Posted on 10/16/2015 7:08:58 PM PDT by MichCapCon
The Jalen Rose Leadership Academy sets for itself a goal of graduating 85 percent of its students, having 85 percent of its graduates enroll in college and then seeing 85 percent of those students graduate from college. But the public charter school on the northwest side of Detroit may have difficulty reaching those goals when more than half its students were, as defined by the state, “chronically absent” from the classroom.
Figures collected by the state show that 51.5 percent of Jalen Rose students met that definition by missing more than 10 school days in 2013-14, the latest year data is available. That’s a huge increase from previous experience at the charter school founded by basketball star Jalen Rose in 2011. That first year, only 5 percent of students met the state’s definition of chronically absent, but that number jumped to 17 percent in the second year. Unlike conventional school districts, the charter school does not offer transportation for students.
In several Michigan school districts, more than half the students are chronically absent. That is the backdrop for a new state law that will go into effect June 16, 2016. It gives the state the authority to strip welfare benefits from a “program group” — the current term for a household on welfare — in which children miss too much school.
Public Act 56 of 2015, signed into law by Gov. Rick Snyder in June, requires the Department of Health and Human Services to figure out within 12 months how to implement the policy.
That task is complicated by various conditions and exceptions in the new law, a consequence of legislators struggling to find realistic ways to punish a careless parent without punishing the children. In the end, they told the agency to figure it out.
Theoretically, families could lose benefits if their truant schoolchildren were age 15 or less. Minors age 16 or 17 could be removed from the home and placed in foster care or some other alternative, as determined by a court.
If the agency decides to give real teeth to the law, the impact could be enormous given the magnitude of the truancy problem in school districts with large numbers of “at risk” (low-income) students. Two out of three students (67.1 percent) in Detroit Public Schools were deemed chronically absent in 2013-14, and it’s likely many of those missed far more than 10 days. Districts with similar demographics also have high absentee rates, including Benton Harbor (58.9 percent), Flint (52.7 percent) and Pontiac (49.9 percent).
Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, said he supports the law.
“You have to get the parents’ attention in order to affect student behavior,” Jones said.
He said the bill is a wake-up call to parents about their responsibility to get their children to school. Also, Jones said students need to go to school to be successful and parents must have a hand in that.
Gilda Jacobs, the president and CEO of the Michigan League for Public Policy, said her organization doesn’t like the law.
“This is the kind of thing that pushes families deeper into poverty,” Jacobs said. “It’s punitive. It doesn’t properly address what the causes are for the truancy of their kids.”
Jacobs said students may miss school for many reasons, including having to take care of sick parents or siblings, problems with day care, not having shoes, or parents who don’t have access to transportation.
“I really believe this is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem instead of really attacking the problems that are out there,” she said.
With a Republican Governor that is sad.
Maybe they supply cages with them.
The obvious answer would be that they are not taking government subsidies so the first amendment rules. If one is taking government subsidies, then the government has the right and obligation to set the standards for which to continue receiving it. Do they not do that to states?
Do you not remember the Welfare Reform Act signed into law by Clinton that did essentially the same thing? That is until the Democrats changed all of that with new law that opened the flood gates to abuse and corruption.
Then you are admitting the goal of the effort is not to stop truancy, but to punish the parents of truants who happen to be welfare recipients.
I went to and have been to a lot of majority black schools and I agree. Whoever wrote that article has an agenda. The worst class I’ve seen had maybe 3-4 disruptive students out of 30. Granted it makes a mess of the whole class but even the most ‘ghetto’ students at least just sit in the back of the class and shut up while class is in session.
Black schools would be able to function 1000% better if they were allowed to kick out that 10%.
So we just let them and their parents, who are ultimately responsible for them until adulthood, continue with the status quo? Just because we cannot punish the little creeps because they are minors? Yea, that brings to mind all sorts of things that are already wrong with this country and how we as a society address, or better yet do not address, responsibility.
But we'll never really know until all the disruptors are booted out. I'm not saying I believe the rest of the black students will turn into academic superstars, I'm just saying most of them will probably do better and have a better chance to turn into productive citizens instead of welfare leeches or criminals.
Of course, massive welfare reform will go along with booting the bad actors out of the schools. It would probably be a generation before we know the results. I'm not expecting miracles, but I can't believe things can go on like they're going on now.
I’m not addressing the issue of truancy, per se. I’m saying that this so-called solution will never be implemented. If one wishes to effect change, then one has to arrive at strategy that is legal, practical, doable, and has clearly defined and pertinent metrics.
Understand, but what is not legal about it. They can’t do anything to the student without the legal measures to penalize the enabling or in most cases parents who have no effective control. It’s not like they have a job and have to be there instead of instilling discipline in their kids.
If the parents have no effective control, how can removing them from welfare roles compel their children to attend classes?
They did not lose it, they gave it up long before. Responsibilities have consequences. Time to pay up.
Back to my original point: what are the consequences for families not on welfare?
If they are not on subsidies it has nothing to do with the issue. Trying to make your argument an equal protection case has no merit, period because neither are equal to begin with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.