Nearly a decade ago, Ohio lawmakers passed House Bill 410 and overhauled state requirements for schools regarding student absences. The bill’s primary aim was to stop schools from “passing on” truancy problems to the courts, and to require them to work with families to address root causes of absenteeism. The hope was that, by requiring schools to use a state-established intervention framework, attendance numbers would improve.
Then the pandemic hit, and chronic absenteeism—defined as missing at least 10 percent of instructional time for any reason—skyrocketed. In 2018–19, the statewide chronic absenteeism rate was just under 17 percent. By 2021–22, that number had jumped to 30 percent. During the most recent school year, a whopping 25 percent of students were chronically absent. In some districts, the rate is higher than 50 percent.
Something needs to change. And based on his state budget proposal, Governor DeWine agrees. He included several recommendations from a 2023 report published by the Ohio Attendance Taskforce. The report, which outlined feedback from school administrators regarding current law, found that, although HB 410’s increased focus on data was positive, the law went too far by setting a “prescriptive, legalistic, and reactive response to students missing school.” DeWine’s budget would address this by repealing requirements for districts and other public schools to assign habitually truant students[1] to absence intervention teams and adopt prescribed absence intervention plans for them. Instead, intervention efforts would be determined by schools.
Given how high absenteeism rates are around the state, it might seem like a step backward to repeal state-level requirements and turn over intervention to local officials. But it’s important to recognize that the state’s top-down framework was in place all throughout the pandemic and has remained in place over the last few years. While it’s likely that nothing could’ve prevented the spike in absences during an unprecedented health crisis that included inconsistent building closures, schools have been back to business as usual for at least two full school years. If a rigid, one-size-fits-all framework mandated by the state was the best way to decrease absenteeism, then surely the statewide rate would’ve dropped more than just a measly 1 percentage point between 2022–23 and 2023–24. But it didn’t.
The attendance taskforce was established for a reason. And the changes in the budget should help accomplish the taskforce’s recommended shift from compliance-driven activities to prevention and early intervention. Budget analysis observes that, according to the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW), districts and schools have reported dedicating “a significant amount of staff hours and resources” to implement current requirements. The taskforce report found the same, noting that, because the law prescribes what and how to communicate with families, it’s “preventing districts from efficiently using more effective methods they’ve identified.”
In other words, the current system is more of an administrative burden than an effective intervention framework. It’s costing schools time and money and preventing them from trying other things, all while absenteeism rates remain sky-high. By repealing these requirements, the budget would allow schools to recoup hours and resources that they can then invest in prevention and early intervention efforts.
But that doesn’t mean absence tracking and intervention will be a free-for-all. State report cards will continue to track chronic absenteeism rates. And the budget also requires districts and schools to adopt a (revised) policy to address student absences by August 1, 2026. These policies, which must be developed in consultation with juvenile courts, as well as parents and guardians, must do all of the following.
- Acknowledge that student absences for any reason, whether excused or unexcused, take away from instructional time and have an adverse effect on student learning. This requirement is crucial given recent efforts to water down attendance expectations and make it easier for students to miss school.
- Identify strategies to prevent students from becoming chronically absent. DEW already offers plenty of resources, so districts won’t need to reinvent the wheel. But they will have to select strategies that their schools can (or should) implement.
- Include procedures for notifying parents and guardians when a student has been absent for a number of hours determined by the board. This number cannot exceed 5 percent of the minimum number of required hours in a school year. Although it might seem like a no-brainer for schools to notify parents of attendance issues, there are places where it won’t happen without a state-level requirement.
- Establish a tiered system that provides more intensive interventions and supports for students with greater numbers of absences. This system must include resources to help students and families address the root causes of absences. Districts and schools are permitted to consult or partner with public and nonprofit agencies to provide assistance.
- Provide for one or more absence intervention teams. Although the student assignment requirement is gone, intervention teams remain. They will work with students (and families) at risk of becoming chronically absent to improve attendance.
- Prohibit schools from suspending, expelling, or otherwise preventing a student from attending school based on their absences. This was a key feature of HB 410, and it makes sense to maintain it—responding to chronic absenteeism by forcing students to miss even more school is not effective.
The upshot? While districts and schools will have a lot more freedom and flexibility to respond to chronic absenteeism, the state-level expectation to track absences and address them hasn’t changed. Given all the research indicating that chronic absenteeism negatively impacts academic and social-emotional development, that’s good news—especially when one-fourth of Ohio’s students are chronically absent.
