The homeschooling community did not get a lot of warning that
this bill was being considered by the legislature. It started
the evening of Friday, January 31 with an e-mail
from Michael Faiella to people he thought would be interested,
namely leaders of the statewide support groups. It spread to
local support groups and NHHR-l, a state-wide e-mail list.
Amazingly, there was a fair amount of input to the Senate Education
Committee both before and during the hearing. All members indicated
that they had received calls. The hearing room was full.
4 people spoke for it: 2 sponsors, the citizen intiating the
bill, and the DOE (Sarah Browning).
10 people spoke against it, including 3 who were experienced,
certified teachers.
1 person I couldn't tell if he was for or against it, but he
talked quite a while!
What is interesting is who didn't speak. The lobbyists for
the NEA and the School Boards Assn were both present, but did not
speak. I didn't see the Supt's Assn lobbyist there.
The political reporter for the Nashua Telegraph was also there for
a while. There was an article in the Nashua Telegraph on Thursday,
but it isn't at their website. The "Bill At A Glance" sidebar has
this to say about the bill's status:
The Senate Education Committee took public testimony on the bill
Wednesday. O'Hearn said she would amend it to exempt home-schooled
students or gifted students who finish high school before they reach
18.
Dear New Hampshire HSLDA Members and Friends,
Each year HSLDA works to defeat legislation that would expand the government's control over school-age children. Senate Bill 55 raises the age of compulsory school attendance from 16 years of age to 18 years of age, which applies to all children in the state, including homeschoolers. Christian Home Educators of New Hampshire is also working to defeat this bill.
We oppose all attempts to expand the compulsory attendance age since it would increase the years the state will have jurisdiction over our children. S.B. 55 will receive a hearing in the Senate Education Committee Wednesday, February 5 at 1:45 PM.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Jane E. O'Hearn, Chairman
(603) 271-3041
Home
(603) 889-6036
Carl R. Johnson, V Chairman
(603) 271-2641
Home
(603) 279-6492
Joseph A. Foster
(603) 271-2674
Home
(603) 891-0307
Richard Green
(603) 271-2642
Home
(603) 332-1567
Sylvia B. Larsen
(603) 271-3076
BACKGROUND:
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.
This bill would require homeschool families to submit to another 2 years of governmental red tape and threat of legal action in the event of an alleged violation.
It would restrict parents' freedom to decide if their 16-year-old is ready for college or the workforce. Some 16-year-olds who are not academically inclined benefit more from valuable work experience than from being forced to sit in a classroom.
Thank you for your efforts for freedom!
Sincerely,
Scott A. Woodruff
Members of the Education Committee:
My name is Abbey Lawrence, I live in Tuftonboro, and I have six children, ranging in ages from 7 to 23--all of them homeschooled. I have been coordinator and newsletter editor of the New Hampshire Homeschooling Coalition for ten years. I must inform you that I do not speak for the Coalition, but my twenty years of involvement with the homeschooling community here in New Hampshire give me some perspective on matters that affect homeschoolers.
I would oppose SB 55 even if it did not affect homeschoolers, but it will affect us. The homeschooling law, RSA 193-A, is tied to the compulsory attendance law. Therefore if you raise the age of compulsory attendance, you will extend the requirements of the homeschooling law. This is unreasonable, unnecessary, and unacceptable.
Let me give you one example. My oldest son began working, at the age of 15, for Worldpath Internet Services. It was the flexibility of homeschooling that made this possible. Part-time work eventually became full-time, and before he turned 18, he was made systems administrator of the company. Can anyone on this committee presume to know that he should have been in school instead?
Will members of the committee declare that the world would be better off if Benjamin Franklin, or Mark Twain, or Thomas Edison, had been forced to stay in school? If you reply that these examples no longer are relevant, that the world has changed, I will point out that one way the world has changed is in the growing presumption on the part of legislators that they are uniquely qualified to determine how young people should spend their time.
I have been given to understand that this bill is motivated at least in part by parents who want the state to exercise by compulsion the influence they have lost over their children. I can hardly think of a better way to instill in these 16-and 17-year olds contempt for parental authority, contempt for the law, and contempt for the value of education. And lest you forget the law of unintended consequences, I can guarantee that among the consequences, if this bill becomes law, will be disorderly classrooms and education badly disrupted for the students who want to be there. My 19-year old, now a freshman at UNH, knows this from personal experience; he told me just last week that the two classes he took at the local high school would have been much better had certain students not been there.
The premise of this bill is that, not only can you lead a horse to water, but you can force him to drink. From such a dubious premise, good conclusions are unlikely to follow. Please reject this bill.
Members of the committee,
My name is Chris Hamilton, and I am writing to oppose SB55, which raises the age at which a child may terminate his or her public education. I am opposed to it as a citizen, as a home educator, and as a taxpayer.
As a citizen, I am concerned with the quality of education provided in public schools. The futures of my children are determined not only by their own education, but by the education their peers receive. I believe that this change to the law will degrade the quality of education received by public school students.
When 16- and 17-year-old students don't want to be in school, forcing them to show up simply for the sake of attendance doesn't solve anything. If an older student does not want to learn, you cannot make him. Worse, sitting next to an unmotivated student causes problems for those students who want to be in school, who want to take advantage of everything a free public education has to offer. Classes are disrupted by students who act up, teacher morale withers, and the quality of education overall declines.
While this bill may be targeted at students who attend public schools, it also has a direct effect on home-educated students, who have a solid record of achievement. We would be required to create formal home education programs for an additional two years. There is no justification for this increased regulation of home education.
Senator O'Hearn has indicated her willingness to try to write a
bill that would require attendance up to age 18 only for those in
public school. It is my belief that this is unconstitutional, as it
creates two classes of citizens and requires them to live under two
different sets of laws. I believe this is prohibited by the 14th
amendment to the US Constitution:
"…nor shall any state…deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws."
To me this means that if parents of some 16yo children are allowed
to home educate without formally creating a home education program,
then all parents must be allowed to do so.
The state is already facing a fiscal crisis because its tax structure is inadequate to handle the burden of financing public education. To fund this bill you will have to raise taxes. As a taxpayer, I ask that every tax increase be thoroughly justified, and this $2.5 million one does not rise to the level of a necessity.
If the state were to spend $2.5 million/year to improve education for unmotivated 16- and 17-year-old students, I can offer a few suggestions that make more sense to me. Let these students exit traditional public school gracefully, and make it easy for them to continue their education when and where they really want it. Fund school buses that bring students to evening classes. Fund day care while young mothers are attending classes. Create programs that integrate gainful employment with academic basics. Broadcast GED and honors level classes on NHPTV and put piles of the textbooks in the State Library. Implement some of the Action Plan developed by the Secondary School Reform Task Force (see attached overview). But don't just force these students back into an environment that wasn't right for them in the first place, compelling teachers and school administrators to become policemen, and wasting the time of their motivated peers.
There are also two issues I have with the bill in its present form. The first is that there are many students who complete the requirements for a high school diploma before the age of 18. I believe that the state has no compelling interest requiring these students to attend school, and that they should automatically be exempted from compulsory attendance. The second is that the only reason for RSA 193:1, IV to exist is because under existing law there is a period when a minor is not required to attend school. Merely changing the age from 16 to 18 in the language renders this paragraph meaningless. Instead, it should simply be repealed.
Respectfully,
Chris Hamilton
Dear Senator O'Hearn:
I understand that you are sponsoring a bill that would raise the age of compulsory education in New Hampshire to 18, and that this would inevitably affect homeschoolers, who are currently not required to report to the state after age 16.
At a time when we are busy concentrating on preparing for college and SAT's and SAT-II's, it would be a burden to also have to keep fulfilling time-consuming reporting requirements to the state. My daughter plans to attend college in fall 2004, when she will be 17 years old. The bill seems to be written in such a way that this would not exempt her from continuing to have to report to the state as well, as a high school student.
There seem to be a number of problems with the way the bill is written, as well as with the idea of raising the compulsory age of attendance. I remember well my own high school days when older teens with no interest in school sat at the back of the classroom and simply disrupted everyone else's learning as they waited out their compulsory attendance sentence.
I do not believe raising the compulsory attendance age is a viable solution to the problems you wish to solve, and it will create more problems for all of us who are doing the very best we can to make sure our children get an excellent education.
Please withdraw SB55 and find another way to solve NH's dropout problems.
Sincerely,
Linda Jordan
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Katy Hamilton, and I am an 18-year-old home-schooled senior completing my high school education. The bill SB55 has come to my attention with some concern. I believe that raising the compulsory attendance age to 18 may have some undesirable consequences.
Between the ages of 16 and 18, adolescents are fast on their way to becoming legal adults. They are learning not only chemistry and geography, but how to become responsible and useful citizens in society. Because the attendance law states that they must attend school does not mean they will learn there; for that to happen, they must see a reason to do so. Their reason may be that their parents order them to. It may be the gratification of approval from teachers. But possibly the most valuable reason is that they can see how academics are useful to themselves and their community. This lesson is more often learned in the "real world," rather than high school, which takes up so much time that there is little left for anything else.
These people are growing not only in age but in power as well. If a 17-year-old wishes to stay out of school, they can find creative ways. And if they are forced into a school situation, they may make life hard for those who indeed wish to be there.
Then there are the exceptions. There are some who work hard to graduate early and get a head start on a job for college expenses. This new law would stand in their way, holding them back.
Home schooled students like myself are also an issue. Under the current law, once we turn 16 we no longer have to report our curriculum to the state, and are considered "drop outs." Though the option of maintaining a status of "home educated" would be good for some, the requirement only hinders those who have taken their education into their own hands. I have just recently turned 18, and glad I am responsible for the academic decisions I've made between the age 16 and now. I live with the consequences, and will make better decisions in the future because of that.
Do not forget that the majority of 16 to 18 year-olds attend public school by choice. If you take that choice away from them, they cannot make that decision on their own, as a responsible person interested in their own well-being.
I do not believe the state of New Hampshire wants its new adults and voters to be bitter or angry with the government for restricting them to a pre-decided path. The kind of education they need is not always found in the classroom. Public education is supposed to be a benefit to these people; if they cannot get what they need out of it, who are we to force them to attend?
Respectfully,
Katy Hamilton