<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to amend and reenact § 22.1-254 of the Code of Virginia, relating to school boards; excusing students from attendance at school; grounds; verified medical reasons.</p>
Summary
HB1017 would amend Virginia’s compulsory attendance law to add a new excused-absence category for students absent for medical reasons, so long as the absence is verified in writing by the student’s health care provider. Under the bill, a student could be excused for medical reasons for any continuous period of up to 30 school days. The measure would be added to the list of circumstances in which a school board must excuse a pupil from attendance, alongside existing provisions for religious objections and certain court-recommended absences based on health or safety concerns.
The bill also fits into the broader structure of § 22.1-254, which governs when children must attend school and when local school boards may or must excuse absences or require alternative education. It does not change the overall compulsory attendance framework, but it would expand the statutory basis for excused absences and likely affect school attendance policies, student records, and how schools document and count medically related absences. The bill was continued to the next session in the House Education Committee’s K-12 Subcommittee by voice vote, indicating it advanced no further during the available action history.
Impact
HB1017 would directly amend § 22.1-254 of the Code of Virginia, the state’s compulsory attendance statute, by adding a mandatory excusal for medically verified absences of up to 30 continuous school days. This would require local school boards to recognize such absences as excused when supported by written verification from a health care provider, and it would likely affect attendance enforcement, truancy tracking, and school-level absence documentation practices. The bill would also interact with existing provisions on religious, court-ordered, mental/behavioral health, civic, and tribal-related absences, but it does not alter the underlying compulsory attendance age requirements or alternative education provisions.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests limited but not overtly negative sentiment: the bill was referred to the K-12 Subcommittee and then continued to the next session by voice vote, with no recorded floor votes or committee transcript debate provided. That procedural outcome typically indicates the measure did not generate enough consensus or urgency to move forward in the current session, but the absence of recorded opposition or testimony makes it difficult to identify a strong public stance from the available materials. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a policy proposal for further consideration rather than a contested measure that advanced through committee.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope of the new medical-absence exemption: supporters would likely view it as a practical accommodation for students with verified health needs, while opponents or cautious lawmakers may worry about abuse, inconsistent verification standards, or reduced attendance accountability. Another likely issue is administrative burden on schools and local school boards, which would need to process provider documentation and apply the new excusal rule consistently. Because the bill was continued in subcommittee and no transcript is available, the specific arguments for or against the measure are not documented in the provided record.