Frankford Township officials present corrective action plan after chronic absenteeism edges above state threshold

The district presented a corrective action plan after reporting a districtwide chronic‑absence rate of 10.1%, just over New Jersey’s 10% threshold that requires a corrective plan.

A staff member who led the presentation said the district surveyed families and received 139 responses, representing all grade levels. "Ninety‑four percent of our community said school is extremely important," the presenter said, and 97% reported the district effectively communicates when a student is absent. However, about 14% said they were unsure who to contact about attendance concerns, a gap the plan aims to close.

The presenter outlined how the district identifies and responds to absences: attendance is taken in homeroom by 8:40 a.m. and cross‑referenced with the attendance line; letters are mailed at five, 10 and 15 absences; at 15 absences the district discusses truancy notification "per state law." The presenter added that 17 of 482 students were currently approaching the chronically absent mark (roughly 3.5% of enrollment) and that the district is monitoring 30 students based on trends across two years.

Planned strategies include clearer communications to families about who to contact when students struggle to attend school, monthly monitoring of absenteeism, grade‑level team meetings to flag at‑risk students, family‑based attendance meetings that bring administrators, counselors and families together, attendance contracts, and student accountability mentors (trusted staff assigned to support students). The plan will also continue regular interventions such as RTI and after‑school tutoring.

The presenter emphasized that the chronic‑absence figure reported to the state includes both excused and unexcused absences and that small percentage changes can trigger the corrective‑plan requirement. "That 0.1% makes us have to do this training," the presenter said, but also noted the district’s trend has improved since the post‑COVID dip and that, without additional intervention, current trends could put the district back below the threshold next year.

A resident asked during public comment whether pre‑K attendance should count toward the chronic‑absence rate; the presenter clarified that pre‑K is not included in the state chronic‑absence calculation and that the district reports both K–8 and preK–8 figures (K–8 average cited as 10.5%; preK–8 average cited as 12%).

Next steps noted at the meeting: the board received the corrective action plan presentation and staff will pursue the communication and family‑engagement measures described, with continued monitoring and follow‑up reporting to the board.