Senate panel weighs adding chronic-absence framework while keeping truancy as last resort

Agency of Education officials told the Senate Education Committee that the attendance bill before them would pair the long-standing legal definition of truancy with a new chronic-absence measure designed to trigger early, nonpunitive interventions.

“For the record, Phil Campbell, Deputy Secretary of Education and Chief of Operations,” said Phil Campbell as he and Jamie Crabel, an assistant attorney general representing the agency, described the bill’s aims. Crabel said truancy already exists in law as a trigger for legal enforcement — currently starting at 20 or more unexcused absences — while chronic absence counts all absences and is measured as 10% or more of the school year elapsed and can be detected early in the term.

The nut graf: Supporters said chronic-absence language would let schools use data systems to flag early patterns of missed days and mount supportive steps such as outreach, phone calls or home visits; they emphasized that those measures are intended to re-engage students and families rather than to punish them.

Jamie Crabel explained the technical distinction: chronic absence includes excused and unexcused absences and can be triggered very early in the year — for example, two absences in the first month — while truancy remains a mechanism tied to unexcused days and stronger legal tools. “Chronic absence is a totally different framework,” Crabel said, characterizing it as an early-warning and re-engagement tool.

Committee members raised equity and operational concerns. Agency witnesses acknowledged data showing higher absence rates for students with individualized education plans, economically disadvantaged students, and students experiencing homelessness or in foster care, and they urged explicit definitions and reporting to monitor disproportionate impacts. Campbell said clearer definitions and model procedures are part of mitigation work: better data, he said, “is part of the usefulness.”

A key point of contention was where to place granular categories (such as lists of excused reasons) and whether the bill should explicitly include hazing, harassment and bullying (HHB) language. The Agency suggested moving detailed categories into an AOE model policy so the definitions can be adjusted without returning to statute, and recommended the model policy be accompanied by procedures, companion tools and multi-year implementation supports. Agency witnesses said they have a draft model policy and are prepared to work with districts and stakeholders on templates, training and tools.

Several senators said they were open to directing the AOE to develop definitions in a model policy but cautioned about timing and school operational capacity before a new school year. Senators also asked the AOE to “consider” whether absences caused by HHB should be treated as an excused category, while some members said re-entry protocols for students harmed by HHB already sit elsewhere in statute and risk redundancy if included here.

On home study reporting, school stakeholders asked the committee to reinstate prior hearing and reporting requirements; the Agency replied that it lacks the staff resources at present to implement the prior statutory reporting schedule and recommended starting with a written report and recommendations rather than immediately reimposing hearings.

The committee directed staff to craft language that would: authorize the Agency to develop model definitions for excused and unexcused absences; require the Agency to consult on whether HHB should be treated as an excused category; and set a pragmatic review cadence for the model policy. Lawmakers flagged the importance of clear data returns to track impacts on subgroups.

The committee left the bill with the expectation of drafting amended language for follow-up review and scheduled further work with education stakeholders and agency staff.