Raising the Dropout Age

I would imagine that it doesn't take a student even one year after "dropping out" to see the mistake they've made.

Instead of raising the dropout-age to 18 years, here's a different take:

Allow the student to drop out whenever he/she wants to, but keep a place for them for one year. The student would have up to one year, but only one year, to go back to class without being considered a "drop out". By 10 or 11 months some kind of follow-up call could be made if the student had not yet returned. This would also be a one-time opportunity; should the student decide to drop out again, no place would be held and he/she would be considered by the school as having dropped out.

I have a feeling that long before that year had passed many of these students would be back in school and be thankful to be there.

I believe that raising the drop-out age with providing alternative education options is an effective temporary solution. I agree with the gentleman who spoke earlier that this is yet another “coat of paint over a cracked foundation ". It is a façade for problems that go beyond the surface. These children are not receiving the proper educational foundation from a young age. This issue needs preventative measures not additive ones. I disagree with him that there are not qualified teachers. There are many qualified teachers; and one must question what makes a teacher qualified and in who's eyes.
As mentioned earlier, children do need to feel a connection with their school and teacher. They also need to feel a connection within themselves. They need to feel they belong and there will be a place in society for them. Children’s individual development needs to be strongly guided and nurtured. The way to instill this comes from parental support as well as support from their teacher and the school community. In Albany, New Hampshire there is a school that supports this philosophy and promotes a love of learning. It is called the White mountain Waldorf school. The answer for children who are potential drop-outs, and those who are not, is an alternative style of education.

It was difficult this morning to, once again, listen to Governor Lynch misrepresent the facts behind compulsory attendance law in NH. While the NH legislature raised the attendance age to 16 in 1903, the governor continues to neglect to mention the legislative action in 1994 which raised the age of compulsory attendance to 18. In the current compulsory attendance law, RSA 193:1, paragraph IV, this is clearly stated. See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XV/193/193-1.htm.

NH law does not allow a child to decide to leave school at 16, but it does provide a right to the parent to make the decision to remove a child from the school after the age of 16. The law also requires a parent conference with the principal, as well as a written notification that the child is being removed, dated and signed by the parent, and witnessed by the principal. Governor Lynch continues to tell the story that children can decide at 16 when in fact, by law, they can not.

If children are deciding, and leaving school, without permission from the parent, how will changing the age make any difference? Why would we want to provide more power to the school districts to decide, when they have not proven able to abide by current law? Why is it that the Governor and some legislators do not trust parents and feel the need to remove an important parental right? Why is the legislature not evaluating the school district’s current report card on attending to the present law before providing school districts with more responsibility?

As parents we should be concerned that the Governor is trying to change the law in the fashion he has chosen. If the law is changed, a parent will no longer have the right at the ages of 16 and 17 to remove their child from a school. This would include situations where the child is a possible victim at the school they attend. While most schools are safe environments for students, we should not remove the right for a parent to pull a child from any environment they may feel is unsafe or unsuitable. The decision of a child to be in or out of school would reside with the school officials, with no rights left to the parent. Why is this necessary?

In November 1, 2003 the NH legislature filed a report on methods to prevent or reduce the high school dropout rate. This report can be found at http://webpages.charter.net/beaverlodgehs/legislation/legislation2006/sb.... Six findings and eight recommendations were made. No where in the report does it recommend changing NH’s compulsory attendance law. Bullying, parental involvement, flexibility and dealing with a students feelings of isolation are among the findings and recommendations. Londonderry and Franklin high schools have taken to working on these issues, Londonderry being on the higher end of the socio-economic scale and Franklin being on a lower end of the socio-economic scale. Both schools have reduced their dropout rates to ~2%. These schools have proven that the issue can be dealt with on a local level. These success stories hold the foundations for improving the dropout rate, not Governor Lynch's plan to remove a parent's rights.

For a comprehensive list of last year’s discussion of this issue, I would encourage a visit to this website: http://webpages.charter.net/beaverlodgehs/legislation/legislation2006/sb...

Governor Lynch has chosen to apply a broad stroke to a problem which requires more refined solutions. This type of legislative action is the slow erosion of freedoms. Freedoms hard fought for by citizens, and legislators, who saw the wisdom of parental involvement/rights. Freedoms are hard to come by, yet slip from our hands so quickly. Do not be fooled by the outer covering; dig deep. Ask why we need to change the law when we have fine examples in Londonderry and Franklin of how to keep kids interested in learning, and in school.

Thank you, Laura, for keeping a note of skepticism regarding the claims of Mr. Bridgeland. That students who previously dropped out support raising the age of compulsory attendance is, I believe, an exaggeration and taken out of context. Yes, most of them probably regret their decision, but what came through loud and clear at Governor Lynch’s Education Summit Conference last year is that they are asking for a caring adult, which is not the same thing as the state requiring them to stay in school. In fact, I would argue that raising the age is LESS likely to bring about the thing they want most, because the student has to stay in school whether the adults are responsive or not.

The people who will be planning and implementing the alternative learning programs are the same people who created the existing programs that are being rejected by students. What is this arrogance on the part of the educational establishment that THIS time they’ve got it right? What we really want and need is not students keeping their seats warm, but students who are actively engaged in learning. We will know if this is happening when we hear it is so from the students who pass through these programs. Raising the age of compulsory attendance will only mask any inadequacies in the new programs. Furthermore, consider the testimony I heard before the Senate Education Committee last year by a student in an alternative learning program. “It [raising the age of compulsory attendance] won’t work. It’s easy to get kicked out of school – I did it twice.”

If you listen carefully to the statements that raising the age of compulsory attendance will improve education, you hear a lot of speculation – “might”, “may”, “could”. I would maintain that not only is there no research that shows raising the age of compulsory attendance brings about those changes, but the improvements proponents are seeking – notifying parents that the children are disengaging, working with students to find alternatives that meet their needs, making curriculum instruction relevant to the needs of the student – can happen and are happening with the existing laws of NH. Londonderry and Franklin are proof of that.

The biggest barriers to making education responsive to the needs of students are:
· Lack of funding – taxpayers are not willing to fund education to the level that is mandated by state law, let alone the higher level necessary to keep students engaged
· The monopoly of public education – school choice is difficult to implement in rural areas, which is most of NH
· No Child Left Behind Act – encourages one-size-fits-all education
· Institutional inertia – it takes forever to implement changes in a bureaucracy the size of the public school sector (can we clone Superintendent Greenberg?)

The attempt to raise the age of compulsory attendance reminds me of the joke where a man is looking for his keys under the light on a darkened street. Joining him in the search, a good Samaritan asks where he lost them. “Oh, over there, in the dark, but it’s easier to look over here.” Raising the age of compulsory attendance seems like the easy way to fix the problem, but it isn’t what’s needed. All the benefits sought come from improving public education. That’s where the legislature needs to look for its keys.