Representative Joel Briscoe - the bill's sponsor - introduced it, followed by 2 members of the public speaking in support of it (representatives from Voices for Utah Children and United Way), and 3 speaking against (Wendy Hart, myself, and a representative from the Eagle Forum.)
| Young athletes often miss a lot of school |
Those who support adding chronic absenteeism to the list of requirements for AYP reports have the best of intentions. They hope that by tracking attendance rates, schools will be able to increase attendance rates, both in the early grades and later grades. They hope that by increasing attendance rates they can improve student achievement and graduation rates.
But their arguments are a bit confusing. They say that their goal is to increase attendance; but on the other hand, they say all they want to do is report the numbers to help local schools. Merely reporting these numbers won't do anything to change them, so what is the point in reporting these numbers if there is no intention to do anything with the data?
They freely acknowledge that many of the kids who miss a lot of school have no problems with mastering the material. In fact, several members of the Committee, and the sponsor himself, stated that they would have been included in this new statistic if it had been reported when they were in school. But while supporters acknowledge this, they still seems comfortable with lumping all absences together for reporting purposes.
Which leads me back to my original post about the implications of adding the category of "chronic absenteeism" to AYP reports. If the state agrees to track chronic absenteeism, it is agreeing that ALL absences are bad and need to be reduced. In order to reduce them, ALL kids with lots of absences will be targeted. There's no way to spare the accomplished athletes, the kids blessed to travel abroad with family, the kids who struggle with health, and so forth.
Although Rep. Briscoe stated that there are no penalties attached to the reporting, there are penalties. They are inherent in the AYP structure, which requires certain levels to be met in order to retain funding. And ultimately, if the hope is to improve educational outcomes by improving attendance, further penalties would of necessity come in later legislative sessions in order to meet the stated goal of the supporters of this bill - to increase attendance rates.
 |
| Travel - the ULTIMATE education! |
It would take pages and pages to list the reasons this approach - while well-meaning - is wrong. The heart of the matter is that it fails to distinguish between excused and unexcused absences, and in so doing, it fails to honor the basic right of a parent to make decisions for her own child. There will be pressure on schools to reduce not just truancy - unexcused absences - but all absences of any kind.
A better approach to helping kids whose poor attendance contributes to their struggling in school, would be for schools to keep track of kids who are truant - missing school without their parents' permission - and working with that population specifically. Even this approach should be handled entirely at the local level, where the principals and teachers personally know the families involved. This is a great level for non-profits to get involved with their services.
Reporting all absences to the state in a lump total would open the door for serious encroachment by the state on personal family decisions. It would shift the culture of this state in the wrong direction. The House Education Committee made a good decision by holding this bill in committee. It should remain there.
Further Information:
Absenteeism: When Is It Actually a Problem?
The Nebraska Family Forum
Here you will find the overview of what Nebraska - one of the six states that tracks this new category of chronic absenteeism (they call it "excessive absenteeism") - is doing to reduce its newly-created "problem." This is the link to an overview of its "excessive absenteeism" law. Down the right-hand column you will find dozens of stories of families caught up in the well-meaning attempt to "help" them, when they didn't need any help.
What You Can Do:
Email the members of the House Education Committee and thank them for holding HB 151 in committee.
Francis Gibson<fgibson@le.utah.gov>
V. Lowry Snow<vlsnow@le.utah.gov>
Patrice Arent<parent@le.utah.gov>
Rich Cunningham<rcunningham@le.utah.gov>
Steve Eliason<seliason@le.utah.gov>
Gregory Hughes<greghughes@le.utah.gov>
Bradley G. Last<blast@le.utah.gov>
David Lifferth<dlifferth@le.utah.gov>
Daniel McCay<dmccay@le.utah.gov>
Carol Spackman Moss<csmoss@le.utah.gov>
Jim Nielson<jimnielson@le.utah.gov>
Val Peterson<vpeterson@le.utah.gov>
Marie H. Poulson<mariepoulson@le.utah.gov>
Kraig Powell<kraigpowell@le.utah.gov>
Dean Sanpei<dsanpei@le.utah.gov>
Kevin Stratton<kstratton@le.utah.gov>
If you have any personal stories about how this might affect your family, or how a related law in another state has already affected your family or another family that you know, please email them to me at autumnfcook@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment