Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Attendance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lowell City officials report mixed progress on chronic absenteeism; high school and special programs remain a challenge
Summary
Administrators told the Lowell City School Committee that chronic absenteeism has fallen in many elementary grades but remains elevated in several high schools and special‑education programs; the district described targeted attendance teams, social‑worker outreach and summer‑school rules used to address persistent absences.
Administrators reported that chronic absenteeism in Lowell City has improved at many elementary grade levels but remains high in some high‑school grades and special programs, and outlined a set of interventions the district is using to address the problem.
A district presenter summarized recent data, saying district non‑high‑school chronic absenteeism for 2024–25 was 15.1 percent, down from 17.5 percent the prior year and from roughly 23 percent earlier. The presenter said the districtwide high‑school aggregate rate for 2024–25 was 34.2 percent, down from 35.2 and 37.8 in prior years. “Remember, you’re chronically absent if you’re missing 10 percent or more of the school year,” the presenter said, noting that equates to roughly 18 days and about two days per month.
Those overall figures mask wide variation by grade and program. The presenter gave recent snapshots “as of yesterday”: early‑childhood 26.4 percent (down from 32 percent), kindergarten 20.3 percent, and most elementary grades clustering in the single digits to low teens. Several high‑school grades were higher (grade 9: 24.2 percent; grade 10: 31.7 percent; grade 11: 33.4 percent; grade 12: 36.6 percent). The presenter also flagged non‑traditional and therapeutic sites with much higher rates; LeBlanc was cited at 60.9 percent and the district’s alternative Career Academy at 74.1 percent.
Ms. Brown‑Grinso, an attendance staff member, described operational changes: a strategic attendance objective this year, expanded AIM/attendance teams, and more consistent implementation across schools. She highlighted targeted outreach for pre‑K families and credited social worker Darcy Polman with working directly with families to enroll children and connect them to services. “Darcy Polman’s position…was really kind of focused on our kiddos that are non‑enrolled,” Ms. Brown‑Grinso said, describing efforts to remove barriers such as transportation and half‑day scheduling.
Committee members asked for detail on how absences are recorded. The presenter explained that each school uses a cutoff time tied to its start time to convert tardies and partial days into the district’s attendance denominator, and that this school‑level variation can affect chronic‑absence calculations. The presenter also emphasized that average daily attendance can remain high (district figures around 93 percent) while a smaller share of students meet the chronic‑absence threshold by year’s end.
On interventions, administrators described a multi‑tiered approach: school‑based AIM teams that monitor students weekly, social workers and home visits, community‑school managers, teletherapy, and high‑dosage tutoring and tier‑two interventions aimed at students falling behind. The presenter said teams try to address root causes — transportation, caregiver illness, family stressors — and that some schools use grant funding to run Saturday programs for academic recovery, though the presenter cautioned that state guidance has changed.
Regarding recovery programs and promotion policy, the presenter summarized district rules for provisional retention and summer programs: students with 16–24 absences may be provisionally retained and qualify to be promoted only if they complete a full summer program with no more than two absences and assigned academic work; students with 25 or more absences are subject to retention under district policy. The presenter added that DESE (the state education agency) previously allowed some attendance‑recovery days to be counted toward the 180‑day requirement but “that is no longer allowed” in the current year, which affects how Saturday programs are treated for official attendance calculations.
Administrators noted that assessment tools (DIBELS, i‑Ready, MCAS) and regular benchmarking inform interventions so that promotion decisions are based on learning measures, not just time in seat. Members discussed the challenge of breaking long‑standing absenteeism patterns and the labor‑intensive nature of supports such as social work outreach and community‑schools services.
No formal policy change or vote on attendance programs occurred at the meeting; the committee adjourned after a motion by Mr. May, seconded by Mr. Rossini, with a three‑member roll‑call yes. The district staff said they would circulate the specific numeric tables to committee members following the meeting.
