More than 10 un-excused absences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to teach in a suburban public school system where there was a straightforward and transparent process for applying to have days excused for reasons other than illness. For example, if a parent wanted to take the student on an international trip that would conflict with more than several days of semester time, a short-term home school curriculum had to be worked out with a teacher and admins well in advance. The curriculum would involve doing homework to keep up with the class, trip journal keeping to a certain standard, the expectation of a well prepared child-led presentation to the class upon return etc. What DCPS does is employ an absurd one-size-fits-all absence policy for political reasons, rather than seeking to harness enriching travel opportunities as teaching tools. Myopic and pathetic.

OP here, this is exactly what we did together with DD's teacher who gave her a common core math book to work through, books from DD's reading box, and other assignments to do along with keeping a journal. I think DD actually did close to as much school work as usual, just in a condensed time during the day. And there was of course educational value in the trip itself. So, frustrating that this may not somehow be recognized when DCPS considers what is counted as "unexcused." Makes me want to go private!

[Anonymous]

They don't want the teachers wasting their time customizing work for your kid while she tours Europe.

And they don't want to figure out if she is actually touring Europe, dead in her bedroom (Banita Jacks' kids), or given to a murderer (Relisha Rudd). It's easier for them to just make the rule, call CFSA on the people who break it, and get back to educating the kids who did show up.

You send your kid to school in a district where about 80% of the students are at-risk. It's not going to be designed to meet your vacation-schedule desires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They don't want the teachers wasting their time customizing work for your kid while she tours Europe.

And they don't want to figure out if she is actually touring Europe, dead in her bedroom (Banita Jacks' kids), or given to a murderer (Relisha Rudd). It's easier for them to just make the rule, call CFSA on the people who break it, and get back to educating the kids who did show up.

You send your kid to school in a district where about 80% of the students are at-risk. It's not going to be designed to meet your vacation-schedule desires.

Again, it was an unavoidable work trip, not a vacation and not something we had any choice about. We had no one else who could watch them (grandparents are all still working or overseas and don't know our children well at all so couldn't manage the two year old). I did feel badly that the teacher had to take time to set aside work for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't want the teachers wasting their time customizing work for your kid while she tours Europe.

And they don't want to figure out if she is actually touring Europe, dead in her bedroom (Banita Jacks' kids), or given to a murderer (Relisha Rudd). It's easier for them to just make the rule, call CFSA on the people who break it, and get back to educating the kids who did show up.

You send your kid to school in a district where about 80% of the students are at-risk. It's not going to be designed to meet your vacation-schedule desires.

Again, it was an unavoidable work trip, not a vacation and not something we had any choice about. We had no one else who could watch them (grandparents are all still working or overseas and don't know our children well at all so couldn't manage the two year old). I did feel badly that the teacher had to take time to set aside work for her.

OP - you said she missed a week and a half, so 7-8 days of school? That is FINE as children can miss up to 10 days of school unexecused. But because you didn't document the sick days she missed in writing at the time they happened she has more than 10 days marked as unexcused in the attendance system. Just get the sick days documented now and it will be ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next time just withdraw your child before the vacation and say you are homeschooling and then reenroll him/her when you return.

Of course this only works if you attend your IB. But it is the cleanest way to do it.

Presumably, even a non-IB school would be able to reenroll your child if you have approval from the teacher and principal, no?

Definitely not if they have an active waitlist.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't worry about it OP. You just didn't know the policy. We switched from a school that required a note to the teacher to a school that required a phone call. So we racked up a bunch of unexcused absences due to not knowing the policy.

1. Send a letter to the attendance person documenting the sick days. Sounds like that will reduce you down to about seven unexcused.
2. Stay silent on the week off. yes, they're unexcused, but there's nothing you can do about it at this point.
3. Don't have any more unexcused absences for the rest of the year. If you do have an absence, make sure you call and document the reason: illness.

And, teachable moment for all: say you follow the policy for your school and you STILL get the robo call: the robo call only goes home when the school has marked you unexcused. So, the minute you get a robo call, make sure you call the school and remind them that you had followed the process. In my kids' school, two people answer the phone and one of the guys frequently forgets to record the sick call. So, I've started checking in with the official absence lady as a double dog backup. We are out of bounds so can't do the "disenroll/reenroll" trick, so we are very careful about our absences!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks are being a little too hard on OP. These truancy policies matter and there are a lot of kids who need protection. But DCPS does a lousy job of explaining attendance policies, as well as proper reporting procedures (or at least at my inbound). And they shouldn't be wasting resources going after families that value education, especially if there's zero reason to expect the kid is being mistreated.

Strong policies that allow for some judgment is the way to go.

There was a case a few years back involving a single-parent who took her child overseas with her to adopt another child, and the school launched an investigation into her whic, if I recall, almost interfered with the adoption.

All violators of the attendance policy should be treated the same. How is one to prove that someone "values education" or conversely, that someone doesn't?

except the arrangement was discussed in advance with the principal who provided the parent an exception (ie no need to disenroll from IB school) but failed to follow through on the arrangement, which led to unnecessary involvement by social services. There was no violation -- only an incompetent response from DCPS vis a vis its principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of these replies are utterly ridiculous. I have friends who take their children out of Sidwell Friends for 2 weeks for trips to China, Russia and etc and guess what......... SF is totally ok with that because that child is required to come back and give a report on the cultural and social differences of the places they visited. As one who travels internationally for work and brings here children at least once a year this should be encouraged.

With that said if you are taking your child to North Carolina for a wedding or etc.....may raise some eye brows.

Yes, because a loved one's life event whose date is set without our input is less important than an "enriching" vacation... personally I see the latter as having greater value even if it isn't as glamorous.

I personally hope that the policy can be changed to make reasonable allowances while making sure that children are well and accounted for. But it would need to be done in a way that wouldn't penalize "have nots" for excuses that were less valid than the "haves." Or in a way that would disqualify events based on important connections like family and lifelong friends because they wouldn't be "educational enough."

My child's education is important to me and I respect her classroom and teacher, but wish that there was also a reasonable recognition that school is not the total of our existence and that other priorities deserve recognition and time too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of these replies are utterly ridiculous. I have friends who take their children out of Sidwell Friends for 2 weeks for trips to China, Russia and etc and guess what......... SF is totally ok with that because that child is required to come back and give a report on the cultural and social differences of the places they visited. As one who travels internationally for work and brings here children at least once a year this should be encouraged.

With that said if you are taking your child to North Carolina for a wedding or etc.....may raise some eye brows.

Yes, because a loved one's life event whose date is set without our input is less important than an "enriching" vacation... personally I see the latter as having greater value even if it isn't as glamorous.

I personally hope that the policy can be changed to make reasonable allowances while making sure that children are well and accounted for. But it would need to be done in a way that wouldn't penalize "have nots" for excuses that were less valid than the "haves." Or in a way that would disqualify events based on important connections like family and lifelong friends because they wouldn't be "educational enough."

My child's education is important to me and I respect her classroom and teacher, but wish that there was also a reasonable recognition that school is not the total of our existence and that other priorities deserve recognition and time too.

You can still have your child miss 10 school days a year for such activities. That, combined with the many breaks and days off, equals many opportunities to travel or celebrate a life event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of these replies are utterly ridiculous. I have friends who take their children out of Sidwell Friends for 2 weeks for trips to China, Russia and etc and guess what......... SF is totally ok with that because that child is required to come back and give a report on the cultural and social differences of the places they visited. As one who travels internationally for work and brings here children at least once a year this should be encouraged.

With that said if you are taking your child to North Carolina for a wedding or etc.....may raise some eye brows.

Yes, because a loved one's life event whose date is set without our input is less important than an "enriching" vacation... personally I see the latter as having greater value even if it isn't as glamorous.

I personally hope that the policy can be changed to make reasonable allowances while making sure that children are well and accounted for. But it would need to be done in a way that wouldn't penalize "have nots" for excuses that were less valid than the "haves." Or in a way that would disqualify events based on important connections like family and lifelong friends because they wouldn't be "educational enough."

My child's education is important to me and I respect her classroom and teacher, but wish that there was also a reasonable recognition that school is not the total of our existence and that other priorities deserve recognition and time too.

You can still have your child miss 10 school days a year for such activities. That, combined with the many breaks and days off, equals many opportunities to travel or celebrate a life event.

Correct, but the point was that there shouldn't be some travel that is more valid than other travel if we're talking about what could potentially be excused if the system ever changed to accommodate it.

But I would also like to be able to take those 10 days when I needed to without the additional warnings received along the way, but it is what it is. I understand how the school system works but it doesn't stop me from working toward potential solutions to what I happen to see are unreasonable blanket standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks are being a little too hard on OP. These truancy policies matter and there are a lot of kids who need protection. But DCPS does a lousy job of explaining attendance policies, as well as proper reporting procedures (or at least at my inbound). And they shouldn't be wasting resources going after families that value education, especially if there's zero reason to expect the kid is being mistreated.

Strong policies that allow for some judgment is the way to go.

There was a case a few years back involving a single-parent who took her child overseas with her to adopt another child, and the school launched an investigation into her whic, if I recall, almost interfered with the adoption.

All violators of the attendance policy should be treated the same. How is one to prove that someone "values education" or conversely, that someone doesn't?

except the arrangement was discussed in advance with the principal who provided the parent an exception (ie no need to disenroll from IB school) but failed to follow through on the arrangement, which led to unnecessary involvement by social services. There was no violation -- only an incompetent response from DCPS vis a vis its principal.

Wasn't it the case that this First Grade student had accrued at least 10 unexcused absences in addition to those resulting from the overseas trip?

[Anonymous]

Vacation -whether you tell the school or not- is not excused absence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks are being a little too hard on OP. These truancy policies matter and there are a lot of kids who need protection. But DCPS does a lousy job of explaining attendance policies, as well as proper reporting procedures (or at least at my inbound). And they shouldn't be wasting resources going after families that value education, especially if there's zero reason to expect the kid is being mistreated.

Strong policies that allow for some judgment is the way to go.

There was a case a few years back involving a single-parent who took her child overseas with her to adopt another child, and the school launched an investigation into her whic, if I recall, almost interfered with the adoption.

All violators of the attendance policy should be treated the same. How is one to prove that someone "values education" or conversely, that someone doesn't?

except the arrangement was discussed in advance with the principal who provided the parent an exception (ie no need to disenroll from IB school) but failed to follow through on the arrangement, which led to unnecessary involvement by social services. There was no violation -- only an incompetent response from DCPS vis a vis its principal.

Wasn't it the case that this First Grade student had accrued at least 10 unexcused absences in addition to those resulting from the overseas trip?

no -- there weren't other absences. It was only because the second grader's parent was adopting a sibling overseas. Regardless of the reason, the principal knew in advance and provided assurances on which he reneged.

[Anonymous]

I tried this before. There is flexibility in the current absence rules, but no one has ever defined the flexibility. So I drafted language for DCUM to react to, and got pooped on. But, OP, if you want to draft a letter to DCPS proposing some circumstances that would allow us to do things like take our kids to piano recitals without getting a letter from DCPS, by all means take it on. http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/426073.page#6015181

[Anonymous]

And, I will note that I had a friend who took his kids out of school for 3 weeks. He notified the principal that they were going overseas on vacation, and promised to homeschool while they were gone.

The principal said "have a good time," and, as far as I know, gamed the system by not marking the kids absent while they were gone.