From our other sites
The story
Around the time of the 2004 curriculum guideline revision, the old term “school refusal” (登校拒否) gave way to “non-attendance” (不登校), and not going to school came to be treated as a choice the child is entitled to make. On 5ch, users picked up on this policy shift and noted that the number of truant elementary schoolers has climbed from roughly 20,000 in 2004 to around 140,000 in 2024, sparking a thread. Some argued this mirrors the Children and Families Agency’s “Children First” policy, while others countered that respecting a child’s will is barely distinguishable from neglecting their education. Opinions split hardest over just how much paternalism should be tolerated.
What people said
Child allowances!
Hooorayyy~
This truancy philosophy is exactly the Children and Families Agency's "Children First" policy.
The idea is to respect the child's own will instead of imposing adult opinions on them — to honor a child's choice not to go to school.
After the 2004 curriculum guideline revision, the term changed to "non-attendance" (不登校). Whether or not to go to school became the child's own personal choice, and the freedom not to attend was recognized. To respect the child's choice, schools were no longer required to take any special action.
That's the difference, by the way.
Whoa, that must've been a huge relief for schools.
That's also around when the word "paternalism" started getting thrown around — imposing adult opinions on kids started being treated as a bad thing.
Honestly, I don't hate this way of thinking. There are ways to enjoy life besides the "go to school" route.
Why do adults get so upset if it's not one single path?
isn't that basically just neglecting their education?
Yeah, I think so too.
It's like they're stretching "it's okay to run away" way too far.
Kids can't judge for themselves, right?
They'll just drift toward whatever's easiest.
Isn't it the adult's job to correct that?
In the end, it's for the kid's own good.
You can't know that without understanding why they stopped attending in the first place.
Assuming "they just want to take it easy" is its own kind of snap judgment.
If a kid is being bullied and doesn't want to go, and you just yell "get in there, go go go!!" regardless, you're setting them up for the worst possible outcome.
That's why the basic principle in education theory is: fix the root cause, don't just force compliance.
In that case, isn't it the adult's job to get them to school somehow — switch classes, transfer schools, whatever it takes?
"Respecting the child's will," give me a break.
That's the job of teachers and parents, isn't it?
And isn't the Children and Families Agency there to support exactly that?
That exact mindset is paternalism.
Getting all self-satisfied saying "it's for your own good" — that's just adult ego talking.
So does that mean granting kids the right to skip compulsory education?
And if that turns them into a socially inept adult who can't hold a job, we just slap a mental-illness label on it?
You're kidding, right? lol
If it ends in failure, that's on them too.
It's not anyone else's place to butt in.
And it's fine if that just mass-produces welfare cases? ("namapo" = slang for welfare/public assistance)
No matter how much some other adult claims to say it "for the kid's sake," butting in like that isn't right.
If the child chooses not to attend school,
and the parents talked it over with the child and decided together, there's no room for outsiders to step in.
Then don't rely on society either, got it?
If that's the attitude, fine, do whatever you want — but then don't take the child allowance too.
Maybe we should just stop protecting kids altogether then?
If anything, the Children and Families Agency is on the "respect the child's will" side.
It's about centering the child instead of the adult — that's the whole "Children First" thing, remember?
That's exactly why I'm saying it's fundamentally wrong.
So is school just a place to study, then?
If that's all it is, tear down the whole school system and let only the kids who actually want to study attend.
Going to school or not is just one choice among many.
Fine by me then — as long as we set up a system where anyone who skips compulsory education loses part of their human rights, and can buy those rights back by earning their own money and paying a set amount of tax. Deal?
If anything, that's the normal state of things.
Why does everyone have to follow the "go to school" route? There are plenty of other ways to live.
Just pick whichever one you want.
You only think that because school is treated as the default.
So disband the Japan Teachers' Union and build a new system where only the kids who actually want to study go to school.
Why isn't anyone reviewing the school system itself?
Isn't that strange?
And if we actually did that, what happens in the end?
Showa era, honestly.
Kids don't need freedom.
To begin with, when a kid chooses non-attendance of their own free will, there's no "problem" happening in the first place.
Then we should scrap child benefits too.
Sure, plenty of people got their GED-equivalent (daiken) and now work as regular company employees.
If there's something else you'd rather be doing, I think it's fine not to go to school — as long as you're using that time to do something for your future.
Has anyone even checked whether that's actually happening?
Background and Key Points of This Discussion
The shift from “school refusal” to “non-attendance” overlapped with the 2004 revision of Japan’s curriculum guidelines, a period when treating school absence as the child’s own choice — rather than a symptom of mental illness — gained momentum. What split opinion in the thread boils down to a single question: is this “respect for the child’s will” a form of support for their growth, or an abdication of adult responsibility? It’s striking that the word “paternalism” gets used with opposite connotations depending on which side is arguing. Worth noting, as a premise the thread itself never addressed: real-world truancy is tied to multiple factors — bullying, home environment, developmental traits, and more — so reducing the rise in numbers to nothing but a change in terminology or policy would be jumping to conclusions.
*This article is excerpted and summarized from the 5ch (Nandemo Jikkyō G) thread “[Sad News] Elementary school truancy: 20,000 in 2004 ← yikes, 140,000 in 2024 ← wait, WHAT?!“
Leave a Reply