 When
students don’t come to school, DPPs must go ‘home’
by V. Wayne Young, Executive Director
The Kentucky General Assembly enacted legislation during its 2005
session that immediately increased the workload of directors of pupil
personnel (DPP) in local districts. The legislation changed from
nine, to six, the number of unexcused absences or tardies a student
must have in order to be declared “habitually truant.” A
recent ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals has imposed a duty
on DPPs that has the potential to create an additional strain on
their time demands and resources.
The case of T.D., a Child, and D.B., a Child, v. Commonwealth of
Kentucky, was decided late in May, after many schools had ended
the school year. It involved two separate cases from the same
school
district in which students were brought before the district court
for habitual truancy.
The appellate court joined the cases together to render its decision.
One student had missed 13 days of school, and was ordered by the
district court to attend school or be jailed. The other student
had missed seven days, and was found by the court to be truant,
and placed
on probation. In one case, the DPP testified that he could not
remember making any home visits; in the other, he produced evidence
of having
attempted several home visits.
Both cases were appealed to the Circuit Court, and then to the
Court of Appeals, on both substantive and procedural grounds.
In their
appeals, the students argued that the Kentucky Juvenile Code,
specifically KRS 630.060(2), required the DPP to perform an “adequate assessment
of the child” prior to being allowed to bring truancy charges.
They claimed that KRS 159.140 established the elements of that
adequate assessment, and that those elements included ascertaining
the causes
of the truancy, acquainting himself with the student’s home
conditions, and making home visits. They claimed these things had
not been done, and that they therefore could not be charged with
truancy. The Commonwealth argued that these duties are “generalized
goals,” and not a mandate on DPPs.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, and declared that the statute “requires
compliance” before a student can be brought before the
court for truancy.
The Court said that “it was the intention of the legislature
to make it more rigorous to bring a juvenile into the court system.”
The Court did recognize that sometimes, despite the “best efforts” of
the DPP, complete compliance might not be possible. It stated that
court designated workers (CDWs) would have to examine each case to
determine if an “adequate assessment” by the DPP had
occurred. DPPs now must be fully prepared to provide evidence to
CDWs of their efforts to comply with KRS 159.140 before being able
to proceed with truancy charges.
Any changes to this standard in the future must come from the
legislature.
|
More
Benefits
