And people ACTUALLY complain about a Nanny state

[Andara Bledin]

Sociologically speaking, the biggest hurdle to kids staying in school and doing well is actually economic (mostly socio-economic), so kicking kids out of school only helps to perpetuation the situation most likely responsible for their not attending in the first place, and makes it more likely that their peers will do similar.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

What I'm really curious about is how much of their continuously cut funding is going to this program?

[Seifer]

Sociologically speaking, the biggest hurdle to kids staying in school and doing well is actually economic (mostly socio-economic), so kicking kids out of school only helps to perpetuation the situation most likely responsible for their not attending in the first place, and makes it more likely that their peers will do similar.

^-.-^

I could see the schools giving students some leeway if they're absent in order to work and support their families. However, a lot of the students who skipped school (at least in my area) did so because they didn't give a shit about school. They saw it as a waste of time and energy, and simply refused to go. Some of it might have been the students themselves, but it also depends on the family, as well. If everyone in the household thinks school is useless, then the kids are more likely to follow in that mindset.

[HYHYBT]

Yes, but the economic stuff has a lot to do with which ones see school as a waste of time.

[Racket_Man]

and the one funny thing about this is the system was SUPPOSED to dollar neutrial. The initial system cost around $500K AND it is now estimated the cost to maintain the system iPER YEAR is around $150K. more money thrown at a problem and less money for other better things.

[HYHYBT]

Stupid question: how on earth could this possibly have been positioned as dollar-neutral when it doesn't produce any income?

[Duelist925]

Stupid question: how on earth could this possibly have been positioned as dollar-neutral when it doesn't produce any income?

The only thing I can think of is they expected the cost of the id charged to the students to cover the costs of funding this idiotic program not expecting such a stink to be raised over it, and so many students to just keep their old badges.

[gremcint]

Are the teachers required to carry these too? off campus as well as on campus?

[Panacea]

Stupid question: how on earth could this possibly have been positioned as dollar-neutral when it doesn't produce any income?

Because the system pays for itself. The real purpose of the system is not to keep track of the kids. It's to count attendance for the purpose of collecting federal dollars. The school gets $30/day per kid. They were losing over a million dollars a year because paper attendance was missing kids who were actually in school, but not in home room when attendance was taken (because they were in the nurse's office, or late in the hall, or whatever). That's the primary purpose; to ensure the school collects the money it is due.

Are the teachers required to carry these too? off campus as well as on campus?

Off campus, I doubt it. There would be no purpose to it.

On campus, yes. The badges serve to identify who belongs on campus and who does not (they include picture ID), and also allow teachers, staff, and students to charge meals in the cafeteria.

[Andara Bledin]

As I said before, identifying who doesn't belong on campus requires some sort of human intervention, at which point the RFID chips become mostly pointless. A standard ID with a number and a handheld with access to a list of ID#s that state valid or not would have been just as effective at a fraction of the cost and upkeep.

Close the campus, put up gates, and suddenly, no more kids on campus without being counted.

^-.-^