Mike Pride, Editor
Concord Monitor
1 Monitor Drive
Concord, NH 03301

Dear Mr. Pride:

The following text is my “Letter to the Editor”, but it is written more to the general public that you serve. I understand that you might edit this and I hope that you would feel confident about calling me or emailing me to discuss anything further.

I went to the Senate hearing for SB-268 this morning and although I was not allowed to testify due to time constraints, I feel that people ought to be aware of the ramifications of extending the mandatory attendance for school students from the age of 16 to 18 years.

I need to tell you that I view this bill from an unusual vantage point. I have homeschooled for 19 years, taught or volunteered in both the public and private school systems for 15 years, been a New Hampshire Homeschool Coalition Representative for the Concord area for over 10 years and served as a mediator for parents and local high schools.

What does this bill mean?

For those of you that homeschool, this bill would require you to report for two additional years (from ages 16-18) and possibly (if I interpret the amendments correctly) change your reporting agent to the district superintendent. This process for a homeschooler is tedious enough without the added paperwork and scrutiny required by the state. In addition, changing reporting agencies for some could mean a more difficult time getting the homeschool curriculum accepted. Many people go to reporting agencies that are comfortable with their method of homeschooling. Public school reporting agencies are probably not familiar with these methods, much less comfortable.

For the superintendents and staff, it means more paper and administrative time. This is already a problem and I have seen requests in the Home Education Advisory Committee as well as in group meeting notes requesting that homeschoolers use different reporting agencies due to superintendent’s overwhelming workload. In addition, there is the addition workload of the students who would ordinarily dropout. There will be more problems maintaining classroom decorum with those kids that are angry about being forced to stay in school. Those students will act out in order to remove themselves. There will also be a fast scramble to develop "alternative learning plans" with the intention of getting the kids to age 18 with a minimum of disorder.

For the teachers it means more angry kids. We all know that there are magic ages in education. The 10th year is when a child changes the way they breathe and learn. Suddenly, they absorb EVERYTHING. Age 12 is one of reason and logic. They are on the cusp of something bigger than themselves. Sixteen brings the freedom of driving and thoughts of adulthood. They need choices, they need to feel the ability to make adult decisions and our job should be to help them make those choices with the constructive input from adults. Students that are ready to drop out will disrupt your already fragmented classroom. There are students in the middle schools already waiting to drop out and many have created a cycle of disruption and discipline. With this law in place, this disruptive cycle will continue throughout high school and students that really want to learn will be offered less. As was expressed by the Londonderry High School staff, some students will drop out no matter what is presented to them. They are not ever going to survive in the public classroom environment.

For the parents of public schooled children it means another loss of control. Ultimately your child’s education is the parent’s responsibility. The US constitution and the NH Constitution expressly ENCOURAGE an education but it was not until the Disabilities Act of the 70’s that the US guaranteed an education to all children. However, the responsibility for that education still lies with the parents. We are supposed to make the choice to send them to public or private school or to home educate. We should also have the right to determine that our child is not being fully served in their current school situation and make a change for their betterment. This law would be usurping some of that control by mandating that they stay under public school control to age 18. This precludes letting our children "drop out" so they can take the GED, enter the military, enter the family business or enter college early. Bright students need the challenge not provided in many parts of public school system. This issue focuses on the freedom to encourage basically inquisitive beings to learn. Education is a life long quest. If we make learning punitive, we will have adults that can’t adapt to new technology, learn new ideas or be able to make intelligent competent decisions about much of anything.

At this hearing I heard a lot of talk about cost. I heard that the drop out age in New Jersey is 16 and they have the lowest drop out rate in the country. Florida has a drop out age of 18 and the highest rate of dropouts in the country. Sen. Estabrook was quick to comment that New Jersey also spends the most amount of money per student in the country. She did not mention where Florida ranked in the line up but my guess is that it is not at the bottom.

If the goal of this bill is really to decrease the drop out rate then perhaps the venue is wrong. Rather than a new law, we need to encourage schools to use something like Kearsage High School. They have the lowest drop out rate in the state according to some Concord teachers and the reason is because they use a system called "Choices." Basically, the control of education is passed to the students with support and help from the High School staff. Helping the students understand what the education can do for them and helping them see applications as well as letting the student choose for themselves is the key to their success. Logically, this all makes complete sense. It is good practice for a young person to make adult decisions under the guidance of those that are more knowledgeable and most people like to feel that they are in control. So basically, this is not a legislative problem as much as a school procedural problem. Perhaps we should invest our money in training people to guide our students to the love of learning. That would truly be a lifetime gift.

This bill only serves to take away the rights of parents, make teaching more difficult, require more paperwork and administrative time and frustrate our already frustrated 16-18 year olds. I encourage you to call, email or write our Senators about SB-268 before the vote. I would also encourage each of you to consider your role in children's education. They are our future.

Sincerely,
Mileva D. Loo
(contact information deleted)