Opinion: In the debate over truancy, we’re leaving out the most important voices

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Associate Education Minister David Seymour speaking to students during their visit to Cardinal McKeefry School in Wellington ahead of announcing the Government’s plan to crack down on truancy. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Editorial

EDITORIAL

Truancy has been a popular topic in political speeches and general social discourse lately, prompted mostly by National and Act’s campaigning on greater use of prosecutions and fines of parents in cases of chronic absenteeism.

Now in Government, the parties refer to what they call a “truancy crisis” and have announced an “attendance action plan” to address it.

The numbers point towards a definite issue: chronic absenteeism - encompassing students who attend school less than 70 per cent of the time - currently sits at 12.6 per cent, after sitting around 7-8 per cent in earlier years. According to data released last December, only 46 per cent of school pupils attended school more than 90 per cent of the time in Term 3 of last year - down from 63 per cent in the third term of 2019, before the Covid pandemic.

Māori and Pasifika students had the lowest regular attendance rates at 34 per cent. For Pākehā students, the rate was 48 per cent, and for Asian students 58 per cent.

The Ministry of Education figures also showed differences between regions and age groups, as well as ethnicity.

For Māori students, the chronic absence figure was 20 per cent, and for Pasifika students 21 per cent, while just 10 per cent of Pākehā and 8 per cent of Asian students were chronically absent.

This is not a New Zealand-specific problem but rather a worldwide trend, compounded by the pandemic.

On social media, parents speak of instances of bullying that are not being handled appropriately, of children being too afraid to go to school. The cost of school uniforms and other expenses associated with education has also been cited as a barrier for many families. Other parents also point to a shortfall in the traditional schooling system’s ability to engage with neurodivergent students.

But of all the voices being heard in this topic, one important one seems to keep being ignored: that of the schoolchildren themselves.

Herald journalist Jaime Lyth set out to listen to the students themselves and spoke to some on why they decide to wag school. In the process, she also dispelled the myth that wagging is the domain of “low achievers” and confirmed the motives for skipping school are as varied as they are complex.

Students are avoiding classrooms for a multitude of reasons, from finding school just plain boring to having issues with teachers, including what some describe as instances of racism, or because they need to take on paid work to help their families.

In the Government’s Attendance Action Plan, which David Seymour is in charge of overseeing, there are proposed fines for parents of truants. Under the Education and Training Act, parents can be convicted and fined if their children are not regularly attending school.

Practical assistance to help lift young people’s attendance rates, such as uniform subsidies or public transport discounts, were “not on our agenda”, Seymour said.

At the time, Seymour also stated that “we’re going to have to start being a bit clearer about what exactly is a valid reason to stay home”. He was talking specifically about public health and students’ health in general, but the quote is telling overall. Seymour and many students clearly disagree on what constitutes a “valid reason to stay home”.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution because there is no single cause for the problem. Instead of punishing families, many of which are already going through hardships, we should look at addressing the causes of the issue. And to do so, we must engage with the people this affects the most: the students.