Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compulsory Attendance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee flags changes to compulsory attendance and excused‑absence rules in H.931
Summary
Draft amendments to Vermont’s compulsory attendance statutes would expand the age scope and add 'per medical recommendation' language for mental or physical inability, and would shift excused‑absence policy into a model‑policy framework while capping pre‑approved family absences at 10 days per year.
The Senate Education Committee on April 24 reviewed proposed changes to Vermont’s compulsory attendance and excused‑absence statutes in Draft 3.1 of H.931, including substantive edits to the ages covered and how medical recommendations are treated.
Legislative counsel told the committee the bill replaces older language with "parent or guardian" and adds a qualification that, for reasons of mental or physical inability, a per‑medical‑recommendation finding may excuse a child from compulsory attendance. Counsel noted that the change is substantive because adding a medical‑recommendation qualifier alters how the statute exempts students who are "mentally or physically unable" to attend school.
On excused absences, counsel described retaining a permissive lead sentence that "the superintendent or head of school may excuse a student's absence for all or part of the school day" and placing detailed criteria into a model policy rather than a statutory list. The bill keeps a separate subsection allowing pre‑approved family commitments or activities, but limits such pre‑approved absences to no more than 10 cumulative school days per school year.
Members questioned whether the permissive "may" language gives superintendents too much discretion and discussed whether the model policy should include guidance about when a superintendent may require documentation (for example, a medical note). A committee member said stronger language might be warranted to address chronic absenteeism and avoid an overly permissive regime.
Counsel and members also discussed operational details — who serves as the superintendent's designee, how model policy timing interacts with current local practice, and where to place certain procedural provisions in the next draft. The committee did not vote on these sections and expects the revised draft to include clarified model‑policy language and any agreed drafting fixes.
Next steps called for staff to incorporate the committee’s drafting preferences and for members to review the next iteration of the bill before a future markup session.
