Truancy has long been a problem in schools across the nation. Because of its myriad causes, the economic and educational cost, and unhelpfully harsh policies, it continues to be a broad and complicated problem. In Ohio, school officials have been trying to support chronically absent students for years. Unfortunately, despite good intentions and several attempts, the state’s attendance issues still haven’t been resolved—and much of that can be attributed to Ohio’s problematic legal provisions regarding truancy. Persistent difficulties in data collection and reporting keep the true size and nature of the problem unknowable, and an outdated punitive mentality makes designing productive solutions close to impossible.
For a closer look at the issue, consider the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD). During the 2013–14 school year, Cleveland’s 89.1 percent attendance rate was the lowest of all Big 8 urban districts. That rate has been flat for quite a few years.[1] An 89 percent might not seem so bad—it would indicate a B grade on a test. But attendance percentages are different than grades; in a district the size of Cleveland, an 89 percent attendance rate means that thousands of kids are missing school each day. CEO Eric Gordon told the Plain Dealer that over the past three years, the district has averaged 57 percent of kids missing ten days or more in a year. That’s a worrisome number: The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) currently defines a habitually truant student as one who misses twelve or more school days without legitimate excuse in one year, and a chronically truant student as one who misses fifteen or more school days without legitimate excuse in a single year. To their credit, Cleveland education officials are working hard to create change.
Recognizing the need to tackle the punitive roots of and the lack of data on truancy, lawmakers last month introduced House Bill 410. The bill aims to decrease the number of absent students who get pushed into the criminal justice system by instituting interventions in Ohio schools. Let’s take a look at the bill’s biggest changes.
Keeping kids in school
Current law requires districts to adopt a policy of zero tolerance for violent, disruptive, or inappropriate behavior, including excessive truancy. If passed, HB 410 would prohibit districts from including truancy in their zero tolerance policies. Bill language states: “On and after July 1, 2016, no school district or school shall suspend or expel a student from school or otherwise prohibit a student from attending school solely on the basis of the student's absences from school without legitimate excuse.” This is a pretty commonsensical approach. If a student is absent from school too much—and probably failing classes as a result—the proper solution is hardly to force them to miss even more school. State Senator Peggy Lehner rightly points out that suspending or expelling truant students is “ridiculous.” Rather than a punitive system that harms kids, it’s time for Ohio to start helping them.
Support instead of punish
Under current law, a child can be referred to juvenile court for being habitually truant. He can also end up categorized as “unruly,” which is a stepping stone toward being labeled a juvenile delinquent. In short, thousands of Ohio students have ended up in court for missing school, regardless of the reason for their absence and whether or not their school tried to intervene beforehand. Rather than punish students for truancy, HB 410 seeks to craft a more nuanced approach. It starts by requiring school districts to adopt a new or amended policy on student absence no later than ninety days after the bill’s effective date. These policies must include a truancy intervention plan for any student who is excessively absent.
Intervention plans must meet a few guidelines. First, when a student reaches a certain absence point (thirty-eight hours in one month or sixty-five hours in one school year), the district must notify his parent or guardian within seven days. At this point, the district can enact any interventions included in its new policy. These interventions can include counseling for the student, or parental involvement and truancy prevention mediation programs. Second, if the student reaches the truancy threshold,[2] the district superintendent or school principal must assign him to an absence intervention team. This team comprises a school or district administrator, a teacher, and the student’s parent or guardian, but it can also include others. Within thirty days of the assignment, the team must develop an intervention plan tailored particularly to the student, with the aim of getting him back to—and keeping him in—school. To be clear, this doesn’t mean that truancy cases never go to court—just that schools are required to take thorough action and provide multiple opportunities to fix attendance problems before referring anyone to court.
Keeping better records
Beginning in the 2014–15 school year, the Ohio Department of Education shifted instruction requirements from a minimum number of days to a minimum number of hours. This shift wasn’t reflected in the ORC’s truancy definitions, which continued to track truancy by days instead of hours. HB 410 alters these definitions to incorporate the state’s new minimum requirements. This should make it easier for the state to keep track of how many students are missing out on minimum requirements, and also fix a glaring inconsistency in law.
In addition, the bill requires that each district report to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) when a parent/guardian has been notified that their student has almost reached the truancy threshold; when a student actually reaches the truancy threshold; when a student has been judged to be “unruly” and violates the court’s orders regarding that judgment; and when an absence intervention plan has been implemented. This is a pretty big deal, considering the state currently has no way to track truancy numbers or attempts at intervention—even after the Columbus data-scrubbing scandal called attendance numbers into question. In addition, juvenile courts are required to prepare an annual report that includes, among other things, the number of children placed in diversion programs due to truancy, the number who successfully complete diversion programs, and the number who fail to complete programs and are consequently labeled “unruly.” This is another example of more transparency and an increased effort not to count kids out.
***
Truancy is a complex issue, made more complicated by the uniqueness of each student’s situation and the diverse approaches that districts across the state currently adopt. HB 410 should cut down on the confusion, particularly since it institutes more effective record keeping. Tackling truancy from an intervention standpoint rather than a punitive one should also aid families and schools in getting students back on track. That being said, the lion’s share of the work in HB 410 will fall on local districts—and in the case of implementation, the devil will be in the details. While HB 410 is a giant step in the right direction, policymakers would be wise to purposefully seek input from school administrators and educators on how to ensure that the new law empowers, rather than hampers, school-level efforts to intervene in truancy matters.
[1] In 2012–13, CMSD attendance was 89 percent, and in 2011–12, it was 90.9 percent. Over the course of the past nine school years, the highest attendance rate has been 92.1 percent—and that was all the way back in 2006–07.
[2] Another change in HB 410 is the threshold for habitual truancy; it is now defined as a student who misses thirty consecutive hours, forty-two hours in one month, or seventy-two hours in one school year.
