State pols push for higher dropout age
Critics warn programs could be costly for cash-strapped schools
State lawmakers are reviving a push to raise the school dropout age from 16 to 18, a move some analysts warn could be costly for already cash-strapped districts.
The proposals to boost the dropout age come with a wide variety of programs, including forcing school districts to hire graduation coaches to mentor students, as well as new initiatives aimed at boosting family engagement, providing more tutoring and supporting pregnant and parenting teens. One calls for developing a credit recovery program for kids who are falling behind.
State Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz (D-Boston) is sponsoring a bill that would require Bay State schools to use a data system to track students in the hopes of identifying those who are at risk of dropping out. Meanwhile, state Rep. Alice Hanlon Peisch (D-Norfolk) is sponsoring a bill that would create a three-year pilot and grant program to help school districts with annual dropout rates at or greater than 5 percent to keep more kids in the classroom.
Proponents argue that increasing the dropout age makes perfect sense in Massachusetts, which is known nationally for its highly trained and skilled workforce.
“These strategies have been used in a number of places,” Hanlon Peisch told the Herald. “They seem to have a positive impact, particularly in places like Massachusetts where highly trained skills are needed.”
State Rep. Antonio F. D. Cabral (D-Bristol), who has long pushed to up the age, agreed, saying, “This is important because of the fact that we continue to have a high dropout rate across the state, particularly in Gateway Cities, and without a high school diploma, you really can’t do much these days.”
Twenty-five other states already require kids to stay in school until age 18. Fourteen require students to stay until 16 and 11 have set 17 as the dropout age, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. In Boston, 7 percent of students drop out by grade 12 — a figure that is well above the state average of 2.1 percent, according to state education data.
But Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, said the proposals would unfairly burden school districts that are already struggling.
“It’s extraordinarily noble in its intent but it has complications that go along with it, specifically cost and how do you make it enforceable,” Koocher said.
“What do you do if you have a kid who is 17 and doesn’t want to be in school?” he added. “If I was a school leader, my biggest concern is if the state is going to punish you for taking kids who don’t want to be there and despite your best efforts — we could still be punished. There will be real concern that this gives the state a chance to label, humiliate and punish a school district.”
Boston Municipal Research Bureau President Samuel Tyler said the state would have to fund the proposals or they would become more “unfunded mandates.”
“That’s adding an extra financial responsibility to school districts and they already have tight budgets right now,” Tyler said. “I think there is merit in it but it can’t be an added expense to the school systems who are already struggling.”