Ohio kids have recently missed quite a few days of school courtesy of abundant snow and frigid temperatures. For most, this brief time away won’t have a significant academic impact. Delaying lessons about foreshadowing or the slope of a line for a few days of sledding or hunkering down to watch movies isn’t a crisis. But for students who are already chronically absent, additional missed time could be.
Chronic absenteeism, which is defined as missing at least 10 percent of instructional time for any reason, can have a massive impact on academic outcomes. 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. Recovering from pandemic era learning loss, boosting reading and math scores, and improving school quality all hinge on regular student attendance. And yet, according to state report cards, a fourth of Ohio students—roughly 400,000 kids—were chronically absent last year. Thousands more didn’t meet the chronic absenteeism threshold but still missed enough school for it to have a negative impact.
To their credit, state leaders have tried to tackle the problem. In 2023, the Ohio Attendance Taskforce released a series of recommendations aimed at bolstering attendance. In 2024, the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) published the Ohio Attendance Guide, which outlined district and school practices for early intervention. That same year, Ohio joined more than a dozen other states in pledging to cut chronic absenteeism by half. So far, though, these efforts haven’t moved the needle. The statewide chronic absenteeism rate has improved by fewer than 2 percentage points over the last two years. In some districts, the numbers have actually gotten worse.
Part of the reason why state-level efforts aren’t moving the needle is that attendance is largely a local issue. There are common root causes that can be addressed by state policy, such as poor transportation or parental misconceptions about the importance of regular attendance. But absenteeism causes vary widely from student to student, and some kids have more than one reason for why they have trouble getting to school. State policy can’t and shouldn’t try to address thousands of unique situations. What state policy can do, though, is invest in innovative ideas that will help schools address students’ unique circumstances.
Connecticut offers a solid example. In the spring of 2021, state leaders launched a home-visit initiative called the Learner Engagement and Attendance Program (LEAP). Its primary goal was to address student absenteeism and disengagement by directly connecting with families. As part of the program, 15 high-need districts were provided with funding to pay for school staff and community organizers to visit nearly 8,700 chronically absent students in their homes. A mixed-methods evaluation conducted by the Center for Connecticut Education Research Collaboration indicates that the program had a meaningful impact. For most students, attendance rates increased by 4 percentage points in the month immediately following their first LEAP visit. In subsequent months, attendance rates continued to rise and reached an average increase of roughly 7 percentage points for students served in the summer of 2021 and nearly 15 percentage points for students served during the 2021–22 school year.
Connecticut is a much smaller state than Ohio, with 202 districts and roughly 513,000 public school students compared to Ohio’s 611 districts and nearly 1.7 million students. Connecticut also used federal Covid-relief dollars to fund LEAP,[1] which isn’t an option for Ohio, as those funds are now expired. But these differences don’t mean that the Buckeye State can’t create a similar program. Connecticut’s initial investment was limited to just twelve districts and only cost roughly $10 million. Ohio could follow suit by establishing a pilot project that limits participation to a small number of districts until there’s proof of success. Asking districts to apply if they’re interested, rather than forcing them to participate, would ensure local buy-in. And closely tracking chronic absenteeism rates among all applicants—districts that were accepted into the pilot, as well as those that weren’t—would allow for a genuine evaluation of the program’s effectiveness.
Another innovative way for state leaders to combat chronic absenteeism is by investing in attendance coaches. Similar to the home-visit proposal outlined above, state leaders could establish a pilot program that invites interested districts to apply for a state-funded attendance coach to work in their district. Coaches could collaborate with district and school administrators to analyze real-time data, evaluate current prevention and intervention efforts, identify ways to improve, and train staff on effective implementation. They could support teachers by managing communication with the families of chronically absent students, thereby freeing up teachers’ time to focus on teaching and learning. They could also support students by building relationships with those who are frequently absent, identifying the root causes of their attendance issues, and working alongside them and their families to solve problems.
Investing in attendance coaches is a particularly intriguing idea because state and local leaders are already familiar with the model. As part of Ohio’s early literacy efforts, DEW has sent nearly 100 literacy coaches into more than 100 schools to support educators as they implement the science of reading. During a public meeting last summer, officials from DEW noted that the number of sessions and time spent on coaching activities were “positively associated with increases in student achievement scores over time.” These positive results are likely why lawmakers opted to allocate an additional $24 million to literacy coaching on top of the initial $18 million investment. If state officials believe that reading coaches are boosting reading achievement, then why not try using attendance coaches to boost attendance?
Investing in attendance coaches also dovetails nicely with a recent overhaul of Ohio’s absenteeism policies. These changes were made after districts and schools reported dedicating “a significant amount of staff hours and resources” to implement previous state requirements. Ohio leaders were right to repeal burdensome requirements and leave intervention efforts up to districts. But there are plenty of schools that are going to need support to get it right. Providing the opportunity to work with an attendance coach could help.
***
Small-scale pilot programs aren’t as dramatic or headline-catching as sweeping statewide initiatives. But investing in these two pilots—a home-visit program and an attendance coach initiative—would give Ohio a chance to test innovative solutions without breaking the bank. The state’s current efforts clearly aren’t working. Now is the time to try something different—and these two programs would be a great place to start.
[1] Initially, Connecticut designated just over $10 million in federal Covid-relief funding to support these 15 districts. State lawmakers went on to appropriate additional funds—$7 million in 2022 and another $7 million in 2023—to sustain operations through December 2026.
