Is truancy a major problem? Sure it is, but for whom? We'll get to that. First, though, there is this. A ton of school districts have truancy prevention programs. And a major justification for having them is that truancy breeds social problems. It's asserted, for instance, that 95% of juvenile offenders started as truants. We're also told that truants are more likely to:
- join a gang running the risk of disease, injury or death;
- use marijuana, alcohol and hard drugs;
- become pregnant and drop out of school;
- have low self-esteem, low aspirations, and educational failure;
- be illiterate or have serious trouble reading;
- engage in violent and criminal activities.
Every one of these assertions suffers from the same fatal flaw. Just because two things correlate, does NOT mean that the one causes the other. All juvenile offenders start out as babies, for instance. But does starting life as a baby cause a youngster to become a juvenile offender? Of course not. Correlation is NOT causation.
Why assume that gang membership begins with truancy, for instance? Isn't it far more likely that gang membership fosters truancy? The same applies to marijuana, alcohol and hard drug use. Sure, truants are more likely to engage in these behaviors. But why assume truancy causes them to do so? Are truants more likely to become pregnant and drop out of school? Sure; but is truancy the cause? As for low self-esteem, low aspirations, and educational failure, isn't it more likely that these things provoke truancy, than cause it? The same applies to serious difficulties reading. Kids with this problem might well be truant out of frustration and shame. As for kids that engage in violence and criminal activities, don't blame truancy, blame poverty, broken homes, violent neighborhoods, the vast economic opportunities created by making certain intoxicants illegal, etc..
This humbuggery about truancy diverts our attention from centrally important questions. First, given the serious problems that unmotivated, hostile, disruptive kids create in school, might it not be better if these troubled kids weren't there? Obviously the kids who want to learn will benefit. And so will the teachers.
Might it be wiser to give up on compelling kids to go to school? Clearly, for many youngsters compelling their attendance doesn't work. No matter how skillful, educators cannot successfully force-feed knowledge to unmotivated, uncooperative, often hostile, youngsters. Such kid's disrupt everyone else's learning, threaten everyone's else's safety, and cause us to waste huge amounts of public money trying to force feed them something they spit out in disgust. To learn, they've gotta wanna and many don't wanna!
Stripped of the means of imposing meaningful sanctions that make the cost of misbehavior outstrip the benefits, teachers lack what they need to control misbehaving kids. Plus, typically, the central office offers little or no help. Surprisingly, though, we've grown used to kids rejecting and destroying the expensive educational opportunities we taxpayers provide. And, as a bonus, they often also destroy these opportunities for others. In fact, this sort of thing is now so commonplace that in some schools the whole educational enterprise has become a tragic farce.
The average cost of educating a child in U.S. public schools currently totals about $163,000.00 — as of the latest data from 2022-2023. Now let's imagine giving a child a gift of that value, costing an average payment of $13,600 per year, and having them spit on it, then ruin other's gifts as well. That, in effect, is what we've been doing, year after year, decade after decade via our compulsory education laws.
Folks worry that if we abandon compulsory education, dangerous kids will be roaming the streets and threatening the peace. That's probably true. Although a lot of disruptive and potentially dangerous kids aren't in school to begin with — especially when the weather is nice. But here's the central question: Since when is it the school's proper job to conduct part-time incarceration in order to protect the community from potentially disruptive, even dangerous, youngsters? Isn't it our school's job to educate, not incarcerate? And isn't it way past time to we realize that when educators are forced to try to do both, they fail to do either?
Let's take a fresh look at this and ask why we continue to spend billions of dollars every year struggling to force-feed knowledge to kids who not only resist and resent it, but also prevent classmates from learning. Are such children a problem? Of course they are, both for themselves and the rest of us. But after years and years of obvious futility, shouldn't we finally recognize that such youngsters are NOT properly the public school's problem?
While we're at it, we might also ask what is it about America that creates so many angry, resentful, uncooperative, depressed and dangerous children to begin with? But that is NOT the school's responsibility.