Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attendance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District reports chronic absenteeism falling toward pre‑pandemic levels; new state law changes notification and excused‑absence rules
Summary
District student services leaders described implementation of 2024 changes to Iowa attendance law, weekly monitoring and a decline in chronic absenteeism to about 11% to date in 2024–25. Officials explained the district’s notification process and the difference between mandatory county‑attorney notifications and formal referrals.
District staff briefed the board on changes to state attendance law and local implementation steps, and reported chronic absenteeism is improving toward pre‑pandemic levels.
Director Callahan and Kara Pratner, senior specialist for student services, explained that Senate File 2435 (enacted summer 2024) changed which absences the state classifies as exempt or excused, moved attendance monitoring to grading periods, and required districts to notify the county attorney at specified thresholds. "This is what we put in place based on what the law requires and then the additional steps that we've decided on," Pratner told the board.
The district’s process now includes a 5% proactive notification to families (not required by law), a certified 10% letter to guardians plus county‑attorney notification (required by statute), a 15% notice which triggers a school engagement meeting and an absenteeism prevention plan, and weekly attendance updates to families once plans are in place. Pratner said exempted absences defined by the state (for example, certain medical or court reasons) are still excluded from chronic‑absence counts but the district remains accountable for reporting the measure.
Presenters said the district is monitoring chronic absenteeism weekly; the district was at about 11% for 2024–25 at the time of the presentation and has seen values dip to 10% in some weeks. They also reported 34 referrals to the county attorney so far this year (district‑wide), compared with 76 referrals in 2023–24. Of the 76 referrals in 2023–24, 73 qualified for free‑and‑reduced‑price lunch and three were students receiving English‑language services, presenters said.
Board members sought clarity about the difference between mandatory notifications that the district must send at 10% and the separate referral process that leads to county‑attorney involvement. District staff said the district sends a notification to the county attorney at 10% as required by law but only sends formal referrals to the county attorney after schools exhaust local interventions and monitor plans for progress; that referral typically occurs after additional thresholds and case reviews. District staff also described supports such as SFAs, tiered interventions, fidelity checks by the student services team, and community‑partner involvement to address transportation, mental‑health and family‑barrier issues before a case is referred.
The board did not take formal action; members asked district staff to consider clearer public messaging that distinguishes a required county‑attorney notification at 10% from a formal referral that opens county‑attorney involvement.
