I stopped by the Courthouse this morning on a routine errand, and happened to run into Dave Clark, District Attorney, in the hallway. I asked for a moment to discuss my concerns about the proposed attendance policy, and as it turns out, some of the same concerns that I expressed Monday night had also crossed his mind.

What he hadn’t heard (or thought of) was the increased potential from this policy to cause parents to send their children to school sick, but I think he accepted it as a valid concern.

A few minutes later, I ran into a friend who knows Judge Meldrum well, and she told me that the Judge wants to talk to me — a conversation that I welcome. April is an extremely smart, capable, and compassionate woman, as well as a wonderful juvenile judge. As such, I think we can work together to iron out the kinks, and help us to get it right: a policy that achieves the objective of reining in truancy, without overwhelming the Juvenile Court with frivolous referrals of responsible, law-abiding parents and students. Or scaring people unnecessarily.

On my way out of the building, I also ran into Kevin Ledden (who came to Monday’s Board meeting on behalf of the Juvenile Court), and spoke with him briefly. He said they’re planning to meet again later this month, and that he made note of my suggestions.

We recognize that our attendance policies (in all three Anderson County school systems) need some work, and that there is considerable benefit in a substantially uniform policy for the purpose effective enforcement.

We also recognize problems that occur now: that some parents will write a note saying the student was sick, when they were not. The parent may be covering for truancy (because they don’t want to deal with the consequences, which can include fines and jail time for the parents), or that they may have kept the student home to babysit a younger sibling. There have even been instances of parents stealing a pad of excuse notes from the doctor’s office, then sending in forged excuses.

Still, teachers and principals generally know when they’re being scammed; it’s just that until now, they couldn’t get any cooperation from the DA and Juvenile Court to do anything about it.

We have an opportunity to work together to correct the problem without throwing common sense and good judgment out the window. It seems to me that we should allow principals the ability to excuse an absence in advance when justified, and that we should allow them the discretion to decide when a referral to Juvenile Court is justified. I firmly believe that they know the difference.

Principals have said that factors considered include a student’s prior attendance record, academic standing, and so forth. Obviously, one could conclude that a student who has missed little or no school, is performing well in all classes, and who has a record of turning in homework might be a better candidate for leniency that one who is chronically late or absent, is failing, or who does not turn in required work.

The whole goal is to improve learning and graduation rates for the kids who are falling through the cracks. It’s hard to learn if you don’t show up.

This isn’t just an Oak Ridge issue — Clinton and Anderson County school boards will be voting on this same policy in the next few weeks. School Boards speak through policy, and policies should be clear and concise while maintaining enough flexibility to adjust to individual circumstances.

As any woman knows, “one-size-fits-all” doesn’t fit anyone well.

In school, attendance matters. The problems caused or accompanied by truancy are usually more than just academic — there are often behavioral and legal issues, sometimes neglect or abuse.

That’s why I’m delighted that our new Juvenile Court Judge, April Meldrum, and our new District Attorney, Dave Clark, have approached the three school systems in this county to try to standardize on an attendance policy that will enable them to help address the problem in a meaningful way.

On tonight’s first reading though, I voted against it as presented. The first draft, discussed at tonight’s board meeting, is here.

I fully expect a couple of changes to appear before the second reading next month, and if they’re there, I’ll support it. But I think it’s important for parents to read and understand this proposed policy before the second reading goes through, and attend the meeting and provide input if they have significant concerns.

On page 1, line 30, the policy defines the extent to which a parental note will excuse an absence for illness. As written, it’s ambiguous, but the intent is that a parental note is only valid for the first five days missed — whether five days in a row, or one here, two there, etc. throughout the school year. After that, a doctor’s note is required.

One of the problems I foresee is that even more parents will go ahead and send children to school sick, spreading the illness to others — students and teachers alike. That’s not good. There are usually a number of occasions when a child is sick enough to keep at home, but not necessarily sick enough to need to go to the doctor.

The other part that bothers me is on page 2, line 11:

Upon the 6th unexcused absence, a referral will be made to the Anderson County Juvenile Court’s Campus Court.

The problem with this is that the definition of what will be excused is fairly narrow (illness, death in the family, verifiable family emergency, religious observation, severe weather, or court appearance/legal mandate), and it’s likely that a significant number of responsible, conscientious parents would end up with a court referral. You can see in the scanned page that I’ve marked through the word “will” and written in “may,” because this would give school officials the opportunity to use common sense on a case-by-case basis.

Unfortunately, most responsible and conscientious parents would absolutely panic upon receiving that court referral; the sad part is, the small minority of parents who really need to be hauled into court for allowing their kids to skip weeks of school probably wouldn’t even flinch.

If the wording is changed on these two items, I’ll likely vote (grudgingly) to approve the policy next month. Yes, grudgingly, because I still have grave concerns about parents sending their kids to school sick to avoid running afoul of a draconian attendance policy that would force them to the pediatrician for every sneeze or cough, just to get the coveted doctor’s note.

Yes, we must address truancy and attendance problems. But I cannot justify punishing everyone in order to snare the guilty few.