Should We Hold Parents Accountable For Their Child's School Attendance?

It has been reported that in parts of Alaska, parents are being fined if their children skip school.  Is this a good practice?

In Alaska, children between the ages of seven and 16 are required to be in school.  Under this old law, parents can be fined up to $500 for every five unexcused absences.  That averages about $100 per absence.  The children involved are obviously minors, and one could make a case that a parent that knowingly or unknowingly allows their child to skip is tantamount to child abuse or neglect.  However, it has been only recently that Alaska has chosen to enforce this old law that is on the books.  One has to wonder:  are the fines being charged because the officials are truly worried about the education of the youth, or because coffers are getting lower because of lowered tax income?

On the one hand, the three areas in Alaska mentioned in the article, Unalakleet, Kotzebue, and Bethel, are in the middle of nowhere; areas where economic opportunities and thus tax revenues are few.  A trooper in Kotzebue states that it isn't about the money, it is about the kids.  However, in the Anchorage school district, the superintendent said she can't remember any truancy cases her district has pursued in at least a decade.  Anchorage, being the capital, is more urban, and therefore has more jobs and has more tax dollars coming in.  They would also have a larger population, which would mean they would have more school age children and thus more opportunities to enforce this law.  For the more rural areas mentiond above, enforcing the law just makes good economic sense in these tough economic times, at least from a government standpoint.

On the other hand, from an educational standpoint, enforcing the truancy law makes sense because kids can't learn when they aren't in school.  When kids are skipping school, for whatever reason, their educational process stops temporarily.  When that happens on a consistent basis, the school system should step in and take action.  The "job" of a child is to go to school and learn so they can become productive members of the society.  When they choose not to attend, they are sending a clear signal that they don't care about their futures.  There are times when students should be allowed to have occasional "mental health" days.  We all get stressed by our jobs, kids are no exception.  Doctors don't give notes for "mental health" days.  However, excessive use of this behavior sanctioned by the parents sends a couple of clear messages to the child.  The first is that it shows that the parent will let their child get their way, at the expense of their education.  The second is that school is not important.  The third is that the parents really don't care that their child get a good education.  When that happens, the truancy laws need to be enforced.

I am in no way a fan of having more government intrusion into the lives of the people, and in most cases I think that it is up to the parent how they choose to raise their child.  When the actions of the parent endanger the child and the child's future, the government, in this case the school, should step in and compel the parents to express to their child the importance of going to school to their future.