• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

13 Year Old Piano Prodigy Treated As Truant By Public School System

Kushinator said:
School funding is allocated on the basis of "average daily attendance", i.e. the funds are disbursed in proportion to attendance. This is a major concern for DCPS.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that but it doesn't mean that her school was underfunded.
 
roguenuke said:
Not according to what they have been putting out and even what the parents were saying, in that they were telling them that they could disregard the notes of truancy, but never said that the absences are excused. The Chancellor/principal of the school even said that it was a miscommunication about whether they were excused absences or unexcused. It certainly seems that the school had no issue with the girl actually going away for the two weeks. The problem seems to be that the school has an outdated or screwed up system for their absence marking and instead of changing the system or figuring out how to stop the letters/calls, just told parents to "ignore them", despite this causing parents to worry about what was really going on. Otherwise, the school is lying.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to what you quoted.

So again.
No they didn't. All they did was reverse their decision.

Just because DCPS determined they were excusable doesn't make the absences right, or what the school did wrong, just excusable.​


From the article.

But the school officials wouldn’t budge, even though the truancy law gives them the option to decide what an unexcused absence is. The law states that an excused absence can be “an emergency or other circumstances approved by an educational institution.”​

Do you, or do you not understand that the above allows them to decide how they choose? They can choose as they want. For or against. Neither is wrong.

Changing their mind to make the absences approved does not say the original denial was wrong.



roguenuke said:
You're wrong.

Statement from Chancellor Henderson Regarding Inaccuracies in Petula Dvorak Washington Post Column - DC Public Schools, Washington, DC

We recognize that Avery’s circumstances are unique, and we’ve worked closely with her family to support this specific situation. Last year, for example, DCPS ensured that Avery was able to take high school level math courses to meet her academic needs. School staff was aware that Avery’s travel schedule would result in an accrual of absences, and worked to ensure completion of key school assignments during her travels. We are very proud of Avery’s accomplishments throughout her entire educational career as a DC public school student, and we are hopeful that her parents will enroll her back at her back at Deal Middle School soon.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wrong.
1.) We were discussing what the article said. And it does not say it was before the fact. So I was not wrong in that regard.

2.) What you just provided does not say what you earlier alleged, as it is obviously after the fact of approval.
"They arranged this well in advance, including providing the school with a complete study schedule for the girl before she left. "​

Now maybe "and worked to ensure completion of key school assignments during her travels." means the same as you are assuming "including providing the school with a complete study schedule for the girl before she left.", but for some reason I doubt it as the article said the "school officials wouldn’t budge".
Which would indicate that the schools position on her absences was already known and your above quote is after the fact of the school changing their position.
So the below quote was during the issue, not prior to the issue.
So again. Not before the fact as I stated.
So no I wouldn't be wrong here either.

After she had already accumulated some absences, and before she was to accumulate more? Sure.
But not before the fact.


Avery’s parents say they did everything they could to persuade the school system. They created a portfolio of her musical achievements and academic record and drafted an independent study plan for the days she’d miss while touring ...

But the school officials wouldn’t budge, ...​
 
Excon said:
Irrelevant to what you quoted.

So again.
No they didn't. All they did was reverse their decision.

Just because DCPS determined they were excusable doesn't make the absences right, or what the school did wrong, just excusable.​


From the article.

But the school officials wouldn’t budge, even though the truancy law gives them the option to decide what an unexcused absence is. The law states that an excused absence can be “an emergency or other circumstances approved by an educational institution.”​

Do you, or do you not understand that the above allows them to decide how they choose? They can choose as they want. For or against. Neither is wrong.

Changing their mind to make the absences approved does not say the original denial was wrong.



Wrong.
1.) We were discussing what the article said. And it does not say it was before the fact. So I was not wrong in that regard.

2.) What you just provided does not say what you earlier alleged, as it is obviously after the fact of approval.
"They arranged this well in advance, including providing the school with a complete study schedule for the girl before she left. "​

Now maybe "and worked to ensure completion of key school assignments during her travels." means the same as you are assuming "including providing the school with a complete study schedule for the girl before she left.", but for some reason I doubt it as the article said the "school officials wouldn’t budge".
Which would indicate that the schools position on her absences was already known and your above quote is after the fact of the school changing their position.
So the below quote was during the issue, not prior to the issue.
So again. Not before the fact as I stated.
So no I wouldn't be wrong here either.

After she had already accumulated some absences, and before she was to accumulate more? Sure.
But not before the fact.


Avery’s parents say they did everything they could to persuade the school system. They created a portfolio of her musical achievements and academic record and drafted an independent study plan for the days she’d miss while touring ...

But the school officials wouldn’t budge, ...​
Click to expand...

The articles from earlier provides the information about how her parents provided her schedule on what she would be doing academically while overseas.

What do you not understand about reading between the lines in this? The school was being stupid about their policies regarding this issue. In reality, she was likely never at risk of being charged with truancy, but that doesn't make the school right here since they admit to telling the parents verbally that they should disregard the written communications and phone calls that stated she was at risk for being charged or being referred to CPS (or however deals with such issues). They needed to provide the parents with something in writing saying that her absences were excused and she would not be charged or referred to anyone, rather than simply having the contradicting information being put out.
 
roguenuke said:
The articles from earlier provides the information about how her parents provided her schedule on what she would be doing academically while overseas.
Click to expand...
Ah hello? It is in what you quoted. Which I used to show your previous comments wrong.


roguenuke said:
What do you not understand about reading between the lines in this?
Click to expand...
Is that what you think you are doing? D'oh! :doh


roguenuke said:
The school was being stupid about their policies regarding this issue.
Click to expand...
There is that opinion again.
Here is the counter opinion. No it wasn't stupid.
Fact. They have every right to choose as they want.


roguenuke said:
but that doesn't make the school right here since they admit to telling the parents verbally that they should disregard the written communications and phone calls that stated she was at risk for being charged or being referred to CPS (or however deals with such issues). They needed to provide the parents with something in writing saying that her absences were excused and she would not be charged or referred to anyone, rather than simply having the contradicting information being put out.
Click to expand...
More opinion. You thinking that would be nice of them to have done is irrelevant. She had emails, that should be sufficient.
And as the DCPS has indicated that it had all been arraigned and fine and dandy with it, there was no reason for her to withdraw her daughter.
So again, back to what I already indicated, something is not quite right here.

Based on what has been said, I think this is more about opinionated activism than any real issue.
 
Excon said:
Ah hello? It is in what you quoted. Which I used to show your previous comments wrong.

Is that what you think you are doing? D'oh! :doh

There is that opinion again.
Here is the counter opinion. No it wasn't stupid.
Fact. They have every right to choose as they want.

More opinion. You thinking that would be nice of them to have done is irrelevant. She had emails, that should be sufficient.
And as the DCPS has indicated that it had all been arraigned and fine and dandy with it, there was no reason for her to withdraw her daughter.
So again, back to what I already indicated, something is not quite right here.

Based on what has been said, I think this is more about opinionated activism than any real issue.
Click to expand...

She had what sort of emails? Ones saying that she should just ignore any phone calls or paperwork?

This is about the school should work on their system of recording absences and how they send out truancy notices rather than trying to redirect blame here. The issue wouldn't have come up if they had a better system in place for this. They dropped the ball and they should have admitted to it.

In reality, I think the situation is dealt with satisfactorily for the girl at the moment but can understand her mother bringing it up for the reason she said she did, to try to fix the system for other parents so they don't have to go through these same hassles.
 
Kushinator said:
His position is both incoherent and contradictory. In one post he rambles on about whether the school labeled her a star student, while in another he claims the school board was just in their initial decision even after he is presented evidence they reversed their decision.

Authoritarians often struggle with both logic and ethics.
Click to expand...

Actually, one stems from the other. Authoritarians attempt to create logic which supports their lack of ethics.
 
roguenuke said:
They dropped the ball and they should have admitted to it.
Click to expand...
No they didn't.

So again I must ask because you ignored it.

Do you, or do you not understand that the above allows them to decide how they choose? They can choose as they want. For or against. Neither is wrong.

Changing their mind to make the absences approved does not say the original denial was wrong.​


roguenuke said:
In reality, I think the situation is dealt with satisfactorily for the girl at the moment but can understand her mother bringing it up for the reason she said she did, to try to fix the system for other parents so they don't have to go through these same hassles.
Click to expand...
Bs! It is activism for special treatment
 
I don't see a rational reason why this can't be excused so long as the kid keeps up with their studies. It's an excellent opportunity, an educational opportunity and something worthwhile. I'm curious to see what kind of things this school would consider excusable.
 
Excon said:
While you may believe that, that isn't how it works. Nor is that reasonable position for schools where parental participation is low.

When students have to attend a certain number of days, legislators or school policy can and should dictate such.



Yes she did.
"Did" being the operative word here. 1 & 3, and because of 1 & 3, 5 also.
Click to expand...

That is the problem. They only care that her body was in the chair so they can make their money.
 
roguenuke said:
They did. Go back and check out what has been said. They arranged this well in advance, including providing the school with a complete study schedule for the girl before she left. The main issue was an inept computer system and miscommunications.
Click to expand...
How sure are you of that information? After doinf a small amount of research I retract my assertion (though it stands in other circumstances but apparently not this one since there never was a problem)

But this is what happens when people with a agenda exploit stories. if you read the entire statement its apparent that the Washington post lied again..

Statement from Chancellor Henderson Regarding Inaccuracies in Petula Dvorak Washington Post Column - DC Public Schools, Washington, DC

"District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) Chancellor Kaya Henderson released the following statement highlighting inaccuracies in Petula Dvorak's column in today’s Washington Post. DCPS is hopeful Avery will return to her school very soon:



DCPS excused Avery’s absences for international travel last year after conversations with the family and her school, which was confirmed with Avery’s parents by Andrea Allen, Director of Attendance and Support Services in DCPS’ Office of Youth Engagement. Her attendance summary from last year reflects the “authorized school activity” excuse code for her performance–related absences.

DCPS did not make a referral to a truancy officer, Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) nor any government agency for intervention, since we had clear information regarding the circumstances of these absences. The family was never at risk for truancy prosecution.

No DCPS student is ever labeled or identified as a “truant” on a transcript, report card, or academic record.

While DCPS has universal truancy policies in place, we work diligently to recognize unique situations. "
 
FreedomFromAll said:
How sure are you of that information? After doinf a small amount of research I retract my assertion (though it stands in other circumstances but apparently not this one since there never was a problem)

But this is what happens when people with a agenda exploit stories. if you read the entire statement its apparent that the Washington post lied again..

Statement from Chancellor Henderson Regarding Inaccuracies in Petula Dvorak Washington Post Column - DC Public Schools, Washington, DC

"District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) Chancellor Kaya Henderson released the following statement highlighting inaccuracies in Petula Dvorak's column in today’s Washington Post. DCPS is hopeful Avery will return to her school very soon:



DCPS excused Avery’s absences for international travel last year after conversations with the family and her school, which was confirmed with Avery’s parents by Andrea Allen, Director of Attendance and Support Services in DCPS’ Office of Youth Engagement. Her attendance summary from last year reflects the “authorized school activity” excuse code for her performance–related absences.

DCPS did not make a referral to a truancy officer, Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) nor any government agency for intervention, since we had clear information regarding the circumstances of these absences. The family was never at risk for truancy prosecution.

No DCPS student is ever labeled or identified as a “truant” on a transcript, report card, or academic record.

While DCPS has universal truancy policies in place, we work diligently to recognize unique situations. "
Click to expand...

Like I've said for a while, the biggest problem is the school's system. They know that they have an automated system that sends out letters for 10 unexcused absences. At some point, either someone wasn't recording this girl's excused absences correctly or their system is messed up to send out truancy warnings for students who even have excused absences. Instead of correcting that problem for months, they chose to "reassure" the parents who are receiving conflicting information that the letters and phone calls they had been receiving about their child being truant and possibly being referred to CPS could be ignored. The issue with doing it this way is that it confuses the parents and doesn't alleviate a whole lot of stress when those letters continue to come. There should have been more than just "reassurances" done here by the school. They should have taken action to correct the problem so that they weren't getting phone calls or letters about truancy.

The school's response sounds more like them trying to cover for their inaction in fixing the situation, fixing the automated notifications and warnings.
 
So what happens when one is labelled as "truant" in USA anyway? Do they get expelled from school on those grounds? Or does it just harms their carrier/reputation?
 
roguenuke said:
Like I've said for a while, the biggest problem is the school's system. They know that they have an automated system that sends out letters for 10 unexcused absences. At some point, either someone wasn't recording this girl's excused absences correctly or their system is messed up to send out truancy warnings for students who even have excused absences. Instead of correcting that problem for months, they chose to "reassure" the parents who are receiving conflicting information that the letters and phone calls they had been receiving about their child being truant and possibly being referred to CPS could be ignored. The issue with doing it this way is that it confuses the parents and doesn't alleviate a whole lot of stress when those letters continue to come. There should have been more than just "reassurances" done here by the school. They should have taken action to correct the problem so that they weren't getting phone calls or letters about truancy.

The school's response sounds more like them trying to cover for their inaction in fixing the situation, fixing the automated notifications and warnings.
Click to expand...

What you don't understand is that taking action to correct the system requires programmers, and that costs money; something most CPS's have very little of.
 
sangha said:
What you don't understand is that taking action to correct the system requires programmers, and that costs money; something most CPS's have very little of.
Click to expand...

Still their problem and they needed to explain it better, give her parents copies of the records showing that she was excused and some sort of certified letter, if necessary to prove that they weren't actually going to turn her in for being truant. And they need to get it fixed, even if that means disconnecting the automated system.
 
DDD said:
So what happens when one is labelled as "truant" in USA anyway? Do they get expelled from school on those grounds? Or does it just harms their carrier/reputation?
Click to expand...

They can face charges in juvenile court for it. It can go on their juvenile record.
 
roguenuke said:
Still their problem and they needed to explain it better, give her parents copies of the records showing that she was excused and some sort of certified letter, if necessary to prove that they weren't actually going to turn her in for being truant. And they need to get it fixed, even if that means disconnecting the automated system.
Click to expand...

CPS depts tend to be overworked and can't cater to every parent. And your "solution" (ie disconnecting their system) is even worse than the problem.
 
sangha said:
CPS depts tend to be overworked and can't cater to every parent. And your "solution" (ie disconnecting their system) is even worse than the problem.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? Why would CPS be involved here, in this specific case? We are talking about the school system being the issue, not CPS. The school district is the one that is sending the letters out and making the phone calls about truancy. In this case, not only were the absences excused, according to the school, so they shouldn't have triggered the automated system to begin with, the system also seems to be sending out excessive notifications, since they said this happened multiple times not only for the end of the school year, but also over the summer. Why would the school set up a system like that to begin with? What is the point in having a system automatically notify parents over and over again after their child reaches 10 unexcused absences of potential consequences of the situation? I'm willing to bet that there was some sort of mistake made here by the school in how her absences were recorded, but if they are really working with parents, that means they need to actually work out their systems.

How many students does the school really have "truant" throughout the year, particularly a Middle School? Considering what the Chancellor put out it doesn't sound like it is that many that they really need an automated system to deal with this issue. An automated system is overkill for this, as is evidenced by the amount of phone calls and letters the family claims to have received from the school about truancy.
 
roguenuke said:
Like I've said for a while, the biggest problem is the school's system. They know that they have an automated system that sends out letters for 10 unexcused absences. At some point, either someone wasn't recording this girl's excused absences correctly or their system is messed up to send out truancy warnings for students who even have excused absences. Instead of correcting that problem for months, they chose to "reassure" the parents who are receiving conflicting information that the letters and phone calls they had been receiving about their child being truant and possibly being referred to CPS could be ignored. The issue with doing it this way is that it confuses the parents and doesn't alleviate a whole lot of stress when those letters continue to come. There should have been more than just "reassurances" done here by the school. They should have taken action to correct the problem so that they weren't getting phone calls or letters about truancy.

The school's response sounds more like them trying to cover for their inaction in fixing the situation, fixing the automated notifications and warnings.
Click to expand...

Yes lets just gloss over the fact that Petula Dvorak's column was inaccurate.

"It seems that in this matter, while DCPS was working with the family to excuse the student’s absences, the automatic letter that is generated when a student reaches ten unexcused absences was sent. After a conversation with the Office of Youth Engagement, the family was told to disregard the letter. We also confirmed by phone for the parents that no CFSA referral had been completed, nor would this escalate any further. We believed our communication with the family as recently as August 25 clarified that Avery’s absences had been excused. We were surprised to learn that this is the reason why Avery was voluntarily withdrawn from her school. We sincerely apologize for any confusion that the cross-communication might have conveyed." Statement from Chancellor Henderson Regarding Inaccuracies in Petula Dvorak Washington Post Column - DC Public Schools, Washington, DC

The parents over reacted to a a letter despite the communications of the school with the parents. It was like receiving a utility bill that hasnt shown your latest payment and then freaking out over it. There was never a actual problem, the student was never considered a truancy problem. Just one letter was sent automatically then the staff reacted and fixed the automated letter. There was no reason to write the inaccurate story. The whole thing was blown out of portion by whinny parents that over reacted over a letter that was dismissed and meaningless automated and invalid.

"We recognize that Avery’s circumstances are unique, and we’ve worked closely with her family to support this specific situation. Last year, for example, DCPS ensured that Avery was able to take high school level math courses to meet her academic needs. School staff was aware that Avery’s travel schedule would result in an accrual of absences, and worked to ensure completion of key school assignments during her travels. We are very proud of Avery’s accomplishments throughout her entire educational career as a DC public school student, and we are hopeful that her parents will enroll her back at her back at Deal Middle School soon. "

There wasnt any zero tolerance in this case at all. The pages and pages of this thread where people are getting all worked up are all for naught. All that happened was a letter was sent that was invalid and was treated as invalid. That isnt a broken system.

I guess that you did not read this part?

"DCPS did not make a referral to a truancy officer, Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) nor any government agency for intervention, since we had clear information regarding the circumstances of these absences. The family was never at risk for truancy prosecution. "
 
lizzie said:
My thoughts? If she were my child, she'd be in a private school, or home-schooled with private tutors, so that she could let her amazing talent develop to its maximum potential. What a wonderful thing to see.
Click to expand...

Statement from Chancellor Henderson Regarding Inaccuracies in Petula Dvorak Washington Post Column - DC Public Schools, Washington, DC

"Statement from Chancellor Henderson Regarding Inaccuracies in Petula Dvorak Washington Post Column

.
Contact: Melissa Salmanowitz (DCPS) | 202-535-1096 | Contact Email

District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) Chancellor Kaya Henderson released the following statement highlighting inaccuracies in Petula Dvorak's column in today’s Washington Post. DCPS is hopeful Avery will return to her school very soon:

The recent Washington Post column by Petula Dvorak titled "In D.C., a 13-year-old piano prodigy is treated as a truant instead of a star student” is inaccurate and misleading in its portrayal of the District of Columbia Public Schools' (DCPS) truancy protocols, as well as what happened with the family and DCPS. We are disappointed Ms. Dvorak chose to present a false representation of DCPS’ response about this child’s circumstances rather than taking the time to collect the relevant facts. We believe it is important to set the record straight:

DCPS excused Avery’s absences for international travel last year after conversations with the family and her school, which was confirmed with Avery’s parents by Andrea Allen, Director of Attendance and Support Services in DCPS’ Office of Youth Engagement. Her attendance summary from last year reflects the “authorized school activity” excuse code for her performance–related absences.
DCPS did not make a referral to a truancy officer, Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) nor any government agency for intervention, since we had clear information regarding the circumstances of these absences. The family was never at risk for truancy prosecution.
No DCPS student is ever labeled or identified as a “truant” on a transcript, report card, or academic record.
While DCPS has universal truancy policies in place, we work diligently to recognize unique situations.
It seems that in this matter, while DCPS was working with the family to excuse the student’s absences, the automatic letter that is generated when a student reaches ten unexcused absences was sent. After a conversation with the Office of Youth Engagement, the family was told to disregard the letter. We also confirmed by phone for the parents that no CFSA referral had been completed, nor would this escalate any further. We believed our communication with the family as recently as August 25 clarified that Avery’s absences had been excused. We were surprised to learn that this is the reason why Avery was voluntarily withdrawn from her school. We sincerely apologize for any confusion that the cross-communication might have conveyed.

We recognize that Avery’s circumstances are unique, and we’ve worked closely with her family to support this specific situation. Last year, for example, DCPS ensured that Avery was able to take high school level math courses to meet her academic needs. School staff was aware that Avery’s travel schedule would result in an accrual of absences, and worked to ensure completion of key school assignments during her travels. We are very proud of Avery’s accomplishments throughout her entire educational career as a DC public school student, and we are hopeful that her parents will enroll her back at her back at Deal Middle School soon.

This is also an opportunity to clarify and provide insight about truancy in DCPS. Truancy laws are explicit to ensure consistent in-seat attendance in school, as well as to provide a safety net for students who are not attending school, and may be in harm’s way. Our schools notify families, usually with an automated phone call, after the first unexcused absence. Automated letters are sent from the school to families after a student accrues five, seven and ten unexcused absences. The letter shares details about the law and attendance requirements for students. If a student from age five to 13 accrues ten unexcused absences, schools are required to report those absences to CFSA. When schools contact CFSA, they provide the details they know that may have contributed to the student’s unexcused absences. CFSA proceeds accordingly, contacting the family to understand why the student was absent. In cases when CFSA determines that the absences are not cause for concern and the child is safe, no further action is taken.

While the law is very clearly defined, it is important to recognize the relationships schools have with families. They often know about extenuating circumstances that may lead to a student acquiring absences. Schools are obligated to report these unexcused absences to ensure compliance with the law. We also have the flexibility to excuse, in certain situations, extenuating circumstances, which we did for this student. As we continue to work to make improvements in enforcing truancy protocols, the lesson here is the need for better and more timely communication. However, we take very seriously our dual responsibility to protect and support all students, in all parts of this city. The law, and the resulting protocols, ensures critical checks and balances to protect our city’s young people. "
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Yes lets just gloss over the fact that Petula Dvorak's column was inaccurate.

"It seems that in this matter, while DCPS was working with the family to excuse the student’s absences, the automatic letter that is generated when a student reaches ten unexcused absences was sent. After a conversation with the Office of Youth Engagement, the family was told to disregard the letter. We also confirmed by phone for the parents that no CFSA referral had been completed, nor would this escalate any further. We believed our communication with the family as recently as August 25 clarified that Avery’s absences had been excused. We were surprised to learn that this is the reason why Avery was voluntarily withdrawn from her school. We sincerely apologize for any confusion that the cross-communication might have conveyed." Statement from Chancellor Henderson Regarding Inaccuracies in Petula Dvorak Washington Post Column - DC Public Schools, Washington, DC

The parents over reacted to a a letter despite the communications of the school with the parents. It was like receiving a utility bill that hasnt shown your latest payment and then freaking out over it. There was never a actual problem, the student was never considered a truancy problem. Just one letter was sent automatically then the staff reacted and fixed the automated letter. There was no reason to write the inaccurate story. The whole thing was blown out of portion by whinny parents that over reacted over a letter that was dismissed and meaningless automated and invalid.

"We recognize that Avery’s circumstances are unique, and we’ve worked closely with her family to support this specific situation. Last year, for example, DCPS ensured that Avery was able to take high school level math courses to meet her academic needs. School staff was aware that Avery’s travel schedule would result in an accrual of absences, and worked to ensure completion of key school assignments during her travels. We are very proud of Avery’s accomplishments throughout her entire educational career as a DC public school student, and we are hopeful that her parents will enroll her back at her back at Deal Middle School soon. "

There wasnt any zero tolerance in this case at all. The pages and pages of this thread where people are getting all worked up are all for naught. All that happened was a letter was sent that was invalid and was treated as invalid. That isnt a broken system.

I guess that you did not read this part?

"DCPS did not make a referral to a truancy officer, Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) nor any government agency for intervention, since we had clear information regarding the circumstances of these absences. The family was never at risk for truancy prosecution. "
Click to expand...

No, I didn't miss those things at all. I'm saying that the school has an issue with their program or whatever they are using to send out notices about truancy when someone reaches 10 unexcused absences, particularly if they aren't even really doing anything about it anyway. They need to stop trying to scare parents with an overload of letters and phone calls that essentially threats that they will do something, especially if they have already accounted for the student as not really being unexcused or close to truant. That is the issue I have with this. They are unwilling to take responsibility for their program/system and actually change it so that this doesn't happen. Instead, they make excuses saying "well it was a miscommunication", when really it was their system (unless they are lying about this).
 
roguenuke said:
Wait, what? Why would CPS be involved here, in this specific case? We are talking about the school system being the issue, not CPS. The school district is the one that is sending the letters out and making the phone calls about truancy. In this case, not only were the absences excused, according to the school, so they shouldn't have triggered the automated system to begin with, the system also seems to be sending out excessive notifications, since they said this happened multiple times not only for the end of the school year, but also over the summer. Why would the school set up a system like that to begin with? What is the point in having a system automatically notify parents over and over again after their child reaches 10 unexcused absences of potential consequences of the situation? I'm willing to bet that there was some sort of mistake made here by the school in how her absences were recorded, but if they are really working with parents, that means they need to actually work out their systems.

How many students does the school really have "truant" throughout the year, particularly a Middle School? Considering what the Chancellor put out it doesn't sound like it is that many that they really need an automated system to deal with this issue. An automated system is overkill for this, as is evidenced by the amount of phone calls and letters the family claims to have received from the school about truancy.
Click to expand...

It was DCPS, not CPS. You're right about that, but the same thing applies.

And in a perfect world, their computer system would be perfect so it wouldn't send out those notices. But we live in an imperfect world. Receiving a letter in the mail that the parent already knows is not accurate is not the end of the world. Setting off a frenzy (albeit a small one) is nothing but drama-queening over a small matter

As far as how many kids are truant, one of the links posted in the thread said that the area is experiencing a high level of absenteeism.
 
sangha said:
It was DCPS, not CPS. You're right about that, but the same thing applies.

And in a perfect world, their computer system would be perfect so it wouldn't send out those notices. But we live in an imperfect world. Receiving a letter in the mail that the parent already knows is not accurate is not the end of the world. Setting off a frenzy (albeit a small one) is nothing but drama-queening over a small matter

As far as how many kids are truant, one of the links posted in the thread said that the area is experiencing a high level of absenteeism.
Click to expand...

It is a big deal though to parents who don't know which one they are supposed to believe, especially when they keep coming. How do the parents know that the letter isn't about a later time their kid was absent and it actually wasn't excused? Not to mention the plain fact that getting constant phone calls over something like that would get downright annoying.

Perhaps the area is seeing a high level of absenteeism due to the policies of the school. Not all families are the same. If the students know that the school isn't going to count them truant anyway for missing school then they might very well be more willing to just skip. This is a major problem with their system of doing things. Their system wouldn't be bad if it actually worked as it is supposed to, inform those parents/students of too many unexcused absences so they can account for them. Once they do though, take them off the system sending the information. If they can't account for those absences, then decide where to go from there.
 
roguenuke said:
It is a big deal though to parents who don't know which one they are supposed to believe, especially when they keep coming. How do the parents know that the letter isn't about a later time their kid was absent and it actually wasn't excused? Not to mention the plain fact that getting constant phone calls over something like that would get downright annoying.

Perhaps the area is seeing a high level of absenteeism due to the policies of the school. Not all families are the same. If the students know that the school isn't going to count them truant anyway for missing school then they might very well be more willing to just skip. This is a major problem with their system of doing things. Their system wouldn't be bad if it actually worked as it is supposed to, inform those parents/students of too many unexcused absences so they can account for them. Once they do though, take them off the system sending the information. If they can't account for those absences, then decide where to go from there.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a big deal. But of course, there are attention seekers who think anything that involves them is a big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom