Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Chicago Public Schools & Rahm Emmanuel have gone insane


Recommended Posts

Quote

Starting with next year’s freshman class, in order to receive their high school diploma, all CPS students would have to show an acceptance letter to a four-year university, a community college, a trade school or apprenticeship, an internship, or a branch of the armed services.

CPS To Set New Graduation Requirement: Acceptance Letter

A school system that can't even calculate its own graduation rates correctly (or honestly) is now going to be put in the position to decide whether a student is awarded a diploma, based on its own arbitrary judgement on the student's post-high school plans?

Want to do a "gap year"? No diploma for you.

Joining the family business? You may not get a diploma either.

Unable to afford or qualify for a 4-year college, junior college or trade school? Chicago public schools will punish your future prospects even further by withholding that high school diploma.

This is completely insane, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This is likely even unconstitutional at a state or federal level, not to mention insane, policy-wise.

I don't think the Feds have any kind of say in it. At the State level, it's probably. I've known districts that added extra requirements like community service or being a part of a club/team. I think this is something Chicago can do. I think it's misguided, but they have the right to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

While I support education wholeheartedly, this is an infringement by the government on individuals, and that supersedes whatever good intentions they may have on this program. Incentives should encourage further education, not the fear of punitive actions.

I think they would say, it's not punitive. The diploma is an incentive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jobber said:

Whoever dreamed this up should be set on fire. On that note, some kid should put 'arsonist' on the form and do just that.

It was copied from a charter school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

It was copied from a charter school. 

I don't know this for sure but isn't a charter school a persons choice to attend rather than the public education provided? If so, then the student choosing to attend the charter school would make that decision knowing the stipulation of further education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beef Ravioli said:

I don't know this for sure but isn't a charter school a persons choice to attend rather than the public education provided? If so, then the student choosing to attend the charter school would make that decision knowing the stipulation of further education.

Correct and now it's also a persons choice to attend CPS. If they don't like this new rule, they can find a charter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beef Ravioli said:

That doesn't seem fair?

What isn't fair about it? The rules applies to all the kids in CPS, so it would be fair. 

 

I am not supporting this rule. Just playing out how the supporters might see it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless CPS is footing the bill for that follow on education this is ridiculous. And really how many kids without the means does this push into the military? I served so I am not anti-military but it shouldn't be chosen because you were forced to do so. You put in your twelve years, you hit all the goals, and you get your diploma. What you do from there is on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BigSteelThrill said:

What if you need to work immediately (or are already working) so you can help feed/house/clothe your family?

So stupid.

My guess is that their will be alternatives and this article is a puff piece to generate what Rahm and CPS think is positive press. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

What if you need to work immediately (or are already working) so you can help feed/house/clothe your family?

So stupid.

This is where I thought it might be unconstitutional. Right-to-work doctrine is probably very broad unless you're -- ahem -- an NCAA football player.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NCCommish said:

Unless CPS is footing the bill for that follow on education this is ridiculous. And really how many kids without the means does this push into the military? I served so I am not anti-military but it shouldn't be chosen because you were forced to do so. You put in your twelve years, you hit all the goals, and you get your diploma. What you do from there is on you.

That is definitely changing and a lot of it actually comes from special education. In SE, the big focus in high school is called transition or basically what is the kid going to do after high school and how do we get them there? The kids have transition goals (could be as simple as bringing their supplies with them to class to something more complex like completing career research). When the kids are graduating or ready to move on from high school, there are other agencies that come to place the kids into a college, trade school or job program. I see this move by Chicago as a similar attempt to ensure the kids leaving their school are in place to continue moving forward with whatever their adult goals are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this will CERTAINLY achieve the desired outcome. No chance for unintended consequences, not at all.

Over/under on 90% graduation rates? June? July? Gotta be Sept the latest with this genius policy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This is where I thought it might be unconstitutional. Right-to-work doctrine is probably very broad unless you're -- ahem -- an NCAA football player.  

The article says it also includes internships and apprenticeships so I assume a job would count. Also, people can work and go to school at the same time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

While I support education wholeheartedly, this is an infringement by the government on individuals, and that supersedes whatever good intentions they may have on this program. Incentives should encourage further education, not the fear of punitive actions.

This is a stupid rule, but "infringement by the government" in changing the rules of education seems a lot like "keep your government hands off my Medicare."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Koya said:

Well, this will CERTAINLY achieve the desired outcome. No chance for unintended consequences, not at all.

Over/under on 90% graduation rates? June? July? Gotta be Sept the latest with this genius policy 

Lots of fake acceptance letters and fly by night "job training schools". Basically, pay us a few hundred bucks and we will make sure you can graduate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

The article says it also includes internships and apprenticeships so I assume a job would count. Also, people can work and go to school at the same time. 

I get that you're playing devil's advocate, but it would seem like this sort of requirement violates some sort of the compulsory arrangement we have between the state and diplomas. I don't think that 40+ hours and overtime allow for schooling, military, etc. 

I also don't think the school should be allowed to screen you based on your future endeavors. Diplomas are generally based on achievements and requirements, not futurism. 

Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm not a public education lawyer, though I did take a class once. This doesn't pass a smell test.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Lots of fake acceptance letters and fly by night "job training schools". Basically, pay us a few hundred bucks and we will make sure you can graduate. 

Or marginal students saying #### that - was gonna be hard enough just to GET to graduation.  Not like I'm going anywhere anyway. I got... a job that don't need no diploma... a gang that will look after me.... a family I gotta take care off...

so screw this, I'm done. 

 

 

[fast forward 2, 5, 10 years when some of these folks mature ...]

man, I am so ready to get my #### together and get a real job - One that requires at least a HS diploma - and go to college at night.  Oh. ####. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't have to actually attend college or anything. They just need an acceptance letter. It's not hard to get an acceptance letter to community college. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I get that you're playing devil's advocate, but it would seem like this sort of requirement violates some sort of the compulsory arrangement we have between the state and diplomas. I don't think that 40+ hours and overtime allow for schooling, military, etc. 

I also don't think the school should be allowed to screen you based on your future endeavors. Diplomas are generally based on achievements and requirements, not futurism. 

Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm not a public education lawyer, though I did take a class once. This doesn't pass a smell test.  

What is a diploma? What does it mean? Those are big questions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ilov80s said:

They don't have to actually attend college or anything. They just need an acceptance letter. It's not hard to get an acceptance letter to community college. 

I was just about to point this out. What's the typical cost to apply to a CC or Junior College?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ilov80s said:

They don't have to actually attend college or anything. They just need an acceptance letter. It's not hard to get an acceptance letter to community college. 

But why create additional hurdles? Why force someone into a desired outcome rather than address the underlying realities by which that outcome is not met at far too high a rate? 

Not graduating kids is a disaster - but forcing them into some preconditional hurdle rather than create an atmosphere AM through a set of policies that encourages those outcomes to be achieved by actual free desire and will seems a far more successful (and in terms of individual choice and responsibility, respectful) approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Koya said:

Or marginal students saying #### that - was gonna be hard enough just to GET to graduation.  Not like I'm going anywhere anyway. I got... a job that don't need no diploma... a gang that will look after me.... a family I gotta take care off...

so screw this, I'm done. 

 

 

[fast forward 2, 5, 10 years when some of these folks mature ...]

man, I am so ready to get my #### together and get a real job - One that requires at least a HS diploma - and go to college at night.  Oh. ####. 

I doubt it honestly. If a kid quits because of this, they were likely going to quit anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ilov80s said:

I doubt it honestly. If a kid quits because of this, they were likely going to quit anyway. 

Have you done much work in majority minority communities with sub 50% graduation? Sub 35% 

I have, and any additional hurdle can be the straw to break the camels back. This seems well intended but far too overreaching and counterproductive IMO. 

Hell, this could provide PARENTS in really poor neighbourhoods to discourage their kid from finishing high school ... cause it's not like they were gonna do anything with that diploma anyway (I wish this were hyperbole, in my experience it's sadly not)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, EYLive said:

I was just about to point this out. What's the typical cost to apply to a CC or Junior College?

The local CC by me are free to apply. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

What is a diploma? What does it mean? Those are big questions. 

Yeah, they are big questions. I guess I would argue that a high school diploma has been generally considered an entrance to society since modernity, actually. And that it has always been based on accomplishment rather than future intentions. It's an achievement test of sorts, but that which has been socially screened. Anyway, I'm pretty sure Rahm and company know this will never stand, and I need to read up more on it to figure out their intentions. Is this a backdoor way of introducing the year of compulsory service so many talk about, etc., etc.

In my defense, when a society organizes itself around a construct like parens patriae, that is also a big question. What does that mean? Don't forget, free, public, compulsory education was not such a fact of American life until about the mid 20th century or so. Lots of tales of picking cotton down South, and not just racially.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Koya said:

Have you done much work in majority minority communities with sub 50% graduation? Sub 35% 

I have, and any additional hurdle can be the straw to break the camels back. This seems well intended but far too overreaching and counterproductive IMO. 

Hell, this could provide PARENTS in really poor neighbourhoods to discourage their kid from finishing high school ... cause it's not like they were gonna do anything with that diploma anyway (I wish this were hyperbole, in my experience it's sadly not)

I have worked with students with disabilities from Detroit for 11 years. I get what you are saying, but I just don't see it based on my experiences.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I have worked with students with disabilities from Detroit for 11 years. I get what you are saying, but I just don't see it based on my experiences.  

Maybe we've had different experiences.  It's such a tough mountain to climb for so many when the whole deck is stacked it just seems utterly counterproductive to impose additional hurdles that have nothing to do with the underlying education and level of actual achievement by which one should earn a diploma. :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Koya said:

All the more reason to ask - then why the #### do it?

My guess would be to try and get more kids to actually follow through with their plans. Here is something that I constantly experience

Quote

 

October 2014

Me: Hey senior, what are you doing after high school?

Student: Going to community college for ...

January 2015 

Me: Have you filled out FAFSA? Have you contacted the college? See the counselors if you need help.

Student: No, I will though. I know I got to do that. 

June 2015

Me: Congrats on graduating, did you register for college?

Student: Not yet, I'll do that this summer

October 2015 at football game

Me: Hey, how is college?

Student: Oh I didn't end up registering. I'm just working as a hostess at Red Robin now. I'll start in the winter.

October 2016 at football game

Me: How did college go?

Student: Oh I didn't end up registering yet. I'm just gonna keep hostessing at Red Robin, maybe move in with my bf. Probably next year I'll go to college. 

 


 

Does having the acceptance letter mean they will definitely follow through? No, but at least they did take the steps to initiate which probably does increase chances of follow through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

My guess would be to try and get more kids to actually follow through with their plans. Here is something that I constantly experience

Does having the acceptance letter mean they will definitely follow through? No, but at least they did take the steps to initiate which probably does increase chances of follow through. 

Don't agree with the policy at all, but certainly see your point here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EYLive said:

:shrug: Beats me, sounds like dumb busy-work policy.

 I definitely have lots of kids that say they want to attend community college or do job training but out of laziness or fear or whatever just never act on that desire. My guess is the intention of this is to motivate them to take that first step. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Yeah, they are big questions. I guess I would argue that a high school diploma has been generally considered an entrance to society since modernity, actually. And that it has always been based on accomplishment rather than future intentions. It's an achievement test of sorts, but that which has been socially screened. Anyway, I'm pretty sure Rahm and company know this will never stand, and I need to read up more on it to figure out their intentions. Is this a backdoor way of introducing the year of compulsory service so many talk about, etc., etc.

In my defense, when a society organizes itself around a construct like parens patriae, that is also a big question. What does that mean? Don't forget, free, public, compulsory education was not such a fact of American life until about the mid 20th century or so. Lots of tales of picking cotton down South, and not just racially.  

The thing is, a diploma can be whatever each State decides they want it to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...