Both sides in the debate on the high school dropout age have the same goal in mind: keeping students in school so they can gain the benefits of education and finish with a diploma.

Students may drop out now at age 16, and there is a bill in the Legislature that would raise the age to 18. It is opposed by the Department of Education, where officials say that mandating students to stay in school is not the right approach. Instead, we should be giving them a reason to stay.

Students who lack a reason to stay can create problems for schools. If they are in school against their will, they may become disruptive, detracting from the education of students who are trying to learn. Also, students who are in school only because the law says they must be there may be gaining little from the experience.

Those opposed to the mandate for 17- and 18-year-olds say that schools should keep students in school by creating the kinds of programs that will cause them to choose to stay. Many schools have alternative high schools, where classes take place in alternative settings with nontraditional formats and special attention to students’ emotional problems. Also, vocational programs tailored to students’ interests and to the marketplace where they will be seeking employment are an enticement to stay.

Those who favor the mandate favor these enticements, too. They understand the mandate would be an empty promise if the schools were simply warehousing unhappy students for two years. They say it is the school’s responsibility to prevent students from becoming disruptive by addressing the emotional problems that are causing them to create trouble. It is better for all involved for the schools to shoulder this responsibility than to write off problem students, allowing them to drift away to a world ill prepared to provide a living to a 16-year-old without a diploma.

So if both sides want to do the same thing to keep kids in school, what is the point of raising the dropout age from 16 to 18?

The goal of the higher age is to send a message to young people that staying in school is more than a piece of advice. It is the considered judgment of society as a whole that education remains the first responsibility of children, to themselves and to their fellow citizens. The higher age is a statement of values regarding education and the importance for individuals to fulfill their potential.

A law establishing the higher age can have caveats for special circumstances concerning health issues or economic need. Provision can be made to extend special programs to people in special circumstances. But if we are going to demand that 16- and 17-year-olds live up to their responsibilities, schools should live up to theirs as well.

David Wolk, president of Castleton State College and former commissioner of education, has thought a great deal about the dropout issue. He says schools are generally places where time is a constant and learning is a variable. That is, the schedule is inflexible and learning is made to fit the schedule.

He says the dropout rate will be reduced when learning becomes a constant and time becomes a variable. Programs must be tailored to the specific needs of individual students who otherwise might be written off. Wolk has words of praise for Rutland’s alternative education program, which has a good record of helping students with behavioral or emotional problems to graduate.

Wolk says that truancy is a related problem. By being lax on truancy and by allowing unhappy students to drift away from school, society sends the message that education is lost on some people. That is a self-defeating message. Wolk supports the higher dropout age as long as schools keep their part of the bargain: by addressing the unique needs of individual students.