EQUITY & DIVER S I TY
Study Finds That Early Compulsory School A endance
Laws Increased Equality
By Samantha Stainburn — April 24, 2014 2 min read
An intriguing new report published online this month in the journal Education Evaluation and
Policy Analysis suggests that forcing students to stay in school longer could be a way to increase
educational equality.
University of Kansas researcher Emily Rauscher looked at U.S. Census data to determine the
impact of early compulsory attendance laws in the United States, passed between 1852 to
1918, on school attendance and educational attainment by class and race. During this period,
all states introduced laws requiring students to attend school until a certain age; in most states,
students were required to go to school from age 8 to age 14.
In “Hidden Gains: Effects of Early U.S. Compulsory Schooling Laws on Attendance and
Attainment by Social Background,” Rauscher shares her findings. She discovered that
compulsory school attendance (CSA) laws reduced inequality in school attendance by class and
race. In northern states, where CSA laws had the biggest impact, the laws shrank the gap
between rich and poor student attendance by 25 percent and reduced the difference between
white and non-white student attendance by 30 percent.
Rauscher also found that CSA laws increased equality of educational attainment (as measured
by highest grade completed) among different racial groups, boosting attainment for non-white
students more than for white students. When there were no requirements to attend school to a
certain age, white women completed, on average, 3.4 more grades than non-white women.
When CSA laws were in place, white women completed only 2.7 more grades than non-white
women.
One possible explanation for the equalizing effects of CSA laws: attendance requirements make
leaving school for work opportunities less attractive. “By increasing the costs of nonattendance
(e.g., through fines or social stigma), compulsory schooling should make attendance more likely
among lower class youth and increase equality,” Rauscher writes.
Rauscher’s research could give states a new reason to consider extending the time they require
students to stay in school. While 11 states raised their compulsory school attendance ages to 17
or 18 between 2002 and 2011, a 2012 call from President Obama to raise the CSA age to 18 in
every state did not light a fire under lawmakers. (Currently, students can leave school at age 16
in 22 states, including Florida, Georgia, and New York.)
The lack of enthusiasm for the idea could be partly due to the fact that research doesn’t support
claims that raising the compulsory attendance age reduces dropout rates, a goal that’s often
behind the adoption of CSA laws. In an August 2012 paper, for example, Russ Whitehurst and
Sarah Whitfield from the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center on Education Policy found that
states with higher CSA ages do not have higher high school graduation rates than states with
lower CSA ages.
“If skill demands continue to rise, results suggest raising the compulsory schooling age to 18
could increase educational equality by race and class,” Rauscher writes.
Samantha Stainburn
Reprints, Photocopies and Licensing of Content
All content on Education Week's websites is protected by copyright. No part of this publication shall be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic or otherwise, without the
written permission of the copyright holder. Readers may make up to 5 print copies of this publication at no
cost for personal, non-commercial use, provided that each includes a full citation of the source. For
additional print copies, or for permission for other uses of the content, visit www.edweek.org/help/reprints-
photocopies-and-licensing-of-content or email reprints@educationweek.org and include information on
how you would like to use the content. Want to seamlessly share more EdWeek content with your
colleagues? Contact us today at pages.edweek.org/ew-for-districts-learn-more.html to learn about how
group online subscriptions can complement professional learning in your district or organization.
Copyright © 2024 by Editorial Projects in Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Democracy Dies in Darkness
Put this in the you-can’t-make-this-stuff-up category: A legislator in Arizona has said that there should be no
compulsory education, and he wants to repeal a state law that mandates that young people attend school.
He is Paul Mosley, an extremely conservative freshman Republican member of the Arizona House of
Representatives from Lake Havasu City, which is in Mohave County. When it comes to education, his campaign
website says this:
A good quality education is essential in preparing the next generation. I believe that parents
understand the needs of their children better than bureaucrats and I am a proponent of
education choice. Competition in education is good and I support district schools,
charter schools, private schools, home schooling and tuition tax credits.
But he has another idea about education, too, and, he says, it is a top priority. In an interview with the Arizona
Capitol Times, he said wants the state to pass a law that eliminates compulsory education. He was quoted as saying:
“Education used to be a privilege. People used to believe getting an education was something
you had to be privileged to get, that you had to work hard to get. Now we basically force it down
everybody’s throats.”
And he said this:
“The number one thing I would like to repeal is the law on compulsory education … I believe
education is still a privilege, and the kids who don’t want to be there are a larger distraction to
the kids who do want to be there.
“We’re telling kids they have to go to school, and we put fences around the schools to protect
them now, and we give them a meal or two and sometimes send a backpack of food home with
them. So now schools are not only tasked with educating our children, but also feeding our
children. What happened to the personal responsibility of a parent to feed and educate their
kids?”
Every U.S. state requires some schooling for kids. Most states require districts to provide 180 days of student
instruction, and most specify the minimum amount of time that constitutes an instructional day, according to the
Education Commission of the States. The number of hours in instructional days vary significantly by state; in
Delaware, for example, the state requires only 3.5 hours daily, with a district option to increase it, while other states
mandate 6.5-hour or seven-hour instructional days. Wisconsin and Ohio in recent years moved to using the hour as
a unit of measure rather than days.
Compulsory education has a long history in this country, actually predating it. The first compulsory-education law
kids?”
Every U.S. state requires some schooling for kids. Most states require districts to provide 180 days of student
instruction, and most specify the minimum amount of time that constitutes an instructional day, according to the
Education Commission of the States. The number of hours in instructional days vary significantly by state; in
Delaware, for example, the state requires only 3.5 hours daily, with a district option to increase it, while other states
mandate 6.5-hour or seven-hour instructional days. Wisconsin and Ohio in recent years moved to using the hour as
a unit of measure rather than days.
Compulsory education has a long history in this country, actually predating it. The first compulsory-education law
was enacted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1642, though it really wasn’t about kids going to school the way they
do now. It called for parents to teach their children how to read and write and understand the colony’s laws, though
if parents didn’t, the government could send a child elsewhere. Similar statutes were adopted in other colonies, and
schools began to open — though most were exclusively for white boys.
In 1852, Massachusetts became the first state to require every town to build a grammar school — called common
schools — and require parents to send their children there, with the penalty of a fine for failing to do so. Other states
followed suit; Mississippi, in 1918, was the last.
There are exceptions to compulsory education. Courts have granted some; for example, the 1972 Supreme Court
decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder gave Amish parents the right to keep their children home after eighth grade.
Exemptions have also been given by courts for, among other things, students who can prove that they are in danger
by attending school or are mentally disabled. According to FindLaw.com, all states have laws for exceptions for
religious and other reasons. Virginia is unique among states in allowing parents to not only withdraw their children
from schooling completely for religious reasons but also not require them to provide any education.
Education has long been seen not only as a personal ticket to a better life in this country but also as essential for the
health of the democratic enterprise. Whether Mosley’s idea will get any traction in Arizona is not clear, but we live in
an era in which we have seen unprecedented challenges to the traditional model of education. Mosley is going
further, however, saying that no governmental body should require kids to go to school.
Early this year, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker included a provision in his draft budget that called for the state to stop
requiring a minimum number of hours for students to be in class. It was dropped by fellow Republicans, along with
other education provisions, but not because there was great opposition to it.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has not publicly opposed compulsory-education laws, but she has called America’s
tuition-free public education system — the country’s most important civic institution — a “dead end” and has
supported using public money for students to attend private and religious schools.
Laurie Roberts, a columnist for the Arizona Republic, is not buying Mosley’s argument. She wrote in this piece:
Oh the horror, of trying to create an educated citizenry. Of forcing kids to actually learn
something, in the hope that they grow up and become able to earn a living, contribute to society
and maybe even pay a few taxes …
Much better, I suppose, to let them stay home, ignorant and hungry and so not our problem.
Until someday, when they are …
Meanwhile, in the Nordic countries, consideration is being given to requiring not only young people to go to school
but also working adults, according to a 2016 report titled “Working Life in the Nordic Region.” Why? So that they
can stay current with technology and other changes in the workplace. That may not have occurred to Mosley.