Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chronic Absence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maryland panel reviews new monthly chronic-absence tracking as early data shows winter spike
Summary
Maryland education officials briefed the State Board strategy committee on a new monthly absenteeism collection. MSDE reported an early rise to 22.9% in December and an oral January update at 22.4%, outlined disparities and said monthly monitoring will inform tiered interventions and dashboards for LEAs.
Maryland education officials on the State Board’s Strategy and Operations Committee presented early results from a new monthly chronic-absence data collection and outlined next steps for monitoring and supports.
MSDE accountability chief Jeff Sanderson said the department moved to a monthly reporting model after recommendations from its chronic absence task force. "What we are asking LEAs to report to us that's new this year is at the end of each month they would report...the percent of those students who have missed 10% of those enrolled days," Sanderson said, describing the measure as a formative monitoring tool distinct from the annual accountability definition.
Why it matters: officials said monthly data will let the department and LEAs spot month-to-month shifts and target early interventions. Sanderson gave the committee a snapshot of early months: a September baseline of 16.9%, a rise to 19.5% in November, a December peak of 22.9% and an oral update that January fell slightly to 22.4%.
The presentation highlighted uneven progress across Maryland’s 24 LEAs and persistent gaps by student group: economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities showed higher rates of students at risk for chronic absence. Sanderson cited research that total absences — not whether absences are excused — better predicts learning loss and noted that effects are larger in math than in English language arts.
Board members pressed presenters on comparability and utility of monthly measures. Dr. Michael asked whether month-to-month at-risk rates are comparable to full-year chronic-absence figures; Sanderson cautioned against simple apples-to-apples comparisons in year one but said early-month patterns are predictive and that students with early absentee patterns are more likely to remain absent.
Several members asked for public-facing dashboards and additional disaggregation. MSDE said it has an internal dashboard with roughly 10 visualizations by LEA and student group but has not yet made it public so LEAs can adapt to the new reporting cadence. Members asked for grade-level breakdowns (elementary/middle/high) and MSDE said those are available and that a new attendance toolkit will be distributed to districts.
What’s next: MSDE said it plans to explore tiered monitoring (most at-risk, moderate, mild) and to work with LEAs and community partners on targeted interventions. Officials emphasized this is a first-year, formative rollout intended to improve early identification and supports rather than to alter accountability definitions.
The committee moved on after the briefing and did not take formal action on policy changes at this meeting.
