Some members of Maryland's General Assembly have been pushing to raise the minimum age that students can legally drop out of school from 16 to 18. The intentions may be laudable, but a task force that examined the question got it right in a report released last week: Raising the legal age limit is not nearly as important as providing the supports and services that could help marginal students succeed academically.
An estimated 10,500 students in Maryland drop out each year. That's unacceptable at a time when a high school diploma is a minimal credential for a good job and even a good life. Research shows that adults who don't have a diploma earn about 27 percent less than those who do, and that dropouts make up about 40 percent of the nation's prison population and generally have shorter life spans.
Dropping out is not a spur-of-the-moment decision, but usually happens after a student has endured years of not being motivated or challenged or not having enough academic and personal supports. The task force estimated that raising the dropout age would cost $200 million, including more teachers and classroom space. That's a prohibitive figure in tight fiscal times. But the money would be wasted if existing school systems can't be more flexible, creative and consistent in dealing with problem students.
That's why the task force sensibly recommended a statewide initiative that would establish more pilot programs based on proven models of success, evaluate programs more rigorously and reallocate resources to help connect more students to appropriate services that would help them stay in school. Although alternative programs exist in Maryland, they don't meet the current need, and there are no standards for connecting them to regular education programs. In Baltimore, for example, eight alternative schools serve about 1,200 students. That's less than the nearly 2,340 students from the Class of 2009 who have left the system since they started as ninth-graders.
We support the task force recommendations to accept General Educational Development tests and to expand access to GED programs for students who are not likely to get a traditional diploma.
In an era of high-stakes testing, where schools must show that they are making progress from year to year and are held accountable for individual student results, it may be tempting for schools either to push out poor performers or just not work very hard to keep them. But dropouts hurt themselves and society. In the long run, it's more cost-effective to develop programs that address the needs of troubled students, and school systems need to own up to that responsibility, regardless of the dropout age.