I've written earlier of comments made by Nebraska Education Commissioner Rodger Breed and other state educators who believe that there is NEVER good reason to miss school other than the occasional serious documented illness. Governor Heineman has repeatedly said that if "kids aren't in school they can't learn", and there is an assumption being made by the legislative body that kids who miss 20 days of school or more can't possibly learn!
This idea, of course, is foreign to many parents of excellent students who occasionally travel during the school year with their children, have chronically sick kids who miss school often, or have children who are very involved in extra-curricular pursuits outside the school curriculum. Many students maintain excellent grades because of the things that pull them away from school from time to time and the excellent parents who make sure that excellence in school is the objective.
My own honor roll student received his best marks in school the year he missed the most school. That year he missed 24.5 days of school due to a combination of ordinary sick days, family travel, and taking advantage of a unique opportunity to participate in an outdoor summer theater which started rehearsals late in May. The debate that choices like mine has caused to rage in Nebraska has been anything but civil. In the comment page of the Lincoln Journal Star, one reader made the comment that parents who travel with their kids when school is in session are "immoral"!
It seems that many state officials share this belief. In response to a correspondence from a Nebraska father, who wrote senators expressing his concern that the current "truancy" law reaches too far into the lives of Nebraska families, Sen. Gwen Howard responded by expressing her sympathies for sick children but said, "I am not as sympathetic for students who hit the 20 day limit because of family vacations or other trips. Children cannot possibly learn when they are missing 20 or more days without any consequences."
Nebraska State officials are using statistics that show a 30 point gap in standardized tests between perfect attenders and those who miss 20 or more days to support this belief and forward their agenda to put all students in this group under the jurisdiction of law enforcement. It comes as no surprise to me that this statistic is manipulated to deny the fact that among the group who miss 20 days or more, there are kids who score as well as kids with perfect attendance. By the nature of statistical data there are A, B, and C students in the mix, and the obvious question must be asked, since when is it a crime to be a C student? Are there not C students among those with near perfect attendance as well?
My own independent research of the link between school attendance and school attainment shows that the affects of attendance on educational outcomes overall is murky. A comprehensive study done in Glasgow, Scotland, found that the connection between absence and academic performance only became striking when the students missed excessively (over 28.5 days). "In a school year of 190 days, each 1.9 days of absence above the average of 28.5 days decreased the total of the English and mathematics grades gained by pupils by only 0.1 of a grade". Not earth-shattering!
The faultiness of connecting educational outcomes so directly to school attendance was demonstrated in this same study when they found that that “25% of pupils who gained a grade 1 (A) in mathematics had a record of absence for more than 5.2% in one year, whereas 25% of those getting a grade 7 (Failing) were absent for less time than this, 4.8%. Even more striking was that generally, a quarter of all pupils getting low grades (5, 6 and 7) in mathematics did not miss a single day’s schooling and were model pupils in this respect.”
Certainly there is data in numerous studies that shows a link between attendance and grades, but it is important that we not make the mistake of concluding that correlation is causation. Researchers across the nation have been careful to point out that low academic achievement could just as well cause, truancy as be one of its effects.
Studies aside, it is evident is that the Nebraska school attendance law is an effort to reshape a parenting paradigm that has long accepted that parents have a natural right to make such judgments on behalf of their children. The law bypasses local school district policy, which in many cases excuses absences related to "family travel" and honors a parent's natural right to make these judgments. It requires schools to ignore their own school district policies and refer all students to law enforcement at 20 days of absence, regardless of the individual circumstances of the student and family.
The Nebraska Family Forum has asked for a simple, common sense fix to the law. Allow local school districts to craft attendance policy with the aid of elected school boards and the input of the communities who fund and govern them; and honor that policy by ensuring that kids whose absences are excused by school authorities NEVER fall under the jurisdiction of law enforcement for truancy.
I would ask those who support Nebraska's current "truancy" law, which is more "immoral"? To usurp the natural rights and responsibilities of ALL Nebraska parents in order to have oversight in every case that may lead to delinquent behavior, OR to allow parents to choose whether or not it is appropriate for their child to participate in club sports, take a ski trip, or stay home an extra day to recover from the flu?
Read more on "Nebraska Family Forum" »
Translate this article »
