Oregon Legislature ponders how to make high school even worse
Apparently just learning how to show up on time and do what you’re told isn’t good enough anymore. The front page of today’s Ol’ Dirty featured a story about Oregon House Bill 2732, which would withhold a graduating high school senior’s diploma until they “showed proof of application to college, the U.S. armed forces or into an apprenticeship program.” Sound like complete bullshit? Apparently not enough bullshit for the majority of the Oregon House of Representatives.
The vote was split 33-26. Two thirds of the House Democrats voted for it, and while the Republicans weren’t so keen on it (only one third voted for it).
So in addition to forcing young adults kids to enlist in the military or take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt in hopes of a brighter job market by the time you’ve hit legal drinking age, it will also create a new breed of dropout for students who don’t want to do either, or don’t know yet. That’ll be great for the already-shaky state of the Oregon educational system. But Rep. Tobias Read (D-Beaverton) sees it another way:
“This bill does not intend to tell anyone what the right choice is for them. It merely seeks to prompt consideration of that question,” Read said on the House floor. “Think about the student who intends to work in the family business. Wouldn’t he likely benefit from some accounting or bookkeeping classes at the community college.”
Yes, yes he (or she) would. But does he really think that there’s anyone on the face of the earth who’s thought about that more that the student has? After all, they’ve had a long time to think about it, and by that time probably had to answer to the incessant “So what are you going to do next?” from the family about 470 times. Maybe he knew exactly what he wanted to do at 18, and never spent most of his twenties wondering if what he was doing was really what he should be, (unless everyone else feels that way, too; if so, ignore that last sentence).
Next it moves on to the Democrat-controlled Oregon Senate (60% Democrats / 40% Republicans), where it will likely fester for some time before being passed along party lines and then blocked by the courts.
@Curtis: While you do make some good points, there are a couple things I don’t quite agree with:
“…you’re getting a tremendous benefit of institutionalizing the requirement to at least consider secondary education – something that is a huge financial benefit to students.”
The people this bill is going to be targeting aren’t the people who already have the resources or the drive to go to college: it’s the people who can’t afford it, or don’t care. Do we really to force that kind of financial hardship on students who can’t afford school at this time, or clog up the system with students who don’t give a damn? Sure, those students could just apply to school and then not go, but that just makes the bill look like another useless batch of bureaucratic red tape.
“Do you really think there are going to be that many students who jump through all the hoops to graduate from high school but who think that applying for college is a bridge too far and drop out because of it?”
Not at all. I think it’s the people who barely squeeze by, again either because of personal hardship or lack of interest, who will take this extra step as an excuse to not bother with any of it. Or, like I said above, they’ll waste everyone’s time by submitting an application to a school they don’t intend to go to.
That said, this requirement also strikes me as unfair, just like the CIM and CAM did back when I was in high school. It was an extraneous task that had a massive effect on our education (no more than a D in any give class if you didn’t take the CIM every time it was offered, no graduation without a completed CAM), and my teenage self hated the administration for it. I can see many Oregon high school students feeling similarly put upon by this bill.
Having a state requirement that each student do a job shadow as part of their graduation seems a lot more reasonable. Don’t some states already require that?
This absurd bill will do nothing but create another obstacle for students in obtaining their diploma. We can’t fund our schools, the buildings are literally falling down, the only hope I have now for limiting class size is the Fire Marshall and we are going to tell the kids “go fill out an application to a college, (don’t worry you don’t have to actually go), try to find some non-existent “apprenticeship” or join the military or you don’t EARN your diploma”? I don’t think this could get more meaningless!
Let’s get real about this.
Students will be required to submit applications to institutions (most of which carry a fee) while they may have absolutely no intention on going. Students may not choose college immediately after high school for a variety of reasons including medical conditions, financial concerns or obligations, maturity levels etc. This is not to say that these students will never go to college, maybe just not right out of high school. Why deny these students a diploma? If the answer is “They just need to fill out the application” then is there really any value in this bill?
What about the students that already have a job, that they want to give a full time go at, or want to work to save money for college or to start a business? Under this bill, that has no value. You still need to fill out the application.
Maybe you think you can’t handle/afford college…and there are no free apprenticeship positions (of which I have NEVER seen. ever.) So, I guess it is forced military service or no high school diploma.
This bill is is a meaningless bureaucratic hoop.
“So in addition to forcing young adults kids to enlist in the military or take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt in hopes of a brighter job market by the time you’ve hit legal drinking age, it will also create a new breed of dropout for students who don’t want to do either, or don’t know yet.”
That’s not at all what the bill says. The bill doesn’t require anyone to enroll into college or an apprenticeship program – it requires them to APPLY. Anyone who’s ever been denied entrance to a college can tell you that applying and enrolling are not at all the same thing. It also says you can substitute simply going to an orientation session for a training program if you don’t want to actually submit an application.
Also, we both know that students who can’t afford the college application fees can apply for (and often receive) waivers. Being cash-strapped really isn’t a reason to not apply for some kind of secondary education.
I don’t see how this is that much different than requiring all students to take a job shadow/internship class to qualify to graduate, which I had to do at my high school. The only difference would be the application fee, which, as I said before, is easily waived for people with financial challenges.
Once you describe what the bill actually does, it’s actually really good policy from an incentives standpoint – for a very minimal cost (basically just the cost of the added time to process applications from the school and employer level) you’re getting a tremendous benefit of institutionalizing the requirement to at least consider secondary education – something that is a huge financial benefit to students.
Do you really think there are going to be that many students who jump through all the hoops to graduate from high school but who think that applying for college is a bridge too far and drop out because of it? Chances are if you’re putting in the work to graduate, this additional step isn’t going to be what deters you from doing that.
There are 16 Democrats and 14 Republicans in the Oregon Senate.
Yeah, blocked by the courts seems the obvious outcome. I can’t speak for apprenticeship programs (though I imagine they’ll not appreciate all the BS extra applications they’ll be getting), but the remaining two options are between something that’s quite difficult to back out of, and something that requires an application fee. Way to throw up unnecessary hoops, Oregon House.