A bill for compulsory attendance to age 18-Good or bad?

[Jeanne in MN]

I'm kind of wondering if the following are "threats" to hsing or not. It was sent out by HSLDA and I don't know what to think. Wouldn't we homeschoolers have our kids in school until they are 18 anyway? Can one honestly use the hardship of sending in paperwork as more important than kids in school systems that could benefit highly from getting two more years of education and hopefully a high school dipoloma? Shouldn't we look at what this bill could mean for *everyone* and not just homeschoolers? And maybe it's not all that helpful for high school drop-outs either. I don't know. What are your thoughts on the below notice?

 

 

 

March 11, 2008

>

> Minnesota--Bills Introduced to Raise

> Compulsory School Attendance Age to 18

>

> Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:

>

> The Minnesota Legislature has introduced two bills, Senate File 3574

> and House File 3769, to raise Minnesota's compulsory school attendance

> age from 16 to 18. By requiring that your children attend school for

> two additional years, these bills restrict your freedom to direct your

> children's upbringing and education. If passed, these bills would

> also require two more years of paperwork submission to homeschool.

>

> We are working with the Minnesota Association of Christian Home

> Educator's (MACHE) John Tuma, who is in contact with the bills'

> sponsors, to defeat this legislation. At this time, no action is

> needed, but we will keep you updated as things progress.

>

> Thank you for your support of homeschooling freedom.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Michael P. Donnelly, Esq.

> HSLDA Staff Attorney

[Ellie]

In this case, yes, because that means that for two more years you have to comply with whatever the laws are in your state. And it could affect folks (like me) whose dc want to be free to do other things at a younger age, rather than keep doing 12 years of school because...why? Why is 12 the magic number? Anyway, yes, it's a bad thing.

[beansprouts]

I could have graduated from PS at 16. I did graduate at 17. Is this saying they would have made me stay in school another year?

 

I have actually been hoping my kids would finish up high school around 16 or so then they could spend a couple of years persuing a sport, music or art, start a business, go on a missions trip, etc., before college (if college fits in with their goals ;-)) Now they want to tell me I have to give 'em busy work til 18. Nice.

[Carol in Cal.]

some homeschooled kids finish high school early and either go on to community college (OK under this bill, maybe, but maybe not) or take a break to start their own businesses or work in family businesses or start an apprenticeship.

 

Also, just in general, the more regulation the more ways that they can trip you up. The camel's nose in the tent is usually followed by more significant intrusions.

[Mama Lynx]

They keep trying this in Michigan, too.

 

I want to know, do they have studies that show that the extra time in school leads to better educational outcomes? Does it keep more would-be dropouts in school, or do they drop out anyway?

 

It costs the state money to raise the age limit. Take that into account, too.

 

Since I'm not really in favor of compulsory attendance laws anyway, I would be against this :)

[Daisy]

Well, since I graduated at 15 1/2 from a private High School, I'd be inclined to think this law is totally dumb. I had a hard enough time getting hired on full-time at a job. These kinds of laws just make it worse.

[xxxxxxxx]

I graduated at 17 in PS. My children even if they have a full 12 years of education will graduate at 17yo.

[freethinkermom]

My oldest will be done with high school at 13 or 14 if he takes a full four years to complete the requirements (halfway through 9th now). I do not know if I will officially graduate him then or not, but it is important to have the option if needed.

 

I graduated at 17, but could have done so at 16. I only went to school half time for my senior year and worked full-time.

[Renee in NC]

Compulsory attendance doesn't apply to students who have graduated.

[Renee in NC]

Also, I don't think it is a good idea. I don't like compulsory attendance for older kids - kids forced to be in school cause nothing but grief for the teachers and the students who want to be there.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Compulsory schooling and minimum wage are also tied together, often with the effect of keeping hardworking young people out of the job pool. An employer is going to find the most qualified person who is willing to work for a given wage. Folks who have left high school early (without a diploma in most cases) are unable to underbid the min wage and get ahead by working hard and long.

Some of the best writing on this topic is by Myron Lieberman, who was a vice president of the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) the second largest teachers' union in the US. He came to believe that school choice would be an improvement and that the teachers' unions mostly worked for the benefit of teacher's unions. One of his books has at least a chapter on how a high compulsory school leaving age is mostly of benefit to established workers and not to young folks who want to go work.

In my opinion, most of those who want to leave school at 16 would be better served by working hard for a couple years and coming back to complete school when they've learned the value of it. Having kids in class who don't care isn't in anyone's interest.

I know this doesn't opine directly on its effect on homeschooling. I don't see a lot of good in the compulsory schooling at all.

[Plaid Dad]

I could have graduated from PS at 16. I did graduate at 17. Is this saying they would have made me stay in school another year?

 

Same here, and I would consider graduating my dd at 16 if that seemed appropriate at the time.

 

In my state, I only have to report when my dd is of compulsory attendance age, which is 6-16. Something like this would keep my on the state's radar for longer, which does not make me happy.

[mcconnellboys]

I guess I would wonder about how it might affect those who "graduate" early from homeschools but who might not want to go on to college right away (or ever, as they might prefer some other method of training for the job they wish to pursue). Would they be prevented from following this route?

 

Also, I have a friend with an autistic son who will probably continue schooling him indefinitely, as he's way behind his age group, but will that sort of bill place a burden in future on those with severely disabled children? Will they have to school them until 18, rather than 16, as it is now?

 

Regena

[elegantlion]

I don't like it. I graduated at 17 and my ds will turn 18 at the beginning of his senior year, so there is a possibility he may graduate at 17.

 

Even if it didn't pertain to those who have graduated I can see it rolling over to create other issues. Possibly with job opportunities and even curfew laws in some states.

[mcconnellboys]

Oh, yes, and there's that, too. My oldest son will still be 17 when he graduates. His birthday is mid-summer. Now, he does plan on going on to college, but what if that were to change for some reason? Would he have to do "summer school" simply because he had not yet reached 18 when it was time to graduate with his class? Would he be precluded from graduating simply because of age? That would be silly,

 

Regena

[Jennifer in NH]

New Hampshire passed this last summer..it had failed 6 months before and they put it in with a different bill and passed it..without too many people knowing about it...now its the law here. The school districts don't even like it...I am annoyed by it, but I hate the idea that I have to tell the state what I am doing anyway.

Good luck in Minnesota...we lived there about 11 years ago now...Didn't have kids then.

[Aubrey]

Compulsory attendance doesn't apply to students who have graduated.

 

That's true. I graduated from a ps at 15, & the compulsory age was 16. I did have to show my diploma to get my driver's license.

 

Also, while there may be some benefits to ps students when the age is higher, it's often a headache. The ones who are going to drop out...in my experience, which is pretty limited, they come for the social scene, to deal drugs, to get free lunches. They come to avoid trouble w their parole officers, & they *do* nothing. They cause trouble for those who actually want to learn. Now, I taught freshmen, but...I had a lot of these students. And I heard more about them from older teachers, who were the ones that pointed out that the state should just let them go.

 

Maybe that's a cop out. I'm not saying I entirely agree w the perspective, but I think it has some validity & should at least be thought through. Iow, this law may not really benefit the group it's aimed at.

 

As far as hs'ers? I don't see it as a problem. It doesn't effect grads...I'm not sure what else it could do? Maybe prevent someone who's hs'ing from just giving up & quitting w/out enrolling dc in school? Of course, it could depend on the state's other hs'ing requirements.

 

Just my 2cents.

[Storm Bay]

Bad, for a variety of reasons. I haven't read the other posts yet so I don't get side-tracked, but I'll read them next! fwiw, I know of another group opposed to this with very different politics than HSLDA.

 

1. Some kids are ready to graduate before then and want to go out and work before going to college, or perhaps not going.

 

2. Some kids will do what one of my brothers did and not graduate. In his case, he got some lessons in the school of hard knocks. Now he supervises over 400 people. And no, he never went back to school. He may have fudged on his resume, I can't say for sure, but he didn't get to this level on that, he had to work his way up.

 

3. It costs a lot of money to force kids to stay in ps who don't want to be there (taxpayer concern.)

 

4. Personally, I just wonder why they are pushing this. Beyond the gobbledy-goo they say, I mean.

[Holly IN]

I didn't read anybody's response so sorry if I am repeating.

 

It is bad in my opinion! Why? Because this takes the parent's rights away as to when they want to graduate their children (within reason of course). A friend of mine dd met all the credit requirement to graduate right now here in Indiana. She met all the requirements and she is a junior (she is 17). So she is graduating this year instead of next year. This is her choice and decision as well as the dd's.

 

This decision should be left to the parent's disretion.

 

Holly

[Barb_]

Bad, because it further promotes the infantilization of teenagers in this country. As someone posted above, why force a fully grown and resentful 17 or 18yo to occupy a seat if he (or she, but more often he) is dead set against it? A very large proportion of kids have outgrown high school by 16 or 17 anyway...I think it's folly that we have legal adults attending high schools anyway, but that's the way the education system is set up. This will only worsen the situation.

 

Barb

[Harriet Vane]

My concern has more to do with public schools, and the MISERY of a classroom teacher attempting to teach unmotivated, sometimes hostile older students. I live in the city--it is MUCH better to let the unmotivated go their own way, and often much safer.

[sarahli]

I think I'm the only one so far that is for this- all though I can easily see why not every one is.

My mom and sister both dropped out of high school early, and if they had been required to stay in, they both would have had much better opportunities. I don't think keeping students that don't want to be there is mean. Plenty of 13 year olds don't want to be in school, but we don't let them drop out. And if we did, then trust me, plenty would.

I don't see how this would prevent students from graduating early? If a student, ps or homeschool meets all the requirements for graduation, I don't see why there's an issue that they can't graduate early.

[Ellie]

It's bad. Why should the state decide that your dc need 2 more years of education? It means not only two more years of paperwork for hsers, but two more years that the state gets to be in control of how you decide to educate your dc.

[HRAAB]

My dd graduate at 16 and started college. If she had completed the necessary testing/credit hours, would she have been denied graduation based on age? She was ready to move on!

 

I graduated at 16, also. I was definitely ready to move. Another 2 yrs. in high school would have been not good.

 

Janet

[Mommyof4ks]

I am joining the 'this is a bad idea' crowd. My dd is bored with elementary work in some subjects, so she will begin junior high work in two classes next year (age 10), we may finish up high school at 16 or 17 so that she may pursue an interest or find her passion before entering 'the real world' at 18.

[LizzyBee]

I graduated at 17 years 4 months. Under this bill, I would have had to do another year of high school. What a waste that would have been.

[elegantlion]

So what happened to this? Notice the date of the first post. I was reading and realized I had replied, like a year ago.

[TravelingChris]

Bad, both of my older will or have already graduated younger than 18. Oldest was advanced, middle is a summer child and will certainly finish while 17. I don't yet know about the youngest but I could see her compressing grades and finishing at 17 too.

 

In terms of dropping out- many kids drop out way before mandatory drop out age anyway. It won't keep them in school. The ones who don't wnat to be there are disruptive or poorly served. For kids who have learning disabilities, adult ed often works out better than high school which is too often geared towards churning out future college attendees. I think that if I had a kid that was going to drop out, I would rather have them have that ability to do so and then enroll in a career program that is practical at CC or adult ed or wherever.

[Danestress]

Is there some reason HSLDA left out the bit where compulsory education would be required to age 18 *or until graduation, whichever comes first.*

 

I'm still not in favor of the bill, but I find it odd that a legal defense organization can't even send out something that accurately states what the law says.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

From my understanding, there is no evidence that shows that keeping drop-outs in school does them any good. It certainly doesn't do the other kids in class any good to have more troublemakers in class with them. I'm assuming that we're talking about the kids who would rather do/sell drugs, cause trouble behind the buildings, smoke in the bathrooms, hassle the teachers, woo the younger/more vulnerable kids into illicit/immoral activities.

 

If I had my kids in public school, I'd just as soon NOT have these kids in school with them.

 

I also agree that it could be a problem with graduating my kids early.

[LizzyBee]

So what happened to this? Notice the date of the first post. I was reading and realized I had replied, like a year ago.

 

Oh, that's too funny. Oh well, it will be buried again soon.

[Audrey]

I would suggest reading the actual bill(s) and coming to your own conclusions.

 

I wouldn't rely on HSLDA to interpret a postage stamp for me, let alone any legislation.

[Reya]

I want to know, do they have studies that show that the extra time in school leads to better educational outcomes?

 

 

Yep. Even when they're forced.

 

I know of no states that require attendance until 18, period. Most require until 18 OR graduation, or they require until 16, period, OR until 18 if not graduated. Texas has a law like the last, and it's actually pretty awesome because you get free in-state tuition until you meet the legal age.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Reya

[phathui5]

I think it's stupid because it doesn't address the reasons why kids want to drop out of school, only tells them that they can't.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Myron Lieberman was a former AFT official who wrote a lot on the breakdown of the US education system. He saw a link between compulsory attendance, minimum wage laws and contempt for education.

 

Attendance laws aren't going to help if the student doesn't think they are learning anything valuable. And might actually be harmful to students who do want to learn because their classrooms are also salted with students who don't want to be there and take up the teacher's attention with disciplinary issues. I think that a student who is older and seen that they have trouble getting work with lower skill sets may be motivated to study harder to get past this level.

 

As a homeschooler, it provides two more years of potential paperwork and oversight from a system that we've chosen not to associate with. It makes it that much harder to have a student work part time, attend community college before 18 or graduate early.

 

And I would ask if there is any evidence pointing to higher academic standards from states with an older compulsory attendance standard. I've certainly notice that states that keep lowering the school entry age are states that haven't impressed me with the overwhelming competence and success of their school system.

[PiCO]

This would be bad for homeschoolers, but even worse for the public high schools. There are already a lot of kids in public school that don't want to be there, and they serve mainly to distract the students that do want to learn. At least now these kids can leave school and get a job when they're 16. It's going to cost a lot of tax money to force these kids to stay in school 2 more years.

[TeacherZee]

This would be bad for homeschoolers, but even worse for the public high schools. There are already a lot of kids in public school that don't want to be there, and they serve mainly to distract the students that do want to learn. At least now these kids can leave school and get a job when they're 16. It's going to cost a lot of tax money to force these kids to stay in school 2 more years.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Loupelou]

I cannot see anything good coming from continually adopting regulations for both public schools and home schools. When we allow the government to control any particular group we have every right to expect the same to be heaped upon ourselves.

 

This particular bill just doesn't make any sense. The kids who need another two years will still drop out or not take advantage of the education, and the kids who don't need it will have a harder time getting out for the higher education that they want!

[gardening momma]

It's already age 18 here in Ohio. Other states too, probably. I don't think it'll be bad for homeschooling if another state ups the age to 18.

[Audrey]

It's already age 18 here in Ohio. Other states too, probably. I don't think it'll be bad for homeschooling if another state ups the age to 18.

 

Is it age 18, or until they graduate? I mean, if you are a younger student and you get all your credits to graduate, you can leave school then, yes?

[Audrey]

I think it's stupid because it doesn't address the reasons why kids want to drop out of school, only tells them that they can't.

 

 

If they addressed the reasons why the kids want to drop out, they might have to admit they're a failure as an institution.