Over the course of the pandemic, the number of chronically absent students in Ohio skyrocketed, as it did nationally. In 2018–19, Ohio’s statewide chronic absenteeism rate was just under 17 percent, meaning that one in six students were missing at least 10 percent of instructional time. By 2021–22, the statewide rate had jumped to a whopping 30 percent; it ticked down to 26 percent during the most recent school year. Given the well-known negative impacts of chronic absenteeism, as well as lingering learning loss, it’s a significant problem that over a fourth of Ohio students are missing so much instructional time.
State leaders have floated several ideas aimed at addressing the issue. Last fall, the Ohio Attendance Taskforce released a series of recommendations aimed at bolstering attendance. More recently, a legislative proposal to provide cash incentives to kindergartners and ninth graders for regular school attendance has been making the rounds.
It’s understandable that state leaders are eager for solutions. This is a serious problem that has significant short- and long-term impacts on kids. But state policy alone won’t solve the chronic absenteeism problem. It’s local action and decision-making that will drive change.
Consider the Dayton Early College Academy (DECA), a charter school in Dayton. During the 2021–22 school year, DECA registered a chronic absenteeism rate of 30 percent. Rather than cast blame or shrug off responsibility, DECA staff rolled up their sleeves and got to work. They interviewed students and families to determine barriers for attendance. They hosted spirit days and family events to build positive relationships. And staff educated families on the impact of missed instruction, including that excused absences can be just as problematic as unexcused ones. These efforts paid off. During the 2022–23 school year, the chronic absenteeism rate at DECA dropped to 19 percent. Similar efforts in Columbus City Schools and Delaware City Schools have also proved successful.
These are clear, Ohio-specific examples of how school-led efforts are the most promising way to boost attendance. But that doesn’t mean that state lawmakers are helpless. In fact, the state plays a crucial monitoring role. Accurately tracking attendance and transparently reporting data is critical because, otherwise, we have no way of knowing the size and scope of the problem. For example, last fall, lawmakers in the House proposed prohibiting the department from including absences for which a student has a legitimate excuse in the calculation for the chronic absenteeism indicator on school report cards. But if schools are permitted to forego tracking absences because they are “excused” or “legitimate,” it will only appear that chronic absenteeism rates have improved. Hiding the ball won’t solve the problem. The negative impacts of missing school will remain.
State leaders who are feeling pressure to do more than just hold the line could take a page out of the early literacy playbook. Like chronic absenteeism, early literacy has a huge impact on students’ short- and long-term outcomes. Also, like absenteeism, improving early literacy hinges on local effort. In last year’s state budget, lawmakers figured out a way to leverage state policy to improve reading instruction in schools. These efforts offer a roadmap on how lawmakers can also respond to chronic absenteeism.
For example, during the upcoming school year, public schools will be required to use reading curricula that appear on a state-approved list of high-quality materials. The state already offers schools plenty of guidance on effective attendance intervention strategies. But just like they did with reading curriculum, state leaders could take it a step further and create a simplified, easily-accessible list of state-approved attendance interventions. Districts and schools with chronic absenteeism rates over a certain threshold could be incentivized to implement interventions from this list.
School-based coaching is another possibility. Last year’s budget allocated up to $18 million to pay for literacy coaches, who will be sent into schools with the lowest rates of reading proficiency. During next year’s budget cycle, lawmakers could set aside funding to send trained attendance coaches into districts with the highest rates of chronic absenteeism. These coaches could work with teachers and administrators to revise and improve their absenteeism prevention and intervention efforts.
The upshot? Chronic absenteeism is a problem that schools and local communities must address. But lawmakers aren’t powerless. Holding the line on data tracking and transparency is firmly in their control. So, too, is the power to incentivize schools to implement evidence-based strategies and to broadly share examples of what’s working. As was the case with early literacy, the goal for state policymakers should be to provide schools with the resources and funding they need to improve—and then hold them accountable for doing so.
