People who care about our education system spend a lot of time thinking and talking about the dropout problem. We look at it in terms of social and personal consequences. We come up with dropout prevention strategies by the hundreds. We gauge the success or failure of a school or school system by the number of dropouts. It's almost an obsession - and I share it. Yet the headlines tell us we're not making much progress in cutting the numbers of kids who leave school without diplomas. "Education spending up; dropout rates level" -- you've probably seen that one in your local paper.
I don't know what the answer is, but Rutgers sociologist Jackson Toby makes an interesting suggestion in a recent issue of The Public Interest (Spring 1989): Just let them quit. In fact, let them quit at age 15. This sounds callous and irresponsible. But Toby, who believes we've gotten into a spot where the tail is wagging the dog, makes a good case for opening the door for 15-year-olds who want to leave school.
Who are we helping, Toby asks, when we force students to stay in school? Kids who are apathetic and hostile, who don't do any school work and who don't even attend school regularly, are gaining little if anything, by remaining on the rolls. And their effect on the school is usually devastating. If they're disruptive, they make it difficult or impossible for other students to learn -- and for teachers to teach. The whole school suffers. And when serious and well-meaning teachers and administrators try to keep these kids in school by making course offerings more entertaining, they just succeed in watering down the curriculum a little more.
Perhaps we're eager to keep these kids from dropping out, Toby says, partly because of the weight we attach to the word: "Dropout carries stigma; that is, it evokes disapproval and pity." It sounds like failure. And it sounds final. In Sweden, the word to describe kids who leave school is "school-tired." They need a rest; when they've gotten it they might come back. And in Sweden, unlike the U.S., the doors are open for them to return.
But we also hold on to potential dropouts because somehow the responsibility for school attendance has gotten turned around and it is all on the side of the schools. Students are not held responsible for coming to school and getting an education. But schools are held responsible for keeping kids in school -- a little education might rub off on even the most apathetic or hostile kid. Japanese students are free to quit, Toby tells us, after junior high school, so going on to high school requires them to make a commitment, and over 94 percent of them go, with 88 percent finishing.
Why shouldn't our schools, by setting free the students who have checked out mentally and emotionally anyway, also require such a commitment? Why not make sure that the kids who are in school are there because they've made a choice? Adopting this system would improve the schools - Toby believes it could save some of them -- by allowing teachers the time and energy to work with students who have assumed responsibility for their education. And far from being a policy that would harm poor inner-city schools, Toby says they are the schools that would most benefit from getting rid of the in-school dropouts so that the majority of their students could learn.
Some people will attack Toby's plan out of fear: What will happen if the schools give up their custodial function and let a bunch of these kids loose on the streets? His answer is reassuring. Sure kids who drop out are more likely to get in trouble with the law than those who stay in school, but studies show that delinquent behavior generally begins before the kids leave school. Dropping out doesn't cause delinquency.
All this sounds attractive, but it might have a down side. What about the kids who stay in school now because that's the law and the thing to do? Some of them would undoubtedly take the new law as a green light to leave. And we can't tell how many kids like that we'd lose -- or how likely they'd be to come back even if we left the school doors open for re-entry as they do in Sweden. We also don't know whether some schools would push out kids who are difficult but not ready to give up.
But Toby is right that no education takes place without "cooperation between students and teachers." And though this seems obvious enough, it's a truth our education system often ignores. Seeing a student as a vessel into which teachers pour education is the same kind of mistake as assuming that education will rub off on in-school dropouts if we just keep them in long enough. If students aren't engaged in their own learning, if they're not working, they won't learn.
Allowing 15-year-olds to quit school could lead to some terrible mistakes. Kids who are now staying -- and, under the current law, would continue to stay - might just walk out the door. But the advantages of Toby's plan may outweigh its drawbacks. Most people are more likely to value and work for something they have chosen - and kids are no exception. But they are more likely to reject what has been chosen for them.
If we were to combine a relaxed school-leaving policy with a strong encouragement for students to return if and when they decided school held something for them, we might be able to transform the dropout problem even ifwe didn't solve it. It's worth considering.