Modern version of: Slaves incapable of literacy so it is a crime to teach them

[The idea]

Laws and policies vary from place to place. Let's consider California as an example, just for definiteness.

What is the moral basis for the following?


Persons who pass the GED test at age 17 will not receive the equivalency certificate until their 18th birthday; a letter of intent is issued which states that the certificate is being held pending the examinee's 18th birthday.

Source:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/gd/gedeligible.asp

What is the moral basis for the following?


Eligibility to take the GED test.

You are eligible to take the GED test if you are a resident of California and meet any one of the following criteria:

The individual is 18 years of age or older, or within 60 days of his or her 18th birthday (regardless of school enrollment status).

The individual must be within 60 days of when he or she would have graduated from high school had he or she remained in school and followed the usual course of study (please note that examinees testing under this criteria may not be enrolled in school).

The individual is 17 years of age, has been out of school for at least 60 consecutive school days, and provides a letter of request for the test from the military, a post-secondary educational institution or a prospective employer.

The individual is 17 years of age and is incarcerated in a California state or county correctional facility; persons testing under these conditions must meet all of the following criteria:

* The examinee does not have a realistic chance of completing the requirements for a high school diploma.

* The examinee has adequate academic skills to successfully complete the GED test battery.

* The examinee understands the options available regarding acquisition of a high school diploma, the high school equivalency certificate or the high school proficiency certificate, and the requirements, expectations, benefits, and limitations of each option.

* The examinee has sufficient commitment time left to complete the entire GED test battery; however, if released before the test is completed, the examinee may complete testing at an authorized testing center.


Source:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/gd/gedeligible.asp

Should the rule be changed?
(The phrase "the rule" is an abbreviation for "the GED eligibility criteria in California.")

What would be involved in getting the rule changed?

One idea for getting the rule changed: a protest.

It would be possible for young students in California (for example, students in grades 7, 8, and 9) to refuse to take any tests in school. They could simply leave their test papers blank. They could organize to do this. They could explain that, in their view, there ought to be a rule forbidding them from taking those particular tests. Therefore, taking the tests would be a violation of a rule that should exist.

They wouldn't have to say what is the moral basis of that hypothetical rule. Instead, they could simply claim that they believe that such a basis exists, just as people are presumably supposed to assume that the GED eligibility criteria have some moral basis.

[Jeff Corey]

Find out which body (State Ed Dept) made the rule, find who are the top dawgz in the body, assemble your arguement in a logical and grammatically correct fashion and e-bomb them with your message.
School strikes are not effective because you consume and don't produce.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by The idea
Laws and policies vary from place to place. Let's consider California as an example, just for definiteness.

What is the moral basis for the [limiting of GEDs to people over 18]?


The GED is designed to be an alternative to those who cannot or did not graduate from high school under normal circumstances. Even though on paper they are supposed to be equivalent, there is in practice a substantial penalty attached to the GED (for example, a GED-holder typically has a more difficult time getting a job, getting into college, getting financial aid for college, et cetera).

Public policy in the state of California is to enourage those who otherwise would not or did not get a high school diploma to acquire its near-equivalent. Public policy in the state of California is not to encourage dropping out of high school. Therefore, under normal circumstances, students who could be in school as normal high school students are not eligible for the GED.

More generally -- the State of California is under no obligation, moral or legal, to make remediation services available to everyone; it is no less moral to deny the GED to underage high school students (people who are not part of the target group) then it is to deny food stamps to Beverly Hills millionaires.





Should the rule be changed?


I don't believe so. I think we have more than enough undereducated Californians already. The GED program is designed to enhance education in California -- changing the rule so that it reduces it would be a very bad idea.

[The idea]

Originally posted by new drkitten
The GED is designed to be an alternative to those who cannot or did not graduate from high school under normal circumstances.
What prevents the government of California from issuing a statement to the effect that the standard system for writing the English language was designed as a way for white people to communicate with each other?

Originally posted by new drkitten
Public policy in the state of California is not to encourage dropping out of high school.
Do you claim that to allow normal high school students to attempt the GED would be to encourage them to drop out of school?

Originally posted by new drkitten
More generally -- the State of California is under no obligation, moral or legal, to make remediation services available to everyone; it is no less moral to deny the GED to underage high school students (people who are not part of the target group) then it is to deny food stamps to Beverly Hills millionaires.

Which would involve greater government spending: allowing a student to take the GED or keeping a student in a public high school?

Consider this statement: "Persons who pass the GED test at age 17 will not receive the equivalency certificate until their 18th birthday; a letter of intent is issued which states that the certificate is being held pending the examinee's 18th birthday."

Do you claim that it is less expensive for the government to hold the GED certificate, send a letter of intent, and later provide the GED certificate than it would be to simply provide the GED certificate?

[luchog]

Originally posted by The idea
What prevents the government of California from issuing a statement to the effect that the standard system for writing the English language was designed as a way for white people to communicate with each other?
Anti-discrimination statutes.

Do you claim that to allow normal high school students to attempt the GED would be to encourage them to drop out of school?
[/qoute]
I've seen it happen in my state on a small scale. But the state has recently upgraded their GED testing to be far more stringent; so it's not only worth more, but it's also harder to get. Thus discouraging dropouts.
[quote]
Which would involve greater government spending: allowing a student to take the GED or keeping a student in a public high school?
(...)
Do you claim that it is less expensive for the government to hold the GED certificate, send a letter of intent, and later provide the GED certificate than it would be to simply provide the GED certificate?

Most school districts' budgets, at least the federally funded part, are adjusted based on the number of students attending during the school year. And increase in the number of dropouts would result in less federal monies being granted to the schools.

Students who have completed the requirements for a GED prior to the end of their mandated school time could, conceivably, take the GED and then avoid having to deal with the hassle (and worse) of attending school.

So yes, issuing GEDs to high-school aged individuals could definitely cost the state more money.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by The idea

Do you claim that to allow normal high school students to attempt the GED would be to encourage them to drop out of school?


I do. I've even seen it happen -- students who are frustrated with their high school think that the "solution" is simply to drop out, acquire a GED, and get on with their life. I've even seen guidance counsellors suggest that to some students -- an act of utter incompetence on the counsellors' part, of course, given the way the regulations are written in most states.

Let me turn the question around. Why do you think that 16-year olds should not be encouraged to complete high school? Or more generally, what benefit to the public would be obtained by changing the policy? (And, as I point out below, simple savings of public money is not an especially convincing reason. As luchog has pointed out, it may not even be a correct hypothesis.)


Which would involve greater government spending: allowing a student to take the GED or keeping a student in a public high school?

Not especially relevant; good public policy frequently requires spending money. It would involve less government spending, for example, to fire the entire law enforcement community and to let anarchy take over -- but the consequences of such misguided savings would be substantial.

[crimresearch]

Do you claim that to allow normal high school students to attempt the GED would be to encourage them to drop out of school?

Given all the exceptions listed, that would seem to leave the above reason as the most rational basis for not giving out the GED certificate early.

[The idea]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Let me turn the question around. Why do you think that 16-year olds should not be encouraged to complete high school?

Please don't tell me what I think. Feel free to propose policies to encourage various groups of people to complete high school.

Do you think it is right to allow a discriminatory government policy (that prevents some people from having their abilities measured) to be the basis for an adverse conclusion regarding the abilities of those people?

Originally posted by new drkitten
(And, as I point out below, simple savings of public money is not an especially convincing reason. As luchog has pointed out, it may not even be a correct hypothesis.)

I asked questions about government spending in response to your insinuation that allowing all people to take the GED without discriminating based on age would be comparable to giving food stamps to millionaires. If there were state-level food stamp programs subsidized by the federal government, then would you say that perhaps millionaires who currently receive food stamps should not be cut off because cutting them off might cause states to lose funding?

Regarding the general concepts of discrimination and encouragement:

Suppose the New York Stock Exchange conducts an opinion poll and asks, "Should we encourage people to invest in unethical companies?"

On the basis of the results of the poll, the NYSE could establish a new policy of refusing to accept, from companies that sell tobacco or manufacture weapons (etc.), applications to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Then the NYSE could claim that the new policy is in accordance with the preferences of the people.

An alternative to a protest:

Donors to a particular college or university could inform the institution that they will not make any contributions in future unless there is a new policy. The new policy would be to ask applicants who are not eligible to take the GED to simply answer the following question: "In your opinion, if you took the GED, would you pass it?" and to accept the opinions of the applicants.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by The idea
Please don't tell me what I think. Feel free to propose policies to encourage various groups of people to complete high school.

I believe I have done. For the specific group of people under discussion : not allow them to sit the GED exam if they are eligible to complete high school under normal circumstances.



Do you think it is right to allow a discriminatory government policy (that prevents some people from having their abilities measured) to be the basis for an adverse conclusion regarding the abilities of those people?


Irrelevant question -- I do not consider this to be a discriminatory policy, nor do I consider any adverse conclusions to be being drawn.



Donors to a particular college or university could inform the institution that they will not make any contributions in future unless there is a new policy. The new policy would be to ask applicants who are not eligible to take the GED to simply answer the following question: "In your opinion, if you took the GED, would you pass it?" and to accept the opinions of the applicants.

I see. So your alternative to encouraging high school students to complete their degree is to encourage them to drop out and to lie about their abilities.

Perhaps needless to say, I do not support your alternative and would be tempted to withdraw my support from any university contemplating such a policy change.


I'm still, however, confused. What is the harm done in requiring students to complete high school in the normal course if they are capable of it?

[Jeff Corey]

GED's are generally a good idea, as I will not prove by the following anecdotes.
My sister ran away at 15 and hitched to Chicago for the 1968 Democratic convention and police riot. After many adventures later, she returned to Connecticut and got her GED at 23 and her Associates degree with honors 2 years later.
I know I wish I could have gotten a GED at 14 or so. High School was hell for me. I had an ex-respected science teacher make fun of me for talking about continental drift from an article that was in Scientific American. It's bad enough to have the Kallikaks and Yahoos say things like, "My ancestors weren't monkeys!', but to have formerly respected teachers preach feces is worse.

[The idea]

Originally posted by The idea
Do you think it is right to allow a discriminatory government policy (that prevents some people from having their abilities measured) to be the basis for an adverse conclusion regarding the abilities of those people?


Originally posted by new drkitten
Irrelevant question -- I do not consider this to be a discriminatory policy, nor do I consider any adverse conclusions to be being drawn.


Did you use some process of reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that the policy is not discriminatory? If you did use some process of reasoning, what is the reasoning?

White racist organizations oppose public policies that would discriminate, on racial grounds, against any subgroup of those categorized as "white." White racist organizations want solidarity of those who are categorized as "white."

However, do white racist organizations claim that a policy directed against blacks wouldn't be discriminatory and that the same policy, if directed against a subgroup of whites, would be discriminatory?

No, even white racist organizations admit that they advocate discrimination against non-whites. They don't pretend that if a policy is directed against non-whites, then the policy is not discriminatory.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by The idea
Did you use some process of reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that the policy is not discriminatory?

Feel free to answer some of the questions that have been posed, instead of retreating further into irrelevancies.

Specifically, what is the harm done by the existing policy? The public policy benefits (reducing the dropout rate, encouraging students to complete high school) are substantial and well-documented.

[The idea]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Let me turn the question around. Why do you think that 16-year olds should not be encouraged to complete high school?
It used to be illegal to speak Kurdish in Turkey. In your opinion, was that law merely an attempt to "encourage" people to speak Turkish? Presumably there's nothing wrong with encouraging people who live in Turkey to speak Turkish?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by The idea
It used to be illegal to speak Kurdish in Turkey. In your opinion, was that law merely an attempt to "encourage" people to speak Turkish? Presumably there's nothing wrong with encouraging people who live in Turkey to speak Turkish?

More irrelevancies.

If you can't answer the question as posed, just say so.

Why do you think that 16-year olds should not be encouraged to complete high school?

Specifically, what is the harm done by the existing policy? The public policy benefits (reducing the dropout rate, encouraging students to complete high school) are substantial and well-documented.

[The idea]

Originally posted by new drkitten
More irrelevancies.

If you can't answer the question as posed, just say so.

Why do you think that 16-year olds should not be encouraged to complete high school?

If you are asking that question, then it would seem to be common sense that the meaning of the word "encouraged" is relevant. However, I don't want to be dogmatic. If you wish to assert that the meaning of the word "encouraged" is not relevant, then we can discuss the question of what is or is not relevant.

Personally, I find that examples are often useful when dealing with a general concept. Again, I don't wish to be dogmatic. Feel free to put forward an alternative view.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by The idea
If you are asking that question, then it would seem to be common sense that the meaning of the word "encouraged" is relevant. However, I don't want to be dogmatic. If you wish to assert that the meaning of the word "encouraged" is not relevant, then we can discuss the question of what is or is not relevant.


Ho hum. More smoke and mirrors.

Feel free to actually answer the questions posed:

Why do you think that 16-year olds should not be encouraged to complete high school?

Specifically, what is the harm done by the existing policy? The public policy benefits (reducing the dropout rate, encouraging students to complete high school) are substantial and well-documented.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
GED's are generally a good idea, as I will not prove by the following anecdotes.
My sister ran away at 15 and hitched to Chicago for the 1968 Democratic convention and police riot. After many adventures later, she returned to Connecticut and got her GED at 23 and her Associates degree with honors 2 years later.
I know I wish I could have gotten a GED at 14 or so. High School was hell for me. I had an ex-respected science teacher make fun of me for talking about continental drift from an article that was in Scientific American. It's bad enough to have the Kallikaks and Yahoos say things like, "My ancestors weren't monkeys!', but to have formerly respected teachers preach feces is worse.
That is an argument in favour of higher calibre teachers, not one in favour of this late-blooming qualification.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by The idea
Do you think it is right to allow a discriminatory government policy (that prevents some people from having their abilities measured) to be the basis for an adverse conclusion regarding the abilities of those people?Not an adverse conclusion, exactly. Just an "I don't know" conclusion. If someone didn't take the GED, then I don't know that he has the ability to pass it. Even if the reason he didn't take it is that the government didn't let him take it.

It would be unjustified to assume that everyone could pass the GED who was prevented from taking it, so I don't think it is right to force anyone to act as if that assumption were true.

[The idea]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Not an adverse conclusion, exactly. Just an "I don't know" conclusion.
Okay, I acknowledge that you can make that claim and offer some degree of support for it. Will you acknowledge that in this case the "I don't know conclusion" is, for all practical purposes, the same as the conclusion that the applicant attempted the GED, failed it, and may never pass it?

Originally posted by 69dodge
It would be unjustified to assume that everyone could pass the GED who was prevented from taking it, so I don't think it is right to force anyone to act as if that assumption were true.
Isn't there a chance that the government of California might respond by permitting young people to take the GED and, for example, releasing the results only to those colleges and universities that interpret "not eligible to take the GED" as meaning "could pass the GED"?

Also, would you not distinguish between force and financial pressure?

[69dodge]

Originally posted by The idea
Okay, I acknowledge that you can make that claim and offer some degree of support for it. Will you acknowledge that in this case the "I don't know conclusion" is, for all practical purposes, the same as the conclusion that the applicant attempted the GED, failed it, and may never pass it?What is "this case"? The more details you can give, the easier it will be to discuss things intelligently.Isn't there a chance that the government of California might respond by permitting young people to take the GED and, for example, releasing the results only to those colleges and universities that interpret "not eligible to take the GED" as meaning "could pass the GED"?I don't understand. Are you suggesting that this might be a good idea? What would it accomplish?

What do you want to accomplish, in the first place?Also, would you not distinguish between force and financial pressure?Sure. I guess. In general.

It's really hard to answer questions like these without more context.

Also, can you explain the thread title?

[The idea]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Also, can you explain the thread title?
1 a) GED eligibility criteria have the effect of preventing some people from pursuing some educational opportunities.
1 b) Whether or not a particular individual at a particular time meets the GED eligibility criteria has nothing to do with either the individual's mental capacity or the individual's character.
2 a) Laws that prohibited slaves from learning to read and write had the effect of preventing some people from pursuing some educational opportunities.
2 b) Whether or not a particular individual was a slave at a particular time had nothing to do with either the individual's mental capacity or the individual's character.

I will not respond to your other questions right now. At the moment, I have another suggestion for reform:

A non-profit organization could be established to create and administer a test that is like the GED but that is more rigorous and/or gives a more complete picture of the student's abilities. Initially, the test would have the same eligibility criteria as the GED. Some time after many colleges and universities have been sold on using that test as a basis for admission, the eligibility criteria would be relaxed. In other words, the organization could be established with the intention of, at the appropriate time, relaxing the eligibility criteria for taking its test.

[luchog]

Originally posted by The idea
1 a) GED eligibility criteria have the effect of preventing some people from pursuing some educational opportunities.

How? You've yet to present any sort of evidence that that is the case; or even describe a reasonable mechanism whereby that may occur; whereas several others, myself included, have provided easily obtainable evidence that the opposite is, in fact, the case.

Just FYI, I have a GED myself; which I got at 18.

1 b) Whether or not a particular individual at a particular time meets the GED eligibility criteria has nothing to do with either the individual's mental capacity or the individual's character.

A truism, and completely and totally irrelevant.

2 a) Laws that prohibited slaves from learning to read and write had the effect of preventing some people from pursuing some educational opportunities.
2 b) Whether or not a particular individual was a slave at a particular time had nothing to do with either the individual's mental capacity or the individual's character.

Again, completely irrelevant. And a specious comparison anyway; since no one is enslaving 16 year olds, keeping them impoverished, forcing them under threat of death to perform manual labor, and fining/imprisoning anyone who educates them.

I will not respond to your other questions right now.

Or ever, apparently.

A non-profit organization could be established to create and administer a test that is like the GED but that is more rigorous and/or gives a more complete picture of the student's abilities.
Such organizations and tests already exist. The organizations are called "universities", "colleges", and "prep schools", and the tests are the ITBS (for K-8), SAT, ACT, and GRE.

[The idea]

Originally posted by luchog
You've yet to present any sort of evidence that [GED eligibility criteria have the effect of preventing some people from pursuing some educational opportunities]; or even describe a reasonable mechanism whereby that may occur; whereas several others, myself included, have provided easily obtainable evidence that the opposite is, in fact, the case.

At some particular time there would be some particular educational opportunity for a particular person if that person had the GED credential. The GED eligibility criteria prevented that person from getting the GED credential. Therefore, because of the GED eligibility criteria, at least one educational opportunity that would otherwise be available is not available.

Maybe an analogy will help. Suppose the law changed so that one had to be 30 years old before one could take the test that one needs to pass to get a driver's license in California. Would that have any effect on anyone's opportunity to drive in California?

Originally posted by luchog
Again, completely irrelevant. And a specious comparison anyway; since no one is enslaving 16 year olds, keeping them impoverished, forcing them under threat of death to perform manual labor, and fining/imprisoning anyone who educates them.

The title doesn't compare anyone to a slave. The title looks at only one aspect of slavery as it was practiced in at least one place.

Originally posted by luchog
Such organizations and tests already exist. The organizations are called "universities", "colleges", and "prep schools", and the tests are the ITBS (for K-8), SAT, ACT, and GRE.
There already exists an organization that was established with the intention of, at the appropriate time, relaxing the eligibility criteria for taking its test?

[The idea]

Originally posted by 69dodge
What is "this case"? The more details you can give, the easier it will be to discuss things intelligently.
Here is how we arrived at this point:

1. I asked, "Do you think it is right to allow a discriminatory government policy (that prevents some people from having their abilities measured) to be the basis for an adverse conclusion regarding the abilities of those people?"

2. You said, "Not an adverse conclusion, exactly. Just an 'I don't know' conclusion."

3. I asked, "Will you acknowledge that in this case the 'I don't know conclusion' is, for all practical purposes, the same as the conclusion that the applicant attempted the GED, failed it, and may never pass it?" [underlining is not in the original]

Normally, if some relevant information is unknown, then we either seek the information or we make the best guess that we can.

If a person is not eligible for GED testing and that person applies for admission to a college or university, claiming to be able to pass the testing, then how do you think the admissions department of the college or university will treat that person? (Answer that question based on the existing policies of colleges and universities in California).

Will the admissions department try to determine whether or not the person would pass the GED testing? Will the admissions department try to gather information about the person to make the best possible guess as to whether or not the person would pass the GED testing? Or will the admissions department treat the person in exactly the same way that they would treat someone who has been tested, has failed, and has never passed the GED?

Originally posted by 69dodge
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that this might be a good idea? What would it accomplish?

Suppose people who are too young to meet the GED eligibility criteria were permitted to take the GED and their test results were released only to colleges and universities that interpret "not eligible to take the GED" as meaning "could pass the GED." Some of those young people would benefit from new opportunities to pursue studies more interesting to them and of more use to them than any of the studies that they currently have an opportunity to pursue.

Originally posted by 69dodge
What do you want to accomplish, in the first place?

This thread was created for people to discuss the moral basis of the GED eligibility criteria. If there is no legitimate moral basis for the GED eligibility criteria, then it is natural to consider how to change things so that those criteria are no longer enforced or so that the enforcement of those criteria will no longer have negative consequences.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by The idea
If a person is not eligible for GED testing and that person applies for admission to a college or university, claiming to be able to pass the testing, then how do you think the admissions department of the college or university will treat that person? (Answer that question based on the existing policies of colleges and universities in California).

Will the admissions department try to determine whether or not the person would pass the GED testing? Will the admissions department try to gather information about the person to make the best possible guess as to whether or not the person would pass the GED testing? Or will the admissions department treat the person in exactly the same way that they would treat someone who has been tested, has failed, and has never passed the GED?I don't really know what the existing policies are, but I wouldn't be surprised if an applicant with neither a high school diploma nor a GED wouldn't be considered for admission. Probably, the admissions departments have lots of other applicants and not enough time or resources to investigate such an applicant more deeply. Not an ideal situation, to be sure, but could it practically be disallowed? How much effort should a college be required to go through to determine applicants' abilities?Suppose people who are too young to meet the GED eligibility criteria were permitted to take the GED and their test results were released only to colleges and universities that interpret "not eligible to take the GED" as meaning "could pass the GED." Some of those young people would benefit from new opportunities to pursue studies more interesting to them and of more use to them than any of the studies that they currently have an opportunity to pursue.I didn't mean "in what way is your suggestion better than the current situation?". I meant "in what way is your suggestion better than letting everyone take the GED?".This thread was created for people to discuss the moral basis of the GED eligibility criteria. If there is no legitimate moral basis for the GED eligibility criteria, then it is natural to consider how to change things so that those criteria are no longer enforced or so that the enforcement of those criteria will no longer have negative consequences.drkitten says the reason for the eligibility requirements is that they result in more students finishing high school. That sounds plausible. So, I guess the next step is for you either to say "no, they don't" or for you to say, "ok, they do, but that benefit is not as important as the benefits of letting everyone take the GED."

[The idea]

Originally posted by 69dodge
I don't really know what the existing policies are, but I wouldn't be surprised if an applicant with neither a high school diploma nor a GED wouldn't be considered for admission. Probably, the admissions departments have lots of other applicants and not enough time or resources to investigate such an applicant more deeply. Not an ideal situation, to be sure, but could it practically be disallowed? How much effort should a college be required to go through to determine applicants' abilities?

Here is how we arrived at this point:

1. I asked, "Do you think it is right to allow a discriminatory government policy (that prevents some people from having their abilities measured) to be the basis for an adverse conclusion regarding the abilities of those people?"

2. You said, "Not an adverse conclusion, exactly. Just an 'I don't know' conclusion."

I have attempted to get you to reconsider your claim that no adverse conclusion is drawn. Do you still maintain that no adverse conclusion is drawn?

Perhaps it would be possible to reformulate the question so that the question is not objectionable to you? Maybe we could replace the phrase "adverse conclusion" with some statement to the effect that people who aren't eligible are treated as though they had taken the test and failed every time?

Originally posted by 69dodge
I didn't mean "in what way is your suggestion better than the current situation?". I meant "in what way is your suggestion better than letting everyone take the GED?".

Thank you for that clarification. In addition to the question of how good things would be if a given proposal were implemented, you might also consider the question of how much progress is likely to be made in getting a proposal implemented.

Originally posted by 69dodge
drkitten says the reason for the eligibility requirements is that they result in more students finishing high school. That sounds plausible. So, I guess the next step is for you either to say "no, they don't" or for you to say, "ok, they do, but that benefit is not as important as the benefits of letting everyone take the GED."
The next step might be to say that such calculations are irrelevant and that the only important issue here is a moral issue.

[bigred]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Feel free to answer some of the questions that have been posed, instead of retreating further into irrelevancies. Oh cmon. What fun is that?


Specifically, what is the harm done by the existing policy? The public policy benefits (reducing the dropout rate, encouraging students to complete high school) are substantial and well-documented. Oh there you go again, throwing facts n stuff around. pf. Kids should be allowed to take whatever short-cuts they want. After all, teenagers know what's best for themselves. Who is someone else to force them to do otherwise? Like, it's THEIR lives. So lose that nazi attitude and get with it ya dinosaur.

;)

[The idea]

Originally posted by new drkitten
[...] what is the harm done by the existing policy?
The question asked at the beginning of this thread is: "What is the moral basis of the policy?" Do you really think that by asking "what harm is done by the policy?" you are answering the question at the beginning of this thread?

Originally posted by new drkitten
The public policy benefits (reducing the dropout rate, encouraging students to complete high school) are substantial and well-documented.
What is the relevance of that claim?

Here's a policy idea for you: no one who was born on or after January 1st, 2000 will be permitted to buy any kind of birth control product in California or to have an abortion in California unless the person is attending school full-time or the person has a high school diploma. Having a GED certificate or even a GED certificate plus any number of college degrees will not be sufficient.

For example, in the year 2018, some people who are eighteen years old might not be permitted to buy condoms or birth control pills in California.

We have to implement the policy to find out whether or not it actually reduces the dropout rate. If it does reduce the dropout rate then you will support the policy, right?

Edited to fix a minor error.

[bruto]

Question for "the Idea:"

Are you asserting that there is a specific (not theoretical) educational opportunity that you or some other person has missed, or will miss, owing to these rules? Is there, in other words, some college that would accept, say, a 15 year old with a GED, but would not apply its own criteria to a 15 year old applicant who was, owing to the rules, unable to provide a GED?

I'm asking if there's a specific case here, or is the argument a theoretical one?

[The idea]

Is there, in other words, some college that would accept, say, a 15 year old with a GED, but would not apply its own criteria to a 15 year old applicant who was, owing to the rules, unable to provide a GED?

Why did you include the words "but would not apply its own criteria" in your question?

If a college has its own age restrictions, then we can ask what is the moral basis of those age restrictions.

The first question in this thread was:


What is the moral basis for the following?

Persons who pass the GED test at age 17 will not receive the equivalency certificate until their 18th birthday; a letter of intent is issued which states that the certificate is being held pending the examinee's 18th birthday.

Maybe there is no reason for holding the certificate, sending a letter of intent, and later releasing the certificate. However, why would you assume that there is no reason and expect me to prove that there is a reason?

[bruto]

Why did you include the words "but would not apply its own criteria" in your question?

I included that because I am simply wondering whether there are colleges out there that would accept a very young applicant who has not finished high school, but would still insist on an official GED rather than applying their own criteria, and perhaps their own GED-like test, to the individual case. I wonder if there are college admissions offices that are genuinely willing to take a younger student, but have not figured out that this is a "catch-22." I don't know whether there are, or not. I am asking you if you are aware of such a situation. Simple question, not loaded.


If a college has its own age restrictions, then we can ask what is the moral basis of those age restrictions.

The first question in this thread was:



Maybe there is no reason for holding the certificate, sending a letter of intent, and later releasing the certificate. However, why would you assume that there is no reason and expect me to prove that there is a reason?

I'm not asking you for the reason for the law, which I think has been stated, whether or not you agree with it. I'm not asking you to "prove" anything. I'm simply curious about the reason for your own concern with it, and whether it is based on some actual situation you have encountered, or whether you are just pursuing it as a theoretical question. There seems to be some contradiction in your posts. Are you concerned primarily with the withholding of the certificate after the test, or the refusal to administer the test at earlier ages? Or both? Later posts suggest that your concern is more over the opportunity to take the test at any age than the timing of the certificate, but perhaps I misread.

As for whether a college takes younger students, I don't think the issue is just a moral one, but a practical one - mainly whether or not the college is prepared and equipped to handle the needs and problems of younger students. Some do, and some don't. I think it can be a very good idea for some people. But as the parent of a child who entered college at 15 without having completed high school or gotten a GED, I can tell you that whether you like to acknowledge it or not, it is a special situation.

[The idea]

There seems to be some contradiction in your posts. Are you concerned primarily with the withholding of the certificate after the test, or the refusal to administer the test at earlier ages? Or both? Later posts suggest that your concern is more over the opportunity to take the test at any age than the timing of the certificate, but perhaps I misread.

"There seems to be some contradiction in your posts" seems to be a somewhat aggressive way to introduce a series of questions. I don't know how to rank the various issues regarding their relative importance. I trust that there is no contradiction in being concerned about more than one thing.

[drkitten]

I included that because I am simply wondering whether there are colleges out there that would accept a very young applicant who has not finished high school, but would still insist on an official GED rather than applying their own criteria, and perhaps their own GED-like test, to the individual case. I wonder if there are college admissions offices that are genuinely willing to take a younger student, but have not figured out that this is a "catch-22." I don't know whether there are, or not. I am asking you if you are aware of such a situation. Simple question, not loaded.

I can provide something similar.

The US military, by policy, classifies potential recruits into one of several "tiers" based primarily on educational accomplishment. A high school diploma (or a semester of college successfully completed) qualifies you as a tier I recruit. A GED or similar test-based credential qualifies you as tier II. Having no paperwork whatsoever moves you into tier III. (I should also note that there is a minimum age requirement of 17 to join the military, even with parental consent.)

Needless to say, the higher your tier, the better chance you have of being accepted. In the Air Force, for example, there is an official quota -- only about 1% of the recruits are tier II. The chances of a tier III candidate being accepted (by any service at all) are almost nil. So a 17-year old holding a GED can join the military, while the same 17-year old without the piece of paper could and would not.

A moral problem? Not really. Check the details of the policy under discussion.


You are eligible to take the GED test if you are a resident of California and meet any one of the following criteria:

...

The individual is 17 years of age, has been out of school for at least 60 consecutive school days, and provides a letter of request for the test from the military, a post-secondary educational institution or a prospective employer.


Problem solved; the Army can and will ask the state of California to administer the test if it feels the recruit is worth the effort. (I suspect that most of the time, he isn't.) Ditto for a college or an employer -- if you need a GED, you can get one.

[Euromutt]

2 a) Laws that prohibited slaves from learning to read and write had the effect of preventing some people from pursuing some educational opportunities.Ah, and here we come to the root of this thread. Only to find that it's based on a completely false premise.
Thing is, The idea, that not being eligible for a GED certificate before you reach the age of 18 does not, in fact, prevent "some people from pursuing some educational opportunities" because they have an alternative, namely to remain in high school and get a diploma. In fact, those people are arguably better off doing the latter (as far as the pursuit of educational opportunities is concerned) than they would be getting a GED.

What I'm curious about is how ethnicity (and specifically the supposed inability of non-whites to master written English, which I suspect would come as a surprise to Ralph Ellison or Bayard Rustin) is related to a matter which is determined solely by age?

[The idea]

Ah, and here we come to the root of this thread. Only to find that it's based on a completely false premise.

This thread is based on a question of the form "what is the moral basis of [...]?"

Such a question can be answered by either asserting that the thing has no moral basis or by identifying some moral basis for it.

[...] not being eligible for a GED certificate before you reach the age of 18 does not, in fact, prevent "some people from pursuing some educational opportunities" because they have an alternative, namely to remain in high school and get a diploma.
Given that one educational opportunity exists, how do you conclude that no one is prevented from pursuing any other opportunities?

If someone sabotaged your car and your bicycle, but didn't break your legs, would you say, "Well, I still have my legs, so I can't claim that any transportation option has been taken away from me"? Please note that I am not claiming that this is a comparable situation. You didn't specify what principle you are relied upon to reach your conclusion. Until you do specify the principle, your reasoning cannot be publicly analyzed. In the meantime, I have guessed what the principle might be.

In fact, those people are arguably better off doing the latter (as far as the pursuit of educational opportunities is concerned) than they would be getting a GED.

If that's true, then perhaps the government of California can provide to young people information that will give them reason to believe that it is true.

[drkitten]

This thread is based on a question of the form "what is the moral basis of [...]?"

Such a question can be answered by either asserting that the thing has no moral basis or by identifying some moral basis for it.


This has been done. The moral basis is "utilitarianism."


If that's true, then perhaps the government of California can provide to young people information that will give them reason to believe that it is true.

Funny how providing people with information doesn't actually mean that they will learn, retain, or understand any of it. This thread might be regarded as an example. Oh, well. "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."

[bruto]

This thread is based on a question of the form "what is the moral basis of [...]?"

Such a question can be answered by either asserting that the thing has no moral basis or by identifying some moral basis for it.


Given that one educational opportunity exists, how do you conclude that no one is prevented from pursuing any other opportunities?

If someone sabotaged your car and your bicycle, but didn't break your legs, would you say, "Well, I still have my legs, so I can't claim that any transportation option has been taken away from me"? Please note that I am not claiming that this is a comparable situation. You didn't specify what principle you are relied upon to reach your conclusion. Until you do specify the principle, your reasoning cannot be publicly analyzed. In the meantime, I have guessed what the principle might be.


If that's true, then perhaps the government of California can provide to young people information that will give them reason to believe that it is true.


I think I've elaborated a good deal on what I think is the moral basis of this regulation. It can be summed up fairly simply in the statement that there are many laws that limit the options for children to make choices for which they are judged insufficiently mature or autonomous. The state's responsibility for the well being and survival of the children and the overall welfare of the public provide the moral basis for laws which prevent young people from driving cars, carrying guns, marrying, signing contracts, quitting school, and a host of other things. In the case of the GED, this principle does not go nearly so far as some others, in that it does not actually curtail a right or remove an opportunity commonly considered as an entitlement. Rather, it limits a special benefit, which is reasonable - you could hardly expect the state actively to facilitate the negation of one of its own major functions and goals (that of universal compulsory education). In the case of the GED, I believe the age is limited because the state believes that completion of school is a positive good, greater than the simple acquisition of a diploma, and that enabling younger students to shorten their education by testing out would put them at risk. Unfortunately, this means that younger students who wish to use the GED as a means to skip ahead, rather than drop out, are inconvenienced. They must either wait until they are older, or find other ways of skipping. This may not be easy but it is possible.

What you have not provided yet is a specific idea of what actual, real world educational opportunity this regulation is closing out. It should be pointed out that the GED itself is not an educational opportunity, and that taking it virtually guarantees that at least one educational opportunity (that of finishing high school) will not be pursued. If there is some other educational opportunity which taking a GED early provides, but finishing high school does not, would you tell us what it is? Obviously early admission to college might be such an opportunity, but I am still not convinced that there exists a situation in the real world where a college that is actually willing to take a younger student who has not finished high school but who has a GED would reject the application without one, knowing that such a student is legally ineligible to obtain it. Note, please the phrase "actually willing." I do not know, but suspect, that any college which maintains such an obviously oxymoronic requirement is using the law as a ready excuse to reject applicants it would likely reject anyway. I wonder, too, if you are overstimating the cachet of the GED in the real world. If I am mistaken about this I would welcome a correction based on actual experience.

The other thing you have not provided is a convincing argument as to why a benefit for some must be considered an entitlement for everyone else. The need for a GED (couldn't complete high school) is not the same as the desire for one (don't want to have to complete school). Even if the desire is a valid one, as it may sometimes be, it is certainly different.

Your analogy of someone sabotaging your car and bicycle is off the mark, because it assumes someone is taking away something you already, rightfully have. In the GED issue, you are asking someone to give you something you do not have; in fact it's something you were never expected to have or need, and for which you still have not demonstrated a need. A better analogy might be that as you walk to school you observe that another person beside you has crutches and become angry because nobody has issued you a set.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Given that one educational opportunity exists, how do you conclude that no one is prevented from pursuing any other opportunities?Ooooh! Hey, I know quite a bit about the GED.

The GED was never intended as an equal alternative option to tradition high school education. It was designed as an alternative method of measuring equivalency to a high school diploma for those who could not reasonably complete a tradition high school education.

The GED was developed specifically for men returning from World War II. The GI Bill provided for financial assistance for post-secondary education for soldiers, but the regulations required a high school diploma. Many of these men had not completed high school before going to war. Returning from war to go to a classroom of much younger men, especially considering the education received from military service, would have been unreasonable and been prohibitive to post-war reformation. So the government approve the GED test to allow soldiers to gain an equivalency to a high school diploma to become eligible for the GI Bill.

The GED was only available to soldiers until it was made available to the general public in the early-mid 1950s. They economy was going good, and demanded more educated workers. Although industrialization in America initially increased jobs in fields that required higher education, World War II and the Great Depression required more skilled laborers. Once America had recovered from WWII, jobs in technical and other fields that required higher education again increased and jobs in skilled labor declined. People that had not completed high school and went into skilled labor lost jobs and needed higher education to get new jobs. And they need a high school diploma to get there. Again, it would be a bit silly to send a 30 year old laborer back to a high school classroom full of pimply faced kids to accomplish this. So the GED was opened to the public at large.

The laws sited in the original post seem to express intent to grant a GED only to those that could not complete a traditional high school education. This is entirely consistent with the history and purpose of the GED.

In consideration of eligibility of enrollment to a post-secondary institution and government financial aid, the enrollment standards of every university, college, etc. are their own. In order to qualify for federal student aid to attend a post-secondary institution, the student must exhibit an ability to benefit standard. Both a high school diploma and a GED meet this standard. However, satisfactory scores on standardized test (such as the SAT), can be substituted to meet this standard.

Because this is a standard is established by the federal government, it is reasonable to expect that many university enrollment boards at least consider similar standards. Of course in most cases it would be expected that the person has obtained a diploma or GED. The most general exception would be the case of a prodigy or “child genius” enrolling in college at a younger than normal age.

Requiring people that have the ability to complete a high school education to do so rather than seek a GED does not in anyway affect their opportunities. It by all means does not prohibit their educational opportunities. Requiring completion of traditional high school when appropriate serves both the student and the educational systems better than granting GEDs to just anyone that passes a test that was meant only as an evaluation of equivalency of the former.

Furthermore, expanding the GED would just be a way of legitimizing non-education. People that get a GED don’t get the educational experience that others do. The purpose of the GED is the expectation that those people have gotten the equivalent educational experience from other sources.

I don’t mean to insult anyone with a GED, but offering a GED to a 16 year old would just be a cop out to a real education. It can give credentials that are not really earned.

“The Idea”, you seem to be of the opinion that these credentials should be given out much more lightly. You also seem to say that this would help blacks. I cannot disagree more strongly. If educational systems run by whites gave out, or even gave opportunities for, essentially meaningless “diplomas” and “GEDs”, and no real education and no real education certificates were offered, then you should be absolutely appalled.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Just to follow up:

Slaves incapable of literacy so it is a crime to teach them

Seems to me that you want:

Blacks incapable of literacy should be given a GED so that we don't have to teach them

Why would you want that?

[bruto]

Just to follow up:

Slaves incapable of literacy so it is a crime to teach them

Seems to me that you want:

Blacks incapable of literacy should be given a GED so that we don't have to teach them

Why would you want that?

I'm speculating here. I notice that "the Idea" hasn't posted here in a while, but my guess from the threads he started is that he's a high school student who is finding the curriculum boring and unchallenging, and believes that if he could obtain a GED he would have sufficient equivalency to a high school diploma that he could apply to college early, or that he would qualify for financial aid. He "sounds" very young, but I note that his writing is clear and grammatical, and shows some care (more in the writing than the thinking perhaps), so if my guess is correct and he's a high school student under GED age he's likely pretty bright. Like a lot of kids in his position, he may well be more right than wrong in believing that he could stay afloat in college, and that continuing in high school is a pretty poor investment of educational time as a consequence. He is fond of analogies, so I think that the reference to blacks is fortuituous in this case, just used because he realizes that most people here would find racism as odious as he finds the age restrictions, so it would spark a lively discussion.

I think he's mistaken about both the cachet of a GED in general and the difference it would make to a college admissions office that actually had a good faith interest in younger applicants. But as I say, if what he's really talking about is a desire to "cut to the chase" and start college early, I have some sympathy for his plight.

By the way, my stepson started college at 15 here: http://www.simons-rock.edu/