If you walk into many private schools and colleges in Dhaka and other cities in Bangladesh, you may find the same line written in the admission book or dairy, an unexcused absence costs Tk 50 or Tk 100 even more for some schools. The logic sounds reasonable on paper to make skipping school costly enough to discourage absenteeism. But In practice, it is one of the least examined and most questionable policies in our schools. Do these fines actually help to achieve the purpose of education?
At first glance, such a policy may appear reasonable, as regular attendance is necessary for education. It may encourage parents to ensure that their children attend school. And initially it was only practiced in the capital or cities but nowadays spreads in small cities and towns too. However, when this policy is examined from the perspective of Bangladesh's economic circumstances, children's rights and the principle of equality, its fairness becomes more complicated.
A fine of Tk 50 or Tk 100 may not appear significant to every household. However, the economic impact of a fixed monetary penalty is not the same for every family. For a lower-middle-class or economically vulnerable family, repeated fines can become a meaningful financial burden. If a child is absent for several days, the penalty can accumulate. Consequently, a policy that appears equal for every family may actually produce unequal consequences.
Consider a girl who misses school for three days because of severe menstrual pain. (In many schools, menstruation is not necessarily treated as an excused absence.) Her family could therefore face a Tk 300 fine (Tk 100 × 3 days). For a family already struggling to meet basic needs, that same Tk 300 could buy approximately two dozen eggs, providing an important source of protein for the week. If such penalties continue, it raises a difficult question: does a parent have to choose between paying a fine for a child’s absence and putting food on the family’s table?
There is also a deeper question concerning the nature of education itself. Is the objective of an education system simply to make children physically present in classrooms, or is it to help them learn, develop and become capable members of society?
A child may be physically present in school because his or her parents are afraid of a fine. But physical attendance does not automatically produce meaningful education. A child who is anxious, exhausted, bullied, struggling academically may sit inside a classroom without actually engaging with learning. Therefore, an attendance policy that focuses exclusively on physical presence risks reducing education to a numerical measurement.
Does compulsory education have to mean punitive attendance?
For a developing country like Bangladesh, education is not merely a means of acquiring knowledge, it is closely connected with poverty reduction, social mobility, employment, economic growth and the development of human capital. Ensuring that children attend school and receive an education is therefore a legitimate and necessary objective of the State. However, while compulsory education may be necessary, an important question remains, should it be enforced through financially burdensome attendance policies?
Bangladesh has made considerable progress in expanding access to education. Yet access to education does not necessarily mean meaningful participation or successful completion. UNICEF’s 2025 Bangladesh MICS data show that adjusted net attendance falls substantially as children progress through the education system, particularly at the secondary level.
A compulsory education system can be strong without being harsh. An effective education policy must ask not only, “Was the child present today?” but also “Why was the child absent?”
At the same time, poverty and other socioeconomic circumstances continue to affect children's ability to remain in education. This creates an important policy dilemma. If education is intended to provide children with a pathway out of poverty, the State must ensure that the mechanisms used to enforce education do not themselves create additional economic pressure on vulnerable families.
This does not mean that attendance should be treated casually. Regular attendance is undoubtedly important. Excessive absence can lead to learning gaps, poor academic performance, disengagement and eventually dropout. The state and educational institutions therefore have a legitimate interest in preventing unnecessary absenteeism. Parents also have responsibilities towards their children's education
A more supportive approach
An initial unexplained absence could prompt a notification to the parents. Repeated unexplained absence could lead to counselling or a meeting with the family. If the problem is economic the school could consider support mechanisms to solve the problem. If transportation is a barrier, practical solutions could be explored. If the child is experiencing bullying or psychological distress, school should address the underlying problem rather than simply punish with a fine.
The central problem is that punishment and responsibility are not always the same thing. A parent may be legally responsible for ensuring a child''s education, but the State and school also have a responsibility to create an environment in which regular education is realistically accessible. It would therefore be unfair to place the entire burden of attendance on parents without considering the structural circumstances.
Schools need to reckon with another problem too, that students often attend school only to maintain their attendance record, while relying on coaching centres for marks rather than learning. This suggests that success of an education system should not be measured simply by how effectively it forces children through the school gates. It should be measured by whether children are able to attend safely, learn effectively, develop their potential and view education as an opportunity rather than a punishment.
The country needs children in classrooms, but it also needs those children to want to learn, feel safe, remain engaged and have the opportunity to value education.
A compulsory education system can be strong without being harsh. An effective education policy must ask not only, “Was the child present today?” but also “Why was the child absent?”
* Ramisha Nujhat, Teaching Assistant, Department of Law, East West University, Bangladesh.