School Truancy: A Case Study of A Successful Truancy Reduction Model In the Public School

Unexcused school absenteeism, truancy, is not a new problem, but a historically present problem that has over the last decade received newfound attention as the lack of school attendance and its link with student delinquency has become more clearly identified. In 1993, “more than two-thirds of all school absences [nationwide] were non-illness-related” with absence rates reaching thirty percent each day in some communities. In 2002, more than 70,000 students every day were out of school in Colorado alone. These statistics have monumental social ramifications because truancy is often one of the first and best indicators of academic failure, suspension, expulsion, delinquency, and later adult crime. School attendance laws were first adopted by Massachusetts in 1852 as a way to curb child labor. By 1900, thirty-two states had compulsory school attendance laws, and by 1918 every state had some form of school attendance law. However, these laws were ineffective in that they were seldom enforced and relied on the “push out” method of school policy enforcement, rather than addressing the underlying issues of truancy and developing ways to keep students in school. Truant youths are often absent from school for such a period of time that it is difficult if not impossible for them to catch up. “This leads to further disengagement from school, from teachers and ultimately can lead to serious anti-social behavior like juvenile delinquency.” The traditional method for disciplining student delinquents is to exclude them. This “push out” method sends a message to struggling students that they are not wanted, ultimately forcing a student’s situation from bad to worse.

Source:
 Bell ET AL., supra note 19, at 203; E.g. Heilbrunn & Seeley, supra note 3, at 4; Gonzales ET AL., supra note 2, at 6.

Heilbrunn & Seeley, supra note 3, at 4; see also Bell ET AL., supra note 19, at 204. 34 Gonzales ET AL., supra note 2, at 6.

Heilbrunn & Seeley, supra note 3, at 4. 36 Spaethe, supra note 31, at 691; see also Bell et al., supra note 19, at 204;

Patricia Jenkins, School Delinquency and School Commitment, SOC. OF EDUC., 1995, at 221, 223. 37 Jenkins, supra note 36, at 225; see also Heilbrunn & Seeley, supra note 3, at 4.