Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attendance Truancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves districtwide attendance/truancy officer contract after debate over elementary coverage
Summary
The East Haven Board of Education voted to approve a revised attendance/truancy officer contract that removes the word “secondary,” broadens the role to districtwide duties (including residency checks), and requires monthly reporting. Board members debated scope, workload and whether compensation or additional staff will be needed.
The East Haven Board of Education voted to approve a revised contract for the district attendance/truancy officer after a lengthy discussion about the officer’s duties and coverage across elementary and secondary schools.
Board members approved the contract by roll call vote after members agreed to strike the word “secondary” and to require a monthly report. The board directed that a monthly report of the officer’s work — including meetings, time spent in schools and caseload numbers — be submitted to the superintendent for review by the board.
Why it matters: Board members said residency checks and truancy work are linked and affect chronic absenteeism and student enrollment counts. Several board members pressed to ensure elementary principals receive more support, saying the position historically served both elementary and secondary schools and that equity concerns arose when elementary coverage decreased.
Discussion and changes: During discussion the superintendent said the officer performs attendance, truancy and residency checks and that the position has performed door‑to‑door outreach and helped with hearings. Board members reported the officer performed “over two dozen” residency visits this year that led to withdrawals; that figure was discussed as the board considered how much time the officer spends on residency verification versus casework.
Board debate focused on operational scope, alternatives and oversight: some members argued the officer should be available districtwide on a referral basis to handle the most severe elementary cases and to provide periodic check‑ins at each school; others expressed concern that redistributing the caseload across eight schools without additional resources could dilute time available for the higher‑need secondary caseloads. The board agreed to make assignment districtwide but to monitor a monthly log and revisit staffing if reports show unmet need.
Compensation and schedule: The contract retains language for an hourly rate for work outside the regular school year and notes the position historically worked only school days (the superintendent said the officer “works 180 school days” in one reference and that there is an hourly rate for summer or extra hours). Board members indicated possible compensation implications if the scope is increased and said they would evaluate after reviewing monthly logs.
Outcome: Motion to approve the district attendance/truancy officer contract carried unanimously by roll call vote (all nine members present voted yes). The contract language change—removing “secondary” and adding a requirement for monthly reporting to the superintendent for board review—was explicitly adopted.
Next steps: The board agreed to review the monthly reports and, if necessary, consider part‑time additional staffing or grant funding to support more elementary coverage.
