The middle's education

IU's Center for Evaluation and Education Policy and the Indiana Youth Services Association recently released the results of a study entitled "Children Left Behind." It discusses the problems with public schools in general, and specifically the use of suspension and expulsion as effective means of punishment.\nThe study is interesting, and the science of it can't really be contested. But its suggestions reflect America's skewed view of the responsibilities of the educational system. \nThe study suggests limiting zero tolerance policies, implementing a graduated discipline system and encouraging a wider net of responsibility for education, including the school, parents and the community. \nSure, it takes a village -- in a utopia. Hillary got it right -- she usually does -- but most modern parents don't live in a utopian society. Most of these suggestions pertain more readily to high schools, and frankly, by the time kids are 15 or so, they're already on their life track. \nThey also need to take responsibility for their own actions. Putting that responsibility back in the hands of the students would probably also throw a bone to teachers nationwide.\nThe system has a responsibility to provide free and compulsory education, but should it have to shoulder the responsibility of tying an unwilling student down long enough to graduate? \nIf the students make it so hard to be educated, should the schools be forced to try to keep them there? \nA British friend told me the other day about the horrific dropout rate at his area's schools -- 40 percent by age 16, he estimated -- but was curious about my shock.\n"Well, if they don't want to be there, and they can't handle it and behave, they shouldn't be there, should they?" my friend said.\nI tried to argue with that, but my comeback fell apart mid-sentence. \nBy the time kids are 16, we let them drive, and after all, dropping out of school isn't a decision that can kill someone. Misbehaving to the point of being thrown out of school is just as much a decision as withdrawing. \nI'm aware that dropping out of school is a decision that can destroy someone's life. But that's not news -- everyone should know that by now, including the kids who get themselves permanently expelled from school. \nAnd if a student has a serious disregard for learning, is keeping them there as long as possible really the best answer? More importantly, how many other students are they harming by disrupting school or eating up valuable (and all too often, scarce) resources? No student should have their opportunities diminished by school violence or disruption. \nZero tolerance is stupid -- it always has been -- but if a student demonstrates his or her incapacity to participate in a school setting, they shouldn't be allowed to stay. There are resources available for students who can't or won't function in a traditional setting, and yes, they should be more widely available. \nI'm aware this column won't be popular with education or social work majors, and that's fine; I'm not really qualified to talk about it in a broad, sweeping voice. I just remember being one of the good students who tried my hardest to get a good education, get a few scholarships and get into a good college. I know I had the privilege of a middle-class upbringing and supportive parents, and not everybody does, but I don't want other good students to be harmed because a select few can't keep still. \nThe upper echelon and the bottom bit get plenty of attention, but what about the kids in the middle? Indiana is full of kids in the middle.\nI love this state. And in a state with this much potential, we should -- and can -- have a great education system.