LETTERS: YOU CAN'T FORCE OLDER TEENS TO LEARN

To the editor:

Tell me, please, how any human being could force knowledge into a rebellious 16- or 17-year-old. That's exactly what's expected by raising the compulsory school attendance age to 18. We're all aware that if a kid hasn't learned the basics by age 16, he's decided not to. Period.

The theory goes that a diploma will prevent this kid's rebellious life of crime, but since when does a fake diploma make anyone a good employee? Such a diploma is merely a certificate of attendance. Contrast that with the GED, which demands competence, and see who knows their stuff.

Reading comprehension, writing skills and business math are what most employers are looking for, and these are all attained by age 16. Some students to on for a diploma by choice.

By contrast, we would pay dearly for the special rooms, teachers and problems to force unwilling older kids into two more years of doing time at school. Will they spend the day sleeping? Can we taxpayers walk in unannounced to see what day care of 17-year-old boys looks like? This is disgusting.

The flip side of the coin is the 16-year-olds who are good students. They can use the next two years to develop a work record of dependability and reliability. After getting their GED, they'll also have a proven two-year work record for an edge in the job market at age 18.

Obviously, the Legislature could save our money and respect our options, if they will.

STEVE BAIRD

Lebanon