Truancy Task Force to study the problem

A task force is being formed to study truancy. link

The problem is that you can lead a horse to water, but
you can't make it drink.

Two forces work in opposition;

1. the need to pass standardized tests over material that students find disinteresting and unmotivating, and
2. the need to offer curricula that engages students and makes them want to attend school to pursue them.

A central question needs to be asked; which is better in the long run, a curriculum that can be justified in terms of testing, or an intrinsically engaging and motivating curriculum that students pursue willingly, and maybe even enthusiastically?

My personal opinion is that we are far better off engaging students in any curriculum at all (in particular in the early years) than we are by turning students off with any curriculum no matter how justifiable.

Education is a buyers market.

The buyers tend to be immature and unsophisticated in their choices. However the choice is still theirs. We can force children to sit in class, maybe, but we cannot force them to learn. We cannot even force them to cooperate except in its simplest terms.

The question may be as simple as; do we want to continue to drive students away with curricula that addresses standardized test questions, or would we rather engage them and let the test scores fall where they may?

Which is better in the long run, a truant and unsuccessful student in a traditional curriculum, or a student motivated and engaged in any other curriculum at all?

Is it more important to pass standardized tests, or to produce students who know how to learn?

Is a student who knows how to do research, who knows how to access a world of information and knows how to learn about the information they find, better or worse off than a student fighting against learning how to learn because they have no interest in what we think they need to learn?

If we can keep a particular student engaged in a curriculum rich in art and history, is it better to take advantage of that enthusiasm and create a decent human being with learning skills that will last a life time, or to drive them out of school by insisting on English and math despite their disinterest?

As a student nears graduation, and emotional maturity, they can be compelled to address any real weaknesses in their education, even though they may still lack intrinsic motivation or interest.

I would like to see this discussion contain more than a passing reference to the issue. I feel like the message is "the bridge is out" and the response is "yeah, but we're going that direction anyway."

The choice may be as simple as; engage students with a curriculum which interests and motivates them, or disengage them with a curriculum which interests and motivates us.