People on welfare are not necessarily “battlers”; many of them are ‘bludgers’ who have never taken responsibility for their kids, themselves, or anything else in their idle lives.

They are encouraged in their idleness and ‘right’ not to take responsibility by do-gooders, and this author is actually telling them that they are not responsible by writing this article. The dysfunctional families he counsels must really love him.

“These battlers are the very people that Centrelink is encouraging to re-enter the work force”, claims the author. Come on! There are actions available to Centrelink to get these people off their backsides, but they are never taken, thanks to gutless politicians and public servants who are frightened of getting a punch in the nose if they try to enforce the measures. The people who get jobs are the genuine ones who go out and get work for themselves.

Mr. Gear’s friends and clients are so good at ‘battling’ to stay out or the workforce – and succeeding – that we see the country further overloaded by immigration just to get people who will work.

Taking away the responsibility of these parents to get their children to school every day is just another opportunity for the family to continue their line of unemployment.

In whinge No.4, Mr. Gear blames legislation for the financial plight of welfare recipients who perpetuate dole-bludging by not seeing that their kids attend school, but who cannot afford to have their handouts docked by the government. This old one cannot be taken seriously. Some people can live on the smell of an oily rag; others make a mess of their finances no matter how much money they receive. And, many people living on the smell of an oily rag are out everyday earning not much more, if anything, than the people on welfare.

Whinge No.5, reasons for not going to school, follows the general ‘victim’ trend of this article which is being encouraged.

Parents should be responsible, and pay if they are not, for school attendance.

Fancy Julia adopting Mr Howard's policy. Besides saying sorry and signing Kyoto (both symbols with no substance) the Labour party has not come up with an original thought. I think it is hilarious.

The school waggers are more fruit of secular humanism. The breakdown of the family, removal of authority from the parents and the godlike status given to kids has left them rebellious, disrespectful and insecure.

A lot could of been avoided with a little loving discipline at home. Unfortunately many of them have not got dads (or at best a step dad) at home. Counseling will have as much affect as it does with prisoners (very little).

The whole problem of truanting could be solved immediately if school attendance were not compulsory. The assumption behind the new legislation is that school is a blessing that children must be forced to enjoy, like it or not. That compulsion should be resorted to suggests that for a significant fraction of the school population, school is not regarded by either children or parents as an important commitment. If we dodge for the moment trying to make any absolute judgment about the benefits of schooling even the unwilling, it is a fact that having unwilling children forced to attend classes makes it ten times more difficult to teach any children in that class. Folk wisdom has something to say about dragging horses to water - you can do it, but you can't make the horse drink! Teachers should not allow themselves to become virtual guards in a prison school-house. Teachers should be offering classes that children find irresistibly enlightening.

Some of the factors that make the Chinese schools in the USA so successful in graduating highly motivated, success oriented students could be usefully emulated. See http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/092108dnmetchineseschools.1a39281.html

The descriptors include :
Student ages: Pre-kindergarten to high school

Entrance requirements: None. Students are assessed to determine proper placement in terms of class difficulty.

Faculty: Teachers are certified ............

Tuition: $100 to $500 a semester for each semester-long course.

Curriculum: SAT preparation, math, English language, Chinese language.

Classes are offered a la carte, and none are required.

The attitude of parents to school attendance starts in primary school, and if they let their children stay away for no good reason, or to take them fishing or to go on a two week holiday mid-term, the children quickly cotton on to the fact that school attendance is not important. Although parents are legally obliged to present their children at school, in practice some don't. If parents know there is a financial penalty for non-attendance, they may think twice about absenting their children from school in the early years and starting the cycle of wagging. And if teenagers know their behaviour is hurting the family they might think twice before playing hookey.

A few years ago there was a case in the UK where a teenage girl point blank refused to attend school. After trying all sorts of things to encourage her to attend, the authorities finally exercised their power to jail her mother for not getting her to school, which seemed an appalling thing to do, as Mum said she was keen for her to be at school too. But guess which little princess promptly backed down from her 'No-one can make me do something I don't feel like doing' attitude and trotted off to class? Perhaps the shock of financial sanctions is the circuit breaker needed to break a habit of truancy.

Candide
You may be right that this was effective in changing the girl’s mind, but that doesn’t necessarily make it right. Morally blackmailing children by threatening to harm their parents if the kids misbehave is repugnant, in my book.

Even if this form of coercion was acceptable, you haven’t addressed the equity issue the article raises – why only threaten parents on welfare, who arguably would have more difficulties getting their kids to school than stable middle class families?

All the federal government is doing is playing the blame game when it is plainly unwilling to allocate resources for school counsellors. Students who encounter problems in education will always 'fall through the gaps' unless their parents have deep pockets and can afford private long term counselling, personal coaching and other support. Both public and private schools are not much different in that respect.

None of this should come as a surprise to parents because neither side of politics was ever willing to allocate resources for enough classroom teachers let alone remedial teachers and counsellors.

The federal government has done the full round now, blaming States, teachers and now the children themselves of course. Maybe it is time for voters to look at what Canberra actually produces, because it does seem to be about all care and no responsibility. There is a lot of money tied up in a federal bureaucracy that could not deliver education to one student even if it chose to do so. What about cutting those huge management overheads Ms Gillard and putting the money into teachers and counsellors?

Rhian

I'm not necessarily in favour of financial penalties, I'd much prefer children to be willingly at school, and for school to be a worthwhile experience for all students. On the equity front, I agree penalties should apply equally if they are to be applied at all. A huge proportion of the population is on some sort of government handout, any of which could be forfeit, and anyone else could just be fined.

In the UK case, the law provided for the jailing of the mother for failing to fulfill her responsibility to send her child to school. Mum served her few days, during which the child realised, perhaps for the first time, the consequences of her behaviour. I'd call that a rude awakening, not blackmail.

The author makes no suggestion of an alternative incentive for parents to ensure their kids go to school. Fining welfare recipients is as I see it an extension of the social contract Howard was going on about. Don't expect welfare if you're not going to keep your end of the bargain.

But what other methods are there available to the government? Anyone?

Runner if only they'd teach more creationism in schools there'd be less truancy. Non-secular schools of course don't have this problem.
Not.

Point 2 of the article is a non-starter. It 'attacks' everyone in that situation. Point 3 is more emotive than logical - there will always be scenarios such as this (and can we cut this 'battler' guff? Anyone who hasn't won lotto or who doesn't have wealthy parents is a battler). Same for point 5. It isn't that "life's hard", it's a case of governing for the majority. I didn't like all my subjects nor all my teachers but never felt that a reason for going to the beach instead.

Fines are one way and the English example is a good one.

Spencer you're the expert. What would YOU do?

Everyone has overlooked the fact that the government is forcing children to attend school. It is, in effect, saying to parents "if you do not send your children to school we will (ultimately) send in the police with guns and force you to obey our rules".
Now I acknowledge that it is most desirable that children have as much education as they can comfortable absorb, but not at the point of a gun.

the title of this article needs a simple response

concerning "Parents should not be held responsible"

Our childrens education is duty we owe to our children and is recognised generally, as being in the best interest of the child.

Regarding "my 30 years of family counselling experience have taught me that there can be multiple reasons why children refuse to go to school. Some of these include...."

Anyone can list excuses, a counsellor, in my book, is supposed to be skilled at sifting out the excuses from the real reasons.



To anyone who thinks they are not responsible for their childrens education the following says it all


"People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation "


Margaret Thatcher, PM and Science & Education Minister in UK conservative governments.

You want educated children, you are obligated to send them to school.

If you dont want to have "educated children", I suggest you dont have kids in the first place.

Bennie,

What alternatives are there as incentives to encourage parents to have their children attend school? Another has raised the issue that the problem is compulsory education. I believe that compulsory education is good for the child, the family and the nation.

I conduct groups for parents of out-of-control teens (many of whom do not want to attend school), called, "Parenting with love and limits" (see: http://www.difficult.net/). This is a nurturance and consequences model developed by Dr. Scott Sells.

Parents try a number of creative strategies/consequences with children who are wagging school. One of these has a "shame" dimension. By prior arrangement with, say, the high school teacher(s), Mum or Dad goes to school and sits beside the child in the classroom while the parent is dressed in some outlandish attire such as Mum in her dressing gown with rollers in her hair.

It doesn't take long for a child to catch on that attending school voluntarily is better than this consequence.

However, in spite of the truanting, the parent(s) never give up loving and caring for the child. Parents may detest the wagging but giving up loving the child is not an option.

You will appreciate that with more parents working during the daytime, this is a challenging option. However, grandparents or friends have been known to take over the role in the classroom for the parent.

Sincerely, Spencer

Col Rouge. Maggie is not well, why are you not there comforting your beloved?
Maggie and it appears yourself, are very Diuet Mon Droit, translated -"sod you I'm ok jack!"

There again you chose not to live in England...Strange!!

Spencer is a wee bit out of touch with reality. Many remote area schools round here are lucky to get 50% average attendance by enrolled pupils. That's not counting those not enrolled. Finding the parents of many of these waggers is hard work. Who is supposed to do that work? A small army of mobile school counsellors? Getting these difficult to find parents to put rollers in their hair & front up to class is in the realms of fantasy.
Anyway, if Spencer's article is the best the anti-compulsion brigade can come up with, then Julia has nothing to worry about. His only valid point is his first one: that monetary sanction of parents who don't send their kids to school should not be applied only to welfare parents. He repeats this in point 4.

His other points are not valid, as they are based on the false supposition that the 13 week payments suspension is intended to apply to all defaulters. In fact, it is the sanction of last resort, and is unlikely to be applied to many people at all, let alone the poor buggers Spencer enumerates in his points 2,3 & 5. Schools and Centrelink staff will be out there trying all kinds of other means to break the impasse , backed up by the prospect of the ultimate sanction, for months or years before they decide to go to the extreme penalty.
Spencer, please do your home-work before you write your next essay, or I'll be around in my Gillard wig.

OzSpen I really don't know. I don't think I'm disagreeing with you on this one.

I'd point out though that the spectre of 'shame' has little effect and is regularly mistaken for kudos. Isn't that that what youtube is about?

Under current NSW law a family was recently fined $200 for the no-show of its 5 kids at school. Result was non payment of fine and the disappearance of the family off the radar.

Why are the feds meddling in the States run education system anyway? Better coordination between State depts; Education, DOCS etc is the answer.

Dan F, how about an update on the NT situation? The only reports I see are propaganda by barrow pushers. Is there any move to educate the parents of todays kids, those who missed out when they were young?

palimpsest
There is very little to report, but perhaps the best is yet to come.

Re "any move to educate the parents of todays kids, those who missed out when they were young?"

Unfortunately, nothing discernible is happening yet, other than short term one off crash courses to make people more "job ready". It will take a lot more than that kind of thing.

Many of you have raised excellent issues about what could and should be done with education.

Before working on the truanting issue, I'm persuaded after 30 years of counselling with families that these need priority:

(1) Deal with the adverse events in the child's life at school. If bullying is continuing and the child is failing subjects, there is little incentive to be at school, whether the child is 17 of 17 years old.
(2) Many parents want to learn the skills to deal with their difficult children as those attending counselling and my groups have affirmed.

Dan is somewhat hostile to my ideas. However, the course for parents of difficult teens, "Parenting with Love & Limits," is currently being conducted in an indigenous community. One of my staff who conducts the course commenced the intervention after consultation with the elders of that community.

My example of a mother with rollers in the hair accompanying a child to school as a consequence for wagging, is just one example of many creative consequences that are being used by parents of these groups. It is an evidence-based program and it works!

All of the points I raised, in spite of Dan's objection, have come from my counselling experience. All of them are valid because they are happening in my and other communities. This is what children and parents are saying.

The homework has been done, Dan, but you are not open to these options.

Sincerely, Spencer

There was a typographical error in my last post:

(1) Deal with the adverse events in the child's life at school. If bullying is continuing and the child is failing subjects, there is little incentive to be at school, whether the child is 17 of 17 years old.

It should read: "whether the child is 7 or 17 years old."

Spencer

Thanks DanF. Seems vitally important that the 20 and 30 yo's get education or training as well as their children.

palimpsest "Seems vitally important that the 20 and 30 yo's get education or training as well as their children."

would it be too much to suggest

those 20 and 30 year olds and their children would have been better off

had they actually listened to their baby boomer parents?

yes dad.

Col Rouge, those 20-30yo's I asked DanF about are the parents of the Little Children Are Sacred report kids who themselves were failed by our wrong headed policies which left them without sufficient education and skills for employment.