The Journal-Times has recently published on an article on the Racine Police Department crackdown of truants; I applaud both the Racine Police Department and RUSD for taking a stand on truancy. I know that in my high school day, I may have returned “late” from an off-campus lunch once or twice but I would not have if there was a chance I would be handcuffed, fined and returned to school!
With that said, I cannot help wonder if forcing the truly habitual truant back to class is the right answer. I really can’t believe I’m about to suggest this, but perhaps the mandatory attendance age should be lowered from 18 to 16. Why should these children, who realistically are probably not going to graduate, be forced to attend school until their 18th birthday? Why not just allow them to drop-out? Wouldn’t it make our schools and classrooms easier to manage?
I wonder if it will affect graduation rates all that much, considering the following information.
This data is from the most recent Manhattan Institute report on our nation’s schools and graduation rates and a report from the internet resource site infoplease.com:
- Iowa has the highest graduation rate (93%) and the compulsory attendance age is 16.
- North Dakota ranks 2nd (88%); their compulsory attendance age is also 16.
- Wisconsin ranks 3rd (85%); compulsory attendance age is 18.
- Nebraska ranks 4th (85%); compulsory attendance age is 16.
- Vermont ranks 5th (84%); their compulsory attendance age is also 16.
So 4 out of 5 of the top graduate-producing states only mandate that a child attend school until their 16th birthday; I think we could cautiously assume that changing the mandatory attendance age would not necessarily make Wisconsin’s graduation rates go down.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I understand what you're saying, and in some aspects I also agree with it. Especially when it comes down to forcing someone to become educated and disrupting the education of those that want to be educated. However, I can't help but to wonder what will become of the 16 year old drop-outs? One way or another our tax dollars will be spent on them and I'd rather see it go toward educating them.
There is just no excuse for kids today not to be educated. It is afterall, the law. I feel sad that "youth is wasted on the young." They have no idea what a gift an education really is.
That could help at the high school level, but attendance is horrible all the way down to Kindergarten. You would cringe at the excuses I hear for frequent absences.
To name a few:
My car wouldn't start
My mom was sleeping.
My mom was drunk.
My mom said I didn't have to go.
We slept in late.
We went to the Dells.
I had to get my hair braided.
Even the youngest kids are habitually late or absent. At that age is primarily the parent who is to blame, but that is the where the apathy towards education becomes ingrained in the child's mind.
Kathy,
I agree that is a radical idea I still cannot believe I suggested it! But I think for the most part that the kids who drop out propbably had some idea at age 16 that school was lame.
I know that are success stories about kids turning their lives around and finishing school.
But I believe these kids need a different setting, they cannot be forced to attend a school they cannot handle.
Now that the behavior problem children are at the Mack Achievemnt Center, there really is no place for these "credit-deficient" habitual truants to go!
We need to have these children go somewhere but forcing them to go to the comprehensive high schools is not the answer.
Randy,
Do many of these parents call their children in?
I agree that many (all) of these excuses are rather weak, but if a parent calls in isn't that an excused abscence?
I understood that this anti- truancy program is even fining parents for not sending their children (even elementary) to school.
It's excused if they call in. However, even if they accumulate twenty excused absences in a semester, without some sort of medical reason (doctor's excuse) it is still considered truancy. The parent(s) is referred to the DA and usually a social worker.
The main point is the truant high schoolers learned the acceptance of the behavior early on.
Here's a scenario for you guys...Yesterday we overslept. My son(who is in high school) catches the bus at 6:15a.m., so oversleeping isn't that difficult to do. At about 7:30a.m. I called the school to tell them that my son would be late. She asked me for the reason as to why he would be late. I explained to her that we had overslept. She proceeded to tell me that according to the law of the state of Wisconsin, that oversleeping was not an acceptable excuse and therefore my son would be marked truant for his 1st hour class, even though, I as his parent called him in...Give me a break!!!!
This all ties into my elementary school experience when my son missed the bus. I had to drive him to school and sign him in. The secretary informed me that it was very important for my son to be to school on time and that this was an unexcused tardy. Even though, I as his parent brought him to school and was there to sign him in. Ironically, for one reason or another, the bus arrived at school late(after we did), and guess what?....That was an excused tardy.
So, someone please explain to me why parents have so little rights regarding their children? I get that its my responsibility to make sure that they are in school, on time, doing their homework, and well behaved. I find it ironic that they'll make me pay a fine when the kids are not in school when they are supposed to be. And yet when we do find ourselves in a position where we need to call them in, my role as parent doesn't mean squat!! This is very irritating to me!! I am a very good mother to my children. I am a responsible person and parent, and if I call my child in I shouldn't be hassled for it. In fact, these laws actually encourage parents to lie and just call their kids in. It cerainly is easier then having to go through the hassle and humiliation of just being late.
Every child enrolled in the schools represents a dollar amount to our district. Every taxpaying citizen pays taxes to support these schools. And every parent is financially liable for anything regarding these children in the schools...supplies, book rentals, activities, uniforms, lunches, and even fines. As a taxpayer, and a parent with a few children, I feel like a cash cow. Just tag my ear and call me "Bessie".
And if any of the RUSD board members are reading this, I implore you to keep working to adjust those start times. I'm looking forward to speaking to each an every one of you regarding this matter.
Randy,
You bring up an EXCELLENT point - one which I had not considered thoroughly.
Many of these students (NOT ALL)
have 'learned' from any early eage that school is not a top priority!
Kathy,
Remember when we talked about zero tolerance policies - this is why I have such a hard time with government (in this case the schools) setting policy.
There has to be rules for those that abuse it, but those rules are also a hassle for those who do not abuse it!
Kathy,
They may be listed as unexcused, but at that point the school won't do much because there are bigger truancy problems to worry about. Your son also probably wouldn't get picked up by police because he went directly from home to school. It's a pain in the butt to be lecutred, but the office staff hear these excuses multiple times daily and need to respond as such.
Now if you called in with the same excuses weekly, then it becomes an issue to which they will refer to the authorities.
It's the habitual tardies and absences that the school needs to worry about, I agree. I would consider the staff's scolding as warning that they do pay attention.
I understand what you guys are saying. However, its the principle that "I am the parent" that has me ticked. If I may be held accountable, then my word should account for something.
Post a Comment