Iowa

Drug testing welfare recipients isn’t the best idea

drug test

Image by Shutterstock.

Drug testing welfare recipients is an idea that doesn’t go away. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 15 states have passed this type of legislation and another 17—including Iowa—have proposed it.

It has plenty of public support. Based upon both Rasmussen and Huffington Post polls, more than half of Americans want to see welfare recipients drug tested.

And yet, the program hasn’t proven to be a great success.

Many states that are experimenting with this policy are prudently choosing not to test every welfare recipient because of possible legal challenges of invasion of privacy. That means only those who are legitimately suspected of using drugs can be tested. With no better method to solidify suspicion, most of these state agencies are simply asking welfare recipients to complete questionnaires. It explains why some of these states have drug tested only a small percentage during the rollout of their program. And from that small number, very few are testing positive.

Besides having a hard time legally testing welfare recipients, there are costs to consider. Administering the program doesn’t happen for free. The financial burden of the program can outweigh any savings. Doing no drug testing could cost taxpayers less.

But just because drug testing welfare recipients isn’t the best idea, it doesn’t mean that lawmakers should ignore what’s at the heart of the matter.

Working people perceive that some individuals are gaming the welfare system, and lots are angry about it.

You don’t have to watch cable news to know that the country has become increasingly divided. One growing division seems to be between the working, tax-paying class and able-bodied individuals who don’t work and receive taxpayer assistance.

In reality, many who are receiving food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid health insurance are working. They just don’t earn enough to support their families. The Family Investment Program (FIP) provides cash payments to families, but it has a five-year, lifetime limitation. Many receiving FIP benefits are required to work at least part-time hours or enroll in some type of program to further their education. According to the Department of Human Services, a single parent with two children receives just $231 per month in cash assistance if the parent is working 20 hours a week at the minimum wage rate of $7.25.

I believe that what working people want more than mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients is seeing able-bodied individuals make the effort to support themselves. The public assistance program is designed to do that.

But there are two things that could improve the system.

Increase the minimum wage to $9.00 per hour. A modest increase in the minimum wage could do so much good for families and could be enough to get some off of welfare programs, decreasing the number that taxpayers support. And history has shown that even small businesses can adjust to minimum wage increases when they’re reasonable.

Secondly, enforce the rules we have. Last fiscal year, the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals recovered $17 million in fraud as a result of welfare eligibility investigations. That’s a big number, but likely doesn’t represent the total dollar amount of deceit that may be out there.

And although FIP benefits can be extended to families beyond five years through a hardship exemption, the exception should be rare and compelling. Those specific dollars should be reported separately so taxpayers can know if the five-year lifetime maximum benefit becomes simply a lifetime benefit.

Give people a chance to move off of welfare by increasing the minimum wage, and do everything possible to maintain integrity in the public assistance program we have.

Maybe then, we’d have fewer taxpayers wanting drug testing of welfare recipients—which is largely a failed policy.

Path to voting for felons is reasonable

The debate over disenfranchised felons misses the mark. There’s a lot of indignation about lost voting rights, but it’s really a story about the lack of transparency and lack of desire.

felon voting

Image by Shutterstock.

Democrats and Republicans have made the issue a political football. Most Democrats assert that voting is a right—not a privilege—that should be restored immediately after being released from prison. Its belief system is helped out by the fact that many felons are low-income individuals who tend to vote Democrat. Many Republicans view voting as a privilege belonging to law-abiding citizens. The notion is that by choosing to commit a felony, an individual makes a simultaneous choice to lose voting rights. Those rights can be restored after release from prison by completing an application process, but some believe these potential Democrat voters may not go through that effort.

Both political parties want control of the vote, but what does the average, newly-released felon want?

There are dozens of agencies, charitable organizations and ministries designed to help a felon reenter society. Some help with basic needs of food, clothing and housing. Others help with employment opportunities and everything that goes along with getting that first job, like obtaining a new driver’s license.

What’s been getting missed, is the conversation about how to restore voting rights. As soon as the prison doors swing open, the Iowa Department of Corrections should be required to notify all released felons of the process required to restore voting rights and offer assistance if needed.

The tragedy isn’t that voting rights were taken away because of the crime committed. It’s that the process to restore those rights isn’t transparent.

It’s the spark that eventually led to the current Griffin v. Pate firestorm. Kelli Jo Griffin, a convicted felon, didn’t know about the, “Application for Restoration of Citizenship Rights.” She thought her voting rights would be automatically restored after her debt to society was paid. Better communication might have helped to avoid the lawsuit that is being argued before the Iowa Supreme Court.

It shouldn’t be a secret on how to be a voter in Iowa. Understanding how to restore voting rights should be as common as knowing how to get your driver’s license back after it has expired. Most people know that once a license is expired, an individual must spend a fair amount of time and effort to restore driving privileges. One must pass a written and driving test, and provide supporting documentation of identification. People know the rules. And if it does expire—for anyone, felon or non-felon—individuals will exert the effort needed. Because driving is important to them.

The U.S. Department of Transportation states that about 87 percent of the driving-age population has a license. Compare that percentage with the 42 percent of individuals who, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, exercised their right to vote in the 2014 elections.

Citizens in this country care about voting about half as much as they care about driving.

Transparency is the first tool to combat the disenfranchising of felons. Information on how to restore voting rights should be made available at the time of release and assistance provided if needed.

Then comes the tougher part—desire. In the state of Iowa, it takes desire on the part of the felon to become a voting citizen again by making the effort to pay restitution, complete the application process, and provide supporting documentation. The newly-streamlined application has 13 questions. They’re basic, fact-based questions like name, address and date of birth, as well as date of crime, conviction and release.

I believe in second chances. Kelli Jo Griffin does too. She’s part of the 42 percent who want to vote.

Armed with knowledge and effort, her goal could have been met a long time ago.

The not-so-nice part about free college tuition

There’s no doubt about it. Many who attended a public university following the 2008 recession shouldered a great, financial burden for their education. When state budgets shriveled up with the economic downturn, public universities took a hit in funding. That translated into higher tuition nationwide and a trillion-dollar student loan debt.

college grad

Image by Shutterstock

Iowa was not immune to this problem. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the state of Iowa (adjusting for inflation) decreased funding for higher education by 22 percent during this time. Despite that decrease, it had the fifth smallest tuition increase of 50 states. That means Iowa universities did a better job than most, in delivering a cost-effective education during the recession. And while the state of Iowa is showing signs of resuming more adequate funding of our public universities, it is still struggling—like other states across the nation—with budget constraints.

These tumultuous years have led Democratic presidential contenders, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, to offer a correction by making promises of free college tuition for all.

Sanders wants, “the best educated workforce in the world,” with college that is tuition-free. He plans to accomplish this by having Wall Street speculators pay for it. Clinton wants to see, “…incomes rise and ensure Americans get ahead and stay ahead,” with college that is tuition-free, although her plan asks students to work 10 hours per week. It would be paid for by requiring states to meet higher education funding requirements and by reducing or eliminating certain tax deductions of high-income earners. Both candidates believe a college education is an entitlement—whether or not students or their parents are financially independent or financially struggling.

This all sounds very nice, but there are three big problems with these niceties.

Making our colleges tuition-free won’t give us what Bernie Sanders wants—the best educated workforce in the world.

Based on feedback from employers, our colleges are not adequately preparing graduates. According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities, “The majority of employers feel that colleges and universities must make improvements to ensure graduates’ workplace success. Fully 58% think improvements are needed to ensure graduates gain the skills and knowledge needed to succeed in entry-level positions at their company… and an even larger portion (64%) think improvements are needed to ensure that graduates have the skills and knowledge needed to advance within their company.”

Promises to make college tuition-free might give us the most degreed workforce in the world, but there’s no correlating evidence that it would provide the best educated workforce.

Secondly, making our colleges tuition-free won’t give us what Hillary Clinton wants—rising incomes. There are insufficient, high-paying jobs for recent college graduates. The Pew Research Center reported from a 2012 study that about 28 percent of recent graduates were underemployed—either working part-time or working in a low-paying, full-time job.

Getting through college, without any debt, may be helped by providing free tuition. But unless we are able to produce high-paying jobs, we may just have more graduates who are dissatisfied and underemployed.

The third problem is the message.

We’re a generous people in this country. For those who show a financial need, taxpayers have historically helped to fund tuitions through Pell Grants. What grants don’t cover, student loans, part-time jobs, and scholarships can fulfill.

But to tell our high school graduates that they are all entitled to a tuition-free college education could be harmful. Your very first lesson as an adult shouldn’t be that the world owes you something.

There’s a more reasonable approach to solving the trillion-dollar student loan debt. Allow graduates to refinance loans at available, lower interest rates as recommended by both Sanders and Clinton. Also, graduates can now enter repayment agreements that don’t exceed 10 percent of their income—no matter how high the student loan debt. And, we can continue Pell Grants.

It’s possible to provide needs-based solutions without going overboard by starting another entitlement program with lots of potential, negative consequences:

  • Free tuition at public colleges could make it tougher for private colleges to compete.
  • Charitable giving by generous donors could diminish because if college is free, what would be the point of offering scholarships?
  • The grading system could be dangerously dumbed down to make sure students meet minimal, government-mandated GPAs, in order to keep free money flowing to colleges.
  • It could create another bloated government agency, in which the cost to administer the program diminishes any positive effects.

The recession has been a rough ride for many individuals, not just college students. It’s tempting to latch on to campaign promises of free stuff, but it doesn’t solve the root of the problem.

Efforts to improve the education process and improve the economy in order to produce high-paying jobs—that graduates are qualified to fill—would pay bigger dividends.

It’s the better message for students.

Public education: When it’s everyone’s fault, it’s nobody’s fault

It’s tough to solve a problem when there are many, contributing variables. Such is the case with public education.

Image by Shutterstock

Image by Shutterstock

For decades and until about 25 years ago, Iowa students led the nation in student achievement. It was a source of state pride. Now just one generation later, student performance has fallen to an average or below average level.

Students First, an organization dedicated to reforming education in the country, gave the state of Iowa an “F” on its 2014 State Policy Report Card and ranked Iowa as 46th in performance. Major categories measured were abilities to elevate the teaching profession, empower parents, and spend wisely and govern well. The 2013 National Assessment of Educational Standards showed that only 36 percent of Iowa eighth graders were proficient in math and 37 percent proficient in English. And U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, stated at the 2011 Iowa Education Summit that, “…the ACT scores of college-bound students suggest that only three in ten high school graduates in Iowa are ready for post-secondary course work.”

Teachers, unions, administrators, school boards, legislators and parents can all rightfully shoulder some of the blame. And that’s the problem. When it’s everyone’s fault, it’s nobody’s fault. There’s no sense of ownership, by any one group, to the crisis in Iowa’s public education.

Maybe we could agree that it’s both everyone’s fault and nobody’s fault and then move on to find solutions that will help our state regain its standing in education greatness.

Teachers – Teaching is a difficult and highly-skilled profession, and still most of our educators manage to do an amazing job. But as any public school graduate knows, there are also ineffective teachers who are allowed to remain in the system for generations. Many administrators and school boards are terrified of firing these teachers because, with union opposition, it could lead to a long and costly, legal battle. According to the Center for American Progress, the U.S. Department of Education found that 61 percent of principals believed teacher associations and unions were a barrier to dismissing poor-performing teachers. Also, the Center found that some districts across the nation spend—on average—more than $200,000 to fire an incompetent, tenured teacher.

The best way to boost student achievement is to have a great teacher in every classroom. Teachers know this. Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth reported in “Schoolhouses, Courthouses and Statehouses,” that “…while the unions may oppose such programs, most of their own members clearly recognize the problem of unfit teachers propped up by the current pay and tenure system. In a recent survey by Public Agenda, 78 percent of teachers polled report at least a few teachers in their school who are simply going through the motions.” Teachers must become advocates for their students by insisting that unions not thwart the removal of ineffective teachers.

Unions – Do not do anything that opposes the removal of poor performers.

Administrators – If ineffective teachers can be dismissed, than administrators should be held accountable for student performance. But a school, just like any other work place, can become quite political. Administrators are personnel decision makers and if it became easier to fire teachers, that power could be abused by unjustly releasing an otherwise high-performing teacher over mere personality conflicts.

Tie the administrator’s job to student performance. An administrator will keep a great teacher in every classroom, even when there are political or personal issues. His or her job will depend upon it.

School Boards – You were voted into office by your community. Your first loyalty is to the families you serve—not the staff. Nobody cares more about the education of our youth than their parents. Be their voice.

Legislators – Our legislators made it painfully clear that the amount of money needed to adequately fund public schools is debatable. But the bare minimum of communicating that allocation to school districts in a timely manner is not happening. Districts are not able to plan. And if you fail to plan…

Parents – Every day, ask your children what they learned in school. If the answer is, “Nothing,” the problem of Iowa’s falling academic performance can be found in the home as well. It seems impossible for a child to attend any educational facility in Iowa for seven hours and not learn something. Parents must give their children the expectation that it is their job to show up at school, with an open attitude, and be ready to learn. Children have a way of rising to meet reasonable expectations.

Fixing what’s wrong with Iowa’s education system won’t be this simplistic, but getting all groups to bear responsibility and participate in more accountable ways would be a mammoth beginning.

Seeing the threat of a poorly educated populace as far back as 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education stated, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves.”

Collectively. We have allowed this to happen to ourselves. Teachers, unions, administrators, school boards, legislators and parents. But collectively, Iowa can regain its standing in educational excellence in the nation.

By owning it. Each and every one of us.

Minimum wage doesn’t provide for the bare minimum

There is disagreement on where minimum wage should be set, but when full-time, minimum wage workers in Iowa fall below the poverty threshold—it cannot stay at $7.25.

Image by Shutterstock.

Image by Shutterstock.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2014 poverty threshold is $16,317 for a two-person household. That’s $7.84 an hour. Also, the Iowa Policy Project estimates annual food, rent, utilities, clothing and household expenses for a two-person household to be $16,560 annually. That’s $7.96 an hour.

Full-time, minimum wage workers are failing to secure the basic human needs of food, clothing and shelter. In “Nickel and Dimed,” Barbara Ehrenreich cites one poll in which 94 percent of Americans believe that, “people who work full-time should be able to earn enough to keep their families out of poverty.”

Americans possess a sense of justice. We are also a generous people. There are dozens of government support programs for the working poor, supported by taxpayers. Effort, combined with generosity, can solve poverty.

One income should support a two-person household. There are some who are not capable of working—children, the elderly, and disabled individuals. Despite our fierce independence in this country, we are not so individualistic that it becomes normal to think in terms of only taking care of ourselves. The hopeful norm is the belief that one person working a full-time, minimum wage job can support one additional person in the household, not capable of working, with those wages.

Iowa legislators introduced a bill that would have raised minimum wage to $8.00 this year and $8.75 next year. The measure died. An hourly wage of $8.00 will simply meet the poverty threshold for a two-person household. Another 75 cents an hour will put an additional 30 bucks each week in the pocket of a full-time worker.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 29 states and D.C. have minimum wages above the federal requirement of $7.25. Of those already higher than the federal requirement, 15 have passed legislation to increase its state minimum wage again and will take effect within the next year or two. While it could be argued that some states are increasing minimum wages too much and too fast without full consideration of unintended consequences—particularly for small business owners—the Iowa bill was reasonable. Knowing that it takes at least $8.00 an hour to purchase the bare minimum of food, clothing and shelter, it’s reasonable to move to that amount as a state minimum. Our neighbors—Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota—all have minimum wages higher than Iowa. Increasing state minimum wage is trending upward.

The National Federation of Independent Business warns that small businesses are the ones who will suffer the most, and if they suffer—the jobs will go with them. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses make up 99 percent of U.S. firms and are responsible for 64 percent of new, private-sector jobs. These small businesses also have a 50 percent failure rate within the first five years, but some failures have nothing to do with labor costs.

History has proven that many small businesses can adjust to the challenge of modest increases in the minimum wage. The time has come to do it again. Human beings who are doing their part and working full-time should not be falling below the poverty threshold. It’s difficult to call that working arrangement a job.

Iowans can help by supporting small businesses in their communities. The consumer has power. And responsibility.

Some may be hard pressed to think of even one person they personally know who is making minimum wage or one business that pays minimum wage. Workers are in demand, and often companies have no choice but to pay higher wages. Free market advocates will say the problem has already been worked out.

If it’s a non-issue, there should be no opposition.

Our legislators failed, and the failure was partisan with Democrats supporting the increase and Republicans opposing it. Partisan battles will and should happen when extreme, liberal or conservative factions are at work. But it’s not extreme to increase the minimum wage to $8.00 an hour. It’s reasonable.

This problem isn’t going away. If more states make the choice to fix it themselves, perhaps the federal government will not feel the need to enforce a one-size-fits-all mandate. What works in the District of Columbia and the East Coast may not be what’s best for Iowa.

When the issue of minimum wage is brought up again, let’s hope our elected leaders—despite their party affiliation—will find a way to do what’s reasonable.

Because the current minimum wage doesn’t cover the bare minimum.

Gridlock begins in the voting booth

Voters lament political gridlock–while they’re encircling the oval for straight party voting.

Straight party voting is, in itself, a form of gridlock. No consideration is given to each candidate on the ballot. Minds are made up with one darkened oval for the party. And when there’s gridlock in the voting booth, it seems disingenuous to bemoan a lack of compromise at the legislature.

It’s a common practice in Iowa. Iowawatch.org, using statistics from the Secretary of State’s office, reported that about a third of Iowans voted a straight party ticket in the 2014 election. But it’s not a common practice nationwide. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Iowa is in the company of just ten other states still allowing straight party voting: Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia. Voting for the party, without selecting each candidate, is trending downward.

Image by Shutterstock.

Image by Shutterstock

Opponents of selecting the oval for straight party voting say it reinforces unhealthy partisanship and also causes non-partisan offices on the ballot to be left blank. Supporters of the practice say that it’s easy to understand and removing the efficient option could mean longer wait times in the voting lines. And, there’s no clear party winner with the practice. Sometimes Republicans benefit and sometimes Democrats. Regardless, even with removing the straight party oval option, voters can still vote 100 percent of the time for their chosen party’s candidates. It just requires selecting each candidate individually.

Since politicians many times fail to find paths of compromise that result in accomplishments for our state and nation, maybe it’s all wrong to think of them as our leaders. Maybe the real leaders are the average voters. By discontinuing the practice of straight party voting and showing a willingness to consider the merits of all candidates on the ballot, voters will be leading by example.

There is, it seems, something unreasonable about straight party voting. Do we really believe that either all Democrats or all Republicans are the “bad guys?” Sounds discriminatory. We don’t discriminate in other areas, and we shouldn’t in our political lives either.

True, we have different viewpoints, opinions and beliefs. And this belief system typically aligns well with one party or the other. It’s pretty simple to align with a party.

Aligning with a candidate is tougher. It takes times to become informed about how one candidate differs from another. How has an incumbent performed in office? What has he or she accomplished? What qualifications or campaign promises does a challenger offer?

Today’s media does make it easier to be informed. Most newspapers have online editions. Social media, although not always the most reliable source, helps by getting people talking about the issues and asking questions. News radio shows have proliferated. Cable television has many channels devoted to non-stop news and commentary, and the steadfast, major networks continue to provide local and world news nightly.

There are typically a dozen or more choices to be made on each ballot. Democrats or Republicans accustomed to straight party voting might consider one candidate from the opposite party who could earn their vote. When in doubt–either from lack of information about the candidate or because both candidates are equally appealing (or equally displeasing)–vote party preference. But if the voter cannot find one, acceptable candidate running opposite his or her party choice, a clearer understanding will develop of why gridlock exists. If voters see only red or blue, why would we expect elected officials to behave differently?

There’s an attitude of gridlock that begins in the voting booth. Adjusting voting behavior, by eliminating the straight party oval option and encouraging voters to consider each candidate, won’t  change the world. But a change in attitude brings a change in expectation, an expectation that politicians who were sent to problem solve–do so. No matter which party is in the majority at the time.

There is hope. In the book, “Political Behavior of the American Electorate,” authors William Flanigan and Nancy Zingale closed their research by stating, “Despite the political elite and political activists, a sizable portion of the electorate is moderate or unconcerned about ideology and lacking in firm partisan attachments.”

Democrats and Republicans voting for moderate and reasonable candidates just might elect a group of workers who can put our state and nation first and partisan politics second. If that doesn’t work, voters might consider joining the growing Independent party. If its numbers keep climbing, it’ll be fielding more successful candidates on the ballot.

Perhaps, then, we will see the death of gridlock.

Early school start dates are fine when a little control is given up

 

Schools don’t take kindly to the state’s effort to control and push for later start dates. Earlier start dates mean semester-ending tests can be taken before winter break and schedules can more closely align with college courses. Later start dates mean families can attend the Iowa State Fair or do any number of activities planned for August. But if schools eased control on absenteeism policies, they could have their early start dates and families could also attend the state fair.

Language on absenteeism policies is pretty subjective. Iowa Code 299.8 states that a child failing to attend school as required is considered a truant unless there is a reasonable excuse for the absence. And school handbooks typically state that a student may be excused by a parent for a valid reason. I like to believe this vague terminology is intentional so that a thoughtful school administrator can identify a reasonable family request as an excused absence.

Thinking back to when my kids were younger, I possessed a reverse understanding. As a parent, I made decisions that I felt were best for my family and had the expectation that the school would support those decisions. That actually included pulling my kids out of school for a week to go on a cruise.

My kids used to joke that we couldn’t take a family vacation unless it was to a state that bordered Iowa. Like many young families, we were struggling to get a foothold financially and living within our means in the meantime. But when our ten-year wedding anniversary approached, we wanted to do something big to mark the event and do it together as a family. We went on a cruise. First time for all of us. Flew to Miami. First experience flying for the kids. Arranged to have a few extra days in Miami so that we could eat at an authentic Cuban restaurant and tour the Everglades. Rode an airboat and saw alligators. Saw the ocean. Another first for the kids. The cruise, itself, was quite an adventure for them. And in their young, sheltered lives they saw a homeless person for the first time when we docked at one of our ports. They gained experiences and perspectives in that one week that opened up the world to them and likely altered their view of the world as well.

Photo by Rachael Halvorson

Photo by Rachael Halvorson

The kids were good students, and I made sure they got their homework assignments for the week so they could be completed and turned in when they returned. The staff and administration were supportive and eager to hear about their adventure.

That was a private school. While I entrusted them with my children every other week of the school year, they entrusted me to be the cruise director of my children’s educational lives for one week. It seemed that the administration understood us to be their customers, a connection more easily made for a private school. Without voluntary, non-subsidized, tuition-paying families, there would be no school. Families are very important to them.

But, the same should be true for public schools. Even though public schools have a geographically determined and captured supply of students and are automatically funded by the taxpayers, the student/parent/family is still the customer. Hillary Clinton wrote in, “It Takes a Village,” that, “Children and their parents are customers of public education, but they are rarely asked what could be improved.”

Perhaps greater respect for families’ ability to be the occasional cruise director for their children’s educational lives is something that could be improved. School start dates are insignificant if families are allowed to make reasonable decisions that are beneficial to the child, regardless of whether or not it fits within a school’s absenteeism policy that sometimes allows for very few missed days—excused or unexcused. Showing cattle at the state fair, helping your family can or freeze a large harvest from the garden, or even celebrating with your family to mark an important event by going on a cruise—these are all reasonable family decisions that could, never less, put a black mark on their student’s attendance record.

My kids graduated from the private school and completed their junior and senior high years at a public school. I can say that both schools were staffed with competent and caring teachers. The majority of our teachers do an amazing job, and I understand they are under an enormous stress to see to it that our students are well educated and perform well on standardized tests. Parents want the same thing except they have even higher expectations. They want well-educated and well-rounded children. They want to provide as many life experiences as possible for their child, and some of those life experiences—such as competing for a blue ribbon at the state fair and all the important lessons that go along with it—simply cannot be obtained on a high school campus.

What could be the potential consequence if some schools continue to start in the middle of August? It is possible that families may choose not to attend the state fair. Even if they do not fear their school’s attendance policies, families may personally not want the added responsibility of trying to juggle both school and other interests. Families already have a lot of stressors. It would be reasonable for them to choose a simpler life. On the other hand, it is also possible that school absenteeism will be high in August because families may decide, for example, that 4H projects at the state fair take a higher priority than the classroom. Some families thrive on full schedules and multiple responsibilities. It’s a reasonable choice, as well.

In either case, the family—the school’s customer—will have spoken. We should all listen to those cruise directors.