Nebraska Family Forum

Written by: Stephanie Morgan

In 1991, I was a high school freshman. That year, I deliberately missed 10 days of school for a cause other than illness. Under the new Nebraska truancy law, this absence would have been classified as an unexcused “family vacation.” My parents and I would have been dragged into the GOALS system to have our personal family choices analyzed by a government official.

Perhaps we wouldn’t have been prosecuted, or informed that we would be “monitored” by others with only our best interests at heart, but perhaps we would have been. In any case, living under the threat of such action is not consistent with living in a free society, and it also completely lacks common sense, as my story illustrates.

1991 was the year that marked the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor survivors from all around the country were gathering in Hawaii to commemorate the event with many days’ worth of ceremonies and events. My Grandpa had been a boatswain’s mate on the USS St. Louis on that fateful day, so my family made plans to travel with him and my Grandma to Hawaii to be part of it all.

We spent a whole year saving money and planning our 10 days. We kids each took jobs - babysitting, paper routes, whatever we could get. We had to earn enough to pay half our airfare and all our spending cash. We mapped out our schedule and all the events and sites we would visit, packing every day with so much education, it was like months of reading books. We still give my mother a hard time about that fact that we spent ten days in Hawaii, and only three hours at the beach! At 14 years old, I thought that wasn’t quite fair!

So, what did we do on this unexcused family vacation?

We learned about the agricultural industry of our country’s island state with a visit to the Dole Pineapple Fields and Factory. We experienced the exotic botanical wealth of the islands and learned about part of the ancient Hawaiian lifestyle and culture of bravery as we watched cliff divers at Waimea Falls.



And then there was the historical education. Along with hundreds of Pearl Harbor survivors, we attended a ceremony on the bank of the Harbor itself, with the Arizona Memorial as backdrop, where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, spoke about the meaning of what happened on December 7. We went and stood at that sacred memorial ourselves, learning through the unmistakable spirit of the place, what no textbook could teach.

                                                   

On December 7, we boarded a bus at 5:00 a.m. to reach the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in time for the sunrise ceremony where President George Bush, the keynote dignitary and speaker, graciously thanked the veterans on behalf of a nation, and remembered all those veterans from throughout the Pacific theater who were buried there in that holy ground.

State officials continue to believe that there is nothing wrong with putting thousands of Nebraskan families under the jurisdiction of law enforcement in the pursuit of improved school attendance. In my meetings with Nebraska lawmakers I am often challenged to show any case where an A/B student with excused absences has been prosecuted or convicted of truancy under the new law. The implication is that if no “innocent” student is prosecuted there is nothing wrong with the law.


Since the passage of the law in 2010 there has been a sharp increase in school attendance and supporters of the law see this as compelling evidence of its success. It is astonishing to me that our elected leaders can not see the simple connection between the increase of school attendance and the fear parents have of becoming entangled with law enforcement. Success that comes from instilling fear in the citizenry is not a success to be proud of.

What parents are telling me is that they are sending their little children to school sick when they would otherwise have kept them home, children with serious illnesses are just pushing through the pain and showing up to school regardless of their situation, and parents are cutting out other extracurricular absences that in the past have added to the enrichment of their children’s education and life.

It should not be surprising that examples of good students being prosecuted are rare when parents who have been pressed to “voluntarily” enter truancy diversion programs under threat of prosecution. This letter was sent to a family after they went to the press with their troubling story and described in detail the major invasions into their family life that were required of their family under the voluntary program. This family entered truancy diversion under the threat of further “action” and the possible removal of their child from their home despite the fact that their daughter had been absent for medically excused absences, was an A/B student, and well liked at her school.

The child's court appointed attorney responded to the families complaints in the press in this way: 

"As a reminder, the Truancy Court process is completely voluntary. It was explained to you as voluntary in the very beginning, and it was explained to you that at any point, should [your daughter] desire not to be in the Truancy court program, she could leave the program."
"What you need to be aware of, is that if [your daughter] leaves the program, she still faces a Truancy Court filing from the County Attorney’s Office, she would still have to appear in Court, and I have no doubt that the only way this matter would be resolved is by way of a trial. That is [your daughter's] right."
"My suggestion, in [your daughter's] interest, is to continue through the program... through its duration... so that [your daughter's] truancy case can simply be dismissed by her successful completion. Your daughter has had a tremendous decrease in her absences, even if they were all illness related in the past."


Notice the polite way the mother is told to submit to court ordered visits with social workers and other truancy diversion plans or be prosecuted. How many parents would risk prosecution and the possible removal of their child from their home faced with this choice? Families are rarely going to trial under the law because instead they voluntarily cooperate out of fear, fear of having their child removed from their home, fear that a costly trial would only end in “forced” participate in the truancy diversion programs anyway, and fear of the impact that fighting for their rights would have on their child. It does not take a “trial” to put a parent’s choices under suspicion. It does not take a conviction to send the message that you are a juvenile delinquent guilty of criminal activity.

The scrutiny and humiliation that comes as a result of the condescending attitudes of state officials, who see themselves as more qualified to discern what is best for children then their parents, is apparent when the attorney casts doubt on the parent’s judgment by saying, “Your daughter has had a tremendous decrease in her absences, even if they were all illness related in the past.” This attorney obviously sees the “tremendous” decrease in the child’s absences as proof that the parents are irresponsible and in a slight of hand way accuses the parents of lying in the past. He does not for one moment think that perhaps the change in attendance is related to the fear of legal action and otherwise not in the best interest of the child.

Judge Crnkovich, presiding judge of Douglas county truancy diversion program, told Millard parents last spring, "Don't worry," all you need is to “know the process to feel comfortable about it.” Parents are getting to know the process and as they learn more and have experience with the “process” they are becoming even more uncomfortable with it.

Mike Horton, who had firsthand experience with the process, explained it this way, “What we experienced in the jury assembly room that afternoon, was the best case for limited government I have ever witnessed… we were provided a very juvenile and condescending civics lesson by Judge Elizabeth Crnkovich and asked to sign paperwork accepting the county attorney’s recommendations.” Horton explained that if they didn’t “agree with the recommendations”… the county attorney’s office would be free to pursue additional legal action that could extend as far as the removal of his daughter from his home.

They continue to insist that families are not being "criminalized" and yet they are creating a new class of juvenile delinquents and students are being summoned to the courthouse, told they must abide by the judgment of law enforcement or face further action, and are provided with a public defender if they so choose. How can the Governor and lawmakers in Lincoln continue to act as though this law is not a heavy handed usurpation of the natural rights of parents?

Parents and students who fear “criminalization” under this law are not paranoid, in most cases they are law-abiding and understand and respect the rule of law. They have absolutely no desire to become involved with law enforcement in any way and rightly so. The paradigm shift that state authorities are asking law-abiding Nebraskans to make is unacceptable to freedom loving and family centered Nebraskans. It is a dangerous course of action to desire ordinary people to be comfortable with being summoned to appear before county commissioners, judges, and lawyers. We should not ask people to become comfortable with the process that Horton described as an “example of the coercive methods of totalitarian states.”

There is obviously a major disconnect between ordinary Nebraskans and the small group of government elites who feel that we should just "trust" in their good-old Nebraska common sense. Why should we want to make law-abiding, hard-working, play-by-the-rules Nebraskans feel comfortable interacting with a law enforcement agency, seeking "help" from the government? What is positive about that goal? How can any government official who values freedom and family feel good about classifying parents or students who are succeeding in school, despite unusual circumstances that create a lot of absences, as delinquents or criminals?

The only way to strike a balance between natural parental rights and the role of the state in education is to restore to Nebraska’s truancy law the classic definition of truancy and distinguish between excused and unexcused absences. To restore to parents the right to govern their families based on their best judgment. Will there be parents who misuse the ability to excuse their child from school? Yes. But you can't usurp the parental rights of all these good people - the vast majority of parents - in the name of those few! Especially when there are programs that work at targeting those who truly need the services, without disregarding natural parental rights.

By: Linda, an Omaha Mother and Grandmother

I am not a medical professional, social worker, teacher but I am a mother of three grown sons. Our kids were in the public school and we homeschooled. Two of our sons now homeschool their children and one has his in the public system and this law certainly impacts his family. This is just one of so very many issues that impacts the family. It is overwhelming to see how quickly our rights and freedoms have been taken away and how easily Americans have let them go without a fight.

by: Stephanie Morgan
2010 School Year

My son missed more school than usual last year, 16 days in total, it would have been more if I had not become aware of a new school attendance law passed unanimously in the Nebraska state legislature that put every student and their families under the jurisdiction of the courts after 20 absences regardless of the reason. On it's face that statement might lend support to the law, to prove that "excessive absenteeism" is the fault of parents who irresponsibly choose to remove their children from school. It is true that I would have removed my son for planned absences beyond the 20 day threshold had the law not made it very risky to do so, but before you judge let me explain why.

My husband was deployed in Iraq last year and it was a VERY hard year for our family and especially my 12 year old son. My son didn’t miss 20 days of school, but he would if I had followed my mother best judgement and taken my son out for a full two weeks to be with his dad when he came home half way through his deployment for R&R. Instead I ignored my best judgement and my sons needs and allowed him only a few days with his father. I was angry and hurt that this law pushed me to ignore what was best for my son in order to keep our family out of trouble with the law. Even if my son wasn't an A/B student (and he is) being with his father would have still been more important at this time in his life.


We have from time to time removed our son from school for reasons other than illness, but because of the value we place on education we have always calculated his absences to have the least educational impact. Our son is responsible for catching up on work missed and we see that he keeps up on his school work when he is away sick. He is an excellent student who is well loved by his teachers. Last semester he was awarded the citizenship award at his school, the highest award the teachers give to students at Millard North Middle. He is a self-motivated, helpful, and trustworthy boy; active in boy scouts and church and we are so proud of the young man he is becoming.

I believe that most parents make decisions in the best interest of their kids, as we would have done if we had kept him home longer to spend time with his father. It was a year of great sadness for our family and our son seriously missed his father. There was one day this school year when I kept my son home because he was emotionally ill, he had suffered a serious panic attack because of the grief he'd carried around. It was the right thing to do and I would do it again, but this type of absence from school is no longer considered justified under the new stricter attendance policies and the tough school attendance law. I ask you is it the business of the county attorney when I make a decision like this in the best interest of my child?

This new law and the expansion of it under the GOALS Initiative is a serious affront to my parental authority and my family life. It has continued to affect the way I parent. It pushes me to send my son to school sick, to spread his illness to others. It pushes me to cancel important family plans that have in the past added to the quality of my sons life and well being. When you add up hundreds of decisions like this, certainly there will be a sharp increase in school attendance, but this is more a reflection of a drastic change in good old-fashioned common sense parenting than what is in the best interest of the children.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 School Year

Does More schooling = More success?

Governor Heineman laid out his vision for providing a quality education for every child in this Sunday’s Omaha World Herald article, and stood by his “truancy legislation” as a key piece in his agenda. We can all agree that quality education is where we should start to address high-school drop-out rates, academic failure, and preventing further penetration into the juvenile justice system. Where we diverge with the Governor is with his insistence that this aggressive re-write of school attendance policy is the answer.

He has cast a wide net over every student and every family from Kindergarten to High School Seniors, has completely removed a parent’s role to judge what an appropriate absence is, and has mandated the reporting of all students to the county attorney, shifting discretion over school attendance to lawyers and judges and away from parents and principals. In the words of an Elkhorn mother, Kori Radloff, “It seems really backward that our means of keeping ’truant’ kids from becoming entangled with the law is to entangle them with the law.”

All of this has been done in response to what some state officials have defined as a “truancy crisis,” because only a true crisis could warrant the total “oversight” of parents by state agencies in every school district state wide. When you look at the numbers they cast doubt on the notion. Nebraska graduation rate ranks 6th in the Nation at 90.03% compared to the national average of 74.9%. This rate is much higher in many districts across the state. For example, Millard Public School has a 98% graduation rate. The statewide attendance rate in 2010 was 94.76%, with just under 7% of all students missing 20 or more days. This means that 93% of Nebraska students missed fewer than twenty days. So where’s the crisis?

The Governor accurately defined the real problem when he said, “We have to do something about kids who are underperforming. How can you look a kid in the eye, walking across the stage, and tell them 'Congratulations, you just graduated our high school and you can't read.” He focused on discrepancies in standardized test scores between OPS and outlying and rural districts, and said the state’s “African-American achievement gap is one of the worst in the country”. This is unacceptable, but if we’re going to solve these serious problems we need a more creative, targeted approach.


The studies I have reviewed that link truancy to educational attainment also conclude that low academic achievement could just as well cause truancy as be one of its effects. If a student struggles academically and is failing they are more likely to escape the classroom and choose instead to hit the streets. Truants in secondary schools said they skipped school because they were bored. We can’t just force a student to sit at their desk and expect that it will fix the problem. The problem is not attendance; attendance is the symptom.

A study by the National Bureau of Economic Studies compared a variety of components that produce improved educational outcomes and concluded that “there is limited evidence on the effect of classroom instructional time.” They found that “the productivity of instructional time is higher in countries that implemented school accountability measures, and in countries that give schools autonomy in hiring and firing teachers.”

Unfortunately the Governor has not put forward any bold plans to increase the quality of learning time in the existing school day. A truancy by University of Glasgow, reported that the impact of absence was dependent in large part on the “pupil’s ability and motivation.” So the real questions we should be asking is not how to we force kids to be in school but how do we motivate them to be there. It is not surprising that students get bored when as studies show students are on task for about a third of the hours spent in school. These findings suggest that a focus on improving the delivery and quality of instruction would be a better investment than lengthening the school day or elaborate measures to address truancy.

My interest was piqued when Governor Heineman reported that 2,500 of the students referred to the county attorney under the new truancy law were in K-3. These are 4 to 8 year olds. This is worthy of closer examination. A significant portion of the 2,500 K-3 don’t fall under the state’s mandatory attendance law. They certainly aren’t the students Sen. Amanda McGill spoke of when she said, “If a person's child is walking the streets during the school day and getting involved with a gang, don't you think the parent should be held accountable in some way?” The Governor said that this group was of particular concern to him because at this age parents are entirely responsible for the absences. It was for this age group that lawmakers believed it was necessary to have “oversight” in all cases, including when absences were excused by parents. Out of concern for our smallest students, the governor asked, "What's going on there?"

Any mother knows the answer; they're little children! They get sick more often, recovery is more difficult, and they can't handle going to school with even minor illnesses the way older kids can. They are mentally exhausted by longer and longer school days, and the ever increasing testing demands by state and federal agendas. They play less and less for kids their age, and it is easier for parents to keep them home and still keep them current on their work than it would be with older kids.

In addition to the Governor’s usual comments on school attendance, he discussed "instructional time" as another needed change in our state. The Governor told the World Herald that “We need a longer school day and a longer school year… God forbid we add 10 minutes to the school day and impact some football practice.”

He’s on the federal conveyor belt that is currently driven by Arne Duncan, President Obama’s education secretary, who was totally serious when he said: "The days of telling kids to go home at 2:30 and having mom there with a peanut butter sandwich, those days are gone." In all seriousness it is Duncan’s preference that our kids spend “12, 13, 14 hours a day, seven days a week, 11-12 months of the year.”

Families have already felt the pinch of longer school days this year. Districts city wide have increased the length of their school days to compete for state funding under the “instruction time allowance” rule. That rule requires school districts to keep their "instructional hours" above the state average or loose state funding. The obvious result of the rule is the continual lengthening of school days and school years. The increase of time in most cases was added to the elementary school day, putting more pressure on our smallest students.

From the Governor’s interview, it is clear that he is listening to only one set of experts who believe that our schools would be leading the world if our kids started school younger, were in school longer each day, and had 100% attendance throughout the year. These experts hold up high ranking European and Asian school systems as an example.

While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days; it's not true they all spend more time in school. Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests -- Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).

In Finland, which routinely leads the world in assessments of literacy, math, and science, children don’t start formal schooling until age 7—and then they only attend half days. Compared to countries like the U.S. or the United Kingdom, children in Finland spend less time overall in school and rank first in the world on standardized test.

In 2010 the Herald reported that, "An initial comparison found that the [Millard] district's elementary school pupils, while meeting the state standard, spent the fewest hours in school of any students in the 11 learning community districts in the Omaha metropolitan area." Yet their scores were significantly higher. Why is that if there's a direct correlation between time at a desk and educational results?

More school is not the answer for all of Nebraska’s kids. A hard look at the data shows that the age at which kids should start school and the amount of school they need for success differs significantly between socio-economic and ethnic groups. In analyzing the research that has been done on the topic, it’s evident that delayed school entry can have a negative impact on low-income and minority children, and a positive influence on middle class children.

In Wisconsin’s McFarland School District, parents can choose between regular kindergarten, transitional kindergarten, and Just Five classes. Now in its seventh year of operation, Just Five is a half-day class for children who aren’t quite ready for a full-day kindergarten. It has proven successful. Both Everson and Weisberg estimate that about half of their students go on to first grade the following year, while the rest opt for another year of kindergarten. By then, many of the children are developmentally ready to tackle the increased academic demands placed on them, and they’ve got the social skills and confidence to be successful.

A 2007 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics addresses the damage done by the modern pressures of ever increasing instructional time and higher educational standards and the importance of self-directed child play and personal free time for kids and youth. It specifically addressed the impact of an increased focus on the fundamentals of academic preparation in lieu of a broader view of education among middle class youth who have plenty of opportunity for constant activity. Those forces that prevent children in poverty and the working class from benefiting fully from play deserve full, even urgent, attention, but that was not the focus of this report.

The report states that "the national trend, to focus on the academic fundamentals of reading and arithmetic, spearheaded by No Child Left Behind, has decreased time left during the school day for recess, creative arts, and physical education." Compound that with extended hours in after-school programs that emphasize academics, the hours of unsupervised video gaming and constant T.V. and you have a recipe for a nation that cannot create, work, or think.

It has become an "established fact" by these same experts that our kids need more "instructional time”. They need to be "schooled" at ever younger ages. They need to be in school longer each day and throughout the year. And they shouldn't miss more than a few days of school lest they "fall behind"!

Reliance on the expert opinions of educators of the past has led the Federal Department of Education to drown our kids in testing, cheat them of this critical development, and squelch their love of learning and self-motivation. I think it’s time we get off this national conveyor belt and start focusing on the root causes of educational failure that lead kids to miss school habitually and puts them “at-risk” of dropping out.

She was a 4.0 student, a member of the Nebraska Olympic Development Program (she played soccer), and selected as one of the top 100 players in the country at 14. She traveled with her regional Olympic Development team to Costa Rica, Holland and attended several national events in the states.


All these events meant absences from school. She continued to maintain a 4.0 average through the entire academic year. Her Honors English teacher at Millard North threatened to fail her due to absences. At the time she had a 98% in the class.

Her absences were due to her pursuit of excellence in her sport and her efforts to represent Nebraska in the US and Internationally. For that she was rewarded with constant hassles from her school.

I went round and round with the Millard administrators. The Superintendent threatened to report me and our daughter to the Douglas County Attorneys office due to the number of absences. I reiterate, she was a straight A student enrolled in honors classes and the IB program.

At the end of her 9th grade school year, I said enough and enrolled her in a more cooperative school district. That was the end of her academic career at Millard North. I do all that I can to inform any interested parent of my belief that Millard Public Schools leaves much to be desired in their approach to individual family situations. I encourage all who ask me to seek out other more accommodating school districts. While my children received a good education at Millard, it is my opinion that school administrators are punitive and do not support children such as my daughter.

Laura McCormick Holmes
Millard Public Schools
Omaha, NE

My son, Andrew, had excessive “tardies” last year which converted to absences over time. Eight weeks of this was due to having mono (which was not diagnosed until December and was at the end of its duration). The school had said they were going to take off (or record differently) tardies during those months. I had numerous conversations/emails/meetings with the principal, asst principal, counselors, and the on-site representative in charge of sending cases to juvenile court.

On my own, I had reached out the school counselor and the school social worker, but I was told there was nothing they could do as Andrew did not fit the criteria for any additional services. I had also been in contact Boystown numerous times to discuss strategies at home to correct what had now become a habit of over-sleeping. We disciplined our son with grounding, losing all outside school privileges, removing the door of his bedroom, and taking his driving privileges away other than for school purposes – all to no avail.

I understand that kids like mine need help, that services outside my home might help him overcome his challenges, but how does ending up in court help? My school never offered me any help. At the mandatory meeting held in August, “truant” kids were brought forward one by one for review at which time some kids were given little cards that had to be signed by each teacher every day. I was simply told that they “did not know what to do” for Andrew and they would decide later. No later ever came. The next thing we knew, we were summoned to court.

I can understand getting juvenile court involved in a kids life when they are deliberately skipping school, leaving or not showing up the entire day, committing crimes or other problems, and being completely uncooperative with school authorities and their parents. But my son is a smart kid, in marching band and never in any kind of trouble at school. He is not a juvenile delinquent. While I understand his tardies are a problem, it is a problem I am actively working to solve with little help from my school. All in all, he ended the year with 23 total absences and passed the 11th grade.

At our first court hearing we sat patiently as it was explained to us that Andrew was not being charged with a crime. This was confusing, as we were given a detailed description of his rights and a lesson on what happens “if his case goes to trial”. For a person not being charged with a crime, it certainly felt like they were reading his rights and preparing him for “trial”. They asked our son some basic questions about the cause of his tardies but we, his mom and dad, were never asked questions. It was decided that our son should meet with a Probation officer. WHAT? I was floored, I thought this was not a criminal trial, why would he need probation to “help” with his habit?

My husband questioned them about the August meeting, and why we were never contacted. He was told that they were overwhelmed with cases and people were working nights and weekends with limited resources. NO KIDDING-just one more reason why this plan makes no sense. Even the judge admitted that there was no real process in place, especially for such cases like our son’s. I couldn’t help but think ---“So, why not dismiss the case?”

I was so frustrated that every time I asked for help, direction, or suggestions the response was “ there is nothing we can do”. This plan sits on a foundational idea that the courts are “problem solvers” but still they have no answers for us. I am appauled that they would decide on Probation for a kid who over-slept?? What a complete waste of time and taxpayers money.

When we went back to court I was so proud of my son! He represented himself very well. He confidently corrected the county attorney when he said he missed 53 days of school. Besides the tardies he only missed 6 full days of school. He made a point of his academic achievements, commented on his GPA, class rank, and told the court that he was only 3 credit hours from graduation. He told them that he holds down 2 jobs, is in the school varsity band, and holds a section leadership role in band. He said, "I think probation and random UA's which the county attorney is requesting is unreasonable".

The judge then made some very odd comments. She said my son must be very angry about being in court. She then began searching for some explination for his good grades and other academic successes inspite of his habitual tardies. She postulated out loud that my son must be a really good test taker or his teachers must really like him for him to pull off good grades last year with ALL those absences. I couldn’t believe the arrogance.

They simply can't believe there are good students out there whose attendance record is less than exemplary. They can't think outside the box, and the courts have NO experience with the wide range of students that are now "truant" under the law, kids who would have never seen the inside of the court house before they changed the definition of truancy.

My son didn't let them go down that path, he simply smiled and said, no, I'm not angry at all. The county attorney then took damaging information they had gathered at his probation meeting a few weeks prior and began to grill him. He simply answered the questions truthfully. I think they were simply frustrated that this 17 year old was not going to let them make him out to be something he simply is not. We were very pleased when his case was dropped. What a waste! My son got some kind of education out of it, but not the kind you’d hope for.

Melissa Brandquist
Omaha Public Schools
Omaha, NE

Questions & Answers: These questions are collected from Facebook discussions and emails. You may have asked these same questions at some point. Here is what you need to know!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Question: Does this new truancy law apply to private schools?

LB 800: Statement of Intent