CARS HOMES JOBS

Schenectady may require school until 18

Board looking at change to prevent dropping out

Friday, June 7, 2013
Text Size: A | A

Buses park outside the Fine Arts Wing at Schenectady High School after school on April 9.
Photographer: Marc Schultz
Buses park outside the Fine Arts Wing at Schenectady High School after school on April 9.

— Sixteen-year-olds in the Schenectady City School District may not have an easy escape from school this fall.

The Schenectady Board of Education is considering a new rule that would make school mandatory until age 18.

According the state Education Department, individual school boards can vote to change the compulsory school age. However, 17-year-olds who get a job would still be allowed to drop out.

If the school board votes to make the change, unemployed students must stay through the entire school session that begins when they are 17, even if they turn 18 a day after school starts, according to the law.

Currently, they can drop out at the start of the first school year after they turn 16.

New school board member Edward Kosiur made the school age change part of his campaign, promising to work to keep students in school. He said age 16 was simply too young for students to make a decision that would have such long-term ramifications.

At the same time, members of the board’s policy committee were already discussing making school mandatory until age 18.

Now, the committee is ready to bring a draft to the full board for a vote. It will be proposed within weeks, school board member Cheryl Nechamen said.

She said she supports the proposal because students need a diploma. “It is extremely hard to find a job without that high school diploma,” she said.

The district’s truancy officers work hard to keep students in school now, but many of their techniques don’t work once the student is old enough to legally drop out. At that point, probation officers cannot force the student to attend school, and in-school punishments for truancy tend to encourage the student to officially drop out.

“We don’t have that leverage,” Nechamen said.

But the truancy officers do have a good record of getting reluctant 15-year-olds to come to school, and Nechamen said the policy change would allow them to extend that effort to older students.

Board President Cathy Lewis, who is not on the policy committee, said she had heard criticism from some teachers. They warned that it would be hard to teach students who want to drop out.

“[They said] that keeping them there beyond when they want to be there might not be the best idea,” Lewis said.

She added that she hasn’t formed an opinion on it yet but said she was struck by the experiences of the students who recently graduated with GEDs. Those students dropped out and later took a difficult battery of exams to earn a GED.

“I don’t know that they would recommend that path,” she said. “I think that a good number of them would say it’s better to stay in school in the first place.”

Nechamen said she was not persuaded by arguments that it would be hard to teach wannabe dropouts.

“It’s difficult to teach a 10-year-old if they don’t want to be there,” she said. “It really doesn’t matter on the age.”

 
Share story: print print email email facebook facebook reddit reddit

comments

June 7, 2013
11:12 p.m.
cracker says...

I Don't think individual school districts should be deciding this. There should be a uniform state law.

June 8, 2013
8:01 a.m.
reader1 says...

Might also want to consider mandatory pre-k, but allow parents to opt out if they can show their child is on track to start Kindergarten with the right cognitive and learning tools.

June 8, 2013
8:57 a.m.
MollyBracken says...

As a teacher (in Schenectady) I can see the pros and cons to this but I must take issue with the statement that teaching an 18 year old who doesn't want to learn is no different than teaching a 10 year old who doesn't want to learn. I have to wonder if the woman who made this statement has ever been in a classroom with an 18 year old male who doesn't want to learn. I have. And as an 'average sized' woman, I can say that I'd take the 10 year old any day over an angry adult male who has me by 6 inches and 50 pounds.

June 8, 2013
9:44 a.m.
MollyBracken says...

And let's also not forget about the difference between 10 year old and 18 year olds when it comes to behavior and cognitive development. And then there's intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. Ten year olds are still motivated by things that would not work with an 18 year old. I think everyone can agree that getting a HS diploma is better than not getting a HS diploma. I just hope that all of the factors are being taken into consideration so that we are equipped to provide these students with what they need to be successful.

June 8, 2013
10:29 a.m.
tonijean613 says...

What about offering these older teens a life skills program? personal finance skills- banking, budgeting, paying bills, health and wellness, renting/maintaining a clean home, home maintenance skills, basic shopping and cooking- perhaps such skills would go a long way for this group of kids-

June 8, 2013
10:34 a.m.
JIMOCONNOR says...

This is reductionistic and stupid. You can not make horses drink the water. Using age as a criteria does not directly lead to conference of diplomas, certifications, or good life decisions. If credentialing is a concern, the board needs to focus on the tracts leading to earning the different types of credentials a pupil can earn. Saying you must hang around until you are eighteen is self defeating. Earning a GED is hard. It should be hard. Going to homeroom, study hall, an elective, lunch, data center, study hall, and american history III is wasteful and misleading.

I'm not convinced it'll evan justify any extra state aid it generates

Log-in to post a comment.
 

columnists & blogs


Log into Dailygazette.com

Forgot Password?

Subscribe

Username:
Password: