Understanding School Absence – QPEC
“David Seymour warns of prosecutions this year in school truancy crackdown”
QPEC condemns Minister Seymour’s campaign to fine parents whose children do not attend school to a particular standard.
The Minister is launched on an expensive and fruitless game to blame and shame parents. This feeds his law-&-order base. It also feeds his own diet of rigid neo-liberal control of society. His frame of reference is coercive and wrong-headed, offering no long-term solutions.
In its place, we propose a supportive school engagement model, with two basic principles to guide the issue of absenteeism in school:
1 a serious, well-intentioned, continuing investigation to address the complex reasons why some young people are not regularly at school
These include mixtures of poverty; dislocation; instability in life; low socio-economic status; Covid fallout; unemployment; bullying; mental, cognitive and physical health obstacles; problems with transport; bad, uncertain and unavailable housing; disillusionment with state structures like education.
2 a community-based programme focusing on school engagement to work alongside families, to help them address school attendance
NZ used to have local community stewards for school attendance, who knew their neighbourhoods intimately and supported them throughout the year. But a previous government centralised the programme, thereby undermining the process.
Awkward questions
An obvious question levelled at this issue demands to know what to do with parents and families who choose deliberately to keep students out of school.
QPEC holds that the country should extend the community-based programme above to work as closely and positively as possible with families for long-term effects.
In particular, the programme needs
(1) to emphasise the lifetime benefits of well-supported, critical education for individuals, families and communities, and
(2) to listen carefully to families’ commentaries on school education.
The emphasis should be on including people rather than scapegoating them as Seymour proposes.
Such a programme could be supported by using the $140 million that Seymour has acquired for his law and order programme.
There is a disconcerting reality to face. Some households may have very legitimate reasons for children to avoid school, based on previous bad experiences. Nationwide, we need to recognise this possibility and develop mature responses as a result.
We should be ready to address discriminatory processes, for instance, and if necessary to provide alternative education models that are consistent with human rights and sound education practice.
Above all, our priority needs to be the best interests of young people and families.
As a retired teacher I know the option for prosecuting parents for truancy has ALWAYS existed.
But as we are not gunfighters from the Old West we do not automatically draw and shoot from the hip just because we can.
The idea is not to do more damage to people but find solutions.
What Brooke Van Velden thinks a District Court Judge is going to come up with a better solution than teachers and parents?
Since it’s easier to have a child than to support, educate and develop a suitable character in them it’s not surprising that problems exist. The obvious answer is to support families with housing and employment or other reliable income so that education can also improve, it would be a lot more certain than trickle down ever was, although I also support sensible improvements in education.