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