By Ian Aikens | October 6, 2023
When is a child no longer a child? And who will decide that? This is an age-old question that all parents have to ponder within their own families sooner or later. The reason I bring this up is an amazing bill that was introduced this past legislative session. It was laid on the table (will be reconsidered at a later date), but the word on the street is that it will be resubmitted again next year with some modifications.
HB399 would have exempted any child aged 13 or older from compulsory school attendance if the child has passed “a test that evaluates skills appropriate to a New Hampshire high school graduate.” It also included a clause forbidding burdensome regulations for graduation intended to reinforce compulsory high school attendance. Furthermore, if a college or university accepts any state funding, it may not turn away a student who passed the test or its state funding will be reduced or cut off.
This would have been an excellent opportunity to allow gifted students to move on with their lives and not languish for years in substandard government schools. This would have allowed those few Wolfgang Mozart’s or Pablo Picasso’s that occasionally materialize to start college early, get an early start on a trade certification, perhaps start a business, or maybe even invent something new. Who knows? Sky’s the limit when it comes to the mind—even a very young mind.
Why hold the real brainy or talented kids back if they can pass a high school literacy exam? Don’t ask the educational establishment! It has loads of objections, but the one it won’t be mentioning is the real reason: if we start allowing kids—even a small number—to escape the system, this will be a direct threat to our jobs. The teachers’ unions will fight to the death to “save public education” by ensuring that the current one-size-fits-all system allows no escapees. As it is, they’re completely triggered by any and all forms of school choice—homeschooling, tax credits, education freedom accounts (EFA’s), even charter schools.
The most obvious objection to the bill is that 13-year-olds are simply too young to be released into the wild. But isn’t “public education” supposed to be about literacy? Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution is very specific about the purpose of public education: “Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government.” It says nothing about age or emotional maturity. Why should a child’s birth age be a factor when it comes to literacy? As we all know, some children are “old souls” at a very young age—and unfortunately some adults still behave like children. Shouldn’t it be up to the parents to decide if their child is mature enough not to be babysat in school anymore? Wouldn’t they know better than anyone else—especially government bureaucrats—when their child is ready to start taking charge of his or her life?
Then we have the objection that “public schools have made accommodations for exceptional students through tutors, advanced programs, dual enrollment programs at community colleges.” Tutors—that’s insane! A child who can pass a high school literacy test early definitely doesn’t need a tutor. As for community colleges, they are widely known for remedial work these days due to the dismal academic track record of government schools, so this option makes little sense for the gifted. While it’s good that these “accommodations” are in place, none of them might be quite the right fit for each really bright student, so why force these students into one of these options? Why not allow these students to opt out and choose their own paths for the future? No reason to remove any of the current options—simply allow a test-out option.
Another objection is that the bill “would lower the level of difficulty and the intellectual content of academic/graduation standards.” How so? Why would a literacy test for early graduation lower the standards? Right now, there are no standards at all. Routinely thousands of New Hampshire high school students graduate every year who are not proficient in the basic areas of reading, mathematics, and science (see my article last month), so how would an optional literacy test that few students would be taking lower non-existent standards?
Yet another objection is that there is already a process in place “for parents to sign off for the best interest of their child to appeal (my emphasis) to their local high school counselor to seek a HiSet (high school equivalency test) exam.” Appeal?! You’re the parents and know your child better than anyone else on this planet, and you’re going to “appeal” to a bureaucrat for permission for your child to take the test? Who works for whom? Not to mention that an educational bureaucrat who is a member of the local teachers’ union that always feeds on having more kids in the system is unlikely to grant divine permission.
Another objection is state control versus local control. The argument is that, if the state designs a special test for early graduation, that takes away local school districts’ discretion about deciding what the standards should be. This is total nonsense. I spoke to an official at the New Hampshire Department of Education earlier this year about why the state doesn’t have a graduation test requirement, and I was told that there is nothing in the law to stop any local school district from creating their own graduation test right now—no need to wait for the state to produce one. Obviously with their sorry state of academic “achievement,” school districts are in no rush to design anything that might hold them accountable to the taxpayers, and I am not aware of any school district in New Hampshire that has a mandatory graduation test. Of course, the moment you bring up a graduation test, then suddenly they are worried about loss of local control.
We also have the issue of cost. The New Hampshire Department of Education had 327 employees in 2022 (up from 302 in 2021). I don’t think it’s a stretch to expect that out of all those 327 employees, some could be tasked with the job of designing a literacy test for early graduation—without any additional hiring. The fiscal note of the bill mentions that local school districts could have to pick up some additional expenses to cover the cost of administering extra exams if more students take them. I can’t imagine these costs to be significant with the current state of bloated government school budgets, but if there were a run of students wanting to take the test to escape from high school early, the solution would be to charge the students themselves for taking the test. Such a user fee would discourage frivolous taking of the test on the taxpayer dime.
In the end, will our folks in Concord decide that the obsession with age serves no one but the educational establishment? Will they honor individuality and allow a few students to get an early start on adulthood and flourish?
References:
CitizensCount. (2023, March 12). Should NH allow students to test out of the requirement to attend high school? Retrieved from Should NH allow students to test out of the requirement to attend high school? | Citizens Count
LegiScan. (2023). HB399: Allowing for a testing exception for graduation from high school. Retrieved from Bill Text: NH HB399 | 2023 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan
Milton Observer 