I hear that Federal ALP backbencher, Craig Emerson, is suggesting that school be made compulsory for all students up until Yr 12. Might sound good in theory but obviously Mr Emerson hasn't stepped into a typical Govt school under his party's jurisdiction at a State level. There are a lot of students that just want to get out of school as soon as possible and go to work. Most go into trades of some sort, or a family business. I applaud students who make this choice as they know what they want to do and will more than likely be successful despite not being the best in the classroom. I know of one example of a student who was written off by his teachers from a young age. He left after Yr 10, got a trade and has spent the last couple of years touring the world and applying his trade. That's success to me.
I don't look as fondly on students who stay on to Yr 12 because there is nothing else to do. These same students have no aspirations of going to Uni, which I believe is the main purpose of going on to Yr 12. So why do they stay on? To a large extent, laziness. School is the easy option compared to getting a job. Another reason is that the Govt Schools will be glad to take them back. You see the number of students enrolled in a school determines the amount of funding received from the State Govt. Even though a fair chunk has no interest in achieving in school in Yrs 11 & 12. Some probably wouldn’t bother showing up to class, as was the case for the previous 4 years. But as long as the school gets the money eh?
Some Yr 10 School leavers without a trade would be better off getting a job at McDonald’s, for example, at least there they are getting a bit of money and are experiencing what it’s like to work under someone (even though that someone is probably not much older than them). They will learn that in the workplace they won’t put up with what they may have gotten away with at school. In the workplace you put a step wrong you’re out on you’re ear, Govt schools don’t have that luxury.
I suggest that Hon. Mr Craig Emerson rethink his proposal. Or perhaps go back to school.
I don't look as fondly on students who stay on to Yr 12 because there is nothing else to do. These same students have no aspirations of going to Uni, which I believe is the main purpose of going on to Yr 12. So why do they stay on? To a large extent, laziness. School is the easy option compared to getting a job. Another reason is that the Govt Schools will be glad to take them back. You see the number of students enrolled in a school determines the amount of funding received from the State Govt. Even though a fair chunk has no interest in achieving in school in Yrs 11 & 12. Some probably wouldn’t bother showing up to class, as was the case for the previous 4 years. But as long as the school gets the money eh?
Some Yr 10 School leavers without a trade would be better off getting a job at McDonald’s, for example, at least there they are getting a bit of money and are experiencing what it’s like to work under someone (even though that someone is probably not much older than them). They will learn that in the workplace they won’t put up with what they may have gotten away with at school. In the workplace you put a step wrong you’re out on you’re ear, Govt schools don’t have that luxury.
I suggest that Hon. Mr Craig Emerson rethink his proposal. Or perhaps go back to school.
Posts
3 comments:
Good post Tim.
You can read Craig Emerson's full speech here.
I briefly read through the speech, and some of his points are correct, but his solution (the subject of your post) is simply not the answer.
For some students the best option is to leave school, and obtain the stability/responsibility of employment.
Am i missing something here? Are you guys arguing that retention rates are not important? The basic principle is the longer someone stays in school the greater benefits that person will receive arguing for better retention rates seems like a good thing even if in your opinion is to mandate that retention because it has a real tangible benefit. I really cant advocate choice when the benefits are so overwhelming.
Luke, I'm saying it's important to retain the students that want to succeed at that level. Non academic types can still succeed but not necessarily at that level. I gave an example of this in the original post.
What use is it having great retention rates if it's just so schools can receive greater funding from the Govt. Also the students that aren't there to succeed can bring down those around them. So what is created is culture of mediocrity. Where intelligence isn't celebrated or valued as highly as it should be.
Post a Comment