What
is the link among restricted driving privileges, enforced community service,
and reduced welfare payments? These strategies are components of truancy-prevention
programs in effect throughout the United States.
(Some changes may have occurred in these programs since this article
first was published in 1998.)
Did you ever skip school for a day at the beach or a day of skiing? That
activity was probably minor compared to the exploits of many chronically
truant students today. Truancy has become a national problem.
And kids are not the only losers when they don't attend school or when
they miss hours of school each day. Society loses as well. The federal
At
Risk Children Initiative, published in 1997, reported that
"Many police departments have found that rising daytime crime
can be traced, in part, to truancy. In Van Nuys, California, a three-week
truancy sweep resulted in a 60 percent reduction in shoplifting arrests.
In St. Paul, Minnesota, crimes such as purse snatching dropped by almost
50 percent after police began picking up truants and taking them to a
new school attendance center."
Local approaches to the problem of school attendance take several forms.
- In Boston, Massachusetts, latecomers are locked out of school.
- In Virginia, some driving privileges may be restricted.
- In Chester, Pennsylvania, community service is required for truants.
- In New York City, welfare payments are cut for families of truants.
- In Chicago, Illinois, telephone hotlines allow citizens to report
truant students.
- In California, grants worth millions of dollars aid communities in
their efforts to improve attendance and reduce truancy.
Because truancy is a societal problem, most truancy reduction programs
are community-based. School systems, police and probation departments,
welfare departments, and other social service agencies are teaming up
to get kids back in school.
A program piloted in Chester, Pennsylvania, in 1998, recognized that
fining parents is often not enough to change the behavior of truant youths.
Instead, the program requires community service of participating students.
"This is a step to facilitate education, not penalize a family," Gwendolyn
Miller, district attendance supervisor of the Chester Upland School District,
told the Philadelphia Inquirer in a January 1998 news story.
Parents could be fined $300 plus court costs.
The program focuses on getting the students back in school instead of
financially penalizing their families -- many of whom do not have the
money to pay.
The Chester Upland district has seen a decline in truancy rates during
the past few years -- average attendance was about 80 percent in 1998.
The small number of students with "long-standing truancy problems" in
this new program will be carefully followed. They will each perform about
nine hours of community service, and if students over age 13 fail to show
up for community service they will be assigned to an alternative service
program for juvenile offenders.
"This signals to the community that the county and the court system
care about the children of Chester," Dexter Davis, a Chester Upland assistant
superintendent told the Inquirer. "You can have the greatest school
program in the world, but it doesn't mean anything if the children are
not there."
How would you react to a letter threatening legal action and possible
prosecution? The Los Angeles District Attorney's office sends letters
to the parents of truant students. The letters threaten the parents with
criminal prosecution unless they attend a school meeting. The strategy
seems to be working because attendance improved in almost 80 percent of
the cases.
This program was designed to get the attention of parents -- and it
did. But some parents of children with chronic health conditions (and
resulting erratic attendance patterns) have complained of harassment.
Even in large systems, officials must understand the necessity of gathering
relevant information before threatening action where it is not appropriate
-- attendance figures of students do not always tell the entire story.
Likewise, parents should not overreact, but explain the problem and appreciate
that the student's interests are being addressed with good intent.
In September 1997, the New York Times reported that three city
schools would be among the first in the state to pilot a learnfare program.
By law, the program would extend to all schools in the state by September
1999. The article described the state law:
"...If a child missed five or more days of school in a three-month academic
quarter 'without good cause,' the social services agency is required to
cut welfare benefits for that child's household. The law applies to children
in first through sixth grades."
According to the article, "Critics have asserted that the policy punishes
children for their parents' failure to get them to school. Supporters
defend it as a route out of welfare for children who are encouraged to
stay in school."
Schools in Columbus, Ohio, instituted a program called SMART -- Student
Mediation and Assistance to Reduce Truancy -- to speed up action in truancy
cases. The program requires that families of chronic truants must meet
with school officials and members of the County Juvenile Court's Protective
Services Department. Officials use the meetings to determine why the student(s)
are not attending school and to make parents aware of their responsibilities.
Family problems, which surface at the meetings, are addressed and parents
are referred to helping agencies when appropriate.
SMART appears to be working. Most cases have been resolved before court
proceedings had to be instituted. "We feel strongly that at the elementary
school level it is the parents' responsibility to get the child to school,"
Nancy Catena, administrator of Protective Services, told the Columbus
Dispatch. SMART helps them meet that responsibility.
In June 1997, the California Department of Education awarded $10 million
in grant money to local education agencies for truancy prevention and
public safety programs. The Targeted Truancy and Public Safety Demonstration
Grant Program aimed "...to develop ways to identify these youths before
they become repeat offenders, and to provide them with the preventive
and corrective treatment to keep them in school and out of trouble. We
want to help these students learn the personal and academic skills to
do well in later life."
The programs were collaborations between schools, probation departments,
and law enforcement and social service agencies.
In Chicago, public school officials are attacking truancy by combining
"systemwide efforts, local initiatives, and improved programs for at-risk
youth." The policy included an automated calling system that contacted
homes of truant students and a 24-hour truancy hotline which citizens
can use to report truant students. According to a 1996 press release,
the primary problem was at the high school level. The Chicago Public Schools
program also
- proposed restructuring high schools to make them more responsive to
the needs of students.
- held school staff members (principals, teachers and the administration)
accountable for helping to improve student attendance.
- involved parents in a Truancy Outreach Program, which will operate
in all high schools. (A team of four high school parents and the school's
attendance coordinator work directly with truant students and their
parents.)
- teamed the schools with the Chicago Housing Authority "...to encourage
Housing Authority residents to have their children in school regularly."
- encouraged the Illinois Department of Public Aid "...to enforce the
current law which allows welfare checks to be withheld from parents
who have been cited for allowing their children to be truant."
How can students learn the importance of punctuality, of attending school
for the entire day -- especially the beginning of the day? Some high schools
in Boston are making the point by locking school doors in a controversial
program that targets latecomers.
"This school year, dozens of students at 11 Boston high schools are
being shut out every day as officials refuse to tolerate tardiness," reported
the Boston Globe in 1998. "The effort has dramatically increased punctuality,
but students, police, and those who work with truants have begun complaining
the policy is forcing students onto the streets when they should be in
school."
Some school officials believed this was the best method of getting the
message to students that tardiness is not acceptable. But some students
felt that the lockout was too severe. Some community members and police
officers agreed because students who cannot get into their schools were
on the streets all day.
|