House Education reviews proposed statutory package to address chronic absenteeism and truancy
Loading...
Summary
The House Education Committee reviewed draft statutory language that would create a new chronic-absenteeism subchapter in Title 16, set definitions (10% threshold for chronic absenteeism; 20 unexcused absences or 175 days for truancy), require AOE model policy adoption, and establish reporting and enforcement steps; members requested AOE and stakeholder testimony and flagged several scope and numeric clarifications.
Speaker 1 convened the House Education Committee on Feb. 3 to review a draft miscellaneous education bill that includes a substantial package of new statutory language to govern chronic absenteeism and truancy.
The legislative counsel walked members through a proposed new subchapter in Title 16, Chapter 25 that would add definitions and procedures. Under the draft, chronic absenteeism would be defined as a student who is absent for 10% or more of a district's or approved independent school's student attendance days in a school year, "regardless of whether the absences are considered excused or unexcused," and truancy would be defined as 20 or more unexcused absences either within a single school year or within the last 175 consecutive student attendance days. The draft also creates a list of excused absences and authorizes superintendents or heads of school to excuse preplanned family commitments with prior notice.
"This is all brand new language," Speaker 2 (legislative counsel) told the committee as they reviewed definitions and the proposed structure for the attendance chapter. The counsel said the draft would add a model policy requirement: the Agency of Education (AOE) must develop and review a model prevention/response policy annually and publish it by July 1, 2027; school boards and governing bodies of independent schools would be required to adopt and implement a policy meeting or exceeding that model by July 1, 2028.
The draft would also require districts and approved independent schools to collect absence data "in accordance with AOE's requirements" and to use a template of documentation that would form a truancy reporting protocol. On enforcement, the counsel described revised notice and complaint procedures: principals and heads of school would notify superintendents when students accumulate the specified number of unexcused absences; superintendents could notify truant officers and centralized intake/Emergency Services at DCF; and truant officers, if absences are not excused, could file complaints with a state's attorney, who would then decide on legal action against parents or guardians.
Committee members pressed on scope and implementation questions. Speaker 1 asked whether the bill applies to all students enrolled at approved independent schools or only to students funded with public dollars; Speaker 2 said AOE would need to clarify, and members requested testimony from AOE and independent-school associations. Speaker 4 warned about unintended precedent and urged care to avoid disrupting therapeutic schools currently serving students: "I really have a school that's in play that's helping kids currently," Speaker 3 said, urging the committee to solicit testimony from school staff and families.
Committee members also flagged a transcription/ drafting problem in the preapproved‑absence limit: the line in the draft read in the transcript as "Preapproved absences shall not exceed 10 k million of school days in each calendar year," a garbled numeric string that the counsel and members agreed needs correction and verification. The committee asked legislative counsel to follow up with AOE to clarify coverage (recognized schools, out‑of‑state students, and whether independent schools' nonpublic enrollments are included), the intended numeric limit for preapproved absences, and how chronic‑illness accommodations are reflected in excused‑absence categories.
The committee did not vote on the draft. Speaker 1 said the group would solicit testimony from superintendents, principals and the independent‑school association, and asked legislative counsel to consider removing the chronic‑absenteeism language into a standalone committee bill to allow more focused study. The committee scheduled further work and asked staff to confirm whether compact‑related funding and other bookkeeping appear in the AOE budget request.
What happens next: legislative counsel and committee staff will request clarifications and stakeholder testimony (AOE, superintendent/principal associations, independent schools, therapeutic-school representatives) before the committee advances the draft.
