Committee: Schools must take parental excuses for absences

Wednesday, July 1, 1998 | 11:34 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A proposal to give school administrators the power to reject a parental excuse for a student's absence from class has been defeated in a vote by a legislative study committee.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, who headed the subcommittee, said school superintendents supported a plan to give them more authority to turn down an excuse made by the parents for their child to be absent from class.

"You can't keep a kid home to babysit," Giunchigliani said.

School principals currently must accept any written excuse from a parent.

Nevada has a compulsory school attendance law which requires school-age children to be in class except when they are ill, said Giunchigliani, who questioned how students are supposed to learn if they are not in class.

But Sen. Kathy Augustine, R-Las Vegas, said that not all educational opportunities come in the classroom. She said parents have the ultimate responsibility to see their children are in school.

"A parental excuse is acceptable," Augustine said.

At a prior meeting, parents from Reno complained this would stop them taking their children out of class for such things as educational trips to Washington, D.C.

In an attempt to reach a compromise, Giunchigliani suggested parents have a right to appeal if the principal rejects an excused absence. Because she couldn't muster the votes on the committee she said she may introduce the bill at the 1999 Legislature.

The committee, however, did recommend toughening the penalty for habitual truants.

At present the law allows a court to suspend the driver's license of an habitual truant for 30 days on the first offense and 60 days on the second offense. The committee agreed to give judges the right to suspend driver's licenses for up to two years.

Giunchigliani said this was the cleanup language sought by the Clark County district attorney's office.

Although there was no formal action, the committee discussed lengthening the school year which is now 180 days.

Giunchigliani said special education teachers can no longer meet the mandates and the paper work required in the 180 days. "Maybe it ought to be 10 days longer with five days without students and five days with."

But she cautioned, "If you want more time, you will have to pay for it."

The discussion arose over a proposal to allow special education teachers additional preparation time to work with parents to work up individual education plans for handicapped students.

Parents often do not have the time to get together with teachers during the school day and "there needs to be proper planning time," said Giunchigliani, who is a special education teacher.

Debbie Cahill, lobbyist for the Nevada State Education Association, favors lengthening the school year by two extra days for professional development or teacher training.

Cahill said this would be "extremely costly but is money well spent."