Raised Dropout Age on Its Way

Great idea (0.00 / 0)

That two years is a huge change.

And I repeat myself, but I feel like there's more good news coming out of Washington these days too.

---

by: JimC @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 15:28:35 PM CDT

It seems unconstitutional (0.00 / 0)

From SB-18:

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Department of Education states this bill may increase local expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2010 and each fiscal year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on state and county expenditures or state, county, and local revenue.

From NH Constitution:

[Art.] 28-a. [Mandated Programs.] The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision.

November 28, 1984

Just like the feelgood statewide kindergarten legislation.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 15:49:45 PM CDT

I'm tempted to say -- (0.00 / 0)

"But what town wouldn't ratify this?"

But I have some experience with New Hampshire.

I assume that clause allows most towns to ratify it, even if some do not?

---

by: JimC @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 16:04:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The bill doesn't mention (0.00 / 0)

a process for towns to ratify the new law. It simply makes it illegal truancy for a 17-18 year old to not attend (publicly financed) school, with some specific exemptions.

So, parents of a dropout can take the state to court on Constitutional grounds, if anyone tries to enforce this law.

28A killed off state authority without requiring local responsibility.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 16:11:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry if I was unclear (0.00 / 0)

What I meant was, as I read the clause, Henniker (say) could challenge it on Constituional grounds and ignore the law. But Concord could ratify it and adhere to it.

---

by: JimC @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 16:30:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In theory, yes (0.00 / 0)

But it isn't clear to me that a city or town has the authority to adopt a local ordinance on dropout age -- even if that ordinance just repeats state law.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 16:34:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unless (0.00 / 0)

"unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision"

Of course, New Hampshire has more regional schools ... is that what you mean?

---

by: JimC @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 16:36:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a mess (0.00 / 0)

I guess what the Concord School Board would need to do, is pass a resolution saying "We will pay for schooling costs of 17 and 18 year olds even when they would rather drop out." That should cover it.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 16:48:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not so sure (0.00 / 0)

Elwood, I'm not so sure this is a new or expanded program. Communities are already required to provide high school educations to all kids within their district; all this does is tell the kids they have to stay and graduate.  One can argue that they already should have the facilities in place, and therefore it is not a new mandate. Practically, does it require the towns to spend more? Probably, but legally, they already have the obligation to provide facilities to all the kids in the community

---

by: Frodo @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 16:55:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It isn't a new or expanded program (0.00 / 0)

But it does fall into  "new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities," IMHO.

School districts previously had no responsibility to pay for schooling kids who wanted to drop out after age 16. Now they have that responsibility.

I've learned from George Tenet; I won't call this a "slam dunk" constitutional case. But it is certainly something the courts would consider.

The bill itself acknowledges that it "may" require schools to spend more.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 17:06:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Already have the responsibility (0.00 / 0)

The schools already have the responsibility to school the kids if the kids show up. As I said, practically speaking, there are some schools (larger schools) that will have to pay more.  But, if all those kids showed up tomorrow,  schools would have the responsibility to provide an education, whether this bill passed or not.
And, how can you call the kindergarten bill "feel good" legislation?  That ignores the importance of the legislation and the importance of that initiative.

---

by: Frodo @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 17:39:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That would be the argument. (0.00 / 0)

Yes, if the students showed up today, the schools would have to pay.

But they don't. That's the whole point of the bill.

If it works, a new law passed in Concord will result in new costs for local districts.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 17:43:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 0)

It's not a new mandate on schools. The mandate is on the parents. Please read current RSA 193:1, compulsory attendance by pupil. What the legislation does is change the age in that law from 16 to 18.

As for kindergarten - feel good? Really? The law enacted while Gov Shaheen was governor has the state pay directly for 75% of the construction costs for new kindergarten classrooms and related facility costs. Construction costs was one of the major barriers to towns adding kindergarten. Dozens of towns added kindergarten because of this law.

---

by: Huey @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 17:36:30 PM CDT

See above. (0.00 / 0)

It is a "new responsibility" for school districts to pay for students who would prefer to drop out.

If the legislature believed your argument, it would have claimed there was $0.00 impact on local costs.

Regarding kindergarten: I'm talking about this year's legislation, in progress, to set "minimum standards" that include kindergarten.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 17:40:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't say (0.00 / 0)

that it would not have any cost impact, though for almost all high schools the students would be absorbed without the need for additional teachers. For example, in 2005-2006 55 students dropped out of Concord High - that's 55 from all 4 grades. And not every one of them dropped out the day they turned 16. Concord should be able to easily absorb the students who would be staying in school longer because of this bill.

As for adding kindergarten to the minimum standards, now that ain't feel good - that would be a mandate, and if kindergarten is added to minimum standards, the state would have to pay for the cost.

---

by: Huey @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 17:55:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To be clear (0.00 / 0)

I believe that it is good public policy to have statewide kindergarten, and to have a dropout age of 18.

I also agree that the cost often be borne by a district without serious hardship. But we're talking about some 2,000 new students statewide -- if a year of high school averages $4,000 cost to the town, that's an $8 million unfunded mandate.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 18:05:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree with Huey (4.00 / 1)

A program that increases school attendance is not necessarily a mandate on schools. Schools are obligated already to teach all students meeting certain criteria that show up. That mandate is in place already.

Taken to it's logical extreme, if the state started a program to attract young families to NH, that would be an unfunded mandate -- but it would not be, obviously. It increases enrollment, but is not an additional program.

In other words, not everything that has a cost impact is a mandate.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 18:04:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The language is not limited to programs (0.00 / 0)

it explicitly includes "responsibilities" also.

The guesses that Huey, Frodo, you and I make won't matter; the courts will decide.

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 18:07:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's our common ground then (0.00 / 0)

it's grounds for a legal challenge. I'll cede that.

But I don't think a challenger would win. I think the programs and repsonsibilities in terms of the school district have not changed.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 18:51:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the marginal cost (4.00 / 1)

Of adding a student is far below the average cost. Concord High School, for example, can absorb 50 students without adding a teacher.

---

by: Huey @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 22:22:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Generally so (0.00 / 0)

For special needs students, not so. And if that 50 student limit is firm, the 51st student will incur much higher than average costs.

---

by: elwood @ Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:23:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tutitioning towns (0.00 / 0)

Towns that do not maintain their own high school, but rather pay per-student tuition to a neighboring town, will have marginal cost = average cost.

---

by: elwood @ Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:43:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree in part (0.00 / 0)

You are right that towns that do not maintain their own high school would need to fork over the tuition cost.

Your other example doesn't work, though, I think. Concord would be integrating 50 kids into a school with almost 2000 students. The added expense would be minimal for Concord. 

---

by: Huey @ Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:50:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Leaving aside (0.00 / 0)

the question of constitutionality for a moment (on which I can't speak with authority), I would like to offer a word or two, as someone who has been involved in teaching adolescents for the past eight years.

While it is true that a 16-year-olds can and do engage in all kinds of "adult" activities, the longer I teach adolescents the more I feel that they are just a hair removed from children, and in many ways still are.

The decision-making faculty in a 16 year old is vastly immature, in the main, to that of an 18 year old.

I'm certainly not one of those people that thinks that more school is the answer for everyone.  But if I had a nickel for every 16 year old who told me they he or she was absolutely sure of some major life decision, only to change their tune a year or two later, or even a few months later, I'd have enough nickels to retire early.

In a society, that, like it or not, can be cruel even to high school graduates, I can't imagine what it will be like for those who opt out even before that. And I can't tell you how many teenagers I have seen lose their way and their focus and their drive, only to recapture it a couple of years later when more of the gray matter in their frontal lobes has disappeared.

I applaud this legislation and the Governor's promotion of it, even knowing full well that this will in fact make life harder on those in my own profession of teaching, as some of the ones who will least want to be in the classroom will have more time in it.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 18:38:37 PM CDT

Perhaps the real effect (0.00 / 0)

is to help parents dealing with a kid determined to quit school.

And to help both parents and student dealing with a school that would prefer to have the kid leave.

(Assuming it holds up, or is endorsed locally.)

---

by: elwood @ Tue May 08, 2007 at 18:42:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry people (4.00 / 2)

This is just feel good legislation. Forcing a kid that doesn't want to stay in school - one that the school very likely doesn't want to keep is not the solution to the problem. How much money do some towns have to spend on kids that are disruptors and troublemakers? What does that mean to the rest of a class? How is forcing them to stay in school any kind of a solution for anyone?

What really needs to happen is a complete overhaul of our educational system. Most of our system was designed in the 1940's. It's a different world, with different tools and needs. It would require thinking about education in new ways - and NH is firmly rooted in "the way we've always done it." It would also mean spending money - and we bitterly resent every dime we spend on education.

It's a prevention issue - and to tackle it we need to begin at the beginning, not at the end result.

Let me also say, that I am a high school drop out, which gives me a somewhat unique perspective on the topic.

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:38:36 AM CDT

Well (0.00 / 0)

How likely, really, is an overhaul? Why not focus on a simple change that can be done, and will help shift the debate? A 16-year-old kid is watching his peers sweat over getting into college; an 18-year-old is watching his peers go to college, and maybe he'd see the benefit.

Not that going to college is the only goal, but it's an important goal.

---

by: JimC @ Wed May 09, 2007 at 16:37:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How Likely... (0.00 / 0)

We shouldn't confine our thinking to what is likely to happen, we should be talking about what NEEDS to happen.  If we cut off whole avenues of discussion because it 'isn't likely to happen', we'll never really know what is likely, will we?

There's nothing wrong with having the discussion.  If we can't have it here, where can we have it?

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Wed May 09, 2007 at 16:49:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That wasn't my point (0.00 / 0)

And I don't want to put words in Susan's mouth, but as I read her post, she's saying "Don't do this without doing an overhaul." I say, do what you can. I don't think that's restrictive.

---

by: JimC @ Wed May 09, 2007 at 17:00:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I should clarify a bit. (0.00 / 0)

Yes, keeping a 17 year-old kid in school who doesn't want to be there will put a strain on teacher and classroom and school.

But I've never met a teacher in either the public or private sphere who doesn't feel a little heartbroken over losing a student who could have made it further but who chose to opt out.

We all have memories of awful teachers who were hateful, but coming to it from the perspective of a teacher, I can say that  in the main we really do want our charges to succeed, and it's awfully depressing when, after investing a huge amount of time and effort, we still can't make that happen.

And in public school, you can make the further argument that teachers are in essence serving the public good, so it's in the job description to try to develop the bottom of the class as well as the top, even if it takes time away from cultivating the top.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed May 09, 2007 at 19:35:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what are the barriers (0.00 / 0)

to school reform or at least some experiments in school reform?

One of the reasons I'm supportive of charter schools is they provide an opportunity for reform experiments.

What would you like to see done, Susan?

As to keeping disruptive kids in school, if you read the bill, it's pretty flexible as to what staying in school means. And there is some additional money in the state budget to help school districts with alternative programming.

---

by: Huey @ Wed May 09, 2007 at 21:17:40 PM CDT

barriers (0.00 / 0)

include "we've always done it this way" and of course, our general negativity (as a state) toward education funding.

I don't support charter schools - because they take money away from public schools, and in my opinion, they're intended to help along the attempt to privatize/destroy the public education system.

Kids begin the path to dropping out long before they reach high school. For many kids the problems are at home. I don't know what the percentage of kids growing up in alcoholic families is in NH - but it's probably large. Substance abuse and family violence can put a kid on drop out road, along with poverty and homelessness. Our state runs liquor stores for profit - yet we spend next to nothing on substance abuse education and treatment, and both are badly needed. If we really want to keep kids in school - we need to help families.

As for schools themselves - I'm in favor of a comprehensive look at everything about a school - from schedule to curriculum, food, and everything in between. Does block scheduling (which sounds awful to me) the most effective way to teach, or do we do it because it's easier? Do the classes we offer have real value? Are we teaching reading comprehension, critical thinking, and media literacy? Instead of cutting the arts out - let's bring them back. Are the school hours realistic and appropriate? What can we do for the latchkey kids?

The first, and most important step is to find a way to change how NH thinks about education. Oh, we all pay lip service - but when the rubber hits the road - the money spent on education is shelled out begrudgingly. If we really value our young people - we need to take our commitment to them seriously, and stop using a 20th century education model in the 21st century.

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Sun May 13, 2007 at 14:44:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Block scheduling (0.00 / 0)

depends on the type of block scheduling (there are various types, some better than others) and the discipline.

I believe block scheduling was originally thought up as a way to enhance learning, but I am told that too often it is used as a way to handle too many kids with not enough teachers and rooms.  And of course, once you start budgeting that way, it's hard to go back.

I taught at a school once in the South that had a 4X4 block schedule.  Four classes a day (for teachers, 3 and 1 prep) for an hour and a half each.  For English and art, e.g., that was useful.  For math and foreign language, it was a disaster.  And worst of all, the course scheduling was so poor that when the course ended at the end of the semester, the succeeding course was sometimes not offered until two semesters after, making retention of material near impossible.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun May 13, 2007 at 19:00:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This bill would be a whole lot better (0.00 / 0)

if it did something, anything, to promote early graduation.

Some of the compromises in the bill are pretty feel-good. For example, allowing the Superintendent to 'exempt' students from the new attendence requirement upon developing an alternative education plan. This doesn't seem substantially different than the present homeschooling alternative.

Also, without additional changes to the rules, the GED exemption is impotent because you can't take the GED before you're 18 or your class has graduated unless you're high school dropout(and, then, only with special permission).

This bill doesn't do any good for students and families frustrated with their local schools. Whether or not it's good for society, well, I don't know.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed May 09, 2007 at 22:15:06 PM CDT