Discussion Prompt: Building on our current argument unit, read the article below published on the Billings Gazette,

written by Sue Vandegenachte, regarding a legal consequence for choosing to drop out of high school. Do you agree with Vandegenachte's position that if one chooses to drop out of high school then he/she should never receive welfare in the future? What else do you think this might suggest about high school drop outs? Support your post with specific examples. You will then engage with your peers by responding to a minimum of 2 peers (see guidelines below). Consider the following when writing your response (use these questions to prompt your thinking): What are the advantages to this requirement (for an individual, or for a state/nation)? What are the disadvantages? What are the possible long term results?

January 28, 2013 12:00 am I think that if a kid wants to drop out of high school, he or she should have to sign a legal document stating that they will never be allowed to be on welfare. Dropping out of school almost guarantees that they will need assistance because no one will hire them. They need to be accountable and realize what they are choosing when they drop out. As hard as it is to get a job now, a kid has no right to drop out at any age. This legal document should be for the state and the entire country. A database should be made and their names should be entered as soon as they drop out. Maybe if they understood that there is no free lunch after dropping out, they would change their minds. It would be their decision. We all make choices in life, and this should be one of them. Sue Vandegenachte Billings Work Cited: Vandegenachte, Sue. High School Dropouts Should Forfeit Welfare. Billings Gazette. 28 January 2013. Web. 12 February 2013. Retrieved from <http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/mailbag/high-school-dropouts-should-forfeitwelfare/article_a0817205-eb40-583d-9c61-7ed64fd59e17.html>.

Common Core Standard Addressed: (Writing- grades 9-10) 1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. http://www.scoe.net/castandards/agenda/2010/ela_ccs_recommendations.pdf Discussion Guidelines Technical Requirements: Minimum 1 initial post that addresses question/prompt in first week discussion opens Minimum 2 peer responses by the end of second week **Please note, late posting will not be allowed and there is no late grace period since the purpose behind the discussion is for you to collaborate with your peers. Discussions will be open Sunday of the first week on the module of the specified discussion forum. Please visit the discussion forum on more than one day (minimum 2- initial week to post, second week to respond to two peers). Some Tips on Successful Posts: -Make sure that you are answering the prompt question, and staying on topic. -Provide specific examples to support your reasoning (cite sources when applicable) -React rather than summarize -Be positive, yet constructive to your peers. Make sure to engage with your peers by asking questions, making connections, etc. -Avoid vague or limited comments such as I agree or good job Please also note that the plagiarism disclaimer applies to all discussion boards. Please see below: Plagiarism Disclaimer: By submitting my work, I am declaring that all ideas are my own or that any information paraphrased or directly quoted from an outside source is cited both within the post (in-text citation) and also within a works cited list. I also understand that failure to cite outside sources or copy anothers idea and credit them as my own is considered plagiarism which could result in a fail for the assignment, a strike for academic dishonesty and possible additional consequences.

Criteria Initial Discussion Post

Peer Responses

Timeliness and Quantity

Writing Conventions

Discussion Rubric Criteria Needs Improvement Satisfactory (1 point) (2 points) Attempts to address Addresses all parts all parts of the of the prompt, and prompt, and/or may supports reasoning lack supporting with at least one evidence specific example. (examples). Attempts to engage Engages with peers with peers, but by adding further responses may be insights, but may vague and/ or not lack making further extend the connections or discussion further. asking questions to extend discussion further. Missing 1 initial Posts 1 initial post, post, and/or may be and a minimum of 2 lacking 2 post peer responses and minimum visits the discussion requirement for peer board on at least 2 responses and/or different days. doesnt visit the discussion board on multiple days. Posts contain Posts do not have multiple grammatical errors grammatical errors that distract from that distract from their meaning. their meaning Standard Academic and/or focus. English is used Formal Standard throughout. Academic English may also be lacking.

Outstanding (3 points) Addresses all parts of the prompt, and supports reasoning with multiple examples. Engages with peers by asking questions, making connections and/or adding further insights.

Posts 1 initial post, and a minimum of 2 peer responses as well as visits the discussion board on multiple days.

Posts are free from grammatical errors and Standard Academic English is used throughout.