On Monday, March 10th I spoke to Sen O'Hearn, the prime sponsor
and Senate Education Chairman. She believed at that time she had
worked out a bill that would affect only public school students
and not home educated students. It would do that by amending the
paragraph that deals with withdrawal from public schools, rather
than increasing the age of compulsory attendance for all students.
She did not give me the language at that time, because she wanted to
check with a lawyer before making it public. She did call me back on
the evening of Tuesday, March 11th, but I had already gone to bed,
and was not able to hear the exact wording and offer feedback.
The Senate Education Committee submitted its report the next day,
Wednesday, March 12th, recommending the bill Ought To Pass with
Amendment.
This bill is likely to face strong opposition from the homeschooling
community. It flies in the face of the "compromise" that was made
between the majority of the homeschooling community and the
educational establishment (DOE, School Boards, legislature) in
1991, when RSA 193-A, the current home education law, was passed.
That compromise was that although parents have a right to educate
their children as they see fit, society has an interest in seeing
that children are educated, and the age to which they may oversee
home education programs to ensure that interest is satisfied
is 16.
The elephant in the room is parental rights. Many veteran homeschoolers
are keenly aware of how important homeschooling freedoms are to
providing a flexible and effective education for their children, and
are not likely to give them up easily. On the other hand, the current
sentiment in the education field is that there are too many children
who are ending their education at 16 without having acquired the
skills needed to flourish as an adult. They are more concerned
about the parents who do not insist their child receive an education,
but "give up" when the child becomes rebellious.
These two stances are in conflict, but neither really dares speak
openly for fear of insulting the other. Home educators are careful
to acknowledge the good intentions of the education establishment
while criticizing the methods used to ensure children are
educated. The education establishment is careful to acknowledge
the excellent record homeschoolers have established in educating
their children while insisting they need to raise the age of
compulsory attendance to ensure that all children are educated.
The
sponsors
include some heavyweights in the legislature.
Others in the legislature are going to listen to them.
They are all Republicans, which is the majority party.
Will Democrats also throw their support behind this bill?
Sen O'Hearn
is a veteran senator, and has served on the Senate
Education Committee for some time. I think this is her second or
third year as chairman. I was shocked to see her name on this
bill. Generally she is very receptive to input from homeschoolers.
Sen Johnson
is a veteran in the legislature, having previously
served both in the House and the Senate. He is a member of the
Senate Education Committee.
Sen Green
is a freshman senator. He has served as Mayor and was on
the School Board in Rochester, the city that tried to make truancy
an offense against the child, and also have it be enforced
by local police, rather than the truancy officer. He is chairman
of the Senate Finance Commitee and a member of the Senate Education
Committee.
Rep L'Heureux
is Chairman of the House Education Committee.
Rep Carson
is Clerk of the House Education Committee.
Rep Crane
is a member of the House Education Committee, and
is on the Nashua Stays in School ad hoc committee, the group which
requested that Sen O'Hearn sponsor this bill to help them in reducing
the dropout rate in the Nashua high schools.
Until the Senate Education Committee acts on this bill, the
best way to influence this legislation is to educate yourself by
researching dropout rates (see below)
reading the summary of the
Senate Education Committee hearing
and contacting
sponsorsand
Senate Education Committee members
to communicate your views.
Below are some links on dropout statistics provided by Christine Mukai and some links on NH dropout statistics . Also, you'll find excerpts from a letter from HSLDA lawyer Scott Woodruff comparing dropout rates of states with different upper ages for compulsory attendance. You might be surprised by what he found. Also you will find summaries of conversations between Chris Hamilton and Sen O'Hearn and between Christine Mukai and Sen O'Hearn .
Shattering the Myth...
(Nova Scotia’s Teachers Union)
reasons why dropout rates are not the whole picture
High School Dropout Rates
(US Dept. of Education Consumer Guide)
an explanation of how dropout rates are often calculated
New Report Shows Dropout Rates Remain Stable over Last Decade
(US Dept of Education)
an explanation of different types of dropout rates, and som
breakdown by ethnic groups
NH Department of Education Releases Dropout Information
(NH DOE)
some info on how NH dropout rates are calculated
Response to Drop-Out Student Issues in NH Public Schools
(NH DOE Secondary School Reform Task Report)
results of some surveys on dropout issues, and an Action Plan
As Christine pointed out, nowhere in this report is raising the age
for compulsory attendance offered as a solution.
Hispanic Dropout Rates by Immigration Status
(National Center for Educational Statistics)
breaks down Hispanic population into subgroups
Raising the compulsory attendance age will not reduce the dropout rate.
In fact, the two states with the highest high school completion rates
(Maryland, 94.5% and North Dakota, 94.7%) compel attendance only to age
16, but the state with the lowest completion rate (Oregon, 75.4%)
compels attendance to age 18. (Figures are three-year averages, 1996
through 1998.)
Most states (29) only require attendance to age 16. Older children
unwilling to learn can cause classroom disruptions and even violence,
making learning harder for their classmates who truly want to learn.
When California raised the age of compulsory attendance, unwilling
students were so disruptive that new schools had to be built just to
handle them and their behavior problems, all at the expense of the
taxpayer.
I spoke to Sen O'Hearn today. She said the motivation behind the bill
comes from an ad hoc committee in Nashua, called Nashua Stays In School.
They believe it will address the needs of the Hispanic population.
Currently when many Hispanic young people turn 16, they want to drop
out. This will give their parents a way to say "no" to their children.
They will be able to say that their children must stay in school
because it's the law, not just because the parent wants them to.
She did not realize the bill would affect homeschoolers at all. She
asked Legislative Services only to change RSA 193:1, I, not realizing
the ripple effect it would have. She is looking for a way to word the
law that will still require students currently enrolled in public schools
to have to stay in school, but not require homeschoolers to report
beyond the age of 16.
She also agreed that changing RSA 193:1, IV, as Legislative Services
did, made no sense, and that if the age of compulsory attendance is
raised to age 18, then it makes sense simply to repeal that part
of the law.
I suspect there is a constitutional problem with having one age for
public school students and another for homeschooled students.
After talking to Senator Jane O'Hearn, as did a few others, I
found that one concern that the Ad Hoc group in Nashua had raised
is that when they suspend students, the parents response is
"okay, well he/she is not coming back, we're going to homeschool
him/her." This bends the rules and since the child is 16, they do
not have to be accountable and the child basically drops out.
They are trying to keep these kids in school. Her intention is to
not hurt homeschoolers. She said she will ask the legislative
committee to take a look at how the law can be written in such a
way as this would not hurt homeschoolers. I told her that RSA 193-A
directly refers back to RSA 193's compulsory attendance law, and
that if that law is affected, then so too will be the homeschool
law.
As I said to Chris Hamilton, this bill is targetting a small
percentage of the population of students/parents who abuse the law,
and I don't think that the people who are doing the right thing
should have to pay. Senator O'Hearn seems to agree with this point.
I (Chris Hamilton) spoke with her, asking about the status of the bill. She believed she had an amendment that would cause the bill to affect only public school students, and leave home educated students alone. She wanted to check with the lawyer who reviews education legislation before showing it to me. I recommended she also show it to Michael Compitello, a homeschooler and an attorney, since he would be able to quickly spell out major concerns homeschoolers would be likely to have. She agreed to e-mail him a copy tomorrow.
Senator O'Hearn called after I went to bed and left a message that she had in place an amendment that would do as indicated in the earlier conversation.
Senator O'Hearn still believes the amendment does not affect homeschoolers. She also said the bill still has to go before the Senate Finance Committee, so it can be amended there. She will check with her attorney on Monday. I let her know about the HSLDA alert, and that she might be getting a lot more phone calls this weekend.