About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

Special Elections
- Strafford 03Bob Perry
- Hills 03Peter Leishman

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

House Bill 542: Hoo Needs Skool?

by: elwood

Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 19:35:28 PM EDT


Note: Rep. Cohn reports in the comments that the House actually amended this and passed something different, the text of which in not yet available to the public or to House members on its own web site.
Here's the summary of the bill:

ANALYSIS

This bill:

I. Removes compulsory school attendance for children between 6 and 16 years of age.

II. Repeals statutes relating to school district authority to make bylaws on truancy, nonattendance, exceptions for persons between 16 and 18 years of age who are unable to read and speak English, and the rulemaking and reporting requirements under the Parents as Teachers program.

III. Establishes an additional exception to the compulsory school attendance statute by providing that a child may be educated by a parent, whether or nor such education occurs in the child's home, and establishes exceptions from prosecution for child in need of services, neglect, and child endangerment charges for a parent who chooses to educate a child.

The bill PASSED the House today, 197-148.

The Fiscal Note observed that this would cut school costs by an indeterminate amount. Ya think?

(h/t foodnetwork.)

elwood :: House Bill 542: Hoo Needs Skool?
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Bettancourt, Jasper NO . Cohn Yea. n/t (4.00 / 3)


silly elwood (4.00 / 3)
If we take all the kids out of school, we don't have to pay for education!

Next stop: child labor laws.  


[ Parent ]
"Child Labor"? (0.00 / 0)
Oh, you must be talking about Professional and Crafts Internships for our little darlings.

[ Parent ]
One of these days? (4.00 / 3)
I keep thinking, the shocks must be nearing an end.

When?!

No'm Sayn?


And now combine a lower dropout age (0.00 / 0)
with the House budget plan to abolish CHINS, and imagine NH's future prosperity.

One of the most drastic impacts could come from the elimination of the state's system for "Children in Need of Services," or CHINS, a category of children ordered by the courts to get treatment, guidance or counseling before they become delinquent. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, just over 1,000 children fell into this category in fiscal year 2010. Eliminating the system is expected to save more than $7 million over two years.

The Department of Health and Human Services estimated that 18 percent of these children will end up in the juvenile justice system. "Schools, communities, diversion, police would have to find another way to deal with it," Eric Borrin of the Department of Health and Human Services told the Finance Committee.

Democrats objected to the cut. "I don't know what would happen to these children in their communities," said Rep. Sharon Nordgren, a Hanover Democrat and Finance Committee member. "Some are violent. Parents can't deal with them. They're a danger to themselves and their community."

Leaving asied the moral vacuity of it, does the O'Brien House have any idea just how expensive the combination of these two items will be for New Hampshire?

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker


Lynch's statement (my emphases) (4.00 / 2)
Gov. Lynch Statement on House's Vote to Let Students Drop Out of School Earlier

Governor Says HB429 Will Jeopardize Significant Progress Made in Reducing Dropout Rate

CONCORD - Gov. John Lynch today issued the following statement regarding the House's vote to let students drop out of high school at age 16. In 2007, a bipartisan effort led to raising to compulsory high school attendance age to 18 and greater investment in alternative education programs. Just last week, Gov. Lynch announced the state's efforts to increase the number of young people who receive a high school diploma - which includes a compulsory attendance age of 18 - were proving successful. The state's annual dropout rate was cut by 44 percent over the last year, and now stands at just .97 percent.

"Today's action by the House of Representatives sends absolutely the wrong message to our young people and threatens our ability to maintain a skilled and educated workforce, which would limit future economic development. The people of New Hampshire would be justified if they asked themselves, 'Just what is our House of Representatives thinking?'"

"The evidence is clear, there are greater rates of teen pregnancy, substance abuse and incarceration amongst high school dropouts. And there are little to no job opportunities today for high school dropouts. The action by the House today puts our young people and the future of our economy in jeopardy.

"I am proud that at a time when dropout rates are of epidemic proportions in other states, we in New Hampshire have worked together to drastically reduce the number of young people dropping out of high school. Yet, the House with its vote today, wants to undo that success and turn back the clock on the progress we have made.

"We all recognize that a high school diploma is the bare minimum our children will need to get a good job and support their families, which is why, in a bipartisan manner, we pushed for reforms four years ago. Through those reforms, we have changed a century-old way of thinking and sent a strong message to our young people about the importance of earning a high school diploma. As a result, more and more of them are recognizing that a high school diploma is absolutely necessary if they want to enter today's workforce."



birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

Oops. My apologies. (4.00 / 2)
I'm getting my non-jobs bills mixed up.

I see 542 is even more insane.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker


[ Parent ]
And their budget guts funding for the UNH system. (4.00 / 1)
Do they hate schooling?
Or do they just hate public institutions?

It's a dessert topping and a floor cleaner!


The House dislikes public education (0.00 / 0)
It is a curious bill from several points of view.  It shows little faith in public schooling and great deal of faith is everything but public schooling.  

If proponents argue that the bill does not weaken education for those over 16 who have not graduated or earned a GED, they need to explain the following weakening of the requirement for an alternative learning plan in h.3(i)

(i) The child is being educated by a parent, whether or not the education occurs in the child's home, and the child has attained a reasonable level of academic progress comparable to children of a similar age and ability.

Unless we expect the state to provide public schools with the resources to evaluate the academic progress of 16 year olds who have left school, these kids will be on their own.  

whp


The bill doesn't require even that. (0.00 / 0)
A parent of any child at least 6 years of age and under 16 years of age may allow such child to attend the public school to which the child is assigned in the child's resident district. Such child shall regularly attend  all classes in which the child is enrolled when such school is in session unless:

Then it goes on to say when those children whose parents bother to send them to school, must attend said school.


[ Parent ]
Just to point out... (0.00 / 0)
The bill as passed was entirely different from the link above.

The bill as passed with amendment:

AN ACT     prohibiting a school district from requiring that a parent send his or her child to any school or program to which the parent may be conscientiously opposed.

     ­1  New Paragraph; Attendance by Pupil.  Amend RSA 193:1 by inserting after paragraph IV the following new paragraph:

           V.  No school district shall compel a parent to send his or her child to any school or program to which he or she may be conscientiously opposed nor shall a school district approve or disapprove a parent's education program or curriculum.

     ­2  Effective Date.  This act shall take effect upon its passage.

AMENDED ANALYSIS

     This bill prohibits a school district from requiring that a parent send his or her child to any school or program to which the parent is conscientiously opposed.

[I'm off to bed (it's midnight), as I have a very long day again tomorrow... but I didn't want to ignore my concerned constituent who questions my vote... I agree the original bill was horrible. Which is why I worked to change it to something parents supported, lots of parents contacted me to thank me for my original amendment, which the committee adjusted slightly and used (2 words changed, adding 'or program')]

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.


Or you could have voted against it in the first place. (4.00 / 2)

That would have been the option closest to sanity.


birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

[ Parent ]
Borrowing from the HBO series "John Adams" (0.00 / 0)
Given the choice between doing what is right (sane) and not right (insane), it would appear the [representative] would choose to do the latter every time.

[ Parent ]
The link above (0.00 / 0)
is to the website of the General Court.

[ Parent ]
As listed on that website (0.00 / 0)
The link to the amendment as passed:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...
(search for HB542, for the docket to see more details)

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

[ Parent ]
Why was this necessary (4.00 / 1)
in the first place?  Does this allow a parent with say an extremist ideological agenda from sending his child to school?  Shouldn't that be considered child abuse?    

[ Parent ]
2012 n/t (4.00 / 4)


2012 is sooner than you think. Ready?
Peter Leishman is ready right now -  http://peterleishman.org


"a parent" (4.00 / 2)
This bill and some similar ones always refer to "a parent" being able to remove a child from school, etc.  That is not so bad if the child has one parent--- or if there are two parents who are in agreement.  But what if the parents disagree?  Or what if the child has no living parents? What if someone other than the parents has custody? What if she is in foster care?

These bills don't even distinguish between a custodial and a non-custodial parent.


Rep. Horrigan (0.00 / 0)
Many places in statute refer to 'a parent' and so there are also sections of law addressing what happens in all of your circumstances.  Perhaps you just saw the recent NH Supreme Court decision for what happens (sadly) when the laws aren't (yet) clear enough when there are questions like yours.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

[ Parent ]

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox