Community Stakeholders
My bill has six sponsors in which only one of them responded to my emails and calls, which is Rep. Stacey Abram. She is a House Minority leader for the Georgia General Assembly and a State Representative for Georgia House district 89. Rep. Abrams is the first African-American and women to lead either party ion the Georgia General Assembly. She defined the problem as seeking to address students from dropping out before graduation. The state of Georgia only graduates 67% of students who enter high school. As a state, Georgia ranks near the bottom for high school completion. The legislation was authored in hopes of decreasing the number by keeping students in school until age 17. By holding both students and parents accountable, it is the intention of our Caucus to impress upon the citizens of Georgia that without education there is little hope of securing employment in today’s economy. Additionally, we want to create an atmosphere where students understand that basic is not luxury but a necessity.
Other parties who define the problem the same as Rep. Abrams are educators, business leaders and legislators have identified the dropout age as an issue in improving graduation rates. The disagreement between sponsors of the bill and other legislators is not that the problem of premature dropouts exists, but how to address it and why. Increasing the dropout age is not a panacea, but is a key step. One of the primary arguments against changing the mandatory age for school is a resistance to keep children in school who do not wish to be there. Opponents to this legislation believe children who are being forced to attend school when they are no longer engaged may be a distraction to other students who are more vested in their educational experience. However, educational decisions should not be made solely based on potential conflict between students motivations. It is more appropriate to focus on the student outcomes and the overarching costs if these children fail to graduate. A second argument is the cost of mandatory education until 18, which would significantly increase the budget foe education. In this instance, Rep. Abrams argued that the cost of such high dropout rate is more expensive over the life a student, as dropout rates are closely correlated to increased dependency on a social welfare system or incarceration. Rep. Abrams feels that the issue will not be thoroughly addressed until something more dramatic than a plumage graduation rate of 67.4% exists.
Other parties who define the problem the same as Rep. Abrams are educators, business leaders and legislators have identified the dropout age as an issue in improving graduation rates. The disagreement between sponsors of the bill and other legislators is not that the problem of premature dropouts exists, but how to address it and why. Increasing the dropout age is not a panacea, but is a key step. One of the primary arguments against changing the mandatory age for school is a resistance to keep children in school who do not wish to be there. Opponents to this legislation believe children who are being forced to attend school when they are no longer engaged may be a distraction to other students who are more vested in their educational experience. However, educational decisions should not be made solely based on potential conflict between students motivations. It is more appropriate to focus on the student outcomes and the overarching costs if these children fail to graduate. A second argument is the cost of mandatory education until 18, which would significantly increase the budget foe education. In this instance, Rep. Abrams argued that the cost of such high dropout rate is more expensive over the life a student, as dropout rates are closely correlated to increased dependency on a social welfare system or incarceration. Rep. Abrams feels that the issue will not be thoroughly addressed until something more dramatic than a plumage graduation rate of 67.4% exists.