District administrators told the Board of Education that attendance and mathematics are two priority areas in the district comprehensive improvement plan and presented data, a tiered response flowchart and a plan of six broad strategies to address chronic absenteeism.

Administrators said the district’s internal daily attendance target is 89.2% or higher; they contrasted that with the New York State Education Department’s 95% daily attendance benchmark. The district reported a daily average attendance rate of 89.74% for 2023–24 and 88.32% for the most recent year shown. The presenters said New York State’s accountability now emphasizes daily attendance rather than chronic absenteeism because chronic measures can include factors outside school control.

District staff outlined a tiered attendance flowchart. Tier 1 steps include automated absence notifications, phone calls from attendance clerks and letters generated by the student management system (SchoolTool). If absences continue, the district escalates: building teams review cases, attendance clerks and nurses may follow up, and schools can request home visits. For students who accumulate additional absences, administrators said the district may bring in student support teams (counselors, social workers, school psychologists), use check‑in/check‑out mentoring, develop attendance success plans and engage community partners such as Liberty Partnership and family mentors.

Administrators said the district’s population includes high poverty (reported as 78% but “more likely closer to 85%” per the presentation) and a transient student rate near 35%, both of which the presenters said complicate attendance work. Staff said early childhood attendance patterns (preK–grade 1) are especially uneven and that absence patterns often increase again in middle school and in ninth grade when students enter a new building.

If repeated efforts fail to improve attendance, staff said the district may refer cases to social services or a person‑in‑need‑of‑supervision (PINS) process and, in some severe cases where barriers are not addressed and guardians do not engage, the district could consult the district attorney about possible legal pathways. The presenter said this would only occur after exhausting supports and that the district seeks to distinguish families with genuine barriers from those declining to engage.

The district described specific local tactics used by individual schools: attendance clerks assigned to each building, a SafeArrival single phone number for parents to report absences, letters mailed at 10, 15 and 20 cumulative missed days, targeted home visits, check‑in/check‑out mentoring, incentives such as class‑level attendance rewards, and partnerships with community agencies to provide mentoring, counseling and case management.

Administrators said they have asked Binghamton University students to analyze three years of anonymous attendance data to identify patterns among chronically absent students and correlate absence with free or reduced lunch status, special education status and transportation mode. They said a report is pending.

Board members and community speakers asked for data broken out by reason for absence (for example health, suspension or out‑of‑school suspension). Staff clarified that suspensions where the district provides education do not count as absences for chronic absenteeism calculations; the presentation did not provide a full breakdown by cause for all chronically absent students.

The superintendent recognized two staff members who co‑chair the district attendance task force and said the district will review attendance policy and operational alignment this year to ensure staff follow flowcharts and early‑warning dashboards. The district emphasized multi‑tiered family engagement and use of family mentors as trusted community messengers.