Education should be a privilege, not a right

Very well thought out! On to my opponent's arguments: 1. I understand that younger children don't understand the importance of an education, but it's never been said that younger children would be the ones being kicked out. Although maybe parents don't explain these things now, they would certainly become paramount if the possibility existed for a child to be removed from school. It would be explained, and the child would understand. Who honestly wants to see their child fail? I have been fortunate to have parents that weren't born into the best of situations, but who wouldn't accept that as a disability and fought their way through school, getting degrees in college, and becoming the wonderful role models they are for me today. I wish everyone had that opportunity, but I know not everyone does. 2. Child abuse is a great point, however, breaking free from such a situation would be plenty of motivation to excel through school. If they wish to drop out, thus submitting themselves to more abuse, I guess that's their decision, though I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would do that. And no child-abusing parent would pull their kid out of school. School is a free day-care for them. That's the attitude I want to change. School is so much more than that. 3. Morals are, in part, taught by schools. But should they be? Why isn't it the parent's responsibility to teach right from wrong? Why should schools have to regress into teaching right and wrong instead of teaching us what we actually attend school to do? I'm sorry if I seem so repetitive, but it's this attitude that school's should do everything that causes the problems. Schools have become a second set of parents. Look back into the past (this isn't an accurate timeline, it just demonstrates my point). Originally, students brought their own lunch to school. Then schools started serving lunch. Then schools started breakfast. Then (some) schools started serving snacks after school. Finally, there is a school program that allows students who meet certain criteria to receive food on Friday afternoon to last them through the weekend. Isn't that sad? What is the role of a parent anymore if the school is just going to do all of this? We can't continue to reinforce these bad habits and continue to teach students that they can rely upon the school to take care of everything for them when they have kids. 4. It's not selfish. I'm not talking about kicking a student out for knocking somebody's books on the floor. It's the kids who make F's year after year. The student's whose only goal is to see how many people they can make laugh in a day. The student who can't wait for the day they turn 16 so they can drop out. The kids who actually cause problems and take the focus away from school, and what it's about. To defend my own case: 1) Obviously by the time a student is in high school, if they haven't gotten the picture, it's just not gonna happen. Why should our school continue to shell out money for students who aren't going to do anything. They won't get involved, they come to school, cause as many disruptions as possible, and leave. What are they going to do in our society? Those who wish to regress shouldn't be allowed to restrain those who wish to go further. My idea just takes honor's classes or AP classes to a higher level, really. 2) Using the high school student as an example again, if they don't know why they need an education, they should be allowed/forced out of the program. If they don't want it, they don't have to have it. Eventually, they'll see the error in their ways and guess what they're children will do. .. focus and study and be productive. Versus the current alternative, this student drops out, and when they have children, they simply continue the cycle. 3) And my idea proposes stricter rules, not to the extent that other countries do, they might be a little too strict. I believe students need free time, just not the seven hours they're supposed to be attentive in school. Our government would continue to educate those that wish to be educated, which leaves more funds for federal grants for college. I want an education system where anyone who wants to can succeed. If you want the education, it's all yours. Take as much as you want! An "all you can eat" buffet of education, for a little analogy. As for the US being dominant, I'll agree to an extent. But how does super-power status tie into the education system? 4) If the parents never cared in the first place, then nothing changes. Under the current system, if parents don't care, the child ends up not caring, which leads to more children not caring. .. you see the vicious cycle. Under my proposed system, if the parents don't care, then the child either fails or they understand the situation and doesn't get sucked in. I guess I live under a delusion that parents are supposed to want a better life for their child? That parents want their children to have a better life than they did? Should the child fail under parents that don't care, any child they have will care, and so will the next generation, and the next one, and so on. If you'd like to put it as heartless as "leaving children behind" then yes. .. but it's more motivation than anything. Those who are going to drop out or do nothing after high school, in my mind, shouldn't bother wasting everyone's time. The plan serves as an incentive to those who straddle the fence, giving them the motivation they need to buckle down and make a good life for themselves. 6) Seeing as there are several aspects that would need major fine tuning, there's no way to actually debate such a policy. I'm proposing a complete 180 of the current system; it's not feasible to create the policy. At best it'd be a rough framework, hence a debate on the idea, not the policy. You've tried to make it a debate on the policy, which has never been laid out. To extend my case: I. Failing school isn't an immediate "death sentence". Look at people like Bill Gates who dropped out of high school. I'd say he makes a pretty good life for not having a diploma. Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, while deceased, had a pretty good, successful idea, but never received an education. Ideas aren't limited to those with educations, but I won't deny that an education is beneficial. It is possible to succeed in this world without an education, it just become more difficult. Those who prove their dedication should be allowed to go above and beyond without being "grounded" by those who are simply looking for entertainment value. With that I'm going to conclude my speech. I look forward to another interesting speech from my opponent.