Relating to truancy; declaring an emergency.
HB 3445 revises Oregon’s compulsory school attendance enforcement laws and makes failure to comply with attendance requirements a punishable violation. The bill states that a student’s nonattendance can trigger a Class C violation process, with a maximum fine of $500, and it applies to school absences occurring on or after July 1, 2025. It also declares an emergency, making the measure effective on that date.
The bill updates several statutes governing truancy and citation procedures. It requires courts to forward convictions for compulsory school attendance violations to the Department of Education, clarifies how fines are distributed when a conviction is entered in circuit, justice, or municipal court, and revises the definition of irregular attendance to count eight unexcused half-day absences in a four-week period. It also expands the reasons absences may be excused, including mental or behavioral health, and preserves special treatment for students who are dependents of active-duty military members.
HB 3445 also changes the citation and notice process before a parent or guardian can be cited for a student’s failure to attend school regularly. School district or education service district superintendents must provide written notice in the parent’s native language, explain that the conduct is a Class C violation, require a conference and a meeting with school and community representatives, and inform parents of their right to request an evaluation for an individualized education program or a review of an existing IEP. The State Board of Education is directed to establish the citation form by rule.
The bill’s impact is to strengthen and formalize truancy enforcement while adding procedural safeguards and clearer notice requirements for families. It affects parents, guardians, students, school districts, education service districts, courts, and the Department of Education by creating a more explicit violation framework and by routing conviction information to state education authorities. It also preserves existing attendance exceptions and adds mental and behavioral health as an excused-absence basis.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so the general sentiment cannot be measured from recorded debate or roll calls. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy emphasis on stricter attendance enforcement paired with family outreach and special education protections. Likely points of contention include whether criminal or civil penalties are an appropriate response to truancy, whether the $500 fine is too punitive, and whether the new notice and conference requirements are sufficient to support families before citation.
HB 3445 amends Oregon’s truancy and compulsory attendance statutes, including ORS 153.111, 153.657, 339.065, 339.095, and 339.990. It creates a Class C violation framework for failure to comply with compulsory school attendance requirements, authorizes a maximum fine of $500, requires conviction abstracts to be sent to the Department of Education, and adjusts how collected amounts are distributed among school districts, local governments, and the state. It also changes attendance-counting rules, expands excused-absence categories, and imposes new notice, conference, and citation-form requirements for school officials before a citation may issue.
No votes or committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment to summarize from legislative debate. On the face of the bill, the approach suggests support for stronger truancy enforcement, but with procedural protections for families and students, including notice in the parent’s native language, required conferences, and access to IEP evaluation or review. The bill’s emergency clause and July 1, 2025 effective date indicate an intent for prompt implementation.
The main likely points of contention are the use of a violation and fine to address truancy, the role of courts and school officials in enforcement, and whether the bill could disproportionately affect families facing hardship. Supporters would likely emphasize accountability, clearer attendance standards, and earlier intervention through required meetings and notices. Critics may focus on the $500 penalty, the potential for punitive enforcement against parents or guardians, and whether schools should rely more on support services than citations. The inclusion of mental and behavioral health as excused absences and the IEP-related safeguards may be seen as mitigating features, but they may not fully resolve concerns about enforcement intensity.