Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attendance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Murrieta Valley Unified lays out plan to cut chronic absenteeism, aims for 94% attendance
Summary
District staff presented a 10‑year attendance overview showing chronic absenteeism rising post‑pandemic and falling from roughly 23.3% to 18.7% last year; the district outlined goals, targeted interventions, and communications strategies to boost daily attendance toward 94%.
District staff presented a detailed attendance report at a Murrieta Valley Unified School District Board of Education special meeting, saying the district will target a return to higher daily attendance and reduce chronic absenteeism with targeted interventions.
The presentation, led by Faith Mnik and handed off to Ryan Tua and Amanda Debert, showed a 10‑year trend in average daily attendance and chronic absenteeism. “Chronically absent is when a student misses 10% or more days of school,” Ryan Tua said, adding that 10% of a 180‑day year equals about 18 days. Staff reported chronic absenteeism in the district rose after the pandemic and then improved: the rate was roughly 23.3% two years ago and fell to about 18.7% last year.
The district framed a multi‑prong approach to the problem. Staff set a near‑term district goal to push average daily attendance toward 94% and to continue reducing chronic absenteeism by roughly 5 percentage points. “When you reduce your chronically absent rate by 5% that means that last year there were 1,000 students fewer who were chronically absent,” Tua said, using the district’s estimated student counts to illustrate impact.
Amanda Debert, the district’s coordinator of attendance and 504s, outlined the interventions: targeted family outreach by site MTSS tier‑2 teams, training for attendance clerks on the district student information system (Aeries), use of Power BI data tools developed by district technology staff, expanded communications (A‑frame signage and attendance banners at schools), and limited targeted transportation to connect students in areas with known attendance gaps.
Debert described the district’s approach to parent communications and progressive interventions. Staff said they send form letters that document patterns and trigger additional support; they explained that the letters are intended as collaborative prompts rather than punitive notices. The district also described SART (school‑level) and SARB (district‑level) processes for escalating chronic cases and said referral to legal remedies is an extreme, rare outcome after counseling and interventions.
Board members and classroom teachers pressed staff on several points: the timing and wording of warning letters, whether district surveys and local policies could be used to set firm credit or grading thresholds when absences accumulate, and how to respond to seniors who miss many days late in the year. A teacher called for clearer consequences for repeated absence in courses and the board discussed whether policy language could address extreme situations while preserving case‑by‑case discretion.
Staff also highlighted supports for students experiencing housing instability: each site assigns a counselor to work with homeless or foster students and the district has a designated district representative (Yuanna) who coordinates legal and placement matters. The presentation emphasized that the district will continue to refine messaging and use school‑level ownership of attendance campaigns.
The board did not take formal policy action at the meeting; staff said they will continue implementation through the 2024–25 school year and report progress to the board and the public.
