Cracking Down On Truant Kids

[MJS]

WATERBURY, Conn. - Waturbury officials are expanding a program that requires the parents of chronically truant public school students to appear before a probate judge.

A pilot program at two elementary schools during the last school year cut unexcused absences dramatically, said Probate Court Judge Thomas Brunnock.

Brunnock saw the parents of 87 students from the Walsh and Chase elementary schools. Under the program, he had the power to order a variety of remedies for the truancy, including extra tutoring, parenting classes, counseling and drug rehabilitation. Parents who do not comply with his orders can have their guardianship challenged in court.

The students' absences dropped from a combined 1,072 before the program started in January, to just 87 during the remainder of the school year, Brunnock said. The district allows 18 absences during a school year.

Link

This was an article that was in the paper yesterday. IMHO, I think its a good idea. Its important for kids to at least get a HS education, and it forces parents, who are not taking responsibility for their kids, to step up and make sure they're going to school.

Thoughts?

 

[girlbug2]

I'm all for it. Definitely the right approach to get the parents involved, hit 'em where it hurts so to speak. Amazing how kids shape up when parents take notice of their actions!

 

[Cryozombie]

While I have to say, maybe this will keep kids from being as "stoopid" as they are becoming, I question the schools ability to know whats better for my kids than me. Assuming I had kids that is.

Perhaps I want to keep my kids out for 24 days not 18, for various reasons.

I guess what I am saying is, Should it be the schools decision whats best for my family?

 

[MJS]

While I have to say, maybe this will keep kids from being as "stoopid" as they are becoming, I question the schools ability to know whats better for my kids than me. Assuming I had kids that is.

Perhaps I want to keep my kids out for 24 days not 18, for various reasons.

I guess what I am saying is, Should it be the schools decision whats best for my family?

Like we saw in the curfew thread, I'm sure many people are saying the same thing you are....its nobodies business to tell me what I can/can't do with my kid, etc. However, I will probably find myself saying the same thing here as I did in that thread...if there is a legit reason, then fine. But if its just for the sake of staying home? I mean, sure, there're days when I wake up and the thought of calling out 'sick' from work runs thru my mind, especially when its clear and sunny out. But the reality sets in, and I end up going in. Kids have to attend so many days of school, and they're not given the type of vacation time we would get at a job, so it goes back to the question....is it right for someone to knowingly or not, let their kid miss out on an education?

 

[Drac]

We had a couple of "sweeps" to pick up truant kids..It's their attitude that really floors me..A local radio station went the district where they were being kept and questioned them..When asked if they cared about their being ticketed they all said "No"...

 

[arnisador]

I wish I saw another option, but...something like this is probably necessary.

 

[girlbug2]

I guess what I am saying is, Should it be the schools decision whats best for my family?

They probably don't care what's best for the families per se as what's best for themselves. More kids with more days in attendance means the state gets more compensation.

Ultimately however I do see a larger benefit to society when kids are in school. Less kids out with free (unsupervised) time on their hands means less gang activity and tagging. You and I pay to correct that kind of truancy related misbehavior. So in the long run, nobody has a right to tell you what's best for your family, until it conflicts with the best interests of the taxpayers. Unless of course we could change the laws to make parents legally liable for their kids criminal activities.

 

[arnisador]

They probably don't care what's best for the families per se as what's best for themselves. More kids with more days in attendance means the state gets more compensation.

That's certainly a big factor, as is raising standardized test scores (NCLB) and grad. rates, but I hope they are also interested in students' welfare.

 

[MJS]

Well, IMHO, while it may seem that the state is playing the 'bad guy' and only looking out for themselves, I still think its a good idea. I mean, we have 2 groups of parents...ones that probably have no idea that their kids are not going and the other that doesnt care.

I don't know, but I'd rather see them making an effort to make sure the kids are in school, and if the parents need assistance with something, help them out. I'd rather see that, than a bumch of kids roaming outside with no good reason, just because they don't feel like going. If you don't want to further yourself after HS, fine, you don't have to. But get a HS diploma or GED. Without that, they'll most likely be going down a very rough road.

 

[Drac]

Well, IMHO, while it may seem that the state is playing the 'bad guy' and only looking out for themselves, I still think its a good idea. I mean, we have 2 groups of parents...ones that probably have no idea that their kids are not going and the other that doesnt care.

Well said...

I'd rather see that, than a bumch of kids roaming outside with no good reason, just because they don't feel like going. If you don't want to further yourself after HS, fine, you don't have to. But get a HS diploma or GED. Without that, they'll most likely be going down a very rough road.

Forcing the kid to go is not always a good thing...They become a distraction to those that want to learn and become such a nusiance they get suspended and they are back on the streets...One Summer I was returning groups of kids that were hanging out at our train stations to their Summer school program .

.The Principal caught me one day and said to " Stop".."These kids KNOW they have to be here if they want to pass" " They don't want to be here and they don't want to be taught so I will concentrate on the ones that have made the decision to move ahead"..I could not fault his logic..

 

[MJS]

Well said...

Thank you.

Forcing the kid to go is not always a good thing...They become a distraction to those that want to learn and become such a nusiance they get suspended and they are back on the streets...One Summer I was returning groups of kids that were hanging out at our train stations to their Summer school program .

.The Principal caught me one day and said to " Stop".."These kids KNOW they have to be here if they want to pass" " They don't want to be here and they don't want to be taught so I will concentrate on the ones that have made the decision to move ahead"..I could not fault his logic..

Well, I do see your point. I mean, I've run across many kids enrolled in the martial arts, who really have no desire to be there, but its their parents that are pushing them to go everyday. I've told the parents that perhaps at a later time, their child may be interested.

So, the same can, in a way, be applied to this. One big difference though, is that kids do need to go to school, whereas they don't need to enroll in the arts. So, I can see why the state is adopting this policy.

On the otherhand, going by what the principal in your case said, what other options was he looking at? I mean, was he just going to let the kids not go? If thats the case, then schools today would probably have less of an overcrowding issue. You'd only have kids that a) wanted to go and b) ones that really didn't but figured that they have no other choice. If they don't show any concern about passing, where is the motivation?

 

[tko4u]

I wish they wouldve made me go to school a little more, I am finding myself really interested in a lot of the stuff I was supposed to learn back then.

 

[Cryozombie]

They probably don't care what's best for the families per se as what's best for themselves. More kids with more days in attendance means the state gets more compensation.

Ultimately however I do see a larger benefit to society when kids are in school. Less kids out with free (unsupervised) time on their hands means less gang activity and tagging. You and I pay to correct that kind of truancy related misbehavior. So in the long run, nobody has a right to tell you what's best for your family, until it conflicts with the best interests of the taxpayers. Unless of course we could change the laws to make parents legally liable for their kids criminal activities.

Well, I wouldn't excuse my kids to be out running Amok... But ok, so I travel a lot for work, and I decide I'd rather my kid come with on a few trips... because PERSONALLY... I feel that "experiencing" the world is far more educational than reading about it in a textbook... but the schools are saying "Not your Decision, Mr Zombie"

Hmm. Id take issue with that.