Understanding and Addressing the Issue of the High School Dropout Age
Arguments Against Changing the Dropout Age
Many who are against raising the compulsory attendance age fear that parental control in the educational process will be further limited. Some in opposition say that public schools have become "laboratories for social engineering and that students are subject to new fads or ideas which may be damaging" (Richman & Kopel, 1996). "Although today's compulsory attendance proponents say their purpose is benign, when the power to control education is concentrated in the hands of a few, it can easily be turned toward less benign objectives" (Woodruff, 2001).A large advocacy group that has been against an increase in the compulsory attendance age is the homeschooling community. Homeschool advocates have lobbied to keep their right to choose how they would like their children to be educated. Other opponents of raising the attendance age often argue that schools are focused on increasing their funding (funding based on enrollment) instead of concentrating on ways to make schools places where students would voluntarily choose to attend (Richman & Kopel, 1996). However, it is worth noting that the target population for the increase in compulsory attendance age is largely composed of students from families who do not have the resources to homeschool their children. Lawrence Rudner's Scholastic Achievement and Demographic Characteristics of Home School Students in 1998 was cited in Bielick, Chandler, & Broughman (2001): "An extensive 1998 study of homeschoolers, although based on a convenience sample, suggests that homeschoolers differ from the general population in parents' educational attainment, household income, parents' marital status, and family size" (p. 4).
In June 1991 and again in February 1994, opponents of compulsory attendance successfully campaigned against an increase in the attendance age from 16 to 18 in Pennsylvania. They argued that compulsory attendance laws take away freedoms. The Pennsylvania Department of Education has not yet presented evidence that increasing the age would be beneficial, and the effort to enroll homeless and migrant students would be challenging and expensive (Richman, n.d.). Richman and Kopel (1996) note, "Teenagers who are kept in school against their will are unlikely to learn very much anyway. And through disruptive or violent behavior, those teenagers may help ruin the education of motivated students."
Much less vocal opponents to increasing the attendance age are the students themselves. "Adolescents leave school because they live surrounded by unemployment and poverty, have experienced failure in school, and have been held back at least once, feel terrible about themselves, and see little hope" (Fine, 1986, p. 397). A report conducted by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in September 2001 (as cited in Kurth, 2001) links truancy to increases in committing crimes, dropping out, and reliance on social services. Many adolescents who leave school early are entrenched in poverty and unemployment. "Nevertheless, there is a clear trend in what students say. They leave because they do not have much success in school and they do not like it. Many of them choose to accept entry-level work or to care for their children, choices that apparently are seen as more attractive than staying in school" (Wehlage & Rutter, 1986, p. 376).
