The Denver Post titled this "In Pursuit of Knowledge, Whenever"

Sunday, March 26, 2000

To be or not to be---a high school dropout---is the question. Last year the Colorado Legislature, our benevolent Big Brother who wants only the best for us, considered several bills to keep students in school. But is it fatal to your future if you drop out of high school? Or is that piece of paper that says they stuck it out for 12 years so important we should force young people to stay in school whether or not they get anything out of it? There are many ways to live a life, and formal education is only one of them.

If a high school diploma guaranteed that a student had certain basic skills and knowledge, had learned the importance of being a lifelong student, had learned tolerance and kindness towards others, had learned to think as an individual and not a follower of fads, then perhaps we would be justified in insisting that every student continue.

Since it doesn’t, what is wrong with letting a young person drop out for a year or two, learn what it’s like to work in the world, explore what interests him or her? Formal education does not have to be crammed into the first 12 or 16 years of a person’s life.

One of the smartest people I know finished 9th grade in the Kentucky coal mining country, dropped out and joined the service. He was the underwriting manager of the insurance company I worked for and had never acquired any additional formal education. But the depth and breadth of his knowledge would put Alex Trebek to shame. He and I once decided that for certain people a third grade education is sufficient---once you learn the basics, you can teach yourself the rest.

As a high school dropout myself, I tend to agree with that. I quit school three months into my sophomore year. While I never did master geometry, I managed to acquire enough additional knowledge to get a GED and then a BA in broadcast communications, with a minor in Spanish---when I was ready. I wasn’t ready to learn when I was a teenager so I knocked around for a few years first. I don’t think it did me or anyone else harm, and it didn’t prevent me from getting some very good jobs. The experience changed my view on the need for straight-through education.

I started college because of a desire know more, and to prove to myself that I could do it. I had a fairly broad base of experience by that time so I was able to compare what I was learning to what I’d experienced, and I understood the information far better than if I’d gone to college as a young person. Since I was paying for the experience, and carving the time out of my working and personal life, I paid attention, studied hard, graduated with honors and, incidentally, had a wonderful time.

Not everyone learns the same way or at the same pace, and to force everyone to fit one mold is a mistake. To say that all young people must have that piece of paper that says they sat in a classroom for 12 years might be to crush their creativity, the possibility that they will find a more interesting path to knowledge.

Al Knight, in a response to the legislative proposals, suggested that the Legislature should increase the value of education and make sure that every student has an opportunity to re-enter the system if they drop out for a while. I wholeheartedly agree. I was provided with that opportunity, first to acquire a GED, then to enter Metro State College and take as long as I needed to get my degree – 22 years, as it turned out. Partly because of the freedom to do it my way, I love knowledge and will always continue to acquire it.

My former boss used to quote Rudyard Kipling to me whenever I insisted, in my youthful ignorance, that there was a "right way" to do things: "There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays, and every single one of them is right."

# # #