• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rahm Emanuel to require post-high school plan to get diploma.

justabubba said:
i don't know
but it is my understanding the chicago students must fulfill public works/volunteer requirements as a condition of graduation
altho not academic in nature, it is another aspect of matriculation that many students should be exposed to but often are not unless it is thru the schools
i remain unable to see the logic which tells us we should not prepare our kids for life beyond high school while they are still attending high school
Click to expand...
But that's a condition of graduation, one of the requirements to get the diploma, same as any class. That's fine. This proposal (potentially) denies the already-earned diploma after-the-fact.
 
radcen said:
But that's a condition of graduation, one of the requirements to get the diploma, same as any class. That's fine. This proposal (potentially) denies the already-earned diploma after-the-fact.
Click to expand...

other than the specific activity to be performed, they are exactly alike; a prerequisite to be performed before the diploma can be issued
 
justabubba said:
and there are many stay at home mom's whose only means of sustenance is from the taxpayers
which would you prefer?
rahm prefers to motivate those prospective mothers to be self sustaining
Click to expand...

Denying a certificate for past accomplishments based on future plans or lack thereof? How does that motivate anyone?
 
Fishking said:
No, I won't get out of your face for making inane statements. Your questions are also ridiculously specious, have nothing to do with the topic, and as you've demonstrated has no end in sight.

So I'll stick with my answer to this subject, which is it's none of the governments damn business what anyone does with their lives after high school. Clear enough for you?
Click to expand...

You accused me of being big government. So you tell me where big govt ends. You're scared to answer my question because they'll expose you as fake. I don't see you posting about other policies that are big govt. You decided to zero in on a small policy I supported from a mayor. That's pretty local, and very close to the people. So I challenge you again to define the bounds of big govt. I don't expect to hear a cogent answer, because you've been stalling.
 
jimbo said:
It is for me. Communist and socialist countries do this. If you exhibit ability at gymnastics, you become a gymnastics trainee.

Government has no need to know what I'm going to do next.
Click to expand...

That total horse****. The reason for this is that young people today don't have a plan to become productive citizens. They graduate high school or college and continue living with Mommy and Daddy. There is no real plan to move on. I see this approach as a remedy. I'll be waiting for the other shoe to drop when you bring Hitler into this.
 
American said:
That total horse****. The reason for this is that young people today don't have a plan to become productive citizens. They graduate high school or college and continue living with Mommy and Daddy. There is no real plan to move on. I see this approach as a remedy. I'll be waiting for the other shoe to drop when you bring Hitler into this.
Click to expand...

How is this a remedy? Again, that's not the problem of government other than the school system. If anything, it's the problem of the school system, which fails to prepare students for life after graduation. Denying the certificate after fulfilling the requirements in the past will not fix the problem of the future.

What has Hitler to do with this?
 
radcen said:
No. Requiring post-graduation planning is not the same. At all.
Click to expand...

before one can receive a diploma, they must first perform a community service/volunteer requirement

rahm is proposing a similar pre-requisite. each senior must show what that senior contemplates doing after HS graduation

a requirement of substantial common sense
 
jimbo said:
Denying a certificate for past accomplishments based on future plans or lack thereof? How does that motivate anyone?
Click to expand...

it is strongly motivational
that kid who is already doing this will easily be able to document it
but those kids who are not otherwise contemplating how they will spend/pursue their future, will now be expected to do so
an excellent life skill for the HS to try to instill in all of its students
 
Fishking said:
Apparently, there is no level of control over the lives of his constituents that is too much. If this passes, your rightfully earned high school diploma will be held in ransom until you meet extra requirements.

Emanuel wants to add a CPS graduation requirement: Get acceptance letter - Chicago Tribune
Click to expand...

Then there is my nephew, with both parents holding advanced college degrees, who simply did not want to go to college. He wanted to go into business for himself. He now has a booming construction business holding percentage ownership in many of the hotels and motels he builds, owns a feed store and some other small businesses, and runs a large cattle ranch that he owns and that includes guided hunting expeditions at huge fees here in New Mexico. He is probably a multi millionaire though you would never guess that just to see his modest country dress and his humble and laid back demeanor.

I suppose Rahm wouldn't have let him have his high school diploma.

Of far more value would be a policy of bouncing disruptive students out of the class room, stopping all social promotions, and ensure that the kids can read, write, have a working knowledge of history, geography, and English, and can do basic math before they can receive a diploma. THAT I could support and cheer 100%.
 
American said:
You accused me of being big government. So you tell me where big govt ends. You're scared to answer my question because they'll expose you as fake. I don't see you posting about other policies that are big govt. You decided to zero in on a small policy I supported from a mayor. That's pretty local, and very close to the people. So I challenge you again to define the bounds of big govt. I don't expect to hear a cogent answer, because you've been stalling.
Click to expand...

If you don't see me opposing big government in other areas, you're not looking. I'll deign to provide an obviously not all inclusive list, (because, again, that would never end and I'm not here to educate you on all nuance of big government) because I'm feeling magnanimous.

I'm against drug prohibition.
Against restrictions on "assault weapons" and needing permits to conceal carry, and against registries.
I'm against permanent felony statuses that strip people of rights (e.g. voting). You've either served your time or you have not.
I'm against the government being involved in marriage.
I'm against the government regulating how a business runs itself and who they serve or don't serve.
I'm against the death penalty.
I'm against most foreign intervention.

Basically most of my positions follow the NAP, as much as is reasonable in the face of various realities. That's the most I'm willing to entertain your specious line of questioning. Further, I see that you support big government by having them hold their diploma ransom until they comply with their approved options for what someone does with their own lives. What other ways are you OK with the government telling you how to live? Your chosen alias is an affront to the founding concepts of our country.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Then there is my nephew, with both parents holding advanced college degrees, who simply did not want to go to college. He wanted to go into business for himself. He now has a booming construction business holding percentage ownership in many of the hotels and motels he builds, owns a feed store and some other small businesses, and runs a large cattle ranch that he owns and that includes guided hunting expeditions at huge fees here in New Mexico. He is probably a multi millionaire though you would never guess that just to see his modest country dress and his humble and laid back demeanor.

I suppose Rahm wouldn't have let him have his high school diploma.

Of far more value would be a policy of bouncing disruptive students out of the class room, stopping all social promotions, and ensure that the kids can read, write, have a working knowledge of history, geography, and English, and can do basic math before they can receive a diploma. THAT I could support and cheer 100%.
Click to expand...

my son filed his LLC application on his 18th birthday
operating his first company while in high school
teachers and the school system were among his earliest customers

that young person who started the successful construction company might have had an earlier launch if he had been required to show the school system his plans upon commencement

it is a good thing for young people to have some idea of where they are headed after high school
fail to plan - plan to fail
 
American said:
That total horse****. The reason for this is that young people today don't have a plan to become productive citizens. They graduate high school or college and continue living with Mommy and Daddy. There is no real plan to move on. I see this approach as a remedy. I'll be waiting for the other shoe to drop when you bring Hitler into this.
Click to expand...

Look at you replacing the role that should be played by parents with the government.
 
American said:
That total horse****. The reason for this is that young people today don't have a plan to become productive citizens. They graduate high school or college and continue living with Mommy and Daddy. There is no real plan to move on. I see this approach as a remedy. I'll be waiting for the other shoe to drop when you bring Hitler into this.
Click to expand...

You are correct in theory but IMO wrong in how to accomplish it. I do believe students should have objectives and goals in where they go from high school.

But it is NOT the job of government, or at least it shouldn't be, to parent kids. It is the job of government via public schooling to ensure that the diploma indicates the student has demonstrated competence in reading and writing and a basic minimum of competence in English, history, geography, and basic math. It is the student's responsibility or the parents' responsibility to guide the person into a productive future.
 
Fishking said:
Look at you replacing the role that should be played by parents with the government.
Click to expand...

but isn't that the point?
many kids already come from homes where they are being pushed and prodded to plan what to do after high school. they will have no problems meeting rahm's pre-requisite
but the ones without such parents are those who tend to need such prodding the most. their parents likely are without such a life-planning life skill themselves. if the schools do not prod these kids to think about what they want to do with their immediate futures, then it is not going to happen
kudos to rahm for recognizing this
 
AlbqOwl said:
You are correct in theory but IMO wrong in how to accomplish it. I do believe students should have objectives and goals in where they go from high school.

But it is NOT the job of government, or at least it shouldn't be, to parent kids. It is the job of government via public schooling to ensure that the diploma indicates the student has demonstrated competence in reading and writing and a basic minimum of competence in English, history, geography, and basic math. It is the student's responsibility or the parents' responsibility to guide the person into a productive future.
Click to expand...

that sounds good in theory, but not in practice
we would expect the parents to teach the kids how to behave in school. and to apply themselves to achieve
but so many do not. the kids misbehave and underperform
and when there are large numbers of such kids attending any one school, that school is going to be unsuccessful - unless the teachers can work some magic and train the students in expected behaviors. planning for post graduation is one such skill to be imparted into these young people
 
justabubba said:
my son filed his LLC application on his 18th birthday
operating his first company while in high school
teachers and the school system were among his earliest customers

that young person who started the successful construction company might have had an earlier launch if he had been required to show the school system his plans upon commencement

it is a good thing for young people to have some idea of where they are headed after high school
fail to plan - plan to fail
Click to expand...

That young person started his business within three years of graduating high school. He spent those three years hiring himself out as a laborer or apprentice and he soaked up what he could learn like a sponge. By the time he was ready to launch his business, he had saved enough money to do so and was ready to be successful. But he certainly could not have explained that to a high school counselor on graduation day.

I'm not arguing that young people should not have goals and objectives in mind when they complete their formal education whether that be high school or college or grad school. I am just saying that government should not be given any kind of authority to meddle in that. Government CAN be given authority to withhold a diploma from somebody who has failed to meet the requirements to merit it, and they should withhold that diploma.

But I do not want government at any level having power to dictate to me how I must live my life.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Of far more value would be a policy of bouncing disruptive students out of the class room, stopping all social promotions, and ensure that the kids can read, write, have a working knowledge of history, geography, and English, and can do basic math before they can receive a diploma. THAT I could support and cheer 100%.
Click to expand...

This. First of all, schools are for education, not social engineering. Secondly, they need to also start emphasizing work ethic and the benefits, joy, and respect working with your hands gives you. All this push for everyone going to college to get white collar jobs that aren't there, with crushing debt, as the only way to be successful is ruining kids.
 
justabubba said:
but isn't that the point?
many kids already come from homes where they are being pushed and prodded to plan what to do after high school. they will have no problems meeting rahm's pre-requisite
but the ones without such parents are those who tend to need such prodding the most. their parents likely are without such a life-planning life skill themselves. if the schools do not prod these kids to think about what they want to do with their immediate futures, then it is not going to happen
kudos to rahm for recognizing this
Click to expand...

Again, it's the government playing a role that is not it's place. Good or bad, that's the parents' job. Further, the schools could be run in such a manner that it sets up the students for success so coercion doesn't play a role, and make no mistake, this is coercion. They could also force the hands of parents more by how they run their school system to begin with. School shouldn't be looked at as a day care for kids. Set standards that they have to meet or send them home. Parents will get more involved when they get stuck with having to watch their kids at home, instead of working or getting stuff done.

What other areas are you going to be OK with the government telling you how to live your life?
 
AlbqOwl said:
I'm not arguing that young people should not have goals and objectives in mind when they complete their formal education whether that be high school or college or grad school. I am just saying that government should not be given any kind of authority to meddle in that. Government CAN be given authority to withhold a diploma from somebody who has failed to meet the requirements to merit it, and they should withhold that diploma.

But I do not want government at any level having power to dictate to me how I must live my life.
Click to expand...

but let's follow this logically

we both agree that it is good for students to try to plan their futures after high school

your objection is that it is not government's role to push such an agenda

i believe we both recognize that the parents in the home are often not prodding their kids to do such planning

then we have to contemplate two results:

1. not being required to plan, the student is more likely to drift into an unplanned future when his/her prospects for success are diminished by that failure to take planning steps; or

2. the school compels the student to engage in such life planning, enhancing their prospects for success

i believe the outcome of option two is worthy of the state's interjection in this matter. school is for teaching students. everything they are taught does not have to be part of the academic curriculum

we see that already by the imposed requirement on the same students that they must partake in community outreach/volunteer activities as a pre-requisite to attain their high school diploma
 
justabubba said:
that sounds good in theory, but not in practice
we would expect the parents to teach the kids how to behave in school. and to apply themselves to achieve
but so many do not. the kids misbehave and underperform
and when there are large numbers of such kids attending any one school, that school is going to be unsuccessful - unless the teachers can work some magic and train the students in expected behaviors. planning for post graduation is one such skill to be imparted into these young people
Click to expand...

I'm not buying it. A competent administrator and dedicated staff can handle the toughest, most undisciplined kids when given license to actually educate instead of just get them through the year. I've seen it done. My brother-in-law was coach, teacher, principle, and then superintendent of various schools with some of the meanest, toughest kids in the state, but there was discipline in his classrooms, on the football field, and in the school. My sister was a career choral instructor who brooked absolutely no disruption in her classes. But that was in the days when the staff could actually control the kids without fear of lawsuits.

And that, in my opinion, is the key. Of course kids of any age should not be abused by staff. But there is zero justification, IMO, that any kid should be allowed to disrupt or hinder the education of the others. If kids make no effort to learn, they should simply be failed for that year. If they won't behave themselves and follow orders in school, they would be sent to detention or suspended or expelled. Let the state build reform schools and assess fees from the parents to support them instead of allowing some students to prevent the others from getting a good education.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You are correct in theory but IMO wrong in how to accomplish it. I do believe students should have objectives and goals in where they go from high school.

But it is NOT the job of government, or at least it shouldn't be, to parent kids. It is the job of government via public schooling to ensure that the diploma indicates the student has demonstrated competence in reading and writing and a basic minimum of competence in English, history, geography, and basic math. It is the student's responsibility or the parents' responsibility to guide the person into a productive future.
Click to expand...

Good job.:applaud:

Back in the day, when I was in high school, we had guidance counselors. They counseled, guided, and assisted you in your future plans.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I'm not buying it. A competent administrator and dedicated staff can handle the toughest, most undisciplined kids when given license to actually educate instead of just get them through the year. I've seen it done. My brother-in-law was coach, teacher, principle, and then superintendent of various schools with some of the meanest, toughest kids in the state, but there was discipline in his classrooms, on the football field, and in the school. My sister was a career choral instructor who brooked absolutely no disruption in her classes. But that was in the days when the staff could actually control the kids without fear of lawsuits.

And that, in my opinion, is the key. Of course kids of any age should not be abused by staff. But there is zero justification, IMO, that any kid should be allowed to disrupt or hinder the education of the others. If kids make no effort to learn, they should simply be failed for that year. If they won't behave themselves and follow orders in school, they would be sent to detention or suspended or expelled. Let the state build reform schools and assess fees from the parents to support them instead of allowing some students to prevent the others from getting a good education.
Click to expand...

or we could teach the students how to behave
and how to plan for their futures
 
jimbo said:
Good job.:applaud:

Back in the day, when I was in high school, we had guidance counselors. They counseled, guided, and assisted you in your future plans.
Click to expand...

the cite indicates rahm is training the counselors to assist the seniors to fulfill this new life-planning pre-requisite
 
justabubba said:
the cite indicates rahm is training the counselors to assist the seniors to fulfill this new life-planning pre-requisite
Click to expand...

Greetings, justabubba. :2wave:

I agree, but I also believe this should happen earlier than the senior year - ideally starting when they enter high school as a freshman because it takes time to change a mindset, even though it's for their own benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom