House Education Committee advances bill to standardize response to chronic absenteeism
Loading...
Summary
The House Education Committee on April 7 advanced an Agency of Education bill (reported out of committee 11–0) that would add statutory definitions for chronic absenteeism, require a state model policy and encourage nonpunitive, intervention‑focused approaches while preserving local control.
Representative Robert Hunter, the bill sponsor, told the House Education Committee on April 7 that chronic absenteeism rose sharply after the coronavirus pandemic and that the proposed legislation aims to shift schools away from primarily punitive responses.
"Since the coronavirus pandemic, chronic absenteeism in Vermont and the United States has risen dramatically," Hunter said when introducing the AOE‑backed proposal and cited national and state data showing rates near 30 percent in the years after the pandemic. He said the bill—referred to in testimony as H 9 to 30—seeks ‘‘a shift in mindset’’ toward outreach and interventions rather than immediate enforcement.
The bill would add consistent statutory definitions (the testimony described the need to define terms such as chronic absenteeism and truancy), require the Agency of Education to develop a model policy and model procedures, and set minimum expectations for documentation and data practices so school systems and state partners have common standards. Hunter said his committee voted the bill out by an 11–0 margin to move it to the House floor.
Courtney O'Brien, director for safety and healthy schools at the Agency of Education, told the committee the agency supports the bill’s intent but recommended several changes to avoid duplications and to keep technical detail out of statute. "Consistency is a really important part of this process," O'Brien said, describing a plan that pairs statutory definitions with model procedures, technical assistance, template letters and office hours to help districts implement the approach.
AOE witnesses urged removing detailed disability‑specific provisions from the statutory text and instead reinforcing those protections in model procedures and guidance, saying existing state and federal law already protects students with disabilities. The agency also recommended that templates for documentation and parent communications be kept in guidance so they can be updated without a formal policy revision.
On the topic of harassment, hazing and bullying, AOE witnesses recommended against embedding a standalone excused‑absence category for HHV incidents in the chronic absenteeism statute. O'Brien said that classifying HHV as a distinct excused‑absence category risks sending the message that excusal is the primary response rather than school‑based prevention, counseling and reentry planning; she recommended addressing HHV prevention and reentry through a separate, comprehensive strategy aligned with existing Title 16 requirements.
Committee members and witnesses also discussed home‑study oversight. Testimony noted that a miscellaneous education bill in 2024 removed a hearing process related to home‑study program disputes; some members and witnesses urged restoring a hearing mechanism rather than placing it in a study, while AOE said a study is needed to determine how attendance and oversight for home‑study programs should be structured because the agency does not currently collect home‑study attendance data.
Next steps: the committee reported the bill favorably (11–0) and sent it to the House floor. AOE and committee members said the statute is intended as the first step in a multiyear strategy that will be followed by model procedures, technical assistance, and multi‑agency engagement to address root causes and improve attendance outcomes.
