Truancy debate misses the point entirely

There is an article in the Journal this morning link sub req
on the truancy problem.

The article focuses on the confusion over how to calculate
the number that represents the truancy "rate".

The debate is specious, it sounds relevant but it isn't.
Resolving the debate will not see even one more truant
attending school instead.

The real problem is the why students are not attending,
not the accuracy of the number, and much less the manner
in which it is calculated. The actual number is in fact;
useless. The solution is the same, whether the number is 1%
or 100%.

The solution so far, consists largely of punitive measures;
largely against the parents of habitually truant students.
The cure assumes that these parents have any real control
over what their children do.

Even if these parents didn't have to go to work,
or attend to any other obligation during the day,
even if they could physically drag their child to school every day,

what would be the point?

Even if attendance can be made mandatory,
learning can not.

There is no such thing as "teaching".
The mechanism in play is "learning".
The "teacher's" role is to facilitate the learning,
not to compel it.

You really can lead horses to water, but
you really can't make them drink.

The very bottom line is that children have the power to do,
or not to do, whatever they want.

When a child says; "I don't want to, and you can't make me."
their summary of the situation is spot on.

Assuming that you could actually make a student attend
100% of the time, all that really means is that you can force
them to be "physically" present in a classroom.

Completely ignored, is the absolutely incontrovertible fact
that no one can be made to learn anything against their will.

All students are not educable. Those who do not want to
learn can not be made to learn, simply by compelling their attendance.

Compulsory attendance makes no sense,
because there is no such thing as compulsory learning.

Students who are dragged kicking and screaming into
classrooms do nothing there, except to continue
kicking and screaming. Ask any teacher.

They end up being chronically disruptive.
They do nothing in these classroom except to keep
the students who do want to learn, from that opportunity.

That, and burn out teachers who find themselves managing
the behavior of uncooperative and belligerent students all
day long, instead of teaching. So they quit.

Teachers do not leave teaching (early) because they are
worn out by students hungry for an education,
and cooperative in the effort.

If you track down a truant and ask them why they are not in school, if they can articulate a cogent answer, it is a two parter; it is of no personal value, and it isn't any "fun".

It makes not a wit of difference that the arguments are
fallacious, or unacceptable, because children have the power
to do what ever they want to do; right or wrong,
good or bad, useful or useless.

The problem has gotten worse as the direct result of
No Child Left Behind, and the consequent effort to raise test
scores in reading and math, by offering children nothing but
more reading and more math; sucking the fun and the
interest out of education.

As an elective teacher for 25 years,
I can tell you that a number of children come to school
every day because there is at least one class that they
want to attend.

We need to ask ourselves a very fundamental question;
which is better; having students in school learning how to
"weave baskets underwater", but learning how to learn
never the less, or

having them not learning math, not learning reading,
and not learning how to learn while at the same time
either disrupting classes, or out running the streets all day.

Learning how to learn is the most important skill set of all,
because when and if a student "grows up" they will have
the skill set to finally learn subjects that aren't "fun".

Blindly insisting that children make adult decisions
is not the answer, it is the problem.

In any school where the students are immature/children,
if the curriculum is not both interesting and fun,
truancy, mental and physical, will be problematic.

And any debate over truancy which does not recognize
this very fundamental truth, misses the point entirely,

and will have no no meaningful impact on the problem.