My Dad was the principal at St.Pat's High in Halifax, and although he certainly favoured people finishing school, he wasn't afraid to agree that it wasn't for everyone.

I've met people later on who told me that during high school they'd met with him and said they wanted to leave school and go do something else, and he agreed and said I think you're right; these folks were quite thankful for that and made a point of telling me.

You are riddled with jealousy and you are unaware of it. Twenty years ago I was in that sports clothing shop on Quinpool near the Bens Thrift shop. Just when I was about to leave a guy says to the other guy that he had found an old box in the back. 1960s St Pats sweatshirts. I opened the wallet and fool that I am only bought one. Due to an unfortunate drying, it shrank and had to get the scissor treatment but it still lives as illustrated.<p><center><img src="images/2004c/shirt.JPG" vspace="20"></center>

I finushed hi scul at 16 an it nevr hurt me nun.

Seriously though, I finished High School at 16 -- I was the last year of Grade 11 graduates in Newfoundland. As for Dalton's plan ... retarded, but not surprising. Obedience is the only value of today's Liberals.

Any hope of spending any money on improving the public school system? or for reviving the middle class dream of an affordable college/university education for their children?

Why bring in a "law" that will ensure that these kids now will leave high school or some other place at 18 with no high school diploma, instead of 16? If "education" is the key, this seems to be the wrong door.

When I read this I nearly blew my stack! He is doing this because of the 30% drop out rate? Perhaps he needs to look into why the rate is so high and inquire as to why these kids are dropping out and then do something about fixing it.

This hits home with me because one of my children is falling through the cracks of this God awful new curriculum that was introduced years ago. He is on his way to highschool in a year and in my opinion is not academically ready for it. Trying to find the kids the help they need is far from easy, there is only so much I can do as a parent and there has to come a time when I expect the help and co-operation of the educators. Instead I'm constantly faced with "well since all the cutbacks ...." yada yada yada!

Perhaps the 30 % drop out rate are those that fell through the cracks, those that don't have the basics needed to learn. I think it's fair to say, if your failing and can't get the help needed, your not going to want to stick around, there is only so much failure your self esteem can take. The amount of time being forced to sit in a classroom does not guarantee that the child is learning.

Grghhhhhhhhh Alan you got my blood boiling too early this morning LOL

I think SayNay is right that more attention needs to be payed to improving the public system and tuition for university. I don't think this law will help much. On the other hand, it's cheap to pass laws, so they do it a lot these days. Let's see how much enforcement is involved.

Why I can't spell paid is beyond me. I used to say that it was because I learned how to spell in French first, but I could never spell in French either... so some of us are hopeless.

I graduated when I was 16 from an AP program - would I have been forced to stay in highschool another two years under this ridiculous new law? Highschool was bad enough, forcing students to live through it longer is pure evil. I notice that he said "work training program," though; what exactly does that mean? I suspect that nothing will really change, since anything can count as a work training program. All that he's insuring is that students won't drop out who don't have a job already. It doesn't address the main problem, which is that students don't get the individual attention they need or extracurricular help, and that parents aren't sitting down and helping their kids or setting goals and enforcing them. 30% is dreadful, but our school system has been dumbed down, rather than having gotten harder, so why has the rate gone up? There's something else there.

Lisa - I am well known as a poor speller and take no offence. This is the equivalent of a post card or talk over drinks so we are pre-Johnsonian with our usage here abouts. Better that than an outbreak of priggery.

Re: spelling, I really hate to make a spelling mistake when discussing schools in a public forum.

If you were French I'd suggest that if you want to see weird spelling you should check out Montaigne. It's almost a French/Latin hybrid, though still intelligible.

I agree with Lisa and the others that this is so much cheap "window dressing" - everyone seems united on this issue: better secondary and affordable post-secondary education for our children. I think all would agree that better, more well educated children produce better more well adjusted adults. Think of all the social ills that can be cured by hope for a better future with a post-secondary diploma or degree.

Oooh! Do I get to be the voice of dissent here?

I was a high school dropout. And while I wouldn't dispute that our educational system needs some serious HELP, I don't think that one necessarily has anything to do with the other.

Simply put, making the decision to leave high school without graduating is an adult decision. And I see McGinty as merely proposing that adult decisions should be made by...adults. Several articles on this bill, and commenters above, have referred to the students as "children." Why should children, then, be able to make a decision that is going to affect their lives so significantly? Sixteen year olds can't vote, can't get married without parental permission, can't drink legally, and can't become fully licenced drivers. Why then should they have the ability to make such a potentially damaging decision about their future?

What I would like to see is a greater enhancement of the GED equivelancy and more equal recognition of such by post-secondary institutions. That would go a long way toward helping the 16 year olds who leave school because they're not being challenged by the current system, or who don't "fit" into a formal learning environment.

I can't see the law applying to those under 18 who have actually "finished" their high school education and obtained a diploma. With the elimination of OAC year, most high school graduates now, if they were born later in the year, are still 17 when they finish high school.

If quitting school hadn't been so easy, I wouldn't have done it, and could have saved myself many difficult years ahead.

What a good discussion. <p>I think that properly done, this could be a very good interventionist piece of work if you like that sort of thing. But, whether you like that kind of social engineering or not, I think we would all agree that under-funding will make a real mess of this. Will Children's Aid Societies now continue to support all children to 18? Now, in Ontario, I understand the CAS drops them at or even just as they near 16 unless perhaps they are seen as special cases. This may not be the case everywhere as each CAS here is a private organization not a branch of the provincial government.

I still think it's important to find out WHY there is such a high drop out rate. I don't think the 30% are students that just don't want to go to school anymore, there has got to be a reason for the sudden increase. As a parent, I want to know why. If he's doing this just to 'force' people to stay in so his numbers look good on paper, then it achieves nothing. Making someone be somewhere they do not want to be, for whatever reason, is not good for anyone, I see a lot of problems that can arise from this.

Is 30% actually sudden or is it in the ballpark of the historical level?

By age 16 I think you know whether you're committed to finishing High School or not. Forcing someone who is physically mature and doesn't want to be there to hang around to age 18 will bring attendant problems for the school such as discipline, disruption, illicit activity (ie. drugs) etc. Those discipline problems who are "forced" to stay in school for 2 more years will probably end up being warehoused, segregated or suspended in any event. This plan only makes a modicum of sense if it requires an expansion of the "atlernative Schools": taking these kids out of the "regular" High School system.

As Kim and Lisa and the others say, <small>let's focus on the real problem</small>: why are these kids who are dropping out not interested in staying in? Does the Dalton Gang think they're dropping out at 16 just because they can?

What do you make of this: "Statistics Canada data indicate about 90 per cent of students (who drop out) will eventually get their diplomas by age 35."

So, 9 times out of 10, these students who drop out realize the need for their diploma and return to some form of adult school setting to get it. Interesting.

Let's do whatever we like... and that was dismissive of Shelly who told us more about herself in one post than you have in almost a year. Say you are sorry and play nice.

No, you misread me completely my good fellow. I actually find that stat, if it is true and I have no doubt it is, really quite interesting and it actually supports Shelly - maybe those who drop out actually do want to graduate, but need some form of accomodation: a different setting or different "measures" as Shelly suggests, or more time etc.: I don't know -but it's clear at sometime in the future they want that diploma! I think it's good news.

I guess we're cross-posting. I found that stat after the post above that you said was "dismissive" of Shelly - not my intention and I think it has, interestingly, changed my thinking a little bit.

A-Ha! Good to see you are taking in somethings while here.

I'm suprised you're suprised.

Now, do think maybe, just maybe, given Shelly's insight and that statistic, that Dillon or Derwood or Dalton (whatever his name is) might be on to something, at least partially: take the kids who might normally drop out and "offer" them an "alternative" way to get their diploma NOW instead of (as Shelly put it)have to "endure the difficult years ahead", only to return later when they are more mature and realize their mistake?

At the time I returned to adult education and did complete my diploma, there was a study done on Ontario high school dropouts. This was around 1993-ish. Anyway, it showed that the majority of kids who dropped out of high school were doing so with A and B averages.

SayNay makes an interesting point about the rate of return - however, I would point out that those who do get their diploma later usually require some form of social assistance to do it, be it welfare, subsidized day care, etc. Think of the funding that would be freed up if we were able to reduce the number of adult education programs because the need for them - and the supports that accompany them - wasn't as great.