Implements requirements and guidelines to reduce chronic absenteeism
This bill amends the Education Law to create a comprehensive statewide framework aimed at reducing chronic absenteeism in public schools, charter schools, BOCES, county vocational education and extension boards, and nonpublic elementary, middle, and secondary schools. It defines “absent,” “chronically absent,” and related terms, and requires the State Education Department to establish real-time attendance reporting, standardized absence codes, and monthly data reporting. Schools would also have to post anonymized attendance data on public websites, disaggregated by categories such as grade, race or ethnicity, gender, English learner status, economic status, and disability status.
The bill requires attendance review teams in districts and schools that meet specified chronic absenteeism thresholds, and it directs those teams to review cases, recommend interventions, and use tiered strategies developed by the department. Those strategies include universal prevention measures, targeted interventions, home visits, family outreach, mentorship, community referrals, mental and behavioral health supports, and early warning systems that flag students with attendance, suspension, or academic risk indicators. The bill also prohibits attendance policies from using suspensions or expulsions as consequences for attendance problems, and it revises student withdrawal and unregistration procedures to require more due process, home visitation, and documentation before a student can be removed from enrollment.
The bill would significantly expand state oversight of attendance tracking and intervention practices by adding new Education Law sections and amending existing provisions on enrollment, truancy, and attendance enforcement. It would require schools and districts to adopt state-designed reporting systems, create attendance review teams under certain absenteeism rates, implement early warning systems, and follow new procedures before dropping a student from enrollment. It also changes section 3213 to prohibit arrest of truant pupils and section 3202 to tighten withdrawal/unregistration rules, including home visits and educational withdrawal documentation. The practical effect would be to impose new administrative, reporting, and student-support obligations on school districts and related educational entities, while limiting punitive responses to absenteeism.
The bill’s overall tone is strongly intervention-oriented and student-supportive, emphasizing prevention, family engagement, mental health, and community-based responses rather than punishment. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate or formal vote history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to address absenteeism as a systemic and student-wellbeing issue rather than a discipline issue.
The most notable points of contention likely concern the bill’s breadth and operational demands on schools, including real-time attendance systems, monthly public reporting, mandatory home visits, and the creation of attendance review teams and early warning systems. Another likely area of debate is the prohibition on suspensions and expulsions in attendance policies, which limits traditional disciplinary tools. The bill also requires reporting on students referred to the statewide central register for child abuse and maltreatment due to excessive absences, which may raise privacy, child welfare, and implementation concerns. No specific objections are recorded in the provided materials, but these provisions are the ones most likely to generate disagreement among school administrators, child welfare advocates, and policymakers.