Changing the Compulsory School Age

The Michigan Legislature is considering changing a “right of passage” enjoyed by several generations of Michigan’s children. The freedom to leave formal schooling at age sixteen.

With the proposal, the age of compulsory education would be raised from sixteen years of age to eighteen. The reasons for such a change are compelling. The future of a non-high school graduate is dismal. This change is a troubling notion to those responsible to enforce this public policy, but our times compel a change in an antiquated law.

Michigan Principals, as a group, don’t like the notion. They are on the front line, experiencing daily the adolescent power struggle with rules, laws, and adults, to gain perceived rights. Principals have good reason to object to being the enforcer of one more public policy that
does not enjoy support by those to whom it effects. School Principals are right to believe this way, but we’re wrong. Principals in other states have experienced a similar change in public policy. As they look back over their experience they’ll tell you they were against it at first, but now more kids are in school, and the truancy problems that were fought at 15 and 16 are now waged at 17 and 18.

• Clearly, the enforcement of the law becomes an issue. The current truancy enforcement system is non-effective. The decision maker regarding enforcement is the elected county prosecutor. Many prosecutors do not see this as an important role. A fix needs to take place here.
• Let’s be real. If the law is changed with immediate effect, we go from 50,000 dropouts to 50,000 truants, overnight. The law should be phased in. It should begin for those students who are now in the lower elementary grades. As they mature they will not know of the
  “right of passage” of compulsory attendance owned by former generations
• Often, students leave school because of frustrations with the school. Schools must agree on a definition of and a means to provide alternative deliveries of instruction for students as they mature. They should focus their efforts to students at the middle level. As courts and legislatures have recognized there are additional costs for students of diagnosed special needs, the legislature must recognize there are additional costs for such alternative programming and do something, but not at the expense of the traditional delivery of instruction.
• Linking driving privileges with obligations to attend school is a popular notion. One that a large majority of building administrators support. Thought must be given to develop a functional enforcement process requiring an alliance with the education community, the law-enforcement community, and the Secretary of State office. All three of these groups need equal voice in the system or it is doomed for failure.
• Support must be given to the school community for its enforcement of student expectations that lead to a safe and orderly environment to produce a good learning environment.
• Currently, school funding is determined by dividing the amount of money in the school aid account by the number of students in the public system. If there is an 8.5% increase in the number of student’s, a like amount of additional funds must be found to put in the account. Not to do this will put the Legislature in violation of the “unfunded mandate” clause of the Michigan Constitution.

There is good and bad public policy. It will be easy for a legislator to amend the compulsory education law by just crossing out the number sixteen and replacing it with the number eighteen; then sit back and watch what happens and point a finger of blame if there are problems. It is
up to us, building principals and citizens; to make sure legislators develop good public policy by dealing with the above issues as part of any change to the current law.