I was a little stunned to read this morning that a New Hampshire legislator (James Parison) has proposed reducing the compulsory school attendance age to 16 (from 18). The move has been proposed as a parents’ rights issue. The law would allow students under the age of 18, but older than 16 to dropout with parent permission. I had taken it as common sense that having a high compulsory school attendance law was good policy because it increased student earning power later in life and increased the likelihood that a student would seek some post-secondary training.
First, I found an article in my dropout references by an economist that shows compulsory schooling laws work as a mechanism to improve student outcomes because lifetime wealth increases by about 15% with an extra year of compulsory schooling. What’s more students required to attend school are also less likely to report being in poor health, unemployed, and unhappy. As the author notes, “The results are more consistent with the possibility that adolescents ignore or heavily discount future consequences when deciding to drop out of school.” In other words, have a compulsory school attendance law overcomes teenage short-sightedness.
Second, New Hampshire needs to consider the type of work force we will need in the future. A report last summer from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce () predicts that jobs requiring post-secondary education will grow by 53,000 in the next ten years for New Hampshire . The report also predicts that of the 223,000 jobs available in the next ten years only 15,000 will be available to high school dropouts. New Hampshire ranks 7th in terms of the proportion of its 2018 jobs that will require a Bachelor’s degree, and is 45th in jobs for high school dropouts. If a well-trained work force is not available or predicted to be available it will be increasingly difficult to attract new businesses to New Hampshire.
The current compulsory school attendance law would appear to be the best policy for New Hampshire.