HARRISBURG, Pa. – Pennsylvania's new truancy law makes some major improvements, but puts poor families at risk of increased penalties that don't solve the problem, according to critics.

The new law puts an emphasis on addressing root causes of truancy in the schools and dealing with cases on an individual basis. But Alex Dutton, a public interest law fellow with the Education Law Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization, said it also continues to threaten parents with jail time and increases potential fines. Approaches that studies show don't work.

"They actually push students and their families further away from school, force them to go underground in certain circumstances, and put them on payment plans that have collateral consequences for other areas of their life," he explained.

The law, signed by Gov. Tom Wolf late last week, increases fines for truancy from a maximum of $300 to $750 for repeat offenses.

On the plus side, Dutton noted that under the new law, schools must make a meaningful attempt to engage the parents before referring the truancy to the courts.

"The schools are required to offer an attendance improvement conference at which the underlying reasons for the child's truancy are considered and a plan is created to address those barriers," he said.

Schools also can no longer suspend, transfer or expel a student for nonattendance.

Dutton added that when truancy cases are referred to court, the new law also gives the magistrate judges who hear those cases much more latitude in the imposition of fines, jail time and other penalties.

"There is a lot more discretion to impose appropriate penalties on students and parents that actually seek to address the underlying root causes of a child's truancy which is a big step forward," he said.

Dutton said fines, jail time and driver's license suspensions, another possible penalty, do not address the issues that cause truancy, but entrap poor people in widening cycles of debt.


get more stories like this via email

New York's 2025 budget creates universal access to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid program.

School districts statewide will have the resources to help high schoolers complete the application. Those who do not fill it out must sign a waiver stating they know of the available aid but are not pursuing it.

Sen. Andrew Gounardes, D-Sunset Park, the bill's sponsor, said FAFSA's required information can be daunting.

"Some students or some families are well-prepared and well-equipped to review that document and provide that information; some students might not be," Gounardes acknowledged. "Some students might not even know where to turn to get that information, especially if they're the first in their family to pursue college if they're the first generation here."

Some schools have moved closer to charging $100,000 a year for tuition, which Gounardes said can deter students from considering college. But through the FAFSA process, scholarships and grants can provide enough to shave the number down to a more reasonable figure. A Sallie Mae report showed college spending is up as families spend close to $28,000 each year on college.

Feedback for the proposal was positive, considering most high school seniors who complete the FAFSA are likely to go to college after graduation. Gounardes argued the state can build on the progress by reviewing admissions practices to ensure they are fair and do not exclude students from certain backgrounds.

"In particular, I think it's high time we end legacy admissions," Gounardes emphasized. "There's no reason why we should have affirmative action for privileged kids in New York state, especially from institutions that receive significant public dollars either for grants or construction or awards or this or that or whatever."

He introduced a bill ending legacy admissions, which is still in committee. Among public and private colleges in New York, 42% still consider legacy applicants for admissions.

More than 70% of adults with student loans report having delayed at least one significant life event because of their debt situation, yet a new Lumina Foundation-Gallup poll shows few Americans seem to understand the cost of obtaining a bachelor's degree.

During the 2021-22 academic year, the average cost of attendance ranged from $10,000 per year at public two-year institutions to more than $56,000 per year at private four-year nonprofit colleges.

Michele Scott Taylor, Ph.D - is president of College Now Greater Cleveland, a nonprofit that works to increase higher education accessibility.

She said for students who are potentially first-generation college goers or from lower socio-economic backgrounds, the conversations around college affordability can be overwhelming.

"The issue for that subset of the population is really around helping them understand what college costs, but then more importantly, how do I afford it?" said Taylor. "What are the ways in which that I could afford whatever that cost might be? "

The poll found that more than half of never-enrolled and previously enrolled adults say cost is a "very important" reason why they have not enrolled or re-enrolled in college.

Unenrolled adults across race, age and first-generation potential students consistently rate tuition cost as the most important factor in their decision to not pursue a college degree.

Taylor said more efforts should also go toward helping students persist and complete their degree, once they've signed up for those loans.

She said higher-education institutions could work better with college access organizations to communicate their programs and offerings in ways that are enticing to get students to want to enroll.

"We want them to show better their return on investment," said Taylor. "We want them to be a little bit more transparent about the cost and what the costs entail."

Data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center shows that in the 2022-2023 academic year, the number of undergraduate degree earners nationwide fell for the second year in a row.

Support for this reporting was provided by Lumina Foundation.




get more stories like this via email

Leaders of a teachers' union in Louisiana are voicing concerns about a package of bills they say would have the effect of dissolving labor unions in the state.

The list includes House Bill 571, which would prohibit public agencies from paying union workers for the time they do anything union-related, even if it's on paid leave.

If passed, said Roberto Furtado, a special-education teacher in the Jefferson Parish Public School System, the bills would end collective bargaining and prohibit payroll deductions for union dues. Furtado said all this would make it harder for new teachers to join the union, further silencing their voices.

"If they make it more difficult for the new teachers, young teachers, to get involved," he said, "then basically, it's a roadblock so they're probably more than likely going to just not do it."

House Bill 572 would prohibit public agencies from collective bargaining with unions, except for police and firefighters. Similar bills have been introduced in multiple states by conservative groups.

The teachers' union has posted petitions on its website for teachers to sign and send to their lawmakers.

Educators in Louisiana have said they're dealing with low pay, overcrowded classrooms and school safety issues. However, state lawmakers have advanced a budget proposal that would cut teacher pay, and the House Appropriations Committee forwarded a spending plan that reduces a $2,000 pay stipend teachers got this school year to $1,300 next year.

Furtado said the end result is forcing good teachers out of the profession.

"Teachers are an invaluable resource for our community, and so we need good, well-rounded educators that want to be there and continue their jobs to help these young men and women, because again, they are our future," he insisted. "That's kind of corny to say this, but yes, our children are our future. If you don't take care of them, where does our future lie?"

The legislative committee also allocated $25 million for a differential teacher compensation strategy for the second year in a row. The union opposed the strategy, because it said the raises wouldn't be permanent and could be taken away from year to year.


get more stories like this via email