FRANKFORT, Ky. —State officials are celebrating in the Capitol with an event to recognize 120 Kentucky school districts that have voted to raise the dropout age to 18.

 

Gov. Steve Beshear, first lady Jane Beshear, Education Commissioner Terry Holliday and Lawrence County High School senior Harley Ratliff are holding a news conference Thursday afternoon to mark the achievement.

 

A new law that went into effect this summer increases the dropout age statewide from 16 to 18 after 55 percent of the state's 173 school districts signed on.

 

Read more: Officials celebrate after new dropout age becomes the law | Northern Kentucky - WLWT Home

Teachers, what is the issue here and why the need for change?

I can't answer what is the issue or why there was a need for it; however, I can bet that that educators who have to put up with 16 and 17 year olds who don't want to be in school are hardly celebrating along with the law makers.

I can't answer what is the issue or why there was a need for it; however, I can bet that that educators who have to put up with 16 and 17 year olds who don't want to be in school are hardly celebrating along with the law makers.

 

Good point, additionally this appears to do away with dropping out vs. raising the age. When you 18 you are an adult so I don't really get it this. Obviously I am missing something???

This isn't directly related to the issue but is on some level.... Just my opinion, but there are far too many people making decisions about education that spend more times in board rooms than class rooms. Now, this was put to a vote and given approval by schools, so maybe this doesn't apply as much (though I'd like to see who is submitting each schools vote). But bottom line is is that some of the standards educators are being held to are incredible. Take that as you like it.

 

Now, concerning this vote, it's great on some level. Now we will have kids that have to at least complete the 11th grade in most cases. However, anyone that has spent time in a classroom as a teacher can tell you there is nothing worse than a student that has absolutely no interest in learning. Now, I've heard many people say "it's the teacher's job to make them want to learn and get excited to learn!" That's true. To an extent. In reality, there are twenty-some students in the classroom, and if all but one are interested in actually gaining knowledge that day, then why do the rest have to suffer and not get as much out of the class as they should because Mr. so and so has to take care of one student because they are being disruptive because they think it will get them out of work.

The law sounds like a great idea but for students who don't want to do anything in class it is not.

 

They are going to do nothing until they turn 18. AT least with a parent/guardian signing the papers at 16 they could go out and possibly get a job or go earn their GED.

This will help schools numbers as far as enrollment goes ($$), and they way they figure graduation rate. You get dinged for a dropout. Now this pushes this two years out.

This will help schools numbers as far as enrollment goes ($$), and they way they figure graduation rate. You get dinged for a dropout. Now this pushes this two years out.

 

In other words it is about money and not necessarily what is best for the students involved?

As with so many things, I think this looks better on paper than it will in practice. If someone is determined not to learn, keeping them there two extra years does nothing.

Anybody got the final reg as it passed? The original reg had a provision in it that disallowed early graduation. IE, say you have all your credits by december of senior year, and want to leave to go to college classes early (IE Drew Barker) for example, if your 17 at the time you cant, its not allowed, infact If I remember the way the reg was written, it was disallowed all together. Just curious to see what the final reg they passed was.

This isn't directly related to the issue but is on some level.... Just my opinion, but there are far too many people making decisions about education that spend more times in board rooms than class rooms. Now, this was put to a vote and given approval by schools, so maybe this doesn't apply as much (though I'd like to see who is submitting each schools vote). But bottom line is is that some of the standards educators are being held to are incredible. Take that as you like it.

 

Now, concerning this vote, it's great on some level. Now we will have kids that have to at least complete the 11th grade in most cases. However, anyone that has spent time in a classroom as a teacher can tell you there is nothing worse than a student that has absolutely no interest in learning. Now, I've heard many people say "it's the teacher's job to make them want to learn and get excited to learn!" That's true. To an extent. In reality, there are twenty-some students in the classroom, and if all but one are interested in actually gaining knowledge that day, then why do the rest have to suffer and not get as much out of the class as they should because Mr. so and so has to take care of one student because they are being disruptive because they think it will get them out of work.

 

It doesn't mean that they'll reach the 11th grade. It just means they have to stay there till 18. It's splitting hairs a little but it doesn't mean the kids are getting credits. It's about money and an attempt to cutdown on the dropout numbers.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I'm not saying you give up on those that don't want to be there, but making them stay, I'd say doesn't change anything, or will suddenly make them care. On paper, this looks like a no brainer idea. In reality, it will just keep truant officers and deans of discipline at the schools busy.

In other words it is about money and not necessarily what is best for the students involved?

We have a winner!!! Always follow the public dollar.

We have a winner!!! Always follow the public dollar.

 

It would seem it is about money, but it isn't and can't be unless they add additional funds to the education budget, which they haven't done. The education budget has only so many dollars, so therefore they will adjust the formula to meet the budget monies they have. There is no extra money coming in to fund this. This is a long term solution to having school districts eventually utilize career paths more effectively in educationg kids.

 

This is great in my opinion as a long as we have students educated with relevancy and their interest. We will get more students to stay in school if they are learning a career based skill, such as health science, information technology, auto mechanics, etc. It is offered in almost all districts, but not all use it effectively mostly because it would mean releasing existing teachers to hire teachers certified in these areas. Some districts are doing a good job with this, but others have dug their heads in the sand and believe that it's readying students for a 4 year college or they cannot make the tough decision on staff. I could go on and on and on, but I will spare you. I hope you get the gist.

I'm not that familiar with the new law, but couldn't the under 18 kids use the "home school" loophole? They just have a parent withdraw them with intent to homeschool and then that's it. They don't work on education until they are 18 then officially drop out.