• To me, it kind of defeats the purpose. If parents are sent to prison, then who looks after the kids. But at the same time, it is breaking the law - and the law has been made for a reason. Can we then decide that some laws can be broken without consequence and others can? In UK, imprisonment for not sending kids to school is a very last resort - normally all other avenues have been tried and tried and tried and tried before it reaches that stage. Among the things tried, are alternative schooling programmes for "school refusers". However, it does seem a shame that parents are not often held accountable for their children's misdemeanours.
  • Under 16 yes over 16 nope
  • No, if the parent doesn't care about the child's education then the child will probably only be a disruption in class anyway.
  • I don't think so. If a parent doesn't send their child to school, then they don't understand the importance of an education and don't know any better -they need to be taught, not imprisoned. If the child is sick, no. If the child is a teenager and skips, no. If the child is being home-schooled, no. I imagine there could be a few other reasons as well. Happy Thursday!
  • Instead of prison, which I do not believe will be a viable solution in terms of the childs welfare both in the short and in the long term at all, then at least community service. Yes it is a parents fault if they have not provided a stable enough upbringing and supportive environment such that a student truants continuously. If it is necessary that sanctions are put in place to make a parent care or become more aware about the childs welfare, well that is a sorry state for society. The parent should be forced to put something back into the community because the child is likely to be a cost to society in the long run.
  • Unless we're talking very young children in elementary or primary school, then no. Once a child is old enough to physically evade school willingly, they should also learn personal responsibility and consequences. Parents can discipline, but they aren't jailers that can physically control another human being 24/7. They should endeavor to get their kid to school, but shouldn't be any more criminally responsible than the school system.
  • I believe that if a child under 13 does not go to school ... the parent goes directly to JAIL . If a teen does not attend school ; then the TEEN goes directly to JAIL ....
  • If the child is skipping school on their own how can the state hold the parent responsible? Teenagers tend to cut school, they should pay the natural consequences for their actions.
  • That's much to simplistic. Rarely will it be the parents' fault. Often the kid is just playing hookie or being incorrigible.
  • I dont know about prison but if they knowingly let their child miss school, then yes something needs to happen to the parents. Repeat offenders then yes jail time
  • No, if the parents don't agree with public school teachings, the parents should home schoool their kids so that they are not brain-washed by the state in public schools.
  • I don't know about absolute prison, but they need to be accountable for the child's education up to some point. At least through elementary school.
  • No. "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." -- Mark Twain
  • For young children yes lol. It's different if it's a rebellious teen, but I consider that child abuse not letting a kid get educated. He could grow up and do something drastic like become religious to fill his head with fake knowledge.
  • i think parents should be fined but not sent to prison, a lot of the time they dont even know their kids are skipping school.
  • NO! Most of the time they are doing their best to get their kids off to school and they might not even know the kids are truanting.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy