Truancy and Day time Burglaries - Term Paper Example

?Running Head: Sociology Truancy in the United s: Causes and Consequences A Review of Related Literature of Submission Introduction Factors bearing on truancy are diverse. The choice to begin truanting is a very crucial concern. Normally, students choose to begin ‘skipping’ school mostly due to the following factors (Reid, 2000, 76): (1) avoiding a potentially difficult situation (e.g. bullying); (2) sending out a signal that they need help or are, in some other way, at risk; (3) overwhelmed by their home or social circumstances; (4) psychologically distressed; (5) at a point of no return, perhaps at the end of their tether; (6) seriously disenchanted with school, a teacher or fellow pupils; (7) struggling with their schoolwork; (8) unwell; and (9) under peer pressure to miss school These factors are educational, psychological, or social. Every truant has a certain extent of educational, psychological, and social justifications for skipping school (Reid, 2000). Nevertheless, the primary ‘motivation’ for absenteeism is a single event which could be educational, psychological, or social. Once truants transition from the irregular to the continual phase, the number of grounds used to rationalize the truancy are probable to escalate greatly. While there could be a single explicit ‘motivator’ for the start of truant activities, truants will provide all forms of additional bases to rationalize their behavior by the time it has arrived at the continual phase (Gump, 2004). The boost in reasons between preliminary and continual truancy, according to Reid (2000), is in part a product of personal experience and in part an outcome of cognitive dissonance, or defined as a psychological mechanism in which the brain validates and rationalizes individual’s actions and conduct. The Problem of Truancy in the United States Truant behavior has been considered as one of the major educational issues in the United States with school administrators ranking non-attendance, lateness, and class cutting as the major issues of discipline in their schools. Certainly, attendance is a primary, explicit measure of school involvement (Butts, 2009). Another measure of school participation includes behavioral experiences and academic performance. These measures are normally manifested by school aversion, absence of belongingness, and sense of estrangement (Butts, 2009). According to Stover (2005), big cities frequently report invalid non-attendances in vast numbers of students on particular days. Big schools, according to McPartland and colleagues (1998), are more probable to have issues with absenteeism than small schools. Inopportunely, schools frequently try to deal with a truancy issue with punitive exclusion, which could aggravate the truant behavior and detachment. Truancy is normally related to four primary factors (Zhang, Katsiyannis & Barrett, 2007, 244): (1) family factors (e.g., lack of parental supervision, domestic violence, and substance abuse); (2) school factors (e.g., school climate issues, school size, attitudes, inflexibility in meeting the diverse cultural learning needs of the students, and consequences of absenteeism such as out-of-school suspensions); (3) economic influences (e.g., single-parent homes, high mobility rates, and student employment; and (4) student variables (e.g., substance abuse, lack of social competence, and mental and physical health problems. Furthermore, truant behavior can be also attributed to inadequacy of community assistance or support. Truancy may lead to serious temporary outcomes, such as grief, family conflict, social isolation, legal problems, and weakening academic performance (Stover, 2005). In addition, truancy is the initial indication of ‘deviancy’ and the strongest predictor of aberrant conduct. In fact, persistent truancy in the elementary level is associated with severe antisocial conduct at age 12 and below (Zhang et al., 2007, 244). Moreover, first-grade absenteeism has been reported to radically impact aggression up to 26 years afterward. Absenteeism in adolescence has been associated with substance abuse, violent behavior, and misbehavior. This relationship between criminal behavior and truancy seems to be especially heightened among boys (Zhang et al., 2007, 244). To sum it up, truancy is a serious problem, with grave repercussions for the future path of a child as a grownup, especially as it involves poor outcomes for adult, aberrant behavior, and dropout rates. Inopportunely, in spite of a restored concern for juvenile delinquency and school issues since the 1980s, there is inadequate information about adolescents who are admitted to the juvenile institution as absentees (Reid, 2004). For instance, school administrators in South Carolina have the power to disclose truancy to juvenile courts. Children ages 6-17 are classified as truant after five inexcusable absences; those ages 12-17 are regarded habitual truants when s/he fails to keep to an intervention program and accrues at least another two absences; and those ages 12-17 are classified as chronic truants if they have been previously considered to be habitual truants and still keep on accruing absences (Zhang et al., 2007, 244). As stated by Gavin (1997), the judiciary may oblige parents or custodians, as well as the child if needed, to attend a court hearing and oblige that the child be present at school. Absences may lead to reprimanding the parent or custodian for contempt, such as incarceration or fine, or proclaiming the child deviant if truant behavior is judged to be outside the control or comprehension of the parents or custodians. Causes of Truancy Truancy in the United States is caused primarily by five factors, namely, parental and family, personal, school, developmental, and community. Parental and Family Factors Empirical findings show that family processes and practices contribute to truant behavior. When parents take part in the education of their children, specifically, attending PTA meetings, track academic progress, etc, the likelihood of absenteeism weakens (Bell, Rosen & Dynlacht, 1994). Family dynamics can influence truant behavior in a number of ways. First, high-achieving parents have a tendency to be more engaged in the education of their children than low-achieving parents. Studies have shown that parents with higher educational achievements are more interested in schools and educators, and such participation improves the academic performance of children (Reid, 2000). Second, parents who invest substantial amount of effort for and time with their children in tasks that enhance cognitive growth help improve the academic performance of their children. Third, parents who instill proper standards, values, and goals to their children encourage them to do well academically. Fourth, parents who encourage conscientious actions in their children motivate good performance in school (Reid, 2000). Finally, according to Butts (2009), styles of parenting that build positive communication between children and their parents seem to favorably influence school performance. Home features like recurrent relocation, unstable relationships between parents and their children, and unhealthy living circumstances may be damaging to school attendance. These features are normally observed among poor families (Teasley, 2004). Bell and associates (1994) mentioned quite a few family-relationship variables that directly correlate with rates of absenteeism. These factors comprise child abuse and neglect, parental conditions, parental awareness of truant behavior, parenting abilities, family perception of education, and socioeconomic status (Bell et al., 1994). Quite a few features of numerous low-income families unfavorably impact attendance to school. High school pupils from poor households usually go to their jobs during school hours with permission from their parents but with no authorized knowledge and approval of the school (Reid, 2000). A number of adolescents from poor households who have many siblings “might have to remain at home to care for the younger children because the parents cannot afford day care” (Zhang et al., 2007, 245). Other variables mentioned by Zhang and colleagues (2007) were manifold students’ household duties, parental overprotection, overindulgence and scrutiny. Studies on family arrangement show that adolescents from single-parent families have a tendency to have higher truancy and absenteeism rates than adolescents from two-parent families. Two-parent families are usually better at supervising and orienting their children’s activities, since parents jointly perform obligations to their children’s growth and development (Reid, 2000). The study of Oman and associates (2002 as cited in Teasley, 2004, 117) on generation risk factors showed that in comparison to adolescents who resided in two-parent households, adolescents who resided in one-parent homes disclosed a considerably higher probability of taking part in substance abuse, fighting, absenteeism, and sexual activities. Moreover, studies have reported that when the style of parenting is lenient, and adolescents are given leeway in making decisions, the possibility of truancy heightens. Fragile relationships between parent and child and poor parental concern for education are linked with absenteeism (Teasley, 2004). Other identified factors by Teasley (2004) are domestic abuse, substance abuse, and parental alcoholism. Personal Variables Truant behavior and absenteeism are indicative of behavioral and cognitive symptoms in adolescents. The review of the literature of Howard and Anderson on school dropout and absenteeism showed that, “the decrease in pupil motivation leading to attendance problems is part of a fairly predictable sequence” (Teasley, 2004, 117). The general cycle starts with the student losing interest in school, being unable cope in class, and cutting class (Reid, 2004). Steps taken by school authorities to impede the negative behavior of students, according to Gump (2004), may be reinforced by parental participation, which frequently intensifies the detrimental attitude of pupils about school. School Aspects Studies of the National Center for Education Statistics (1996 as cited in Teasley, 2004, 118) report that big schools in metropolitan, low-income city school zones have higher truancy and absenteeism rates in comparison to rural schools; one of the studies reported that 55% of educators from big metropolitan public schools admitted that truancy was a severe dilemma, in comparison to 28% of educators in rural schools. 6% of rural high school pupils, on an average school day, were not in attendance; metropolitan high schools showed almost 12% non-attendance (Teasley, 2004, 118). Empirical findings constantly show double-digit truancy prevalence for metropolitan school systems, with roughly 8% of these student populations (Teasley, 2004, 118) classified as recurrently absentee. Absenteeism also is more common in school systems that have weak implementation of absenteeism guidelines, weak communication or interaction between school employees and parents, unaccommodating faculty members, unqualified instructors, dull and easy homework and class activities, and poor understanding of diversity concerns (Stover, 2005). The competence and effectiveness of school administrators, counselors, and faculty members is related with dropout rates and absenteeism (Gavin, 1997). Truancy, according to Zhang and colleagues (2007), has been associated with diversities in learning and teaching approaches, teacher non-attendance, weak relations between students and teachers, discrepancy in school discipline, and poor teacher expectations. Developmental Variables In numerous instances, truancy includes a student passing up a school subject that s/he experiences difficulties with; this behavior normally starts in middle school. As students grow old, truancy and non-attendance heighten (Teasley, 2004). Girls show greater truancy prevalence in high school than boys; nevertheless, boys show heightened chronic truancy rates as they progress in grade level. The number of truancy cases in juvenile courts countrywide, in 1993, was parted squarely between girls and boys; most of the defendants were aged 15 (Teasley, 2004). Longitudinal investigations demonstrate a relationship between absenteeism and class avoidance in middle- and high school, with academic problems in specific school subjects beginning in the elementary level (Gump, 2004). According to Baker and colleagues (2001 as cited in Teasley, 2004, 118), “findings from OJJDP’s (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) Study Group on Very Young Offenders indicate that chronic truancy in elementary school is linked to serious delinquent behavior at age 12 and under.” Several studies, according to Bell and colleagues (1994), link absenteeism with sexual behavior, daytime burglary, aggression, and other kinds of deviancy. Community Variables Just a rapid evaluation of the literature is required to demonstrate a connection between community factors and truancy and school non-attendance. Identifying socioeconomic factors in the community contexts is relevant to the evaluation of truancy and non-attendance (Reid, 2000). The socioeconomic status of a family establishes the neighborhood where in pupils go to school and vulnerability to physical health and psychological stressors, such as parental and family conflict, domestic abuse, and neglect that are related with truancy. In well off neighborhoods, adolescents and parents have access to resources and social or support services that decrease the likelihood of truant behavior (Stover, 2005). Locals are secured with a high level of residence ownership and have a tendency to take part in youth programs and in their community. Moreover, rich parents are more likely to get involved in the education of their children and have a stable working relations and medium of communication with faculty members and school administrators (Zhang et al., 2007). In poor communities, especially ethnic minority and urban districts, adolescents are more probable to encounter ill-treatment, go to inadequately subsidized schools, and experience aggressions, in comparison with adolescents from well off districts. Faculty members usually reside outside the school district where in they are employed and have irregular communication or interaction with parents (Teasley, 2004). Poor, metropolitan districts have an increased level of temporary activity. Quite short-lived neighborhoods frequently have low residence ownership and hence less home investment. Truancy and Delinquency Even nowadays, vast numbers of law enforcement officers regard students’ absenteeism negligibly that they seldom pay attention to it. Law enforcers, if asked about their opinion of the issue, frequently react by admitting they are too preoccupied with burglary complaints to be alarmed about children cutting classes or missing school (Gavin, 1997). In that rests the dilemma. In numerous instances, the absentees are the thefts and burglars (Zhang et al., 2007). Social advocates, since the 1800s, identified the relationship between truancy and delinquent behavior. In talking about the escalation in inner-city crime that attended the Industrial Revolution, a critic of the period described the connection (Gavin, 1997, 8): … where children are suffered to grow up without any moral culture, and what is worse, amidst scenes of drunkenness, debauchery, and other crime… there is seldom a case of a juvenile offender in which I am not well satisfied that the parents, or person having the child in charge, is most blamable—they take no pains to make him attend school. Social thinkers, by 1915, had referred to truancy as the ‘kindergarten of crime’ (Gavin, 1997, 8). A criminologist of the period reported that in court files, almost a quarter of the adolescent male delinquents confirmed a background of truancy. In almost all of these cases, truant behavior embodied the earliest misdemeanor (Gavin, 1997). A couple of researchers, in 1942, carried out a comprehensive investigation of deviant behaviors in Chicago. When they afterward reviewed truancy rates in Chicago, they discovered that the rate of recurrence of delinquency directly complemented the rates of truancy (Gavin, 1997). In a 1988 research labeled Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders, scholars evaluated the court documents of almost 70,000 teenage delinquent (Gavin, 1997, 9). Scholars assumed that in order to predict future criminal behavior, according to Zhang and colleagues (2007), the most probable young recidivists were individuals whose initial petitions comprised truancy, robbery, or burglary. To counteract the numerous impacts of truancy, several law enforcement departments in the United States have initiated truancy outlawing plans. Even though immediate cause-and-effect correlations may be not that easy to determine, mostly, the initiatives seem to have generated remarkable outcomes for the criminal justice system. Inglewood, California, Police Department, after putting into effect a truancy outlawing initiative, reported a 32% decrease in daylight burglaries, a 64% reduction in vehicle robberies, and a 36% drop in armed thefts, nationally (Gavin, 1997, 9). Another outlawing attempt in California, executed collaboratively by law enforcement departments in National City, Imperial Beach, and Chula Vista, produced comparable drops in daytime burglaries (Gavin, 1997). Countrywide, many truancy outlawing attempts generated substantial crime reductions usually related with juvenile delinquents. In reality, when examining different outlawing initiatives implemented in communities all over the United States, law enforcers of St. Petersburg discovered only one outlawing program that was not able to yield an obvious reduction in crime (Gavin, 1997). Inspired by the achievement of these different truancy outlawing initiatives, the St. Petersburg Police Department made a decision to put into effect a truancy outlawing attempt; the primary objective of the program was to get parents involved in motivating their children to attend school, thereby decreasing the chances for juveniles to take part in criminal activities (Gavin, 1997). Having a proof of pupils’ attendance backgrounds assists the juvenile officer in discussing the problem of absenteeism with parents when they fetch their children. A number of parents believe that truancy is a negligible imprudence not actually worth law enforcers’ attention (Zhang et al., 2007). Equipped with a record of a child’s attendance, the officer can provide a swift refutation if the child does, actually, have a difficulty going to school regularly. Parents, faced with the facts, usually show distress that the school did not inform them, although the issue had become recurrent (Zhang et al., 2007). The effectiveness of the outlawing program somewhat depends on the confident bearing of the receiving detective in handling parents. Once notified that their child has been detained for truant behavior, most parents act immediately, willing to resolve the problem (Stover, 2005). Nevertheless, an unacceptable others act as if the whole problem is an inconvenience, and they try to justify any number of grounds why they are not able to attend to their child. In quite a few instances, parents reason with that they just cannot leave work (Bell et al., 1994). When handling a disobedient parent, the juvenile detective may choose to send the child to the workplace of the parent. At this instant, the parent should clarify to the manager the reason their child has been sent to the office. Although efficient, this ultimate resort strategy is seldom used (Reid, 2000). According to Gavin (1997), most parents act immediately and eager to cooperate. Family-Oriented Interventions Various family-oriented interventions are developed to mitigate truancy. Family therapy has shown a number of achievements (Teasley, 2004). Researchers have named quite a few fundamental components that professionals should take into account in the evaluation of families regarding truancy (Teasley, 2004, 119): (1) family structure and functioning; (2) family values and attitudes toward school and education; (3) socioeconomic status; (4) parental knowledge of a child’s academic performance; (5) parental methods of disciplining children; (6) parent and child understanding of local truancy laws; and (7) communication among children, parents, and the school. A general rule schools apply to fight truancy is the collaboration between the community, family, and school. The comprehensive work of Schorr (1997 as cited in Teasley, 2004, 119) with prevention paradigms for helping vulnerable adolescents and families has introduced a number of vital elements of effective initiatives. They comprise the capacity of the program to be flexible, open, sensitive, accommodating, and inclusive; perceive and treat children in their family setting; recognize that families are a basic unit of communities; carry out and sustain enduring preventive strategies; assign highly qualified personnel and experienced management with specialized abilities; guarantee continuous training; and develop cooperation among professionals. Individualized Intervention Manifold aspects are usually involved in truant behavior. School officials should identify individual causes of truant behavior before embarking into intervention planning. An evaluation of risk and protective variables should be carried out to ascertain whether truancy is linked to behavioral and cognitive symptoms in adolescents (Reid, 2000). Community influences, peer membership, and family dynamics also should be taken into account in the process of decision making. Studies have shown, according to Teasley (2004), that individual aspects linked to truancy prevention function most favorably when there is collaboration between educators and parents, organized documentation and tracking of truancy, reinforcement and firmness when imposing punishments on recidivists, advocacy, and determination and commitment during the development of prevention plans. Mentoring has been verified to be a valuable and effective technique for trimming down truancy occurrences and seems to be one of progressive worth. Mentoring especially works with youngsters from single-parent families or with adolescents who have a detachment with their parents (Stover, 2005). Researchers have reported that mentoring is most effective when there is a strong relationship between the student and the teacher. The OJJDP School-Based Mentoring Study claimed that mentoring cost is lower than many community-oriented initiatives (Teasley, 2004) since school districts already have social workers, educators, and counselors available. Conclusions and Recommendations From the review of literature, it is evident that the increasing prevalence of truancy problems negatively impact numerous schools all over the United States and in nations that have policies for attendance and compulsory school. Pupils who are regularly absent display poor academic performance, and have been determined as highly likely to drop out of school. Schools experience difficulties as well when students are truant since missed instructional sessions should be delivered again for the truant pupil, which consequently results in the delay of instructional sessions for other learners (Reid, 2000). Furthermore, school systems endure loss of proceedings from full-time equivalent (FTE) subsidy when rates of truancy are significant. Data show that truancy results in delinquent behavior and eventually to adult criminal activities; hence, the community is also distressed by pupils who could commit daytime criminal activities, like burglary, while out of school or advance to a graver adult felony (Reid, 2000) if they fail to complete school. A number of causes for truancy have been discussed. Some of the unraveled causes for truant behavior involve unconstructive self-perception, lack of challenging and stimulating academic tasks for students, and lack of parental participation and guidance. Moreover, numerous pupils seem to exploit the complacency of attendance rules and their implementation by school officials and faculty members. On the other hand, keeping students in school due to attendance and compulsory school laws has also been identified as aggravating high truancy rates for students who are simply not interested to attend their classes (Zhang et al., 2007). Schools that have encountered some level of victories in mitigating truancy rates appear to have a number of similarities, according to Reid (2000). First, their compulsory attendance regulations are firm and implemented, and in several instances are strengthened by community advocacy. Students and parents are held responsible for truant behaviors, with tough penalties when they fail to conform. Second, prompt and appropriate intervention initiatives that involve counseling to try to stop persistent truancy patterns have been effective in a number of school systems, and motivating strategy by school officials to recognize students who avoid being absent. Third, school systems that systematically record and monitor the truancy patterns of their students and who encourage parental involvement show some improvements in truancy rates. Nobody proposes that truancy intervention programs embody a magic potion for alleviating the numerous, intricate concerns encompassing juvenile wrongdoing. However, in numerous instances, intervention programs, alongside school counseling and parental engagement, can contribute to the prevention and reduction of truancy before it results in more severe predicaments. The disturbing escalation of juvenile offenses during the recent decade has compelled a lot of communities to embark on school-oriented initiatives to enlighten adolescents on such risks as substance abuse and gangs. Yet, these initiatives are of trivial value if students do not attend their classes. Moreover, evaluations and explorations of truancy rates and criminal behavior in neighborhoods all over the United States verify that present-day truants perpetrate a considerable percentage of daytime offenses. A forceful intervention initiative cautions children and adolescents that the community will not permit them to skip school or cut classes. Apart from functioning as a valuable crime prevention initiative, outlawing of truant behavior also functions as an effective preventive strategy against pupils discontinuing their studies on the whole. By intervening promptly, school personnel and parents can determine core issues and carry out the counteractive measures needed to discourage children from being absent in school. For agencies of law enforcement, an appropriately implemented truancy prohibition program fulfils both short- and long-term objectives. Law enforcers can prevent criminal activities by keeping students in school and off the streets. References Bell, A., Rosen, L.A. & Dynlacht, D. (1994). “Truancy intervention” Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27, 203-211. Butts, P. (2009). “Frequent Absences? Help Students Keep Up, Not Drop Out” Kappa Delta Pi Record, 45(4), 163+ Gavin, T. (1997). “Truancy: Not Just Kids’ Stuff Anymore” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 66(3), 8+ Gump, S. (2004). “The Truth behind Truancy: Student Rationales for Cutting Class” Educational Research Quarterly, 28(2), 50+ McPartland, J., Balfanz, R., Jordan, W. & Legters, N. (1998). “Improving climate and achievement in a troubled urban high school through the talent development model” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3, 337-361. Reid, K. (2000). Tackling Truancy in Schools: A Practical Manual for Primary and Secondary Schools. London: Routledge. Reid, K. (2004). “The Views of Head Teachers and Teachers on Attendance Issues in Primary Schools” Research in Education, 72, 60+ Stover, D. (2005). “New ways, more reasons to fight truancy” School Board News, 15(8), 48-51. Teasley, M. (2004). “Absenteeism and Truancy: Risk, Protection, and Best Practice Implications for School Social Workers” Children & Schools, 26(2), 117+ Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A. & Barrett, D. (2007). “Truancy Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System: Examinations of First and Second Referrals” Remedial and Special Education, 28(4), 244+ Read More