Waterbury officials are expanding a program that requires the parents of chronically truant public school students to appear before a probate judge.
A pilot program at two elementary schools during the last school year cut unexcused absences dramatically, said Probate Court Judge Thomas Brunnock.
Brunnock saw the parents of 87 students from the Walsh and Chase elementary schools. Under the program, he had the power to order a variety of remedies for the truancy, including extra tutoring, parenting classes, counseling, and drug rehabilitation. Parents who do not comply with his orders can have their guardianship challenged in court.
Source:
Schools cut truancy by taking parents to court
See also:
Waterbury takes parents to court over truants
Keeping Kids In School
Better late than never: Truancy rates prompt bold stand vs. parents
In response to the Sept. 16 editorial "Keeping Kids In School":
Waterbury is trying to find a remedy to the problem of truancy. The city and The Courant seem to believe the answer is to send parents before a probate judge. The judge in these cases has been ordering parents to go to parenting classes, among other orders. This seems, of course, to be in the best interest of the child. However, it does not seem to be in the interest of civil rights and liberties.
In the absence of a crime, I do not see how any judge can deprive a citizen of his personal liberty. Ordering a person to go to classes is such a deprivation.
I ask Probate Judge Thomas Brunnock how he can deprive people of their liberties? Has Mr. Brunnock perused the Constitution's Bill of Rights. If so, he must not have read the Civil War Amendments.
Source:
Truancy Solution Unconstitutional
A pilot program at two elementary schools during the last school year cut unexcused absences dramatically, said Probate Court Judge Thomas Brunnock.
Brunnock saw the parents of 87 students from the Walsh and Chase elementary schools. Under the program, he had the power to order a variety of remedies for the truancy, including extra tutoring, parenting classes, counseling, and drug rehabilitation. Parents who do not comply with his orders can have their guardianship challenged in court.
Source:
Schools cut truancy by taking parents to court
See also:
Waterbury takes parents to court over truants
Keeping Kids In School
Better late than never: Truancy rates prompt bold stand vs. parents
In response to the Sept. 16 editorial "Keeping Kids In School":
Waterbury is trying to find a remedy to the problem of truancy. The city and The Courant seem to believe the answer is to send parents before a probate judge. The judge in these cases has been ordering parents to go to parenting classes, among other orders. This seems, of course, to be in the best interest of the child. However, it does not seem to be in the interest of civil rights and liberties.
In the absence of a crime, I do not see how any judge can deprive a citizen of his personal liberty. Ordering a person to go to classes is such a deprivation.
I ask Probate Judge Thomas Brunnock how he can deprive people of their liberties? Has Mr. Brunnock perused the Constitution's Bill of Rights. If so, he must not have read the Civil War Amendments.
Source:
Truancy Solution Unconstitutional
4 comments:
Truancy is a problem which requires a solution. The program described here can and apparently does work. However, these kinds of programs can be and are abused. For example, they can become cash cows for the counsellors and others to whom cases are referred. They can even be abused out of personal spite for members of a family. Safeguards against such abuse are typically inadequate. See, for example, the sad case which is the subject of retired police officer John Caravella's book Marked for Destruction. Concerns for such abuse raise questions about the safeguards against abuse which have been put in place. The media needs to take a close look at existing safeguards and what has been proposed to augment those safeguards. Unfortunately, the media seems incapable of fulfilling this need, which is one of the fundamental reasons why NASGA exists.
On the surface this sounds like a good plan to keep the kids in school.
Attending school is a good thing; truancy and chronic absenteeism is a bad thing for the child, their family and society.
I agree good intentions are not a guarantee that others will find ways to misuse and abuse the their power and the probated system, finding ways for personal and financial profit.
Situations like this reminds me of a title of a movie: "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly".
This is one of those cases where the end seems to justify the means, but when we think of it in terms of violations of civil liberties, it really doesn't.
Guardianship of children has its responsibilities, one of which is complying with the truancy law.
If guardians are not doing their job, they should be monitored and better supervised.
The same applies to adult guardianship.
Post a Comment