[caterping]

> We try to keep students around who have no interest in learning because it "keeps them off the streets."

The reason this is done is because they are children -- not adults. They are immature and may be making bad decisions. They might have a rotten home life with bad role models. The point is, you try to help them anyway in case they do indeed see a reason to turn their life around.

Why do you think schools have so much sports education? One reason is because it keeps some kids around who otherwise would simply drop out. And every good teacher knows that you can often get a problem kid in your class to focus and learn something by having one or more of their coaches get on their case.

[schmittz]

Mmm, yes. I agree to a certain extent. I guess my belief is that there are ways to engage a child outside of a formal education system that would have the same effect while concentrating on something they want to do, since learning is not that thing. I haven't thought this entirely through, but it seems that the current paradigm isn't optimal. You're absolutely right that sports and arts programs provide outlets auxiliary to a standard education, but for students with no interest in traditional learning, maybe it would be better to focus on those things they do enjoy and leave off those that they won't engage in. It would be analogous to the perception that everyone should attend college because it leads to a better life, when in fact many students should be attending post-secondary technical schools. Why not start the split earlier for those who actively refuse to be educated?

[caterping]

> Why not start the split earlier for those who actively refuse to be educated?

Because:

(A) in high school they're still kids, and

(B) one main goal here is to have an educated citizenry, and this means educating all kids as well as we can, whether the kids themselves think it's a good idea or not. :)