Editor:
After reading the editorial on the fifth-year high school program (April 22), there was much I agreed with but critical points at the end with which I did not.
I concur that when, not if, the program becomes more popular, it will be financially unsustainable. Our ninth- through 12th-grade high school students are already limited to a four-day schedule due to budget constraints and I feel they should be our first priority. I don’t want that fifth-year necessary simply for remedial learning.
However, through volunteering with the ASPIRE program at the high school, I have seen some students use this program to great advantage. Where I disagree is which students should be targeted.
The poorest students already have access to excellent federal programs that would cover their needs to attend a community college or a university. Most of these students at our high school that I worked with chose to take the Pell grant over the fifth-year strategy because it covered more than just tuition.
It is the middle-class students, especially those at the lower end of that range, who have the greatest difficulty accessing higher education. We should have the fifth-year high school program target these students, the ones who just miss out on Pell grants and other lower income programs.
Look to where the real need actually is.
Kim Hiett
Sweet Home