Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attendance And Family Liaison topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates family liaison to address chronic absenteeism as rates rise
Summary
Board members debated a proposed non‑certified family liaison role to address chronic absenteeism (district YTD 12.93%; high school 17.09%), including whether the position should require Spanish bilingualism, whether one person can handle the scope at $45,000, and whether a multi‑year approach and partnerships are needed.
Board members extensively discussed a proposed non‑certified family liaison role intended to reduce chronic absenteeism, amid data showing year‑to‑date district chronic absenteeism at 12.93% and higher rates among particular student groups.
Superintendent Tom Gard said the proposed position would be K–12 but prioritized for the high school on first hire because the year‑to‑date chronic absenteeism rate there is 17.09%. He described the role as focused on outreach and partnering with community services and said the posting would prioritize Spanish bilingual candidates even if the initial job description did not list bilingual ability as a requirement.
"The priority for this position will be the high school upon first hire," Gard said, noting multilingual students were at 17.27% chronic absenteeism and special-education students almost 20%.
Board members raised practical concerns: one asked whether a single non‑certified staff member paid roughly $45,000 could realistically shoulder responsibilities spanning chronic absenteeism, multilingual family outreach, coordination with social services and emergency on‑call work. Several members suggested a proof‑of‑concept approach: hire one school‑based liaison for a prioritized grade band, measure impact over three to five years, then consider scaling.
Members also discussed alternatives and augmenting capacity: volunteers or stipended community workers to support home visits, partnerships with town social-services agencies, and using a cadre of staff rather than one dedicated person if the program scales. One member warned that asking staff to perform home visits during the school day is unrealistic; another described a neighboring district model that used trained, compensated volunteers for after‑hours home visits.
Nut Graf: The board appears willing to pilot the family liaison idea but seeks clearer scope, bilingual‑candidate strategy and measurable pilot targets before committing full funding.
Directors of special services and principals said staffing to address absenteeism is currently distributed across roles (social workers, guidance counselors, administrators) and not centralized; district staff asked for board guidance on whether to pursue a centralized pilot and a timeline for demonstrating measurable results.
No final vote occurred; the superintendent was asked to return with a refined posting, pilot metrics and an estimate of associated costs and staffing models.
