Chronic absenteeism is a significant problem in Ohio. During the most recent school year, 25 percent of students were chronically absent statewide. That means a fourth of Ohio’s public school population missed at least 10 percent of instructional time. And all that missed time adds up. Students who have never been chronically absent are six times more likely to read on grade level by the end of third grade and nine times more likely to graduate from high school on time. Being chronically absent, meanwhile, can negatively impact both academic and social-emotional development.
The good news is that most policymakers recognize the importance of regular attendance. In fact, Ohio has a history of leveraging state policy to address absenteeism that predates the pandemic-caused spike in numbers. House Bill 410, which lawmakers passed in 2016, overhauled the state’s absence intervention framework and required schools to work with families to address root causes of absenteeism. In 2017, state leaders went a step further and incorporated chronic absenteeism into state report cards. There was an ultimately unsuccessful effort in 2023 to water down data accuracy and transparency by making it easier for students to miss school for “legitimate” reasons. And later that year, a report published by the Ohio Attendance Taskforce found that HB 410 needed some tweaks, as it established a “prescriptive, legalistic, and reactive response” to absenteeism. The taskforce, which included school and business leaders as well as representatives from juvenile court, recommended several changes.
Governor DeWine acknowledged those recommendations in his recent state budget proposal and suggested repealing some requirements. The House maintained the majority of his changes. But it also added a requirement for public schools to report via EMIS the causes of student absences by (extremely specific) categories. Absences are already reported to the state as excused or unexcused. But the revised bill outlines an extensive list of potential causes that also must be tracked, including “various illness categories,” medical appointments, extracurricular activities, student exchange programs, agricultural organization activities, family travel, foster care activities, lack of transportation, and “additional categories identified through best practices review.”
At first glance, tracking absence causes seems like a good idea. Although plenty of Ohio schools have a chronic absenteeism problem, the reasons behind that problem vary greatly. A student who routinely misses class for medical appointments, for example, requires much different support than a group of students who frequently miss their first period class due to a late bus. Data that pinpoint precisely why students are missing school would help administrators, teachers, and even state policymakers intervene in effective and targeted ways.
But how schools obtain and use those data matters. And when it comes to the House’s proposal, there are two significant problems that should make the Senate wary of embracing it.
First, it could significantly increase the administrative burden on schools. Analysis of DeWine’s budget indicated that schools have reported dedicating “a significant amount of staff hours and resources” to implement HB 410. The changes DeWine proposed were designed to lessen that administrative burden. But by adding a data tracking provision, the House has undercut that effort.
Consider Table 1 below, which identifies the chronic absenteeism rates at Ohio’s five largest districts. Even with conservative estimates—assuming every student who was chronically absent missed exactly 10 percent of instructional time, or eighteen days in a 180-day school year—the number of absences that staff will be required to track is astronomical. And that’s just for students who were chronically absent. Tens of thousands of additional students also missed class time, they just didn’t miss enough to meet the chronic absenteeism threshold. Under the House’s proposal, schools would have to track the underlying reason for all of those absences, too. That means that even districts with low chronic absenteeism rates, like Olentangy, could face a significant administrative burden.
Table 1. Enrollment and chronic absenteeism data in Ohio’s five largest districts, 2023–24
For those who don’t work in schools, it might be difficult to understand how much effort implementing this proposal could require. In an ideal world, parents would provide a cause for each of their child’s absences without having to be asked by school staff. But as any current teacher or administrator can tell you, that’s not always how it works. And while many schools already request an explanation when students are late or absent, that doesn’t mean they get one.
To implement this proposal effectively, someone will need to be responsible for reaching out to families. And getting in touch can be tricky when parents are working during school hours. It’s likely that many phone calls and emails won’t be returned until the following day—and by then, additional absence causes will need to be tracked. It’s also likely that some phone calls and emails will never be returned at all. What are schools supposed to do if they can’t track down a reason or if families refuse to offer one? How many times must they reach out to families before they can identify an absence cause as “unknown”?
The second reason why Senate lawmakers should be wary of the House proposal is because of how the data might be used. In 2023, when lawmakers proposed watering down data accuracy and transparency, the list of absences they sought to identify as legitimate was eerily similar to the list of causes currently included in the House’s budget. And there is some speculation that tracking these data would allow lawmakers to argue (yet again) that some absences shouldn’t “count” toward chronic absenteeism calculations on state report cards.
The problem is that, as the Department of Education and Workforce has pointed out, missing too much school has “detrimental effects on a student’s learning trajectory” regardless of whether an absence is excused, unexcused, or “legitimate.” There are plenty of valid reasons for students to miss school. But a valid reason for an absence doesn’t change the fact that it’s still an absence. When kids miss school, they miss instructional time, and that can have short- and long-term academic consequences. If Ohio counts only some absences toward its chronic absenteeism measure, rates will certainly appear to improve. But appearance isn’t reality. The problem still won’t be solved, and kids will pay the price.
Ohio policymakers deserve credit for their willingness to refine chronic absenteeism policies, especially in response to feedback from schools regarding administrative burden. But the provision added by the House that requires schools to track absence causes undercuts those efforts. Moreover, it sets the table for another misguided effort to water down transparency and accuracy. Chronic absenteeism is a significant and persistent problem that Ohio must address. But it should be done by getting kids to and keeping them in school and not by drowning schools in data tracking.
