Via Community News Service, a University of Vermont journalism internship
H.930, a bill sponsored by the House Committee on Education, unanimously passed on the House floor on March 20.
The bill aims to solve what its supporters consider to be one of the leading issues in Vermont schools today: Chronic absenteeism.
As outlined in H.930, a student would be considered chronically absent when they miss 20 or more unexcused days of school within the last school year, or 175 school days.
The bill proposes to help solve this problem in two ways: Clarifying excused versus unexcused absences and early intervention strategies to preemptively avoid chronic absences in the first place.
Courtney O’Brien, director of the Safe and Healthy Schools Division of the Agency of Education, testified in support of the bill on Feb. 5. She said the agency has already been exploring how to decrease chronic absenteeism, but clearer guidelines are a step in the right direction.
“There are a number of families and caregivers that we spoke with that expressed frustration with the inconsistency and the non-clarity that’s available in the current process: ‘Why am I getting this letter? What does it mean? Who made the decision excused versus unexcused?’” she said.
Nick Connor, community liaison for Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools, has worked with students for years. He said the bill has been a long time coming.
“Young people with marginalized identities are way more likely to have unexcused absences than excused absences,” Connor said on Feb. 11.
“I’ve been in a lot of truancy hearings here in Vermont … There has never once been a young person in that hearing that was not also living in poverty. Not one time. So, that is a huge concern.”
Connor hopes H.930 could improve equal treatment of all students in all schools.
Anne Bordonaro, deputy chief of accountability, assessment, and continuous improvement for the Agency of Education, is another vocal supporter of H.930. Bordonaro said she has been involved with this bill and its goals of decreasing absences in Vermont schools for many years now.
“(There are) inequities in the current system, primarily around how you define absences and how idiosyncratic and locally controlled it is,” Bordonaro told the Committee on Education on Feb. 5.
“The definitions are our effort to be very clear with everyone,” she said. “It defines in here a whole bunch of categories where superintendents can excuse absences. It also leaves the door open for the unusual circumstance that has to be there. There’s always going to be something that doesn’t quite fit in the category.”
The bill includes 12 specific instances in which the superintendent or head of school would have to excuse an absence, such as physical or mental illness of the student, family emergency or death in the family and incidents of hazing, harassment or bullying.
H.930 also outlines situations in which students should be coming to school for support instead of missing days of instruction.
“If your kid needs mental health support and is anxious about going to school, the answer isn’t necessarily to keep them home from school, the answer is to make sure they get support in school,” Bordonaro said, providing an example of how the bill might work.
The bill includes a provision that would allow superintendents to have some discretion in determining if other non-specified absences should be excused.
If the student has more than 20 unexcused absences after the new provisions, the bill says that there would still be consequences. These repercussions could be anything from fining a parent or guardian, expelling the student, or finding alternative learning plans.
Now in the Senate, supporters and sponsors of H.930 have high hopes for the bill’s passage and the future of attendance in Vermont schools.