Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Policy endangers sick students

Re: Is "perfect' rule flawed? May 20, 2005.

As the parent of a 2005 graduate and a rising 10th-grader in Hillsborough County schools, I am opposed to the current exam exemption policy.

My children suffer from asthma, a chronic respiratory condition requiring lifelong treatment and management. This policy discriminates against them in two ways.

First, they are statistically more likely than the average student to become ill during the school year because of their weakened respiratory systems. Thus, they miss more school days, which is beyond their control.

Secondly, a policy that encourages others to attend when they are ill can be life-threatening and even fatal for them. They both became severely ill this past flu season, which I believe was the direct result of this policy, since they spend the vast majority of their waking hours in school with many students who are ill and should not be in attendance.

I have had numerous conversations about this policy over the past few years with teachers and administrators across the county. They unanimously agreed that this policy does little or nothing to motivate the chronically absent student to attend, yet penalizes good students by its inflexibility regarding serious illnesses, family emergencies, etc.

School system veterans, parents and employees alike, recognize that the real reason this policy exists is to increase the funds received from the federal government for schools. Schools are paid a certain dollar amount, per day, per student in attendance. Fewer absences result in more money.

I believe if exam exemptions are to be allowed at all, they should be based on an A grade in the class and not on attendance. I understand the reasons why this policy is popular with students. However, I don't make parental and family decisions based on what is popular with my children - should the School Board?

The School Board should immediately re-examine this policy, as it could be the source of legal action against them for its discriminatory nature and its cavalier treatment of those with chronic illnesses.

-Karla Stahl, Odessa

[Last modified May 26, 2005, 08:33:06]