I cut classes a couple of times in high school, but not enough to become a truancy problem. I had very high IQ scores, but wasn’t very successful socially. Cutting classes was a way to hang out with the cool/popular kids, and be a bit less of a nerdy-girl.

I expect I’ll see it happen with my younger son in a few more years. He’s very bright and fairly socially successful. When/if it does happen, we’ll have a talk about the consequences, and that will include discussing my husband’s lack of education.

He’s the most intelligent person I’ve ever met, but his education was pretty much over after 4th grade. We’ll skip the long Dickensian tale of his unfortunate childhood (here and with the kid conversation), but we’ll emphasize the consequences of that lack of education.

But asking a kid to think about the long-term on his own, without parents or adults raising the subject, seems like expecting maturity beyond the kid’s years.

One of the rare advantages of the older son’s autism – he has a full-time one-on-one aide, so he’s never going to have the opportunity to cut classes.

That doesn’t mean they are completly incapable of rational thought. Those cutting class do so because the school they are assigned to is perceived as having little value – at all, short term and long term.

My point is that OUSD shouldn’t just dismiss the collective wisdom of the market – the fact that many of their students walk out of class. OUSD should change things so that their schools have more value to their proletariat students (including short term value).

Additionally, the idea that we all act rationally in our best interests is itself ludicrous when one considers the erratic behavior and choices made because of depression and other mental illness, and addictions. If I play my addictive videogames all day or stay stoned all day or stay in bed all day, am I really making a “rational” choice? No, I’m just choosing to escape reality for the short-term, to avoid pain.

I argue that the schools don’t match the students – that everybody involved is going through the motions so that OUSD can get their ADA money, the teachers can have jobs (they have nowhere better to go) and the parents want babysitting. So there is little pressure from any quarter to actually have a school that is worth anything. especially when the worthless schools serve the proletariat anyway who are not known for careful shopping.

In a “real” school situation the students would not cut because it would cost them more than they were willing to pay. For example, how many people “cut” Police Academy, Law School, Med School, Nursing School, or any other “real” school where the education is precious and students value being allowed to go. What’s the absentee rate at Piedmont High?

Anything OUSD does to start running “real” schools would reduce the absentee problem.

That means segregating the schools and matching students to programs – by competition and merit. You’d need a program anybody would compete for 1st. I suggest OUSD copy Lowell High School in San Francisco. For the sake of argument take Oakland Tech or some other campus and open it to districtwide enrollment on a competitive basis – no affirmative action (that would need to be advertised). Give it your more accomplished teachers and best equipment and sophisticated classes. Kick out any non-performing students.

Watch what happens to that attendance rate.

Otherwise high cut rates are a warning that the programs and policies of the campuses involved have no perceived value. They should be adjusted. Maybe increase the voc ed, maybe increase the number of male teachers, maybe boost the football program – whatever.

No student wants to attend unsafe, dirty or chaotic schools. Could that be a factor?