In an organized essay of about (500) words, (1) explain in your own words what the writer is saying AND (2) take a position on the
writer's argument. (Issues you m?2?? wish to address include: Do you agree or disagree totally with the writer's opinion or only to a
certain extent? Is the evidence used to support the writer's argument convincing or weak? If weak, can you offer a better argument?
Can you cite a personal experience that either supports or undermines what the writer has said?) As you write your essay, you should
periodically refer to statements in the passage you are discussing.
Adapted from an article by Franklin Schargel
(1). In an effort to boost graduation rates, President Obama proposed in his State of the Union Address that every state require
students to stay in school until they turn 18. Certainly few would argue with the attractiveness of this plan. If America is to be
globally competitive, it must have a high performing, highly trained, highly-technologically prepared workforce and this requires, at
minimum, a high school diploma. Indeed, supporters of raising the dropout age argue that the lower age limits-like 16 and 17- are
out of date, throwbacks to an era when someone with no high school degree could actually earn a living wage. Others suggest that 18
is a more reasonable age for young people to make such a life-altering decision as dropping out of school, adding that the requirement
to remain in school might motivate these teenagers to finish their degrees. However, simply mandating that young people remain in
school without addressing the causes for their leaving will accomplish little. A recent report issued by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation indicated that some of the primary reasons that teens leave school is because they are bored or because they feel that the
curriculum has no relevance in the real world. The report also found that students often dropout because of teenage pregnancy or
because they are trying to meet their family's financial obligations. How will holding students where they do not want to be until age
18 lessen these problems? The fact of the matter is that kids who aren't interested in school at 16 won't be more interested at 17 or 18.
How much of a school district's precious and limited resources should teachers and administrators expend to compel the attendance of
older teens? It may sound harsh to suggest that society should effectively give up on young dropouts and not expend the resources it
would take to address these kids' true needs and keep them in school. But during this recession, schools must not squander their
limited resources trying to fix social problems and focus instead on the kids who want to be there. An increased dropout age will raise
costs, including more classrooms, additional teachers, and extra support personnel. Finally, there is the uncalculated cost of enforcing
the law. Public schools, especially these days, have much to do and not enough resources with which to do it. Adding another ill advised mandate will only make a bad situation worse.