Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attendance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears that nearly 15,000–20,000 students may meet chronic‑absenteeism threshold; district outlines tiered interventions
Summary
District staff told the board that chronic absenteeism remains an area of concern — roughly 29.6% in discussion, estimated to affect 15,000–20,000 students — and proposed a two‑tiered approach to improve start‑of‑year engagement and targeted school‑level supports.
During the strategic‑plan workshop, district staff emphasized chronic absenteeism as a priority challenge and presented a two‑tiered intervention approach to reduce long‑term absences.
Dr. Bario said average daily attendance improved year over year but chronic absenteeism remains elevated, with trustees and staff quoting a figure of roughly 29.6% during the discussion. Using a district enrollment base discussed in the meeting (about 70,000 students), staff and board members estimated that the chronic‑absenteeism figure would represent between 15,000 and 20,000 students. Presenters noted substantial variation by grade: higher attendance in K–8 and worse chronic‑absenteeism rates in higher grades (12th grade singled out), and emphasized that many students who are chronically absent face housing instability or other barriers to regular attendance.
What the district will do: staff recommended a two‑tiered approach. The first tier focuses on stronger start‑of‑year engagement to establish routines and supports. The second tier emphasizes more frequent, collaborative, face‑to‑face work between school leaders, assistant superintendents and attendance specialists for schools with persistent month‑to‑month absenteeism, sharing best practices and direct family outreach. Staff also tied the chronic‑absenteeism effort to other workstreams — MTSS, ESE supports, and partnerships for mental‑health services — noting that tutors and interventions are less effective if students are not present.
Board requests and context: trustees asked for school‑ and grade‑level breakdowns and asked staff to clarify legal limits on interventions for juniors and seniors (compulsory education ends at an earlier age, but chronic absenteeism is measured through graduation age). Staff agreed to provide more granular summer analyses and to pursue coordinated outreach strategies with community partners.
Next steps: district staff will refine the intervention plan over the summer, develop more detailed school‑level reporting, and present follow‑up analyses to the board ahead of the next school year.
