in the military?
(What???!
Schools are not recruiting agents for the military!)

Has the school provided detailed information regarding future employment opportunities to both academically & non-academically inclined students?
Including information sessions about apprenticeships & trades education courses, military employment, etc.

Have you arranged to attend an "apprenticeship information session"?
Has the school provided detailed information (and also work experience in the community) about trades employment opportunities, including work information sessions?

None of my amended statements would be at all unusual in Australian schools. Well, not the state I work in, anyway. These are standard requirements of senior vocation/career guidance programs in secondary schools. (Two weeks of work experience, "on the job", for example, are a standard requirement of most year 10 students.)

It sounds to me like the state or local education authority (which ever applies) in Oregon is unwilling to invest in the necessary resources to adequately address vocational/careers/further education. The schools themselves may have little say in the matter. This might simply be about funding & priorities.

In any case, to punish exiting students for not having ticked one of the boxes prior to allowing them to graduate seems a completely over-the-top exercise in buck passing.
Has this requirement been challenged in a court of law?
I'd seriously doubt that schools can legally withhold graduation rights from students who had actually met the academic requirements.

1 Reply

All i have to do is tick the box
sheesh i dont even actually have to go to an apprenticeship info session.
All i have to do is tick the box

2 Replies

@dadpad,

A pretty meaningful learning experience, yes? Wink

0 Replies

@dadpad,

No, that's not all you have to do. You have to provide proof that you've enlisted one of these options.

Which means you've probably had to pay some kind of application fee.

Which means that someone, somewhere is being paid to review your application.

If it was just ticking off a box it wouldn't be a problem.

It doesn't matter if you're already working -- you still have to do this.

It doesn't matter if you are taking over the family business.

It doesn't matter if you're independently wealthy and don't have to work or enlist, or whatever.

Your circumstances don't matter one bit. If you don't provide proof, you don't graduate.

1 Reply

@msolga,

I always love to see what people from other countries have to say about this stuff. Thanks msolga!

I agree that it is a total pass the buck deal. The law just passed last Friday so it hasn't been challenged..... yet.

American schools suck. Maybe it's just Oregon schools but I read enough to know that it probably isn't.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

I hope I haven't given you the impression that state education is perfect in Victoria (my state), boomerang.
It certainly isn't. Lots of problems here, too, most stemming from inadequate government funding. And schools have become too bureaucratic by far, in my opinion ... but that's another story.
But vocational/careers programs are something they mostly do half well, most of the time. I lot depends, of course, on the teacher who holds the responsibility for the program in each school. It's a very big job, when done properly!
One feature of the program that I think is particularly useful to students is that 2 weeks of compulsory "hands on" work experience in year 10. It has quite a sobering, though often quite positive, impact on how students view the world of work. An entirely different kettle of fish to school!

How can students possibly make these decisions (& be in a position to find the "box-ticking" requirement useful) if they've had little or no experience of real work?

Quote:

The law just passed last Friday so it hasn't been challenged..... yet.

I'll bet it will be, though!

0 Replies

@boomerang,

I cant see how it could or would hurt everyone not going to college to investigate the other options.
Even if the person is already working or independantly wealthy. Even if you intended to have a gap year or gap few years.
Just go to an informaion session or a few different ones. Provided the info sessions are held within easily accessible locations.
I dont see that having to pay a fee necessarily follows. I've never seen apprenticeship info sessions that cost.

The biggest issue I would have is accessibility to sessions for remote and rural students.
I assume occupations such as checkout chick or garbageman doesnt need a highschool diploma.
I also assume a highschool diploma is not required to enter further education at a later time

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

To me it looks like an excuse not to have a counselor meet with every student.

"Did you hold a 1x1 with each of your seniors on their futures?"
"No, but we made them sign these forms."

Yeah. I dropped in on the counselor's office when in community college, looking for information on transfer credits to a 4 year institution. They knew nothing. Absolutely nothing! As I was leaving, I noticed she was writing my name on a ledger, presumably so she would get credit for "counseling" one more student in her oh so busy day.

0 Replies

what you are seeing is a government that is increasingly confident enough in its powers to be upfront about how it uses its power to attempt to make the citizen do what they want us to do. In this case it is the power of the threat of refusing to provide a document that has been otherwise earned that is used as a means of control. The justification is always "it is for your own good".....I already have a mom and dad, I dont appreciate the state attempting to appropriate the duties of parent for itself.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Did you tag this thread "helicoptering"?

Because that certainly seems like what the legislator was doing with this law. One letter to the editor of our paper defended the law by saying it will ensure that parents talk to their kids about the future.

I think most parents don't need the school to make them do that.

2 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

One letter to the editor of our paper defended the law by saying it will ensure that parents talk to their kids about the future.

I think most parents don't need the school to make them do that.

My take on it is that many parents default to schools when they should be taking a more active role in their children's lives - not in terms of involvement of school - but in helping their children learn about life and how to make good decisions.

I think that anything that forces parents to be better parents is a good thing.

2 Replies

@boomerang,

Quote:

Did you tag this thread "helicoptering"?

No, I could count on one hand the number of times that I have placed a tag.

Quote:

I think most parents don't need the school to make them do that

the tendency of Americans to use a Bazooka to hit a fly is damn annoying. The willingness of the state to run over the individual is even more so. The willingness of we Americans to put up with this abuse is worse still.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

I think that anything that forces parents to be better parents is a good thing.

Where does your willingness to force people around end? Does it end?

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

but in helping their children learn about life and how to make good decisions

American schools are test-prep factories. They don't teach critical thinking skills at all.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I think that anything that forces parents to be better parents is a good thing.

Where does your willingness to force people around end? Does it end?

Good question.

Schools have a lot of feel-good talking points about how they foster parental involvement but from what I've seen the involvement that foster is adversarial -- building barriers between parents and their children.

If the school wants to take a role in parenting they should require a parenting class of their students.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

It should be 4 questions...

Do you have idiot legislators in your state?

0 Replies

@boomerang,

Quote:

If the school wants to take a role in parenting they should require a parenting class of their students.

If the state though the schools wants to take over part of the parenting duties they should be told in no uncertain terms to **** off.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Totally agree with the "**** off" but it's much easier said than done.

I just finished reading the book "The Case Against Homework" and one of the big reasons that schools assign homework is to ensure that parents are spending time with their kid.

WHAT!?

So I get to spend hours each week fighting with my kid and listening to him cry so that the school can be assured that I'm "parenting".

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I see too many parents taking no responsibility for their childrens' future once they drop them off at the school on the first day of kindergarten.

My willingness to push parents to be better parents has no endpoint, and never will.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

American schools are test-prep factories. They don't teach critical thinking skills at all

I agree. That is why I want parents to deal with their responsibilities to their children.

1 Reply

He who would cross the Bridge of Death Must answer me These questions three

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know