This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Mountain View Elementary Principal Bryce Day said Wednesday that he has no intention of referring parents to truancy court.
Speaking before the House Education Committee, Day told the story of a second-grade student who couldn't read when he arrived at school in the fall, and who has been absent for 63 days, or more than half, of the current school year.
It was only the threat of criminal truancy, Day said, that opened up conversations between the student's family and school staff.
"It wasn't until I was able to send a letter letting the parent know that it is a class B misdemeanor that I finally got that parent to engage with me," Day said.
Day was speaking in opposition to SB45, a bill that would remove the criminal penalty for school truancy.
He said schools rely on the state's compulsory education laws, not to punish parents but to push dialogue and ensure that children receive an education.
"This bill will inordinately impact low-income schools and our youngest students," he said.
Sponsored by Highland Republican Sen. Alvin Jackson, SB45 was approved by the Senate last month in a 22-5 vote.
Its path to the House of Representatives was slowed Wednesday, as floor debate forced the education committee to abruptly end its hearing before taking a vote on the bill.
Jackson said the bill has generated emotional stories from both educators and parents, who cite instances of school harassment and familial neglect in support and opposition of the proposal.
But those arguments are secondary to the true intent of the bill, Jackson said, which is to ensure the proper role of government as secondary to the rights of parents to raise their child as they see fit.
"Punishing parents in this way violates that basic principle whether or not the parent exemplifies our self-righteous definition of what a good parent is or isn't," Jackson said.
While the committee did not vote, comments during the debate suggested that lawmakers are not yet convinced on the need for the bill.
Some committee members expressed support for the concept of the bill, before adding that the state has an interest in compelling the education of children.
"Neglect should be a charge that we pursue criminally," said Rep. Justin Fawson, R-North Ogden.
Rep. Marie Poulson, D-Cottonwood Heights, said schools are accommodating to parents who work with educators to excuse absences.
During her 20 years as a teacher, she said, families would excuse students for months at a time, for travel or other activities, without any danger of criminal charges.
She also said her personal experience as a "farm kid in a poor family" leads her to support compulsory education laws.
"I am forever grateful that my parents were forced to send me to school," she said. "Otherwise, I could have been a farmhand."
Supporters of the bill argued that other government agencies, such as the Division of Child and Family Services, are better positioned than public schools to intervene when children are neglected.
Julie King, a social worker and parent, said threatening parents with jail time and fines is the wrong approach when those parents are already struggling to get their children to school.
"When we criminalize children missing school, we ultimately criminalize poverty," she said.
In the past decade, 20 Utah parents have been jailed and 171 fined for violating the state's compulsory education laws, according to data from the Libertas Institute.
Because no vote was taken, the House Education Committee has the ability to debate the bill in a future meeting, and legislative rules allow the bill to reach the House floor without a committee hearing if there is sufficient support among lawmakers.
Twitter: @bjaminwood