Lynne Graziano is a senior analyst at Bellwether Education Partners. Earlier this year, she co-authored the report “The Edge of Seventeen: What Does It Mean To Be a Young Adult in America in 2024?” The report explores the notion of “legal coherence”: How the nation’s various states define legal adulthood in various realms, and what the results mean for youth and young adults. Given intense concern about the mental health and behavior of youth and young adults, this seemed a timely topic—especially for educators, who interact with this age group daily and might wonder how the legal limits of adulthood affect their students. So, I reached out with some questions about the findings. Here’s what she had to say.
—Rick
Rick: For starters, what is “legal coherence”? And why does it matter?
Lynne: The concept of “legal coherence” means that laws and principles should be consistent and interconnected. In a coherent system, laws form a logical and aligned framework and do not contradict one another. In the paper, we looked at coherence in two ways: absolute and relative. Absolute coherence considers whether a state generally applies the same age cutoffs for different decisions. Relative coherence looks across states at laws on the same subjects to determine which ones are more or less permissive on a given policy. Importantly, “coherence” is only a measure of how one policy relates to other. It does not consider if policymakers believe that having different ages for different decisions is appropriate for their state. Coherence matters because it helps to avoid confusion, uncertainty, and difficulties in applying and interpreting the law within and across states.
Rick: What are some of the key findings from your study?
Lynne: Not only is there interstate incoherence, there is also intrastate incoherence. All states were at least somewhat inconsistent in their age restrictions, and some states were extremely inconsistent. For example, California does not have a minimum age for marriage, so long as parental or court consent is provided. Yet, a minor of any age can get an abortion without consent, a 12-year-old can seek mental health care, a 16-year-old can get a driver’s license and work in agriculture during school hours, an 18-year-old can gamble at a casino, and a 21-year-old can smoke recreational marijuana. We found that nine states were most consistently permissive and eight states were most consistently restrictive. The most permissive states were mixed politically, while the most restrictive states leaned Republican.
Rick: What issues have state legislatures been focused on more recently?
Lynne: Marriage has been one of the most active areas of age-related legislation in recent years. Since 2018, 12 states have set 18 as the minimum age for marriage, while four states—California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Mississippi—still do not have a minimum age for marriage. Other areas with active legislation include employment and access to social media platforms and pornography sites.
Rick: How should we determine where adulthood begins?
Lynne: Experts disagree on how best to define adulthood, but you can look at what our country has prioritized. Nationally, we have established that legally you can’t vote until you are 18 and you can’t purchase alcohol, tobacco, or vaping products until age 21. Aside from these areas, consensus on determining “adulthood” differs based on where you live. I think most states are getting it mostly right based on the priorities, political influences, regional differences, and other factors policymakers are asked to consider. One example of how states are getting the trade-offs right is how they approach teen driving. Many states set the age lower than brain-development experts think is appropriate, but they do so because they understand that many teens need to drive to school, work, or other activities.
Rick: In the report, you dig into several policy areas where you argue coherence is lacking. What are some of those which have a special resonance for schooling?
Lynne: The section on education certainly highlighted some incoherence across the country. Compulsory education laws generally require children to attend school from ages 6 to 16. But a dozen states require an earlier start, and Texas sets 19 as the maximum age of compulsory attendance. We were surprised by how little attention an issue like working during the school day garners in policy debates, even though students can lose significant schooling hours to work, particularly agricultural work. A surprisingly high 21 states have policies permitting students 12 years of age or above to work in agriculture during the school day. By contrast, in Washington state and Wisconsin the minimum age is 18.
Rick: In general, which states are more restrictive or especially permissive when it comes to defining adulthood?
Lynne: Most states have a mix of permissive and restrictive policies. The top six most permissive states are Montana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Vermont. The six most restrictive states are Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Utah, and Nebraska. Prior to our analysis, one hypothesis was that Democrat-leaning states would be more permissive and Republican-leaning states would be more restrictive. Interestingly, this was not the case in the top 10 most permissive states, where four are Republican-controlled and six are Democrat-controlled; however, there appears to be political coherence on the more restrictive side. Of the 10 most restrictive states, eight are Republican-leaning, and only two are Democrat-leaning.
Rick: Some may view this variation from one state to another as a healthy thing, a case of federalism respecting various state cultures and norms. What’s your take on that reaction?
Lynne: For me, this project reinforced the benefits of federalism and its deference to state-level control in many key policy areas. It makes sense that state policymakers are more familiar with their constituents’ preferences, particularly in areas such as driving, gun laws, and workforce needs. Alternatively, we also know that policymakers can be persuaded by lobbyists, advocates, and personal experiences. For example, in states that have not raised the minimum age for marriage to 18, news sources often report legislators with anecdotal or personal examples of “successful” marriages of younger teens leading them to block that legislation.
Rick: Young adults today engage in fewer physically risky behaviors than previous generations. They are less likely to drive, drink, or get pregnant at a young age—all issues you touch upon in the report. Is this a healthy shift or a potential cause for concern?
Lynne: Those all seem like healthy trends. Consider that researchers would generally prefer a later universal age for driving because drivers are substantially more likely to get in accidents at younger ages, so teens opting out of licenses can be seen as a benefit. However, I would hate to see a fear of driving prevent someone from getting a license that could lead to better educational or economic opportunities. We haven’t touched on the age of sexual consent, but I don’t think age-of-consent policies alone reduce teen pregnancies. Factors such as accessible contraception and delayed age of sexual activity are involved; however, pregnancy was once considered an exception to the established minimum marriage age. I’d like to think the combination of higher minimum marriage ages and the removal of pregnancy as an exception to those laws contributed to fewer teen pregnancies.
Rick: In his recent book The Anxious Generation, Jonathan Haidt argues that youth are taking fewer risks in the real world but taking more online. How are policymakers grappling with the internet in this context?
Lynne: As we discussed, the decline in teen pregnancies, reduction in teen drinking, and the delay or rejection of driving have reduced some real-life risks. On the other hand, we also know that social media and online pornography represent increasing risks for young people’s mental health. Legislation banning social media and pornography for kids are on the rise, as policymakers recognize these risks. In the last two years, 12 states have passed laws limiting online access to pornography, and eight of those states have also added some type of protection for social media consumption. Seventeen additional states have introduced legislation limiting online pornography access, and only 14 states have not introduced some type of social media legislation focused on protecting minors. Perhaps most interestingly, nine states have introduced “child actor” bills protecting the children of parents who are video bloggers. These bills ensure children forced to “work” by appearing in videos shared via social media receive a portion of any financial benefits accrued by their parent(s). And 27 states have laws prohibiting sexting among minors. I think it’s safe to say online issues will continue to be a focus of policymakers.
Rick: Last question: For educators, can you offer any advice on how to best navigate some of the tensions you’ve discussed?
Lynne: Educators are on the front line of many of the actions and policies we reviewed for this report. I applaud their continued efforts to meet students where they are and help them navigate the challenging—and sometimes incoherent—laws and limits they face daily. I’d encourage educators to lean into policies that can help them, while not compromising the influence and care they provide for students. Many educators may find it helpful to get behind the growing movement to limit or ban cellphone use during school days, removing the distractions and social anxieties created by near-constant smartphone use. Teachers often influence students’ developing interest in work opportunities and career choices, and they can use this influence by helping students to manage employment choices that minimize how much school they miss.
