House Bill 542: Hoo Needs Skool?

Bettancourt, Jasper NO . Cohn Yea. n/t (4.00 / 3)

---

by: elwood @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 18:37:16 PM CDT

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.  

---

by: susanthe @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 19:22:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Child Labor"? (0.00 / 0)

Oh, you must be talking about Professional and Crafts Internships for our little darlings.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 19:23:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One of these days? (4.00 / 3)

I keep thinking, the shocks must be nearing an end.

When?!

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 18:38:47 PM CDT

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

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 18:47:21 PM CDT

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

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 18:51:23 PM CDT

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

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 18:55:00 PM CDT

[ 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!

---

by: elwood @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 19:21:06 PM CDT

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

---

by: whp @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 20:58:43 PM CDT

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.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 21:05:08 PM CDT

[ 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.

---

by: SethCohn @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 23:18:36 PM CDT

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

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 04:35:10 AM CDT

[ 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.

---

by: cblodg @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 09:10:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The link above (0.00 / 0)

is to the website of the General Court.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 05:09:39 AM CDT

[ 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.

---

by: SethCohn @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 22:59:29 PM CDT

[ 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?    

---

by: mevansnh @ Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:49:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

2012 n/t (4.00 / 4)

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

---

by: GreyMike @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 23:49:08 PM CDT

"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.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 04:41:38 AM CDT

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.

---

by: SethCohn @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 23:02:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]