2009 House Bill 4132 (Raise compulsory school age to 18 )

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. LaMar Lemmons, Jr. (D) on February 4, 2009, to require compulsory school attendance for children up to age 18, instead of age 16 as is currently required.
- Referred to the House Education Committee on February 4, 2009.
- Reported in the House on February 17, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on March 4, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that exempts 17 and 18 year olds whose parents or guardian have given a note of permission to school officials. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on March 4, 2009.
Passed in the House (71 to 37) on March 4, 2009. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on March 5, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Education Committee on March 5, 2009.

Most Recent Comments

1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4132 (Raise compulsory school age to 18 ) [by Michigan4Independence on June 30, 2009]

With a Democrat administration, coercion was the first thing on their minds-- i.e. using the power of the state to further intrude on people's rights in the name of their liberal progressivism-- i.e. robbing the people of liberty and property, in the name of some politician's absurd fantasy.

Compulsory attendance for any age is already involuntary servitude and false imprisonment, and it gives school a captive, paying audience with zero competition- and gives school bullies a free lunch" in more ways than one; likewise, the schools can governmental claim immunity from most lawsuits, and in any event they don't care if they get sued since the bill goes to the taxpayer. Basically, they are above the law, while imposing laws on everyone else that violate the US Constitution-- whether the Supreme Court agrees with it or not; remember this is the same Supreme Court that said that confiscation of all privately owned gold, was a federal power granted by the Constitution. All extensions of government coercion should be fiercely resisted-- particularly in bad economic when politicians will be going straight for the people's liberty, appealing their fears in order to pass laws that further infringe on liberty in the name of "necessity."

Parents-- not the state-- should be required to provide education for children; just like parents are already required-- and trusted-- to provide food, housing, clothing, medical and dental care for their children; but somehow they can't be trusted to choose and finance a good school for them-- or collect assistance if they can't afford it, even though they can also do this for all the other expenses.

This is probably just a ploy by the MEA lobby to increase the money spent on schools, by closing off the means by which unsatisfied students can escape their forced-fed learning-centers.

Line

2) Re: 2009 House Bill 4132 (Raise compulsory school age to 18 ) [by jercommm on February 19, 2009]

This bill is probably the idea of the MEA.

It's all about the money.

The more years a student is in school, and the more students that are there, the more(taxpayer) money they get.

Notice how they bribe students with goodies on the day they count the number of students to see how much money they will get?

Line

3) Re: 2009 House Bill 4132 (Raise compulsory school age to 18 ) [by publis on February 19, 2009]

After reading the text and analysis of this bill, and understanding that a child who reaches the age of 16 and has parental permission to leave school may still do so, I still am against this bill. The answer to the school drop-out rate has little to do with compulsory attendance, as we see by examining stats from other states that have the best and worst graduation rates as compared to their compulsory attendance law. If a teenager doesn't want to be educated in a particular setting, no amount of compulsion will educate that child. He or she will become a liability to the school by being disruptive or apathetic in the classroom, and an economic liability to the state. This isn't a good use of state money, especially now.

Line

View Full Conversation