Vermont superintendents urge supportive response, tighter home-study checks in chronic-absenteeism bill

Montpelier — Superintendents and district leaders urged the House Education Committee on Feb. 11 to reshape a committee bill on chronic absenteeism so it emphasizes supports and early intervention rather than automatic referrals to child-welfare or court pathways.

Libby Bone Steele, superintendent of Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools, told the committee the bill "as written essentially codifies a failing status quo," arguing that the mandate to notify a truancy officer after 20 unexcused days and the potential for Department for Children and Families (DCF) or prosecutor involvement can alienate families rather than reconnect students. "Punitive action must be the absolute last resort, not the first," she said.

Why it matters: Witnesses said chronic absenteeism is an early warning sign of broader problems — from health and anxiety to poverty and family responsibilities — and that a punitive first step can worsen outcomes for disadvantaged students. Montpelier Roxbury’s chronic-absence rate fell from about 32% at the pandemic peak to 16% after the district adopted a multi-tiered support approach, the superintendent said; by contrast, she noted the national average is roughly 24%.

Districts outlined an alternative model centered on engagement and early contact. Steele described a three-tier framework used in her district: Tier 1 focuses on universal engagement and belonging; Tier 2 triggers early, restorative outreach after as few as two missed days by a classroom teacher; Tier 3 provides intensive remediation, wraparound services, home visits and transportation when a student reaches a crisis point.

"We treat absenteeism as a barrier to be removed, not a rule to be enforced," Steele said, arguing schools should exhaust supportive interventions before seeking outside legal involvement.

Technical perspective: Nick Connor, director of student engagement and data for Montpelier Roxbury, said chronic absenteeism shows a U-shaped distribution across grades, with higher rates among young children and upper‑grade students. He gave a working definition used in testimony — about 18 days missed in a school year — and said causes span health, mental-health concerns, caregiving responsibilities and inequities in how absences are classified as excused or unexcused. Connor recommended restorative-justice community panels and prehearing mediation as alternatives to court referrals.

Home-study oversight concerns: Wendy Baker, superintendent of the Addison Central School District, described multiple cases where students with prolonged disengagement left public-school oversight after families submitted home-study enrollment letters at the moment courts or DCF were preparing interventions. In one example she cited, a student who had missed roughly 40% of required school days was de-enrolled the same day the deputy state's attorney contacted the district about next steps.

Baker said her district of about 1,700 students employs five social workers and spends more than $800,000 on mental-health supports; its chronic-absence rate is about 8%. She urged the committee to restore limited application checks and accountability measures for home-study enrollment so the secretary of education can flag cases with prior DCF reports or active truancy concerns.

On DCF's role, Baker said the agency generally treats educational-neglect concerns only up to age 12, leaving older students with fewer systemic protections unless the education code or administrative checks are adjusted.

Committee response and next steps: Committee members pressed for details on who would carry out restorative supports and noted resource constraints in rural communities, where missed buses or lack of activity buses can push students out of the system. A committee member offered to work with superintendents and Agency of Education staff to operationalize recommendations and return with proposed language. The chair closed the testimony and called a five-minute break.

What was not decided: There was no vote. Witnesses recommended legislative language changes to emphasize supportive frameworks and to add targeted home-study provisions; the committee signaled interest in studying models from other states before drafting final bill language.

Speakers quoted are identified by their testimony before the committee.