Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attendance And Compulsory Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carroll County outlines enforcement changes, chronic‑absentee data after state law revisions
Summary
District staff told the Carroll County Board on Aug. 18 that recent state changes to compulsory attendance add enforcement "teeth," and presented chronic‑absenteeism figures and local protocols involving schools, social workers and the juvenile court system.
District staff briefed the Carroll County Board of Education on Aug. 18 about state changes to compulsory attendance law, local enforcement protocols, and current chronic‑absenteeism figures.
A staff member presenting the attendance update said, “The state gave us the gift of revising the compulsory attendance law. I do like the changes with it. I do think it adds some teeth,” and described a cross‑agency committee that includes Carroll County Schools, Carrollton City, social workers, the juvenile court judge (Judge Simpson), city police and the county sheriff’s office. The presenter said those agencies are coordinating enforcement and support interventions.
The presenter said the district’s chronic‑absentee rate was 18.6 percent (the reported state average was 19.5 percent) and explained the district’s threshold definitions: chronic absenteeism was defined as missing 10 percent of enrolled days. The presenter reported that, in the previous year, a set of students missed 10 unexcused days (reported in the meeting as 1,264 students) and a smaller group missed 20 unexcused days (reported as 244 students); the presenter said targeted attendance meetings and social‑worker interventions occur between those thresholds. The district also allows parents to submit up to five parental notes to excuse absences under local protocol.
The presenter said misdemeanor prosecution for failing to comply with mandatory attendance can be pursued in state court and that a public defender is available for parents charged in such cases; the presenter noted the juvenile court is not always the appropriate venue for adult prosecutions. Board members asked clarifying questions about what constitutes excused versus unexcused absences; the presenter said local protocol and parental‑note allowances govern those determinations and offered to provide additional guidance materials to the board.
The presentation was informational; no vote or policy adoption occurred at the meeting.
