Relating to the inclusion of chronically absent students as students at risk of dropping out of school and the collection and reporting of data regarding those students.
HB 213 expands Texas law on “students at risk of dropping out of school” by adding chronically absent students to the statutory list. Under the bill, a student is chronically absent if they miss more than 10 percent of instructional time in a school year or a six-week grading period. That change means chronic absenteeism would be treated as a dropout-risk indicator alongside existing categories such as academic failure, pregnancy or parenthood, homelessness, foster care involvement, juvenile justice involvement, and prior dropout status.
The bill also strengthens attendance-related reporting requirements. It directs the Texas Education Agency to require school districts and open-enrollment charter schools to report, through PEIMS, the number of chronically absent students at each campus, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, special education status, dyslexia status, economically disadvantaged status, and emergent bilingual status. TEA must then annually aggregate and publicly release this chronic absenteeism data at the campus and district levels, including percentages for each demographic category. The bill takes effect September 1, 2025.
HB 213 amends Sections 29.081 and 48.009 of the Education Code. Its practical effect is to broaden the state’s dropout-risk framework and create a new statewide data collection and public reporting obligation focused on chronic absenteeism. School districts and charter schools will need to identify chronically absent students under the new definition, report that information through PEIMS, and maintain demographic breakdowns for public aggregation by TEA. The bill affects students, campuses, districts, charter schools, and the Texas Education Agency, and it may influence intervention, truancy prevention, and dropout recovery efforts.
The bill appears to have generally favorable support in the House, passing second reading 101-46 and third reading 101-44. The broad bipartisan authorship and the absence of committee transcript opposition suggest the measure was viewed as a student-support and accountability bill rather than a controversial policy shift. The voting margins indicate meaningful support, though not unanimity, reflecting some reservations about the scope of reporting or the implications of expanding the at-risk designation.
The main point of contention is likely the expansion of the “at risk of dropping out” category to include chronically absent students, which could increase the number of students subject to intervention tracking and state reporting. Another possible concern is the new demographic reporting requirement, which adds administrative burden for districts and charter schools and raises questions about how absenteeism data will be used. Supporters are likely focused on early identification and intervention for students missing too much school, while any skeptics may worry about compliance costs, data privacy, or whether chronic absenteeism should be treated the same as other dropout-risk factors.