Archive Notice:
This is an archived version of the emailed newsletter: “Updates!” All contact info has been deleted for privacy sake. If you need information on any of the events/items posted on this blog please email ccheupdates@gmail.com for further information.
--- On
Tue, 3/3/09, (withheld for archive):
You're receiving this email because of your relationship with Core Principles. Please confirm your continued interest in receiving email from us.
You may
unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails.
 Education Alert 
| Compulsory Attendance Bill
Vote Scheduled for Wednesday
| | In February, the House Education Committee recommended HB4030 and HB4132 for passage in the full House. These bills are scheduled for a roll call vote on the House floor tomorrow, March 3. There are several reasons why these bills should be defeated. | | | | There are many problems with this legislation. Here are some of the reasons why these bills should be opposed:
- 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. (These figures are three-year averages, 1996 through 1998.) Most states (28) only require attendance to age 16.
- An estimated 20,000 students between the ages of 13 and 15 drop out of the Michigan school system each school year. Yet there is little or no enforcement of the current truancy law, since few schools employ truant officers.
- The proposal, while well intended, is a premature action that will have little impact, since it does not address the issues which cause the dropout problem.
- Older children who do not want to learn cause classroom discipline problems, disruptions, and violence, making learning harder for those who truly want to learn.
- Unwilling students who are forced back into the classroom are unlikely to benefit from one year of additional schooling.
- It is important to re-establish the right of parents to decide when their children are ready to begin formal education and of young children to enjoy the brief years of childhood without the threat of government interventions. The failures of the public school system and the successes of home schooling demand that a thoughtful dialogue move forward on whether or not compulsory attendance laws should be retained.
- It would take away the parental freedom to decide if a 16- or 17-year-old is ready for college or the workforce. Some 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who are not academically inclined benefit more from valuable work experience than from being forced to sit in a classroom.
- Another significant impact of expanding the compulsory attendance age would be an inevitable tax increase to pay for more classroom space and teachers to accommodate the additional students compelled to attend public schools. When California increased 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.
- Three years after implementing policy that increased the compulsory attendance age to 18, Texas reported only a .3% reduction in the dropout rate and a .1% increase in the completion rate.
- Four years after implementing a similar policy, Kansas reported a .89% reduction in the dropout rate, but no change was reported in the completion rate. Both states failed to meet even a 2% improvement in dropout and completion rates.
- Raising the compulsory school attendance age from 16 to 18 would create additional costs for the state and school districts. If all students actually remain in school until age 18, it could raise pupil memberships by approximately 30,000 statewide. At the current per pupil weighted foundation allowance of $7,668, the bill could cost $230.0 million annually, dollars that are not available.
- There is a question of the constitutionality of the legislation. If it were it enacted into law, it would likely be challenged as infringing upon the parental right to educate children. An exemption for home, church, and private schools is therefore in order.
| Please forward this information to anyone interested in this issue and call or e-mail your representative tonight or tomorrow morning to let them know your opinion on this legislation. Members who are on the Education committee are listed below. To find your representative, click here.
House Education Committee: 2. Lisa Brown (D-Bloomfield Hills), Vice Chair 517-373-1799 | Read archived newsletters and blogs about a variety of state and federal issues or post comments at: JackForMichigan.org
| |
| |
| |
--
CCHE does not pass on emails/addresses/names from any of our mailing lists (electronic or snail mail) to any other groups, organizations or individuals.
Posts
