By 87-10 vote, House approves bill to raise drop-out age to 18 by 2018

02/14/2013 02:55 PM

Hours after the Senate’s education committee approved its version of the student drop-out age, the House responded by voting 87-10 to send the Senate its bill that would raise the age to 18 by 2018.

The key difference that lawmakers must figure out between the two bills is that House Bill 220 mandates that the student drop-out age would rise from 16 to 17 in 2017 and 18 the following year. Senate Bill 97, meanwhile, gives districts permission to raise the drop-out age and encourages them to set up frameworks that will keep at-risk students engaged.

Ten Republicans voted against the House bill. It was the fourth session Rep. Jeff Greer, D-Brandenburg, has carried the bill and the fifth session in a row that some version of the measure has been debated in the House.

About Ryan Alessi

Ryan Alessi joined cn|2 in May 2010 as senior managing editor and host of Pure Politics. He has covered politics for more than 10 years, including 7 years as a reporter for the Lexington Herald-Leader. Follow Ryan on Twitter @cn2Alessi. Ryan can be reached at 502-792-1135 or


  • Bruce Layne wrote on February 15, 2013 04:18 PM :

    So the plan is to keep pushing this bad bill every year until it passes?

    This is a great example of a feel good nanny state bill, with no thinking but a lot of emotion behind it. In other words, it’s a bad bill.

    These legislators believe they can write a law and alter human behavior, fundamental laws of physics, and the free market. What arrogance!

    Yes, students would be better served, individually, by getting a better education, and society at large would be better served by an educated citizenry. But passing a law mandating school attendance is nowhere close to education. In fact, it’s yet another way for us to spend more on education, and get LESS education in the process. How can forcing kids to stay in school reduce the overall education? I suspect these legislators don’t remember high school. Forcing students to stay in school will reduce the educational process for all students. Those forced to be there won’t learn because they don’t want to be there, but they can certainly prevent others from learning as much. They’ll be bored, and in an effort to entertain themselves they’ll be a constant disruption to the entire class. They will also be discipline problems (or worse!) and that will result in the retention of fewer good teachers. Good teachers want to educate. If our laws make it that difficult to educate and instead force them to be baby sitters and wardens, the good teachers will get better jobs and we’ll be left with those more suited to baby sitting and regulating discipline problems.

    Let’s get straight to the point. The purpose of this legislation is to put butts in chairs because schools are paid for every butt that’s in a chair, on a daily basis. That’s their financial incentive to reduce truancy and drop out rates. This is not about educating students. In fact, quite the opposite.

  • viewer wrote on February 15, 2013 04:54 PM :

    If a young adult doesnt finish school we have the data that the state is going to have to pay for that person the rest of their lives. So why not try for 2 years to make a difference ? We know what happens if he or she doesnt finish. I dont understand anyone that dont see the cost benifit of this bill.

What do you have to say?


Subscribe to email updates.

Subscribe and get the latest political intelligence delivered to your inbox.