30-day absenteeism policy needs revision

I WOULD to raise a couple of issues regarding the 30-day absenteeism policy imposed by the Education Department.
The first is concerning the manner in which parents are informed. My child was absent for over 30 days and it resulted in dismissal. The policy allows for notices to be sent out at certain intervals of absenteeism to inform the parents so remedial actions or steps can be taken to address the problem with the hope of preventing dismissal.
Unfortunately in my case, my child never brought the notices to me, which would be typical of a child who would be afraid of the parents’ reaction. It was when the 30 days had lapsed that I found out, and went to the school for an interview with the school’s administration.
Some parents received the notices but do not attend the interviews, while other parents don’t receive the notices resulting in their non-attendance. There is an element of risk in allowing the child to deliver such notices.
During the interview, I was told in no uncertain terms that there was no other option but to suspend the child. I pointed out that the school should have the courtesy to inform the parents by calling them to check why there was no response from the earlier notices.
This would have arrested the problem way before the 30 days lapsed. Even though my child had not acted responsibly by bringing the notices home, given the possibility of the child hiding the notices, the school should be duty-bound to inform the parents by other means such as the telephone.
The bottom line is if the child has committed the offence, then the punishment should be meted out. However, the punishment should only be meted out after the school has exhausted all means to inform the parents.
This brings me to the second issue – going to school late and being sent home. Circumstances vary in different environments that may result in the child being absent from time to time. The policy should allow for discretion on the part of the school’s administration to evaluate the situation and act accordingly.
Students coming late should be allowed to attend classes, but be put on detention. Sending students home for coming late contributes to absenteeism, and over a period of time, accumulating 30 days which subsequently results in dismissal.
While the students make an effort to come to school, their records say they were absent, and this is what counts in dismissal.
Take for example boarding and day schools, in urban or rural settings. Ideally, in a boarding school, students living within the proximity of the school should not be late and certainly not be absent without a very good reason.
The same cannot be said about students attending schools in bigger urban settings like Port Moresby and Lae. Some students live far from schools and need to catch buses to schools. It is a huge challenge for school students catching buses in Port Moresby and getting to school on time.
Many a time, the PMV operators are not very kind to them, allowing them to ride only when there are few passengers around.
It is a gross injustice when students are sent home for coming late because of these reasons. They miss a day’s worth of learning not because they want to but because of reasons totally out of their control. If the urban schools cannot see this, then more and more kids will be thrown out on the streets.
I suggest that proper procedures be set out to implement this 30-day absenteeism policy so that all avenues are exhausted in the correct manner before a child is suspended or dismissed.

Concerned parent
Port Moresby