Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Absenteeism And Truancy R277 607 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tightens rule language on absenteeism and truancy after lengthy debate on definitions and reporting
Summary
R277-607 (Absenteeism and Truancy Prevention) was approved after extended discussion and several amendments to align rule text with statute, clarify required efforts by LEAs, and specify reporting expectations. Board members debated whether to repeat statutory language in the rule and how student-level absentee data are reported and used.
The Utah State Board of Education approved R277-607 (Absenteeism and Truancy Prevention) on second and final reading after an extended discussion over definitions, statutory cross-references and reporting requirements.
Board members debated whether to repeat statutory text inside the rule or instead reference code sections. Some members and staff said including the statutory language in the board rule created a practical "one-stop" reference for LEA staff who frequently consult multiple code sections. Others argued the rule should avoid verbatim repetitions of statute and instead point readers to the specific statutory definitions.
Several specific changes were adopted. The board amended the rule to say the duties of an LEA governing board include "making efforts to promote regular attendance and resolving school absenteeism and truancy issues" (the committee replaced an earlier phrasing to reflect the code's expectation of making efforts). The board also amended language around the definition and application of "habitual truant": after an extended exchange the board considered multiple motions and adopted language that retained the applied elements in the rule but clarified the connection to the statutory definition in 53G-8-211.
Members discussed reporting detail at length. Director Erin Brough (Data & Statistics) said student-level attendance records (SIS/ID-level data) are received by the state and then aggregated for reporting; staff can disaggregate by excused and unexcused absences. Several board members raised concerns that some rule text appeared to label students or create administrative consequences without clear due-process paths. The attendance support team said certain statutory referral triggers (for example, identification of schools requiring assistance) are based on data formulas applied to Utrack information, while Qualtrics continues to be used for program-descriptive reporting in specific places.
A motion to remove specific lines that mirrored statutory language failed on a substitute motion; the board ultimately adopted an amendment that keeps the statutory elements but inserted a cross-reference and adjusted wording for "making efforts" to better mirror the code. The board also revised reporting language to require LEAs to provide specified attendance data to the superintendent; the body debated whether those returns should be provided as student-level records or aggregated; staff clarified they receive student-level records and then produce aggregate reports for dashboards and statutory reports.
The rule was approved on final vote 13-1, with Member Boggess recorded as the single no vote.
Ending: Staff committed to follow-up guidance for LEAs to explain required reports and how data will be used; several members urged staff to simplify LEA reporting where possible and to clarify which items are informational vs. enforcement triggers.
Votes at a glance: multiple amendments were proposed; the final rule (R277-607 draft 1 as amended) passed 13-1 (no: Member Boggess).
