Senate hears sweeping attendance overhaul: model policy for chronic absenteeism, carrying debate over truancy enforcement and home‑study oversight

The Senate Education Committee spent several hours on H930/H931, a package intended to standardize how Vermont schools handle chronic absenteeism and truancy and to move the system toward prevention and supports.

Courtney O'Brien, director of AOE’s Safe and Healthy Schools Division, told senators the bills aim to "fix attendance systems and start with strong foundations for attendance," by standardizing definitions, improving data quality and shifting the focus toward prevention rather than punishment. "We agree that this bill is really about fixing attendance systems and starting with strong foundations for attendance," O'Brien said, urging that related changes to harassment/hazing/bullying prevention (HHP) be handled as part of a comprehensive statutory review rather than tacked onto miscellaneous language.

Several speakers described the distinction the bills draw between educational neglect and truancy. Lindy Budro, DCF’s adolescent services director, said DCF treats educational‑neglect reports (generally age 6 through completion of sixth grade) as possible child‑welfare investigations, while truancy responses (grade seven through age 16) are treated as behavioral‑health and supportive work with families. Budro described intake, home visits, coordinated‑services planning and screening tools used to tailor interventions to underlying causes.

A longtime practitioner from Bennington (identified in the record as Eric) described a pragmatic, multi‑agency truancy model emphasizing early outreach, home visits, restorative plans and community referrals. "It really is one of the few areas that I've been doing this long that I feel like we can actually make a difference," he said, describing family safety planning meetings, restorative justice supports and courtroom truancy days where schools, DCF and providers coordinate responses.

AOE and DCF backed a model‑policy approach but recommended AOE develop model procedures (not rigid templates) and consult a broad set of partners — including DCF, the state's attorneys association and restorative‑justice providers — before AOE publishes statewide guidance. AOE recommended a three‑year mandatory review cycle for the model policy to balance stability with room for iterative improvements.

The committee also considered reintroducing a home‑study oversight mechanism — a statutory hearing process that would permit AOE to hold a hearing after enrollment if the agency reasonably believes a home‑study program failed to provide the state's minimum course of study. The draft includes a requirement that home‑study enrollment notices attest to at least 175 days of instruction per year and an administrative hearing process (impartial hearing officer appointed by the secretary; possible termination of enrollment). AOE said it currently lacks staffing and suggested two near‑term options: (1) contract with hearing officers for the limited number of contested cases, or (2) add staff funding in a future budget; the agency also proposed a targeted study to scope resource needs.

Committee members voiced concern that home‑study oversight had been added quickly to the miscellaneous draft and asked for more time to solicit public input and to let JFO and AOE craft feasible resourcing. AOE urged that if the Legislature expects enforcement or regular hearings, the agency be funded to deliver them.

What happens next: committee staff will incorporate edits to the model‑policy language and circulate a revised draft; the committee requested AOE return with a proposed implementation timeline, staffing/cost estimate for home‑study oversight and further stakeholder consultation before advancing final language.