Greenville district outlines plan to cut chronic absenteeism, proposes cross‑stakeholder task force

Dr. Brian Skipper, the district’s attendance lead, told the Greenville County Board of Trustees at its May Committee of the Whole meeting that chronic absenteeism — defined by the district as missing 10% or more of school days for any reason — remains a significant barrier to student achievement and social‑emotional well‑being.

“Chronic absenteeism is when a student misses 10% or more of school days regardless of the reason,” Dr. Skipper said. “This past year, we were down to 19%,” he added, placing the district below state and national figures for the most recent year but above the district’s strategic goal.

Why it matters: the presentation tied absenteeism to learning losses and longer‑term outcomes, citing research that early absences reduce the likelihood a child is on grade level in reading by third grade and that chronically absent students are more likely to drop out. The board’s strategic plan sets a target chronic‑absentee rate of 14% by 2029.

District data and disparities: Dr. Skipper showed school‑level rates that ranged from near 0% at one school to nearly 50% at another, and demographic breakdowns that indicated higher chronic‑absence rates for students with disabilities and multilingual learners. He emphasized that a 0% rate in a given school means no students reached the 10% threshold, not that no students missed school.

Supports already in place: the district reported four attendance supervisors (each supervising roughly 20 schools), two bilingual attendance supervisors, two dropout‑prevention specialists, 17 Title I social workers assigned to Title I schools, and eight district‑level social workers serving homeless or other high‑needs students. The district also provides targeted transportation, bus/cab passes for homeless students, food pantry support, clothing and temporary housing assistance, and schedules medical appointments to reduce barriers to attendance.

Program shifts and policy changes: administrators said they clarified the parent‑note policy to reduce confusion about excused days, implemented the My Prime online alcohol and drug education program for eligible first‑time offenders (allowing students to return to school sooner), and used quarterly chronic‑absence notices through the Backpack system to alert families when a student approaches the 10% threshold.

Board questions and next steps: Trustees asked why rates remain higher than pre‑pandemic levels. Dr. Skipper offered context — increased national uptake since the pandemic, changes in family decision‑making, and the availability of online make‑up resources — and said the district lacks a single hard data explanation. Trustee Mosley pressed for specifics on students with disabilities and homebound services; special‑education staff (identified in the meeting as Miss Hogan) said those students receiving home‑based services are not counted as absent for that day because they are receiving required services. Miss Hogan also said the district currently employs 12 behavioral specialists and has budgeted three more positions, which would bring that total to 15 across roughly 100 locations.

Legal and enforcement context: district staff said they continue to pursue truancy and educational‑neglect cases in court, reporting roughly 150–175 truancy filings and about 100 educational‑neglect cases per year; the district handles cases and violations at different frequencies depending on evidence and court schedules.

Administrative follow‑up: Dr. Royster (administration) said the district plans to convene a cross‑stakeholder task force next school year including teachers, counselors, principals and community members to identify barriers and recommend targeted strategies.

The presentation was for information only; no formal board action was taken on policy changes at the meeting.