We have written a good many times regarding the growing concerns related to America’s poor school completion rates. In addition to all the students who disappear from our school systems prior to ever reaching high school, current data also reveals that one of every four high school students fails to graduate within the standard four-year secondary-school span.

Accompanying this sad trend is an enormous debate as to why drop out rates are so high. We noted that within the school setting there tends to be one ongoing tension between the various schooling levels:

While many elementary folks insist that schools at the upper grade levels tend to put curriculum ahead of students, folks at the secondary level insist that students all too often arrive at high school without the requisite skills needed to handle more challenging academic materials.

Those wanting to point a finger at the high school folks may be surprised to learn that Lynne Strathman, director of Lydia Urban Academy in Rockford, Ill., noted that for many students the final year of school where a significant majority of students felt successful was in fourth grade.

That led us to the conclusion that for a good many American kids, school is not an answer. It is in fact the problem, the biggest issue or obstacle they face in life.

Problem Across the Pond

As the concerns mount in America, it is interesting to note that in England drop out rates are also becoming an enormous issue. The BBC recently discussed this troubling trend, pointing out that record numbers of “young people are not in school, college or work.”

What makes the numbers from England worth examining is the fact that an additional category is used to assess those not in school: working students. In fact, the term NEET is used to describe the most troubling of groups in the UK: those not in education, employment or training.

According to the BBC, the total number of NEETS in the 18-24 age group “has risen by more than 100,000 in the past year.” In addition, the data reveals a significant “surge in the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds considered NEETS,” the total increasing by 13,000 this year when measured against the first quarter of last year and 24,000 when the second quarter time frame is examined.

What is interesting to focus in on is that England differentiates between those who have dropped out of school but are gainfully employed. While we continue to insist that our young people remain in school, England notes that training and employment are viable alternatives to attending school.

It is a position we should examine more thoroughly in America.

At the same time, two other elements emerge. First, the drop out trend is not unique to America. Second, when jobs become scarce, this data further reveals the least educated are generally the most vulnerable.

In fact, many experts from across the pond insist that the growing numbers are more a sign of the employment times than a greater disinterest with school. We tend to think that it is probably a bit of both.

But the summation is unequivocal – there is a growing concern that England may see a lost generation, a group of youngsters who can never shake the government welfare ranks.

It is a concern we must have as well. But the similarities that our countries face reveal a message.

Sense of Entitlement?

While many want to point fingers at out-of-date and impersonal school systems, the fact that England is experiencing a similar problem just might speak to a different issue. Here in America, a good number of folks tend to think our young people carry with them such a strong sense of entitlement that the idea of working towards a goal is simply deemed as asking too much.

Indeed, the outstanding performance collectively of Asian-American students provides strong evidence that we need to look at our culture as well as our schools. Because when a sense of entitlement is removed from the mix and hard work emphasized, this group of students represents living proof that teens can and will actually focus on their education and their future in the right circumstances.

Drop outs are an important issue and schools must be part of the solution process. But to continue to insist that the problem is one that can be solved solely by schools demonstrates a dramatic failure to understand the true scope of the issue.

It has been nearly two years since Alberto Gonzales resigned as Attorney General. At the time of his departure, he left Washington with his tail between his legs and a Justice Department mired in scandal.

Whether it be the controversy over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, his post-Sept. 11 policies on presidential power, torture and domestic spying, his failure to properly see that critical evidence in the Valerie Plame leak case was preserved, his misleading if not downright false testimony before Congress, etc., etc., Gonzales’ tenure as Attorney General will forever leave a stain on the Justice Department.

One would have to think that given his performance his career might be difficult to resurrect. Apparently, not so.

It seems that on August 1st, Mr. Gonzales began a career in academia. That is correct; the former AG accepted a visiting professor post within the political science department of Texas Tech University.

University Loves their Man

According to a written university statement, Gonzales will be teaching a junior-level special topics course: “Contemporary Issues in the Executive Branch.” In addition, he is expected to provide guest lectures in classes across the campus.

A Latino who was once held in high regard, Gonzales will also reportedly assist Texas Tech University and Angelo State University “with recruiting and retaining first generation and underrepresented students.”

Of the latter aspect of the Gonzales appointment, Texas Tech chancellor Kent Hance had this to say:

“His own upbringing in Houston as part of a migrant family with eight children makes him qualified to tell underrepresented Texas students that college is possible.”

In the same prepared university statement, Lawrence Schovanec, interim dean of Texas Tech’s College of Arts and Sciences, offered:

“Judge Gonzales brings a unique experience to our classroom. His career in law, government and public service will provide our political science students a rich perspective of the executive branch and issues and challenges facing our nation.”

Minimal Uproar

Much to the chagrin of this writer and perhaps to the majority of the citizens of the U.S., the appointment has seen only minimal resistance. There have reportedly been a few critical editorials in various newspapers, a faculty petition, and two Facebook groups (Alberto Gonzales Doesn’t Belong At Texas Tech and Citizens Against Employing Alberto Gonzales at Texas Tech). But the protests seem rather minimal overall.

However, faculty petition creator Walter Schaller, a Tech philosophy professor since 1986, was unequivocal in explaining his opposition to the hiring of Gonzales. Stated Schaller, “With the emphasis on ethics the university has adopted, a guy that misled Congress is not the kind of person we want to represent Texas Tech.”

However, the Chronicle of Higher Education recently contrasted the Texas response with that of two other high powered institutions and their faculty appointments:

Objections to Gonzales pale “in comparison to the resistance that Condoleezza Rice has encountered in going back to Stanford University, where she was provost before joining the Bush administration, in 2001, or the debate surrounding the University of California at Berkeley’s continued employment of John C. Yoo, a law professor who, while on leave to work in the Justice Department, wrote the Bush administration’s memos authorizing harsh interrogation techniques.”

One would think that Gonzales would face the same kind of fight Henry Kissinger faced when he tried to teach at Columbia. Student protesters accused the former Secretary of State of breaking the law and essentially ran him off the campus.

Perhaps it is a sign of the times or the location. A negative Facebook campaign could jump start the student body but without an uproar from this important constituency it seems that Gonzales will be able to ride out the storm.

We do have an amazing country. And Texas Tech has a new visiting professor.

He does begin with a one year contract.

The question is, will students see to it that it is his last?

Flickr photos courtesy of Mike Licht and MMMMichelle.

While many see technology as potentially unlocking an entirely new learning environment, almost as many see it as a bane to education. In fact, it now seems that at least one college dean, regretfully, believes that technology is the root cause of a boring lecture hall.

Jeffrey Young, reporting for The Chronicle of Higher Education, notes Southern Methodist University Dean José A. Bowen has gone so far as to challenge professors to teach without any machinery. Young notes that Bowen uses a more provocative phrase to describe teaching without technology.

He wants his staff to “teach naked.”

Teaching Naked

Actually, while insisting he wants to pull the plug on all technology, it seems that Bowen is primarily trying to discourage professors from using PowerPoint. Apparently, far too many instructors are using the tool as nothing more than a slide display.

These professors appear to be using the “program as a crutch rather than using it as a creative tool” according to Young. More importantly, they are apparently boring their students to death.

Still, reading a little deeper, it does seem that Dean Bowen is requesting a tad more. He appears to be advocating for the removal of most technology from the classroom.

“Class time should be reserved for discussion,” the dean contends, “especially now that students can download lectures online and find libraries of information on the Web. When students reflect on their college years later in life, they’re going to remember challenging debates and talks with their professors.”

Is Technology the Issue?

While the idea of teaching naked initially appears focused on eliminating technology from the classroom, it is clear that the issue is not one related to machines. Instead, it is the lack of skill employed by the professor and the inability to use technology wisely.

Yet, according to Young, the “biggest resistance to Mr. Bowen’s ideas has come from students, some of whom have groused about taking a more active role during those 50-minute class periods.” Unfortunately, while the standard lecture model is generally less than riveting as an educational format, it is a model that “is pretty comfortable for both students and professors.”

In other words, a bored student is also not having any demands placed on him. That suits more than a few college attendees extremely well.

Poor Message

Ironically, while presenting his ideas at a conference that was attended by Young, Bowen offered “a philosophical argument about the best way to engage students.” In it he talked of “using podcasts and video games.”

And it also seems that when Bowen first began removing some technology from classrooms, that technology was quite old and in need of an upgrade to match today’s sophistication. Apparently, there was no funds to upgrade.

That leaves one troubled.

Dave Parry at Academhack tackles the silly assertion head on.

“…..any teaching practice requires technology. Are we to imagine that these luddite professors disallow paper and pen from class? ‘Students should not take notes in class, the technology gets in the way of discussion.’

“Are we to imagine that they do not allow books in class? ‘No books, they get in the way of discussion.’

“Books, paper, pen, desks, chalkboards, whiteboards, all of these are technologies.”

Parry goes on, leveling the fallacious notion presented by Bowen:

“Teaching without digital technology is an irresponsible pedagogy. Why? The future is digital, love it or hate it. We can argue later about whether or not this is a good or a bad thing.

“But to educate students, or to attempt to educate students without developing their digital literacy is to leave them ill prepared for their futures. You wouldn’t think of educating a student and not teaching them how to read, digital literacy is this crucial. In the future if you don’t know how to use this technology you will be ‘illiterate’.”

Furthermore,

“We can’t go back to ‘teaching the way it was,’ because this will produce a generation of students who don’t know how to critically engage with, leverage, use, resist, these very technologies. Eliminating technology produces not the affect of a more engaged literate student populous, rather it produces the reverse, an ill informed, uncritical, unengaged student populous who will become at the very best passive consumers of the technology being resisted, and at the worst its willing victims.”

We could not agree more. The idea of ‘Teaching Naked,’ either figuratively or literally, simply makes no sense.

With the passing of Frank McCourt, remembrances are understandable. His brilliant Angela Ashes, of course, marks him as a literary giant, but to many kids he was far more important, he was their teacher.

What a superb teacher he must have been. As with most of the great ones, he could create a lesson out of anything imaginable, including the art of forged notes and excuses for missing school or unfinished homework.

The true brilliance of course lay in his ability to first reach kids where they were at, then take them someplace they would never have gone on their own.

He doesn’t just get these kids to review the notes they forged, he takes them on a creative journey, having them write such notes for some of the world’s most famous historical figures.

A brilliant author.

An equally brilliant teacher.

It is one of the great moments in movie history, one of the many that involve Jack Nicholson. It is when Nicholson, playing Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, is on the witness stand and he is in the midst of a remarkable exchange with navy Lt. Daniel Kaffee, played by Tom Cruise.

Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I’m entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Col. Jessep: You can’t handle the truth!

That scene immediately ran through my head when I read the recent news from Reuters regarding genetic testing for the gene associated with Alzheimer’s and other memory impairments. Ultimately, if I could be tested, would I want to be and emotionally, could I handle knowing the test results?

Could I handle the truth?

Most OK With the News

It seems that some in fact could handle the results.

In what was an enormous surprise to me, the findings from a group of American researchers indicates that the majority of those people informed that they carry a genetic risk of Alzheimer’s actually took the news well. Of course, that news also came as a shock to many professionals who have long thought that most people would not be able to psychologically handle such troubling news.

The gene in question, specifically the e4 version of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, is known to be associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. It is also associated with memory impairments in people without dementia.

In the study, people were randomly assigned to one of two groups. They either received the results of their APOE genetic test, carrier or non-carrier, or they were not provided their testing results.

Reuter’s reports:

People who were informed of their test results, the researchers found, did not have significantly more depression or anxiety than those who were not informed of their test results either immediately after receiving the test results or 1 year later. That was true regardless of whether they were in the subgroup of people found to carry the high-risk APOE e4 gene variant.

“Subjects were not immune to the negative implications of learning that they had an increased risk, but these feelings were not associated with clinically significant psychological distress,” Green and colleagues point out.

Conversely, in what would be a very intuitive result, being informed that one did not carry the Alzheimer’s-associated gene was in fact a great stress relief.

The Future

As science moves steadily forward, such testing options will soon become routine. We will undoubtedly have access to information our forefathers could never have imagined.

For those diseases where treatments are available, well, it seems like a no-brainer. Test me and when necessary, get me started on the path to wellness.

When it comes to the terrifying thought of a disease such as Alzheimer’s or dementia, one where there is currently no cure, only horrifying blackness, well I am not so sure where I stand.

I am simply not sure I could handle the truth.

According to Wikipedia, engineering is the discipline and profession of applying technical, scientific and mathematical knowledge in order to use natural laws and physical resources to help design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that safely realize a desired objective.

Because of their sheer intellect and innate ability to tie theory with practice, students entering the engineering field are generally considered a special breed of people.

Within this group of students is another subset of individuals, those who show such incredible promise at a very young age that they are able to gain admittance to a even more select group, the subset selected to study engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

For those who yearn to learn a bit more about the young men and women who are selected to study engineering at MIT, our sister site GoCollege recently featured the amazing work of one such student, Charles Guan. The young man who is part of the groundbreaking smart cities research at the school has been seen zipping around the streets of Cambridge in his own, high powered, motorized shopping cart.

The in-depth, revealing look at the work of Guan reinforces the notion that engineers, especially MIT student engineers, are a different breed of cat.

The agenda of the Obama administration continues to cast a wide net. While much of the recent focus has been on the need for affordable healthcare, the president and his advisers are moving forward on a number of educational fronts.

A great deal of time is being spent on the notion of making higher education more accessible to Americans. That has led to new provisions regarding the repayment of federal loans (undertaken prior to Obama taking office) and to a proposed overhaul of the financial aid application form, the FAFSA.

But while those steps are significant, none are likely to be as critical for education as the administration’s recent push to overhaul how public school teachers are paid. In a major speech to the members of the National Education Association today, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan insisted it was time to not only rethink teacher seniority and tenure, it was time to tie those elements and pay to teacher performance.

Federal Funding Behind the Changes

While the emphasis on performance pay is not new, Duncan’s speech today provided clear indication that the U.S. Department of Education will likely continue to put federal money on the line as part of the process for fueling changes. In a move that is actually reminiscent of past Republican party planks on education, Duncan today indicated that it was time to use accountability measures such as student data as part of the teacher evaluation process.

Duncan spoke of the need to improve the quality of the teaching in America and insisted that it was time to eliminate the prior practices that treated teachers “like interchangeable widgets.” More importantly, Duncan alluded to the current seniority and tenure rules as a system design that puts adults ahead of children.

Said Duncan of the format: “We are not only putting kids at risk, we’re putting the entire education system at risk.”

Much as those in the healthcare profession are not enamored by the recent proposals to that industry, the calls for compensation and evaluation changes for teachers were not entirely welcomed by NEA members in attendance today. According to reports, those members booed and hissed when Duncan addressed those topics during his speech.

A Major Shift for Democratic Party

In an effort to appease those members, Duncan insisted that he would seek these reforms in a collaborative way, working with teachers to implement the structural changes. That stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration and Secretary of Education Rod Paige’s, my way or the highway approach, during the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Yet the uproar may be just as strong especially since the proposed changes represent a significant shift for the party that has traditionally been most in line with educators in the past. Current teacher payment and retention policies, all previously supported by Democratic leadership, focus strictly on years of service and degree status earned. The only bonuses currently going to teachers go to those who have earned National Board certification.

And in reality, over time, Obama and Duncan may soon find they have a bigger fight on their hands as Democrats in Congress begin pushing back, taking more traditional positions on the teacher pay issue as they hear from those outraged NEA members. However, there is no doubt where Duncan and Obama are drawing the line at this point.

Both insist it is time education found ways to reward teachers according to the quality of the instruction they deliver and not the credentials they have earned.

Flickr photos courtesy of House Committee on Education and Labor and House Committee on Education and Labor.

As a former school official, I read with interest today’s Supreme Court ruling on strip searches. But while many are heralding the decision as major, the facts say otherwise.

For years the standard for school officials has been to support reasonable suspicion for searches based on the need to protect students from harm. Strip searching a 13-year-old girl who may or may not have been sharing ibuprofen with fellow students certainly does not conjure up images of extensive risk to students.

Of course, the naysayers are already posturing that today’s ruling will simply lead more youngsters to hide drugs and drug paraphernalia in their inner clothing and underwear. And that action will only make it more difficult for school officials to enforce fundamental levels of discipline in the school setting.

But asking a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes in the presence of strange adults goes far beyond the enforcement of fundamental levels of discipline in the school setting. Therefore, based on today’s ruling, nothing has ultimately changed for school administrators moving forward.

The Ruling

In ruling that the school acted illegally, Justice David Souter offered the following assessment:

…. “there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear” …. and so therefore “we hold that the search did violate the Constitution.”

Pundits were quick to point out that the ruling speaks specifically to the drug involved, a painkiller. Clearly, the idea of a strip search for painkillers does seem to be a bit over the top. The Supreme Court agreed with that notion while still seemingly noting that schools could take such actions when more serious drugs or weapons were involved. Of course, critics will wonder aloud, which drugs would be needed for school officials to act in such a way.

In addition, the Court noted that there had to be some information that the drugs might have been concealed in the student’s underwear. In simplest terms, the concept of reasonable dictates that such an intrusive step must be warranted. Searching a backpack or a student’s jacket is one thing, moving to their inner person simply because you did not find what you were looking for is certainly a step that would not necessarily be deemed reasonable.

In other words, strip searching is incredibly far more intrusive than searching a backpack or coat. This line is so clear that many schools and entire states have banned such searches completely, insisting they are never reasonable in the school setting.

The Opposing View

Surprisingly, one Justice, Clarence Thomas, dissented making the ruling one short of unanimous. It seems that Justice Thomas saw the ruling as a deep intrusion into the administration of public schools. Instead, school administrators and teachers should be allowed to set and enforce rules that maintain order.

Critics pointed out that Justice Thomas essentially believes that students should not have any rights in school. Those same critics noted that a strip search is actually a tad beyond the routine business of school administration despite Thomas’ contention otherwise.

Still, Thomas asserted that a “search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be ‘justified at its inception’ when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.”

For Thomas, under such criteria, the search would be considered justified because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Redding had violated school rules. In this case, it would seem that the term reasonable, in Justice Thomas’ eyes, must only be applied minimally.

In his view, if there is reasonable suspicion that warrants a search, then any type of search should be permitted. Accordingly, providing students fundamental protection against excessive humiliation apparently is not part of Justice Thomas’ belief.

While Thomas seems lost on the distinction between painkillers and say a drug like crack cocaine, he does rightly note that parents do have the right to petition school boards regarding search policies. Ultimately, parents could take the step of approaching the school board so as to do what seven other states have done, outlaw such searches in their entirety.

Attentive Students

The real key aspect of the ruling is the impact it will have on student actions moving forward. Clearly, students now understand that they have been granted certain protections regarding searches and therefore can more safely carry contraband simply by placing it in their underwear.

That said, little has ultimately changed. School administrators must have reasonable suspicion to search a student and such suspicion also includes a reasonable assessment as how far to go with that search.

Lastly, one final, simple distinction is the school safety element. If weapons are involved, then administration is in a different position than when the matter involves drugs, especially when the issue involves misusing drugs that are legal.

It seems that everywhere we turn these days, higher education statistics get a tad uglier. A recent article promoting online education had this sad introduction:

Alarming statistics have been put forward showing the increased rate of college dropouts. Back in the 1960s college dropout rates were as low as one (1) in every five (5) students, this shifted to one (1) in every three (3) in the 1990s. Figures from the Department of Education for 2000 through 2008 show that 30% of students enrolled in schools leave in their first year and a shocking 50% never graduate.

We have spent countless words noting that higher education, often held up as an example to the world, actually may be the weakest strand of the educational process, K-16. Everything from their poor graduation rates to their ability to be relevant to today’s tech savvy world raises questions about America’s system of higher education.

At the same time, we have never extolled the common mantra that college is right for every student. We tend to side with Charles Murray and have indicated our lack of support for the notion of college for everyone.

Key Discussion Point Currently

None of this relates to the current educational discussion point that has become a fundamental focus of the Obama administration. Their push is entirely on student access by finding ways to help students address the staggering costs associated with higher education.

It is interesting to see this idea against the view expressed by some older Americans. They hold fast to the notion that college, unlike K-12 public education, should not simply be made available to anyone who wants it. They see this as just one more government entitlement, akin to welfare.

However, to get another viewpoint, we turn to Tolu Olorundawith who offers some very interesting thoughts in “When your college education is a bridge to nowhere.” She first notes renowned educators Henry Giroux and Susan Giroux tackled the notion as to why not all Black and Brown students see college as a “good thing.”

“Since their appearance in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, American colleges followed the traditions established by Oxford, Cambridge, and the continental universities in the preparation of their overwhelmingly white male student body for law, ministry, medicine, and politics.” [Giroux, Henry; Giroux, Susan. Take Back Higher Education: Race, Youth, and the Crisis of Democracy in the Post-Civil Rights Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004 (1st ed.), p. 144.]

Obama Is Right

Olorundawith moves on to then quote the work of Andy Kroll. His piece on Alternet, “A Crisis of Affordability: How Our Public Colleges Are Turning into Gated Communities for the Wealthy” directly tackles the Obama notion, the need for greater affordability.

In addressing the growing disparities in college affordability for Black and Brown students, Kroll contends that the recent spike in college costs nationally has been done precisely to ensure that the white male of affluence becomes the only group able to attend institutions of higher learning. Olorundawith summarizes Kroll thus:

Big businesses, Andy argues, have no problem aiding and abetting the rich in reaching their goals of transforming Colleges into educational “gated communities”–reserved only for the privileged, elite, and powerful.

In his piece, Kroll does offer some incredible statistics from “The Education Trust” related to college affordability for those most in need of support.

In the past several decades, the cost of higher education has climbed at an astounding pace — faster than the Consumer Price Index, faster even than the cost of medical care. Over the past 30 years, the average cost of college tuition, fees, and room and board has increased nearly 100%, from $7,857 in 1977-1978 to $15,665 in 2007-2008 (in constant 2006-2007 dollars). Median household income, on the other hand, has risen a mere 18% over that same period, from about $42,500 to just over $50,000. College costs, in other words, have gone up at more than five times the rate of incomes.

… state flagship universities and a group of other major research universities spent $257 million in 2003 on financial aid for students from families earning more than $100,000 a year. Those same universities spent only $171 million on aid to students from families who made less than $20,000 a year. Similarly, between 1995 and 2003, according to the report, grant aid from the same public universities to students from families making $80,000 or more increased 533%, while grant aid to families making less than $40,000 increased only 120%.

Simply to ensure that a child attends a four-year public university, a family in the country’s lowest-income bracket now has to pay, on average, 55% of total income (up from 39% in 2000); for a middle-income family, the average is 25% (up from 18% in 2000); and for an upper-income family, 9% (up from 7%), according to “Measuring Up 2008: The National Report Card on Higher Education” by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

Not a Ticket, Just a Chance

It is important to realize that a college education is not going to be the answer for everyone. Even Olorundawith notes that in tougher economic times, that degree may not mean a whole lot irrespective of color:

Of course, in any dialogue concerning the merits and benefits of a College degree, the impact of the current economic crisis must be addressed. With unemployment skyrocketing in communities of color, students with Bachelor’s can often be found working shifts at Burger King, with those earning their Master’s managing at McDonald’s, and even Ph.D.s confirming your Papa John’s Pineapple Pizza order.

But if education is considered the great equalizer and a college degree is generally deemed a strong positive step towards a more viable job future, the opportunity should be available for every one who wants it and is willing to put in the time and effort.

While we are not so inclined to support the conspiracy theory postulated by Kroll, we do believe it is essential for America to begin reducing its incredible economic stratification. And one aspect towards shrinking the gap between the haves and the have nots is to ensure that college is not available solely to those of means.

Current data indicates that one of every four high school students fails to graduate within the standard four-year secondary-school span.

Today there is great debate as to why the drop out rate is so significant. Many elementary folks insist that schools at the upper grade levels tend to put curriculum ahead of students. In contrast, folks at the secondary level insist that students all too often arrive at high school without the requisite skills needed to handle more challenging academic materials.

In a recent Associated Press piece that discussed this issue, Lynne Strathman, director of Lydia Urban Academy in Rockford, Ill., was quoted as offering one of the most troubling assessments imaginable. Strathman indicated that for many students the final year of school where a significant majority of students felt successful was in fourth grade.

Yes, fourth grade.

School Not the Solution

In fact, regardless of when students chose to drop out, the consensus is that the drop out group gave up on school long ago. Simply stated, for this segment of the population, school is the biggest problem they face in life.

Facing a number of potential issues, everything from learning disabilities to mental and physical health problems, the potential drop-out crowd soon learns that school has little to offer them. The suggestion that schools might not be responsive to students with learning disabilities certainly would rankle those who work in special education.

But the fact is that these children all too often grow frustrated when they cannot match the success level of their peers. Soon, as they begin to understand that their lower achievement level falls far short of their peers, these lower achievers begin to demonstrate behavioral issues.

It is easy to understand why. Rather than have people think of them as stupid or lazy or incapable, these children realize the only way to save face is to act out. They can then hide behind their behaviors, their actions more palatable to them then being seen as deeply academically-challenged.

Their inability to match the performance of their peers also soon leads to another major problem, truancy. Here again, the basic premise is the same. Who wants to spend time in a setting where they feel unsuccessful?

Meanwhile, the recent push to raise standards has only exacerbated the problem. Schools all across America have been identified as failing schools simply by virtue of the substandard performance of their special education students.

Add to the fact that those students who represent America’s ELL group, those for whom English is not their native language, and the percentage of drop outs from the group that struggles to learn is extremely alarming.

Not Just Ability

Though the vast majority of drop outs fit a “learning-challenged” label, according to the AP folks there is also a large segment of students from affluent, educated families that fall by the wayside. While the immediate response is to blame the student for lack of effort, it turns out that many of the drop outs from this group suffer from issues other than those related to academic ability.

Instead, they come from families where chaos is the norm and divorce common place. Often times, there are alcohol or drug related issues that begin within the family then travel on to the students themselves.

Ironically, for many of the more intellectual, the same school setting that is proving too taxing for one segment of learners is simply too easy for another group. Here boredom prevails and very quickly school becomes essentially irrelevant.

Need for Alternatives

We have noted many times that our current one-size-fits-all approach to education is detrimental to children as a whole. We have indicated the need for nonacademic paths for those who struggle with the traditional school approach that teaches primarily through reading and writing.

It also means providing students adequate mental health services. Often times, in tough budget cycles, this is the first level of support to be cut. And today we are facing some of our toughest budget cycles ever.

Ultimately, we can only hope the recent revelations that children start to see school as a problem as early as elementary school might lead to a reconsideration of our current approach to education. It is high time we took the drop out issue seriously enough to begin developing school programs that truly seek to address the needs of our kids.