A SUCCESS STORY
Spot the logical flaw:
DECATUR – Between helping her husband with his floor installation business and homeschooling their 15-year-old son, Nichole Przewoznik lost track of how many days her two younger daughters had missed classes at Stevenson School.
That changed when she received a letter last winter stating that Karissa, 12, and Brittany, 11, each had five unexcused absences, and it invited her and her husband to attend a parent orientation meeting to learn about the legal ramifications of truancy.
“I thought I was in trouble,” Przewoznik said. “I didn’t realize how many days they had missed when I didn’t call the school to say why.”
After having a talk with the girls about the importance of being in school, she said they have missed fewer days, and when one of them is ill, she either telephones the school or sends a note of explanation.
As a result, they have had no more unexcused absences, and neither has their 8-year-old sister, Jaylynn.
The case is an example of how the Right Track Truancy Reduction Initiative is building on a successful record.
6 Responses to “A SUCCESS STORY”
 Comment by COD May 12th, 2007 at 6:44 pm |
I’m going to go with the description of them as homeschoolers. |
 Comment by Daryl Cobranchi May 12th, 2007 at 7:22 pm |
Good one, but that’s not what I had in mind. |
 Comment by Nance Confer May 13th, 2007 at 9:31 am |
Well, there’s the idea that parents are hauled in under threat of law. Then there’s the idea that the kids are out because they are sick but then they get a lecture from Mom about the importance of going to school. Should they go even when they are sick or is school not important if Mom has time to make the phone call? And there’s the idea that school is important for the girls but not for the son. Maybe he’s a good floor installer? What else? 🙂 Nance |
|
Comment by Daryl Cobranchi May 13th, 2007 at 9:38 am |
The kids hadn’t been ditching. The mom had just neglected to send the stupid note. So, assuming their illness rate remains constant, the kids will miss no fewer days than they had before the “success.” |
 Comment by sam May 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pm |
The article seemed to indicate that there were excused absences as well as those in which the mother forgot to send the not, but I also got the feeling there were other absences that the mother either didn’t know about or that were not excusable. |
 Comment by JJ Ross May 13th, 2007 at 1:13 pm |
I’m with Daryl, that the official de jure “excuse” of any absences seems more important than de facto attendance or de facto learning –apparently to both the school AND the home! And the law reflects that, and enforces it. So what’s illogical is the whole damn thing . . . |