State’s solution for chronic school absences needs some more work

By Seth Boyes, News Editor

It’s hard to blame state legislators for trying to do something about chronic school absences, but I don’t know that lawmakers hit the nail on the head this time around.

Now, I typically try to be a bit cautious when forming opinions on academia these days. After all, Gwen Stefani’s “Hollaback Girl” was still at the top of the charts the last time I sat in a high school classroom. It’s all too easy for any one of us to assume we understand what goes on in a modern school building just because we ourselves were once seated at a desk in a (let’s all admit it together) not-so-modern classroom.

But I do think school attendance isn’t viewed quite the same among today’s families as it was in years past. It probably wasn’t a sudden transition either.

You see, I recall something that happened in my own high school. This was the early 2000s — it took forever to compose a text message, bundles of CDs clung to the sun visors in our cars and frosted tips were still a thing (not for me, I wasn’t that cool, trust me). 

Anyway, an admittedly high-performing student in the grade below me was going around collecting signatures from her teachers so she could attend an extra-curricular event the next day — it was mock trial or model UN or something, if I recall. Our chemistry teacher — who happened to be my dad — declined to approve her absence. Well, this student couldn’t go on the trip without that signature. So, of course, it wasn’t long until the history and government teacher who was leading the trip was asking why dad hadn’t signed the paper.

School policy, he said.

This particular student — though the high-achieving sort — had yet to turn in several previous chemistry assignments she missed on account of her other extracurriculars, and school policy required dad to not sign off on additional absences until those missing assignments were in hand.

In other words, this student had less than 24 hours to complete her classwork or the bus would literally leave without her. Well, spoiler-alert, that particular student suddenly prioritized her school work over the extras, and she turned in all her outstanding homework by the end of the very same day. 

I tell you all this simply to show that concerns over how consistent absences from school can affect a student’s work aren’t new. Not only that, but schools have had ways of addressing such issues. 

And, anecdotally, it would seem to me they worked. 

That said, it’s probably safe to assume that’s not the type of scenario state lawmakers had in mind when they drafted Senate File 2435. More likely, they were aiming to stave off the classic hooky scenarios (though in talking with teachers over the years, I have been surprised by how often parents plan extended family vacations during the academic year), and tamping down on all that’s a worthwhile effort in my opinion. 

The problem is the state’s approach is its lack of distinction between excused and unexcused absences, which seems to have the potential to catch otherwise straight-laced students in an overly broad net. 

The decision to treat all school absences the same strikes me as an odd decision just four years after a global pandemic in which students were sometimes told to quarantine themselves for 14 days at a time. But again, I think it’s a safe assumption the legislature wasn’t aiming to penalize students with the misfortune of long-term illness — ongoing chemotherapy treatments, for example, as was the case with a student I knew during my high school years — but the blanket approach in the new law leaves one wondering whether a school district can legally make exceptions for such situations at this point. 

That the rub with these things. It’s counterintuitive, but sometimes laws that are written too broadly can actually back you into some pretty specific corners.  

I don’t envy the job state legislators have each session — committing endless hours to bills and committees in Des Moines while often holding a full-time job back at home, all while trying to make changes for the better. And sometimes the wide-spread approach can seem like the best one until it’s applied at home. 

Fortunately, that’s what amendments are for, and that’s what I think will ultimately need to be done with this new law. 

Agree with Seth? Think he’s got it completely backwards or he’s missed the point entirely? Let your voice be heard. Letters to the editor may be emailed to editor@decorahleader.com or dropped off at 110 Washington St. Suite 4 in Decorah.

Submit A Comment

Fill out the form to submit a comment. All comments require approval by our staff before it is displayed on the website.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments