Office Of ReseaRch and educatiOn accOuntability
student attendance in tennessee
MaRch 2021
JasOn e. MuMpOweR
Comptroller of the Treasury
dana bRiMM
Legislative Research Analyst
Table of contents
Disclaimer
Introduction
Methodology
Attendance according to Tennessee law and rule
Compulsory attendance
Attendance supervisors
Support sta for attendance supervisors
Local attendance policies
Excused versus unexcused absences
Parent notes
Conversion absences
Review of attendance data
Data misreporting
Chronic absenteeism as a national focus
Measuring chronic absenteeism by student group
Chronic absenteeism by student group
Economically disadvantaged students
Students with disabilities
English learners
Racial groups
Grade levels
Laws to combat absenteeism in upper grades
Chronic absenteeism by district
Chronic absenteeism by school
Chronically Out of School Indicator
Progressive truancy intervention plan
Tier 1 | Must be implemented once a student accrues ve unexcused absences
Tier 2 | Implemented if student violates the attendance contract signed in Tier 1
Tier 3 | Implemented if student continues to accrue unexcused absences after Tier 2
Legal action after the progressive truancy intervention plan
Measures taken by juvenile court judges in truancy cases
Charges against parents
Skipping tiers due to lack of parent cooperation
Restarting PTIP tiers at the beginning of each year
Top factors among chronically absent and/or truant students
Prolonged or chronic physical illnesses
Mental health
Alternative attendance plans
Parent issues
Students 18 and over
Student attitude
Tools for addressing student attendance
Coordinated School Health
School nurses
Incentives and competitions
5
5
6
6
6
7
8
9
9
11
12
15
15
17
18
20
20
22
23
24
25
28
30
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
40
44
44
45
47
48
48
50
51
51
52
53
54
54
Community school initiatives
Communities in Schools (CIS)
Other forms of student outreach
Discipline
Change in use of out-of-school suspension since chronic absenteeism measured
Student attendance and COVID-19
Conclusions
Variation in policies and practices at the district and school levels, especially for parent notes and
conversion absences, results in the inconsistent classication of absences as excused or unexcused
across the state.
Parent note policies
Conversion absence policies
Variation in local policies and practices and the inconsistent classication of absences as excused or
unexcused across the state makes analyzing and comparing district truancy data problematic. This
prevented OREA from fully evaluating the eectiveness of the progressive truancy intervention plan (PTIP).
Variation at the court level
Qualitative data used by OREA to evaluate the PTIP
State law does not address whether the PTIP should restart each school year for all students.
State chronic absenteeism rates have remained steady since 2017, the rst year chronic absenteeism was
included as an accountability measure on the State Report Card.
Students who are economically disadvantaged and students with disabilities are more likely to be
chronically absent than their peers.
High school students, especially seniors, are more likely to be chronically absent than students in
other grades.
Accountability for chronic absenteeism and for truancy are dierent. Districts and schools are held
accountable for chronic absenteeism rates, while students and parents are held accountable for
truancy rates.
Confusion exists among some school ocials about how to use alternative attendance plans for qualied
students as part of an IEP or Section 504 plan.
Policy options
The General Assembly may wish to require additional reporting by districts and schools of PTIP data and
other attendance-related data.
Number of unexcused absences required for Tier 1 of the PTIP
Number of students who move through each tier of the PTIP
Number of students referred to court for truancy and their number of unexcused absences
Number of times PTIP tiers were skipped due to lack of parent cooperation
Number of students in the PTIP based on absences from the previous school year
Parent note policy
Conversion absence policy
The General Assembly may wish to clarify certain aspects of the PTIP given confusion on the part of some
districts, schools, and juvenile courts.
Restarting tiers for all students each year
Conversion absences
The General Assembly may wish to make certain attendance-related policies more uniform for all districts
and schools.
Parent notes
Conversion absences
TDOE may wish to begin calculating truancy rates for districts and schools, taking into account local policy
and practice variations.
Juvenile courts may wish to adopt a uniform denition of truancy case and a more uniform method for
tracking truancy cases and actions taken.
Schools districts may wish to share best practices for addressing student attendance issues.
Endnotes
55
55
56
57
57
58
59
59
61
61
62
63
63
63
64
64
65
65
66
66
66
67
67
67
68
68
68
68
68
69
69
70
70
70
71
71
72
73
74
80
82
83
84
86
87
91
Appendix A: Methodology
Appendix B: Chronically Out of School Indicator
Appendix C: Chronic absenteeism of student subgroups
Appendix D: Communities in Schools
Appendix E: Driver License suspensions by county
Appendix F: Family resource centers map
Appendix G: SBE Attendance Policy 4.100
Appendix H: TDOE Attendance Manual
5
Disclaimer
e following research is based on attendance procedures and policies in place prior to the COVID-19
pandemic. OREA administered surveys in December 2019 and January 2020; consequently, all resulting data
is based upon the respondents’ pre-pandemic experiences.
Introduction
Members of the Tennessee General Assembly requested that the Comptroller’s Oce of Research and
Education Accountability (OREA) research chronic absenteeism and truancy in Tennessee, including an
analysis of data, evaluation of districts’ use of available tools to address student absenteeism, and identication
of successful strategies. Truancy includes only unexcused absences; though not dened in law, a student is
truant in Tennessee when he or she accrues ve unexcused absences and may be subject to legal intervention.
Chronic absenteeism includes all absences, excused and unexcused; a student is chronically absent if he or
she misses 10 percent or more of instructional days per school year
(typically 18 days missed). It is possible for a student to be chronically
absent and truant, depending on the student’s total number of absences
and if the absences are excused or unexcused.
According to Tennessee Code Annotated 49-6-3001, all Tennessee
children ages six through 17 are required to attend school. is section
of code requires districts to enforce compulsory attendance laws using
various methods, up to and including referral to juvenile court. While
state law species certain steps that must be taken before attendance
becomes a legal problem, districts and schools have a great deal of
exibility in what interventions are used, what consequences imposed,
how absences are dened, and more.
ere is not a comprehensive denition of excused absences in law, and districts are able to create their own
policies regarding excused and unexcused absences within the limited parameters specied in law. In general,
excused absences are those that result from illness, a death in the family, or those for which a parent note has
been provided. An unexcused absence meets none of the criteria for an excused absence.
To meet the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requirement for a nonacademic measure of school
quality or student success, the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) selected chronic absenteeism
for its plan, as did many other states. As a result, districts and schools are evaluated on chronic absenteeism
annually. In addition, as of the 2018-19 school year, schools are now required by state law to use a progressive
truancy intervention plan prior to ling a petition in juvenile court for truant students.
In this report, OREA presents information about chronic absenteeism and truancy, including an explanation
of the two terms, analysis of available data, and an analysis of available tools to address student attendance.
Chronic absenteeism
Includes all absences, excused
and unexcused. A Tennessee
student is chronically absent
if he or she misses 10 percent
or more of instructional days
(typically 18 days absent).
Truancy
Includes unexcused absences
only. A Tennessee student is
truant if he or she accrues ve
unexcused absences.
6
Methodology
OREA reviewed three years of attendance data provided by the Tennessee Department of Education
(TDOE) as part of an analysis of chronic absenteeism rates. OREA also conducted a total of 52 interviews
with stakeholders from across Tennessee, including attendance supervisors, principals, and state-level
representatives. Additionally, OREA distributed online surveys to every attendance supervisor, principal, and
juvenile court judge in Tennessee. A total of 102 attendance supervisors (each representing a dierent district)
and 545 principals (representing 110 Tennessee school districts) participated in the surveys. Eighty-two
districts had representation on both surveys. Forty-three judges completed the survey, representing 43 juvenile
court districts. (Note: e boundaries of Tennessee’s 98 juvenile court districts do not always align with the
boundaries of the state’s school districts.)
A
Attendance according to Tennessee law and rule
Elementary and secondary school attendance falls under TCA 49-6-3001 et seq., which covers compulsory
attendance laws, length of school terms, attendance reporting, truancy,
educational neglect, specic excused absences, home schools, and
other subjects. e law gives the State Board of Education (SBE)
the authority to promulgate rules that prescribe guidelines for the
attendance standards and policies established by school districts. ese
districts’ policies must be rm but fair so that every student has a
reasonable chance to meet the minimum requirements. Schools must
keep parents informed of their child’s absences. e law mandates that
district attendance policies take extenuating circumstances into account,
accommodating emergencies and situations beyond a student’s control.
Students must be given a chance to appeal excessive absences and be
provided with alternative program options if minimum attendance
requirements are not met.
SBE rule states that each school district shall develop a rm but fair attendance policy. Attendance policies
must comply with TCA 49-6-3007, concerning, among other things, procedures that must be followed
for unexcused absences, and TCA 49-6-3009, concerning the development and adoption of a progressive
truancy intervention plan. Policies must address the excusing of absences for certain reasons. (See pages 6-8.)
1
Additionally, district policies should not be used to penalize students academically and attendance issues
should be resolved at the school level whenever possible. Policies must also allow students with more than ve
unexcused absences the opportunity to appeal absences, with the burden of proof resting on the student or
parent/guardian.
Compulsory attendance
ough no federal law requires it, each state has compulsory attendance laws. As shown in Exhibit 1, the
required ages for school attendance vary by state. Twenty-ve out of 50 states (plus the District of Columbia),
including Tennessee, require children to be enrolled in school by the age of six. Once Tennessee students reach
the age of 18, whether they have completed high school or not, they are no longer required by state law to
attend school. Texas requires that students remain enrolled until they reach the age of 19 or graduate from
high school. States policies dier regarding students who fall outside the ages for compulsory attendance.
For example, Indiana law species that students must be enrolled in school by the age of seven, but if parents
choose to enroll their children earlier, they must complete the term of enrollment (e.g., if they enroll in
A
See Appendix A for more information on the methodology.
Attendance policies shall be rm
but fair.
Eective recordkeeping and
communication shall keep
parents informed of absences.
Policies shall accommodate
emergencies and circumstances
beyond a student’s control.
Students shall be given the right
to appeal excessive absences.
7
kindergarten at age six, they must nish the year). Tennessee, by contrast, allows parents who enroll a child
younger than six years old to withdraw the student within six weeks of initial enrollment without penalty.
Exhibit 1: Age range of compulsory attendance laws by state
Source: Education Commission of the States, 2020.
Tennessee students under the age of 18 are not required to attend school if they meet one of the following criteria:
B
• doctor-veried mental or physical disabilities that prevent the student from performing school duties,
• completion of high school and possession of a high school diploma (or HiSET diploma),
• enrollment and satisfactory progress in course leading to HiSET diploma,
• temporary excuse that falls under SBE rules and regulations,
• enrollment in a home school, or
• determination as a detriment to the order and education of other students (applies only to those who
have reached age 17).
2
State law requires education ocials to take steps at the beginning of each school year to ensure that all
parents
C
comply with compulsory attendance laws. First, the director of schools in each district supplies
principals with a census-based list of students who fall under compulsory attendance laws. Principals must
notify the district of any students on the list who do not enroll in a public school. Private and parochial school
ocials must submit complete enrollment rosters to directors of schools within 30 days of the start of the
school year. Parents who homeschool their children must also report their intent to do so to districts on an
annual basis.
Attendance supervisors
State law requires all school districts to designate at least one qualied employee to be the attendance
supervisor for the district. State law requires attendance supervisors to assist the local school board with the
enforcement of compulsory attendance laws and to carry out other duties related to absenteeism and truancy.
Attendance supervisors are responsible for ensuring students and parents follow school attendance
B
In all cases of exemption, TCA 49-6-3005(b) requires the local school board to obtain a written recommendation for the exemption from the director of schools
and the principal of the school the student is zoned to attend.
C
is report will use the word parent in lieu of parent, guardian, or other legal custodian as written in law.
8
laws. In carrying out this responsibility, district attendance supervisors may work with school personnel to
monitor attendance data, address attendance barriers, and implement the progressive truancy intervention
plan,
D
among other duties. Attendance supervisors may also handle or assist with transportation, homebound
services, technology matters, or other responsibilities.
Out of 102 respondents on the OREA survey of attendance supervisors (each representing a separate district),
10 supervisors (9 percent) stated that attendance matters take up all of their time. Most supervisors (33
percent) stated that attendance takes up about half of their time, while 27 respondents (26 percent) stated it
takes up more than half of their time. Twenty-eight supervisors (27 percent) stated that it takes up less than half
of their time, and three (3 percent) indicated that attendance takes very little of their time.
Exhibit 2: Attendance supervisors’ time spent on attendance (n=102)
Source: OREA survey of attendance supervisors, December 2019.
Attendance supervisors who are responsible for monitoring systemwide attendance data rely on school-level
sta for accurate attendance data. From the teacher who takes roll to the attendance clerk who records late
arrivals of students (commonly called “tardies”), several dierent sta members play a role in the attendance
recording process within a school.
Support sta for attendance supervisors
Most districts employ at least one sta member to assist the attendance supervisor in the review of attendance
data, enforcement of attendance policies, and other attendance-related responsibilities. Larger school districts
are more likely to employ multiple support sta, while smaller districts may rely solely on the attendance
supervisor to complete all aspects of the job.
Attendance support sta may also be present at the school level. On the OREA survey, principals reported
that attendance support sta at the school level may include social workers, licensed counselors/mental health
professionals, school counselors, nurses, and Communities in Schools coordinators.
E
Principals indicated that the support sta with the highest rates of full-time availability are school counselors
(79 percent of respondents) and nurses (73 percent of respondents). Some respondents emphasized that a sta
member’s availability aects his or her ability to measurably impact student attendance.
D
e progressive truancy intervention plan, as described in TCA 49-6-3007, requires districts to move students through three tiers of interventions aimed at
addressing attendance barriers before referring them to juvenile court, if necessary.
E
See pages 52-53 for more information about Communities in Schools.
10, 10%
27, 27%
34, 33%
28, 27%
3, 3%
All of my time More than half of my time About half of my time
Less than half of my time Very little of my time
All of my time
More than half of my time
About half of my time
Less than half of my time
Very little of my time
27%
9
Local attendance policies
Attendance policies and procedures vary widely across the state and, in some cases, among schools within
a district. OREA reviewed the attendance policy posted on the website of each district in Tennessee. e
website of some districts included multiple attendance policies, and in some cases the posted attendance policy
had not been updated to incorporate the progressive truancy intervention plan requirement established by
a 2017 state law. (See page 31 for more information on the progressive truancy intervention plan.) rough
interviews with attendance supervisors, OREA found that, for some districts, the attendance policy posted
online diers from the policy in use.
Of the nearly 150 local board policies pulled from district websites and reviewed by OREA, 128 used the
model policy provided by the Tennessee School Boards Association (TSBA).
F
Of those 128 districts, some
posted other attendance policies on their websites in addition to the TSBA model policy.
Depending on the district, specications within attendance policies are determined at either the district or
school level. Some districts grant principals discretion to set policy at the school level, while other districts
set blanket policies that every school in the district is expected to follow. Most principals who responded to
the OREA survey indicated they have discretion to implement school-specic procedures regarding excused
absences (i.e., determining what absences are excused outside of what is specied in district policy and what
discipline will be issued for attendance oenses).
Exhibit 3: Who determines certain attendance policies? (n=545)
Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
* Conversion absences are absences formed through the accrual of a set number of tardies and/or early dismissals.
^ Parent notes are notes provided by parents to excuse their child’s absence from school for such reasons as illnesses that do not require a visit to the doctor, family emergencies, and
vacations. School districts have dierent policies regarding parent notes. In most districts, students are allowed to provide a limited number of parent notes to excuse absences for medical or
personal reasons. Such policies are usually set at the district level with varying allowances for principal discretion.
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
Excused versus unexcused absences
e designation of absences as excused or unexcused determines whether a student is chronically absent, truant,
or both. Tennessee law allows for excused and unexcused absences to be dened primarily by school districts,
and, in some cases, at the school level. e law does not dene the term “unexcused absence.” As for excused
absences, the law species three circumstances for which districts are required to excuse a student’s absence
from school: (1) absences for work as an election ocial; (2) absences for court-related matters; and (3)
absences related to a parent’s service in the U.S. Armed Forces. (See Exhibit 4.)
F
is gure includes all 141 county, municipal, and special school districts, ve state special schools (Alvin C. York Institute, Tennessee School for the Blind,
Tennessee School for the Deaf-Knoxville, Tennessee School for the Deaf-Nashville, and West Tennessee School for the Deaf), the Achievement School District
(ASD), the State Board of Education (SBE), and the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS). e ve state special schools, ASD, SBE, and DCS are
treated as school boards in terms of creating their own policies for the school(s) within their jurisdiction.
26%
22%
15%
14%
53%
65%
26%
24%
8%
10%
49%
58%
12%
3%
10%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Conversion absences* Parent notes^ Discipline for
attendance matters
Excused absences
(outside of board
policy)
Director of schools/other district staff School board Principal Other
Director of schools/other district sta School board Principal Other
10
In 2020, Public Chapter 743 required public schools to excuse students from school for released time courses
in religious moral instruction for up to one hour each day upon the request of a student’s parent, regardless of
whether the school district has adopted such a policy.
G
Additionally, principals may excuse up to 10 absences
for participation in extracurricular activities that are not school-sponsored (e.g., travel sports teams, dance
competitions, etc.). e law also mandates that students serving as pages in the General Assembly are counted
as present in school and not assigned an excused or unexcused absence.
Exhibit 4: Absences counted as excused or present by Tennessee state law
Note: Students who are absent for certain reasons may also be counted as present per State Board of Education policy.
Source: Tennessee Code Annotated.
e State Board of Education (SBE) requires districts to adopt rm but fair policies that are in accordance
with the SBE’s School Attendance Policy 4.100, state law, and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
3
e TDOE Attendance Manual, last updated in 2020, echoes the specications found in state law and SBE
rule.
Under SBE authority, the manual lays out which students should be counted present even when missing
traditional instruction time: students serving in-school suspension (and receiving educational services);
homebound students receiving homebound services; alternative school or program students; students serving
as pages for the General Assembly; and students participating in school-sponsored events. e manual
instructs districts to adopt a policy regarding excused and unexcused absences in compliance with SBE’s
School Attendance Policy 4.100, but no standard denitions are supplied.
G
Released-time courses for religious moral instruction take place during the school day but must not be funded by taxpayer funds or occur on school property. A
released time program operated in Knox County during the 2018-19 school year. Participating students left school for an hour per week, usually missing art or music
classes, and were transported to a church for religious activities and instruction.
TCA Excused absences required by law
2-4-103(e)
A county election commission may appoint as an election ocial any qualied person who
has reached the age of 16. High school students are entitled to an excused absence when
serving as a poll ocial as well as compensation.
49-2-130
Upon the request of a student’s parent, school districts are required to excuse a student from
school to attend a released time course in religious moral instruction for up to one hour during
each school day, regardless of whether the district has adopted such a policy as long as other
requirements specied in law are met.
49-6-3002(c)(1) Absences for court-related matters must be excused and makeup work allowed.
49-6-3019
A student whose parent is in the U.S. Armed Forces is allowed: 1.) an excused absence for
one day when the member is deployed; 2.) an additional excused absence for one day when
the service member returns from deployment; 3.) excused absences for up to 10 days for
visitation when the member is granted rest and recuperation leave and is stationed out of the
country; and 4.) excused absences for up to 10 days cumulatively within the school year for
visitation during the member’s deployment cycle.
TCA Excused absences allowed by law
49-6-3022
Principals may excuse up to 10 absences for participation in non-school-sponsored
extracurricular activities if the student provides documentation of proof of participation and
submits a written request no later than seven business days prior to the absence.
TCA Absences counted as present according to law
49-6-3018
Children who serve as pages of the General Assembly during the school year shall be
counted as present, as neither an excused nor unexcused absence, in the same manner as
an educational eld trip.
11
e TSBA attendance policy template complies with SBE requirements with more specications about
excused absences, though the term is not explicitly dened. e TSBA template states that “absences shall be
classied as either excused or unexcused as determined by the principal/designee.” e reasons for excusing
an absence listed in the TSBA template mirror those listed in the attendance policies of most schools. ese
reasons include:
• personal illness/injury,
• illness of immediate family member,
• death in the family,
• extreme weather conditions,
• religious observances,
• pregnancy,
• school-endorsed activities,
• summons, subpoena, or court order, or
• circumstances which in the judgment of the principal create emergencies over which the student has
no control.
Parent notes
Most districts allow a limited number of parent notes to excuse absences
for such reasons as vacations, family emergencies, or illnesses that do
not require a visit to the doctor. Students may excuse no more than ve
absences per year with a parent note in most of the districts and schools
represented on the OREA surveys. Some districts and schools allow
students to excuse up to 10 absences per year (or in some cases ve per
semester) with a parent note. Four attendance supervisors said that in
each of their districts the number of parent notes allowed is decided by
principals at the school level. In other districts, the number of parent
notes allowed is set at the district level and varies by grade level. In these
districts, the upper grades are allowed fewer notes than the lower grades;
three of these districts do not accept parent notes for middle and/or high school students.
It is possible for students to reach the level of chronic absenteeism with all or most of their absences excused
by parent notes. e majority of respondents on OREA
surveys, over two-thirds of attendance supervisors and
principals (395 respondents), indicated it was common for
chronically absent students to have an excessive number
of absences excused by parent notes. In some cases,
students may accrue enough unexcused absences to start
the progressive truancy intervention plan (PTIP)
H
but are
allowed by school ocials (or potentially juvenile court
judges) to bring in retroactive notes to excuse absences that
were previously unexcused.
Some districts plan to adjust their parent note policies to limit the number that may be used per year to curb
excessive use by parents. Other districts with the same issue indicated they may no longer accept parent notes
for students at certain grade levels, while others are considering no longer accepting parent notes.
H
e progressive truancy intervention plan, as described in TCA 49-6-3007, requires districts to move students through three tiers of interventions aimed at
addressing attendance barriers before referring them to juvenile court, if necessary.
Districts allow varying numbers of
parent notes to excuse absences
for vacations, family emergencies,
minor illnesses, and more.
Two-thirds of attendance
supervisors and principals cited
excessive parent notes as a
common factor in their students’
chronic absenteeism.
Some districts vary parent note policies by
grade level.
"Elementary schools are allowed ve per
semester. Secondary schools are allowed
three per semester. We are planning to change
our policy for elementary to be the same as
our secondary policy."
Respondent to OREA survey of attendance supervisors, Dec. 2019
12
Exhibit 5: Number of parent notes allowed by district, according to attendance supervisors
and principals (n=647)
Note: is chart combines survey results from attendance supervisors and principals. e survey responses diered slightly between the two groups but may be
explained by factors relative to grade level, principal discretion, etc.
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
Conversion absences
Repeatedly arriving late to school and/or leaving early results in missed
instructional time for students. Some districts and schools discourage
students’ late arrivals and early departures by converting a set number
of late arrivals to school (or tardies) and/or early dismissals to absences
(hereafter referred to as conversion absences
I
). For example, a district
may assign one unexcused absence to a student who accumulates ve
unexcused tardies.
J
On OREA surveys, 43 percent of supervisors (each representing a dierent district) and 57 percent of
principals indicated their districts neither allow conversion absences nor do they allow principals to institute
such policies. Where such policies are allowed, implementation varies from district to district and often from
school to school. Twenty-eight supervisors (27 percent) said that all schools in their districts follow a blanket
policy for conversion absences. Another 29 percent of supervisors (30 respondents) stated their districts do not
have a blanket policy, leaving such decisions to principals. In such cases, conversion absences may be issued in
some but not all of a district’s schools.
Some districts convert tardies into either excused or unexcused absences. Sixty-four percent of supervisors
and 35 percent of principals who indicated their districts’ policies permit conversion absences indicated that
only those tardies and early dismissals that are unexcused are converted, and then only to unexcused absences.
Eighteen percent of supervisors (six respondents) and 30 percent of principals (71 respondents) stated that
unexcused tardies and/or early dismissals are converted to unexcused absences while excused tardies and/or early
dismissals are converted to excused absences. Some respondents indicated that all tardies and early dismissals,
whether excused or unexcused, are converted to unexcused absences.
I
OREA uses the term conversion absences to refer to absences that result from the accrual of a set number of tardies and/or early dismissals, as determined by district
or school policy.
J
According to the TDOE Attendance Manual, students in grades pre-k through 12 must be present for at least 50 percent of the scheduled school day to be counted
present for state reporting purposes, including on abbreviated school days.
Conversion absences are
absences that result from the
accrual of a set number of
tardies and/or early dismissals,
as determined by district or
school policy.
44
5
22
7
187
96
16
62
1
159
19
13
16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
13
Exhibit 6: District policy regarding the conversion of tardies and/or early dismissals to
absences (n=102)
Source: OREA survey of attendance supervisors, December 2019.
Exhibit 7: How districts convert tardies/early dismissals to absences
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
For districts and schools that permit
conversion absences, the conversion threshold
varies from three to ve tardies/early
dismissals or a prescribed number of minutes
(e.g., 420 minutes, or seven hours) to be
converted to one absence.
K
K
Typical school days run approximately seven hours, or 420 minutes, in accordance with the requirements outlined in SBE rule 0520-01-03-.02. Law and rule
require a minimum of 6.5 hours, but most districts extend the school day to seven hours.
Some districts use a prescribed number of minutes for
conversion absences.
“A student in school for less than 221 minutes, whether tardy
or early dismissals, would be counted as absent unexcused.”
Respondent to OREA survey of principals, Dec. 2019
28, 28%
44, 43%
30, 29%
Blanket policy for conversion absences
District does not allow conversion absences in any school
Principal discretion for conversion absences
Blanket policy for conversion absences
District does not allow conversion absences in any school
Principal discretion for conversion absences
35%
30%
13%
22%
64%
18%
6%
12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Only converts
unexcused
tardies/early dismissals
to unexcused absences
Excused tardies and/or
early dismissals
converted to excused
absences; unexcused
tardies/early dismissals
converted to
unexcused absences
All tardies/early
dismissals converted to
unexcused absences
Other
Principals (n=237) Attendance supervisors (n=33)
28%
43%
14
Exhibit 8: Number of tardies and/or early dismissals that equal an absence, according to
attendance supervisors and principals (n=266)
Note: is chart combines survey results from attendance supervisors and principals. e survey responses diered slightly between the two groups but may be
explained by factors relative to grade level, principal discretion, etc.
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
In interviews and survey comments,
however, a few school ocials questioned
the legality of conversion absences, due in
part to the absence of any law regarding
this practice.
One concern raised by some attendance
supervisors and principals was whether
juvenile court judges would frown upon
a student being classied as truant based
in part on conversion absences. When
surveyed by OREA, juvenile court judges
were split nearly into thirds regarding this
practice, with most (39 percent) stating they
consider conversion absences on a case-by-
case basis.
One judge considers conversion absences
only for students who have already
accumulated ve unexcused absences,
none of which were based on conversion
absences. Another judge stated that if the
school uses conversion absences according
to the attendance policy sent to parents at
the beginning of the school year, then the
court accepts these absences. Other judges indicated they take conversion absences into consideration when
considering truancy cases, but they are not included in the actual truancy petition (i.e., they are considered
problems or early warning signs but not actually applied to the number of unexcused absences that bring the
case to court). Two judges commented that they do not interpret the law as allowing such absences to count in
truancy cases. (See more about truancy on page 31.)
Some school ocials expressed concern about the use of
conversion absences.
“We were under the impression that this was an illegal practice.”
Respondent to OREA survey of attendance supervisors, Dec. 2019
2
6
94
12
56
2
3
12
2
3
74
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 More
than 10
Other
12, 28%
14, 33%
17
, 39%
Yes No Case-by-case basis
Yes No Case-by-case basis
Source: OREA survey of juvenile court judges, February 2020.
Exhibit 9: Judges counting conversion absences in
truancy cases (n=43)
28%
15
Review of attendance data
School ocials, including attendance supervisors and principals, use attendance data to identify and analyze
student absenteeism problems, determine what intervention plans should be implemented, and evaluate
the eectiveness of the plans. TDOE recommends that districts review data regularly to identify trends in
student attendance.
On surveys distributed by OREA, principals and attendance supervisors were asked how frequently they
review attendance data in their school or district. e majority of respondents to both surveys review
attendance data at least weekly.
Exhibit 10: Frequency of attendance data review for attendance supervisors and principals
(n=584)
Note: is graph combines the attendance supervisor and principal survey results because the trends between the two surveys were consistent with one another.
Ninety-nine supervisors and 485 principals responded to this question.
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
Districts must use one of ve vendors contracted by TDOE for managing their student data through a
student information system (SIS).
L
All vendors must provide consistent reporting on core data, but they also
oer districts optional data packages that allow for the tracking of specic attendance issues and data trends.
SIS packages vary by cost and function and can be customized to t a district’s specications and needs. An
SIS may, for example, autogenerate an attendance intervention once a student reaches a certain number of
unexcused absences or send a message to parents whenever their child misses class.
Data misreporting
e eectiveness of data review as a tool is dependent on data quality, however. Data misreporting can lead to
overlooked problem areas and missed opportunities for improvement.
M
Over the course of interviews with attendance supervisors and other district representatives, OREA
learned that in some districts over the past few years, student attendance data may have been misreported
unintentionally as a result of incorrect coding in the student information system, settings, or other issues.
Sixteen attendance supervisors (9 percent, each representing a dierent district) and 49 principals (16 percent)
indicated that data misreporting had occurred in their districts within the past four years. OREA did not
determine at what level (school, district, or state) the data misreporting took place.
L
ere are currently ve student information system (SIS) vendors contracted by TDOE as options for managing the student data of the state’s school districts:
Follett Schools Solutions (Aspen), Innite Campus, PowerSchool, Skyward, and Edupoint Educational Services (Synergy). All districts must use one of the state-
approved contracts, but they can choose state-hosting or vendor-hosting for their SIS packages.
M
e 2020 Accountability Protocol, the latest version of a document published annually by TDOE, describes how chronic absenteeism rates are calculated. e
2020 Accountability Data Appeals Guidance describes the appeals process and opportunities districts have to check and appeal their data.
150
246
128
33
12
7
8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Once a
semester
Yearly Data not
reviewed
16
Misreported data reduces the accuracy of attendance data and aects attendance-related accountability
measures. See page 30 for more information on these measures.
Exhibit 11: Data misreporting in last four years, according to attendance supervisors and
principals
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
Data misreporting has also been an issue on the national level. e authors of the 2018 Data Matters report
from Attendance Works
N
note that data misreporting has been a problem since national chronic absenteeism
data was collected for the rst time by the federal Oce for Civil Rights during the 2013-14 school year. e
authors attributed problems with the consistency and accuracy of attendance data to the degree of variation
in attendance policies in school districts across the country, specically what counts and does not count as an
absence. e second time data on chronic absenteeism was collected from the nation’s school districts (during
the 2015-16 school year), Attendance Works found a greater awareness among districts of the data collection
protocols established by the federal Oce for Civil Rights, which likely led to better and more consistent
reporting. When data from 2013-14 was compared to the 2015-16 data, researchers found the number of
chronically absent students nationwide rose by roughly 790,000 students.
5
In some cases, schools that had reported no chronically absent students for the 2013-14 school year saw
a signicant increase in the number of such students for the 2015-16 school year. e report’s authors
hypothesized such changes were likely the result of improved data reporting. Turning back to Tennessee data
with this in mind, OREA identied 23 schools
O
that reported a chronic absenteeism rate of zero percent for at
least one of the three school years examined (2017, 2018, and 2019). For most of these schools, the chronic
absenteeism rate was zero for a single year; the rate for the other two years was not zero but was still well below
the state rate. Two schools reported no chronically absent students for two years and a rate below 1 percent
for the third year. One district had nine schools that reported a rate of zero percent in 2018, contributing
to the district’s reported rate of 0.7 percent that year. According to the district’s attendance supervisor, the
reported rates were incorrect, the result of a possible miscalculation issue. In another Tennessee district, data
misreporting was primarily responsible for a signicant drop in chronic absenteeism rates after the 2016-17
school year.
ree Tennessee districts with misreported data each explained that data miscoding in previous school years
had aected their rates, but in each case, the issues were caught and remedied with improved record keeping
practices, specied training for personnel, or increased eciency. Several school ocials told OREA in
interviews and surveys that to prevent future issues, they provided additional training for attendance clerks
and other individuals who work with data daily.
N
Attendance Works is a national nonprot agency whose mission is to advance student success and help close equity gaps by reducing chronic absenteeism.
O
is number includes only traditional schools, i.e., schools that are not virtual, adult, etc.
9%
59%
32%
16%
52%
32%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Yes No I'm not sure.
Principals (n=545) Attendance supervisors (n=102)
17
Chronic absenteeism as a national focus
Chronic absenteeism is at the forefront of current national conversations about student attendance. Adopted
in 2015, the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires all states to include chronic absenteeism
rates on their school report cards. Additionally, states are required to measure ve accountability indicators
annually. e rst four metrics are academic indicators: math and reading achievement, graduation rates for
secondary schools, English language prociency for English language learners, and an additional academic
indicator for postsecondary schools.
Each state must also choose at least one additional indicator for School Quality or Student Success (SQSS) to
measure on an annual basis. Tennessee, along with 35 other states (plus the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico), has chosen to measure chronic absenteeism as an SQSS indicator. (Tennessee is one of nine states that
lists chronic absenteeism as its only SQSS indicator for all grade levels.) ESSA requires all states, even those
that have not chosen chronic absenteeism as their SQSS indicator, to report chronic absenteeism data to the
federal government and allows federal spending on training to reduce absenteeism. Since chronic absenteeism
was rst added to the state’s ESSA plan, TDOE has led training focused on chronic absenteeism in the form
of at least one major statewide conference, numerous presentations to attendance supervisors, and a series
of regional training events for school administrators. e department has also created chronic absenteeism
resources for districts, including FAQs, toolkits, additional resources for vulnerable student groups, and school
climate resources, which provide methods to assess reasons for chronic absenteeism in schools.
ESSA does not provide a standard denition of chronic absenteeism, allowing states to set their own
parameters for the measure. Of the 36 states that chose chronic absenteeism as the SQSS in their ESSA plan,
27 states, including Tennessee, dene chronic absenteeism as missing 10 percent or more of instructional
days over the course of the school year.
6
is is the most common denition of chronic absenteeism, used by
Attendance Works as its working denition of the term. Research suggests that missing 10 percent or more
of instructional days may put students in danger of academic and social consequences. In Tennessee, districts
operate on a 180-day academic calendar, so a student who is enrolled for the entire school year becomes
chronically absent once he or she accrues 18 absences.
7
Some states use other denitions for chronic absenteeism, as shown in Exhibit 12.
Exhibit 12: Chronic absenteeism measures used in states’ ESSA Plans
Source: FutureEd, 2017.
18
Measuring chronic absenteeism in Tennessee
In Tennessee, the chronic absenteeism rate is measured based on a student’s total number of days enrolled in
a district.
P
If the chronically absent student is enrolled in a district for at least half of the instructional days in
the school year, he or she is counted in the district’s chronic absenteeism rates. e same threshold is used to
calculate school-level chronic absenteeism rates.
Q
If a chronically absent student is not enrolled in any district
for at least half of the school year but is enrolled in a public school or schools in the state for at least 45
instructional days, the student’s chronic absenteeism is factored into the state rate but not that of any district.
ough TDOE started collecting chronic absenteeism data around 2013, chronic absenteeism rates were rst
included on the State Report Card in 2018. Between the 2017 and 2019 school years, Tennessee’s overall
chronic absenteeism rate dropped by 3.71 percent, a dierence of nearly 5,000 students, while total enrollment
increased by just over 1,300 students (an increase of 0.14 percent). In 2017, there were 134,675 chronically
absent students in Tennessee, accounting for 13.6 percent of the total K-12 student population. e statewide
rate of chronic absenteeism decreased slightly to 13.3 percent in 2018 and to 13.1 percent in 2019.
Exhibit 13: Chronic absenteeism in Tennessee | 2017 through 2019
Note: is analysis was done using publicly available suppressed state-level data. Enrollment numbers include students who may not have been enrolled in a district
long enough to be counted in district-level chronic absenteeism data.
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
In 2019, nearly 70 percent of Tennessee school districts posted chronic absenteeism rates that were at or below
the state rate of 13.1 percent. Forty-four percent of the remaining districts were within 2 percentage points of
the state rate.
P
All research, including survey data, reects procedures and policies in place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Q
Note: Students who are enrolled in two schools or districts for exactly 50 percent of the school year will count for both schools and both districts for accountability purposes.
856,060
858,442
862,421
134,675
131,717
129,676
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Students not chronically absent
Students chronically absent
13.6%
13.3%
13.1%
Total enrollment:
990,159
Total enrollment:
992,097
Total enrollment:
990,735
Statewide rate of chronic absenteeism
Total change:
-3.71%
-4,999 students
Total change:
+0.74%
+6,361 students
Total change:
+0.14%
+1,362 students
19
Exhibit 14: Chronic absenteeism in Tennessee districts | 2018-19
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
In 2015-16, the last time national chronic absenteeism data was collected and reported by the federal Oce
for Civil Rights (OCR), Tennessee’s chronic absenteeism rate of 13.8 percent ranked 18th lowest of all states
and fell below the nationwide average of 15.9 percent. e OCR dened a chronically absent student as one
who missed 15 or more days from school, a stricter threshold than the denition currently used by most states
(including Tennessee), i.e., 10 percent or more days in the instructional school year. at year Washington had
the highest rate at 27.1 percent, while North Dakota’s rate of 9.6 percent was the lowest.
Exhibit 15: Chronic absenteeism by state | 2015-16
Note: ese rates are based on dening chronic absenteeism as missing 15 days of school. e denition of chronic absenteeism used by Tennessee is missing at least
10 percent of instructional days (typically 18 days).
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Oce for Civil Rights.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Chronic absenteeism rate
Statewide rate of
chronic absenteeism:
13.1%
20
Chronic absenteeism by student group
Economically disadvantaged students
Between the 2017 and 2019 school years, the percentage of economically disadvantaged students who were
chronically absent was 20.9, as compared to 9.3 percent of students not economically disadvantaged. While
just over one-third of Tennessee students were economically disadvantaged, just over half (55 percent) of
chronically absent students were economically disadvantaged based on a three-year average.
In 2018, the national nonprot Attendance Works
released a report that analyzed nationwide attendance
data collected by the OCR. e report showed that
schools with the highest rates of poverty tend to have
higher levels of chronic absenteeism.
R,8
Ninety-seven principals (20 percent) who responded
to the OREA survey indicated that economically
disadvantaged students in their schools may have
transportation issues that prevent them from coming to
school on a regular basis. Many principals cited parent/
student apathy toward education as an issue for some
economically disadvantaged students. Other barriers
mentioned by principals included lack of access to
healthcare, poor nutrition, and lack of basic resources like housing, clothing, and more.
Exhibit 16: Perceived reasons for the high chronic absenteeism of economically
disadvantaged students, according to principals
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
Free and reduced-price meals
Students who are economically disadvantaged may lack access to basic needs, including food. Children who
do not have enough to eat are more likely to develop and struggle with behavioral, emotional, mental, and
academic problems. Such children are also more likely to be absent or tardy. Free and reduced-price meals at
school may encourage student attendance for some students.
R
OCR data is based on missing 15 days of school, while Tennessee denes chronic absenteeism as missing 10 percent or more of instructional days (typically 18 days).
Economically Disadvantaged
Students in Tennessee
Tennessee denes economically disadvantaged
students (or “at risk” students) as those who are
directly certied for specic state and federal
assistance programs, and those who are
identied as homeless, migrants, or runaways
as well as students in foster care.
Students who are directly certied are
those whose families are participating in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program, or Head Start.
21
Free and reduced-price breakfast may be oered by schools in addition to lunch. Sixty percent of attendance
supervisors (59 respondents) and 49 percent of principals (226 respondents) responding to OREA surveys
reported that their students have access to free breakfast at their schools. Approximately 65 percent of
Tennessee students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunches also eat breakfast at school, ranking the state
above the national average of 57 percent. On average, students who eat school breakfast attend 1.5 more days
of school and are more likely to graduate high school than their peers who do not eat breakfast.
In most schools, breakfast is oered before the school day begins and students must arrive early to participate.
To increase student participation in school breakfast programs, the coordinated school health department at
TDOE encourages schools to institute alternative breakfast models such as Breakfast in the Classroom (served
in the classroom as the school day begins), Second Chance breakfast (served after rst period in either the
cafeteria or mobile classes throughout the school), or Grab and Go breakfast (served at easy to access locations
and eaten in the classroom). TDOE reports that the average participation rate for school breakfast programs
in Tennessee goes up to 90 percent when an alternative breakfast model is used.
On the OREA surveys, 45 percent of attendance supervisors (45 respondents) and 28 percent of principals
(130 respondents) indicated alternative breakfast models are used in their districts and schools.
Family resource centers
Family resource centers (FRCs) are often used as tools to address student absenteeism and target many of
the factors that commonly aect economically disadvantaged students. FRCs provide or assist students
and families with obtaining essential goods and services, such as food, clothing, and housing. e centers,
operating in 79 school districts within 65 counties, may be run directly by the district or in partnership with
another organization.
9
All centers are to collaborate with other state and local agencies, churches, and/or
nonprots to help students and their families meet a variety of needs.
Each FRC identies focus areas and sets specic goals based on the needs of the students and families in
the school district. As of November 2020, 51 of the state’s 102 FRCs had identied student attendance and
truancy as a primary focus. Over half of attendance supervisors (55 respondents, each representing dierent
districts) and 31 percent of principals (143 respondents) indicated on the OREA surveys that they have used
their FRC for help with issues that aect student attendance, such as by securing transportation for students,
meeting family health needs such as chronic lice infestation, and assisting with hotel arrangements for families
who need housing.
Reduced public assistance
A Tennessee Department of Human Services (DHS) rule requires school attendance, including kindergarten,
of all school-age children who receive need-based public assistance through the state’s Families First program,
unless good cause is established for nonattendance.
10
Parents of school-age children must provide verication
of school enrollment (e.g., enrollment documents, a copy of the child’s most recent report card).
S
e
maximum penalty for failure to comply with the school attendance requirement is a 20 percent reduction
in public assistance benets. is penalty is to be assessed whenever verication of school attendance is not
provided and/or a child is found truant without a good cause for missing school.
Data provided by DHS in July of 2020 show that the benets for approximately 1,000 families were reduced
in 2018 and 2019 because they did not meet the student attendance requirements.
S
If parents choose to homeschool, they are not exempt from the Families First Employment and Training participation requirement (i.e., participating in the TANF
workforce development and employment program).
22
Exhibit 17: Reduced DHS public assistance for school attendance | 2015 through 2020 (partial)
Source: Department of Human Services.
An individual under the age of 20 without a high school diploma who is the head of a household and has a
child who is at least 16 weeks of age must work toward attaining a high school diploma or its equivalent or
risk a 20 percent reduction in public assistance benets.
11
Students with disabilities
From 2017 to 2019, students with disabilities were 1.45 times more likely to be chronically absent than
students without disabilities (18.3 percent vs. 12.6 percent). is was on par with OCR attendance data
from the 2015-16 school year, which showed that students with disabilities were 1.5 times more likely to be
chronically absent than students without disabilities.
T,12
Students with disabilities made up 13 percent of the
total student population in the state and nearly 18 percent of all chronically absent students from 2017 to 2019.
Respondents to the OREA survey of principals indicated students with disabilities face additional barriers to
attendance because of physical or mental limitations that make a typical school day dicult to navigate.
U
Over
a third of principals stated that students with disabilities tend to miss more school because of chronic health
issues and frequent doctor’s appointments. A few principals mentioned that some students with disabilities
may experience school-related anxiety that can aect their attendance.
T
OCR data is based on missing 15 days of school, while Tennessee denes chronic absenteeism as missing 10 percent or more of instructional days (typically 18
days).
U
Students with disabilities may have a modied attendance schedule in their IEP or modied 504 plan if they are unable to follow the typical school schedule. (See
pages 45-47 for more information.)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
January
297 74 62 59 103 130
February
33 73 72 83 62 76
March
52 96 71 65 83 100
April
48 75 65 78 102 59
May
53 80 60 57 81 29
June
67 74 62 84 90 17
July
47 45 57 77 109 –
August
26 58 69 121 118 –
September
47 106 60 126 104 –
October
73 64 86 141 116 –
November
156 99 69 106 108 –
December
86 97 79 82 83 –
Total 985 941 812 1,079 1,159 –
23
Exhibit 18: Perceived reasons for the high chronic absenteeism of students with disabilities,
according to principals
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
English learners
e student group that was the least chronically absent from 2017 through 2019 was English learners, who were
nearly 1.45 times less likely to be chronically absent than students who were not English learners (9.4 percent
vs. 13.6 percent). is is consistent with the national attendance trends for students who are English learners.
According to national data collected by the OCR, English learners are approximately 1.2 times less likely to be
chronically absent than their non-English learner peers.
V,13
When asked about this trend on the OREA survey,
many principals stated that the families of English learner students place a high value on education because of
the opportunities it aords them in America. Other principals cited a generally strong work ethic in the English
learner population in their schools and an eagerness to assimilate into the local culture.
Exhibit 19: Perceived reasons for the low chronic absenteeism of English learners, according
to principals
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
V
OCR data is based on missing 15 days of school, while Tennessee denes chronic absenteeism as missing 10 percent or more of instructional days (typically 18 percent).
24
Racial groups
Black students had higher chronic absenteeism rates than either White or Hispanic students for 2017 through
2019. Analysis of students by race showed that the number of chronically absent Black students decreased by
over 1,300 students from 2017 to 2019, however. But since the total population of Black students decreased by a
greater amount over the time period, the chronic absenteeism rate for Black students stayed relatively the same.
In spite of a population increase of over 9,300 students, the number of Hispanic chronically absent students
decreased by just over 180, which resulted in a net decrease of chronic absenteeism for Hispanic students over
the time period.
e chronic absenteeism rate for White students decreased by nearly 15 percent during the time period, as the
number of those who were chronically absent declined by over 15,000 at the same time the total population of
such students decreased by almost 30,000.
Exhibit 20: Chronic absenteeism (CA) rate of Black, White, and Hispanic students | 2017
through 2019
Note: Data for Black and Hispanic students is used in measures by TDOE along with Native American students (not shown here).
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
Attendance data for Black and Hispanic students is used in accountability measures by TDOE along with
data for Native American students (not shown in the Exhibit 20). When the data for these student subgroups
is broken down further, as shown in Exhibit 21, Black students and Native American students had chronic
absenteeism rates above the statewide rate for the three years reviewed. All other groups were below the
statewide rate for chronic absenteeism.
17.3%
12.8%
11.5%
16.3%
12.7%
11.7%
17.2%
10.9%
10.3%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Black White Hispanic
Rate of chronic absenteeism
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Change in CA
students
Change in all
students
CA Total CA Total CA Total
Number
change
Percent
change
Number
change
Percent
change
Black
41,093 237,946 38,687 237,892 39,781 231,423 -1,312 -3.19% -6,523 -2.74%
White
80,521 627,192 79,198 621,207 64,967 597,244 -15,554 -19.05% -29,948 -4.77%
Hispanic
11,210 97,298 11,924 101,718 11,028 106,633 -182 -1.62% +9,335 +8.75%
25
Exhibit 21: Chronic absenteeism by race | 2017 through 2019
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
Between 2017 and 2019, English learners was the only student subgroup with a chronic absenteeism rate
below the state rate of 13.3 percent. e chronic absenteeism rates of economically disadvantaged students,
students with disabilities, and Black or Hispanic students were all above that of the state.
W
Exhibit 22: Chronic absenteeism of student subgroups | 2017 through 2019
Note: Black and Hispanic students are used in measures by TDOE along with Native American students (not shown here).
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
Grade levels
In Tennessee, the four high school grades had the highest rates of chronic absenteeism in 2017, 2018, and
2019, followed closely by kindergarten and 8th grade. Chronic absenteeism rates for students in grades 2
through 5 stayed under 10 percent for all three years; the lowest rates of chronic absenteeism were found
in grades 3 through 5. e rate steadily increased through middle school and, more rapidly, in high school.
Chronic absenteeism rates for 9th through 12th grade students were above the state rate for each of the three
years examined. On average, seniors were 67 percent more likely to be chronically absent than 3rd graders,
who were the least likely to be chronically absent.
W
See Appendix C for a more detailed breakdown of the chronic absenteeism of student subgroups.
Average number of CA
students per year
Percent CA
Black
39,854 16.9%
Native American
535 15.4%
State Rate 132,023 13.3%
White
74,895 12.2%
Hispanic
11,387 11.2%
Hawaiian or Pacic Islander
189 10.1%
Asian
1,064 4.6%
216,205 70,650 152,273 396,068 17,452
20.9%
18.3%
15.2%
13.3%
9.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
Economically
disadvantaged
(n=1,034,976)
Students with
disabilities
(n=385,228)
Black/Hispanic
students
(n=1,012,910)
All students
(n=2,972,991)
English learners
(n=185,963)
Number of chronically absent students Percent chronically absent
State rate
26
Exhibit 23: Average chronic absenteeism by grade level | 2017 through 2019
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
From 2017 to 2019, the chronic absenteeism rate of all grade levels decreased with one exception: the chronic
absenteeism rate rose by 3 percent for 8th grade. e rate for 12th grade declined from 26.44 percent in 2017 to
23.81 percent in 2019, though the chronic absenteeism rate for 12th graders remained the highest of all grades.
Exhibit 24: Chronic absenteeism by grade level | 2017 through 2019
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
During the 2017, 2018, and 2019 school years, nearly half of all chronically absent students in Tennessee
were high school students. Twenty-six percent of all chronically absent students were middle schoolers, and
22 percent were 1st through 4th graders. e remaining 8 percent were kindergarten students. Kindergarten
students accounted for over 25 percent of all chronically absent elementary school students.
12.59%
10.18%
8.97%
8.47%
8.57%
8.65%
10.17%
11.77%
12.18%
14.49%
16.76%
19.24%
25.49%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12 t h
2016-17
CA rate
2017-18
CA rate
2018-19
CA rate
3-year trend
in total # of
students
3-year trend
in total # of
CA students
3-year trend
of
CA rate
Kindergarten
12.68% 12.57% 12.53% +1,198 +37 -1.18%
1st grade
10.44% 10.27% 9.83% +1,028 -354 -5.87%
2nd grade
9.14% 8.96% 8.80% -330 -278 -3.69%
3rd grade
8.70% 8.46% 8.27% -3,449 -618 -4.95%
4th grade
8.73% 8.58% 8.41% -3,389 -542 -3.75%
5th grade
8.67% 8.63% 8.64% +975 +64 -0.31%
6th grade
10.21% 10.31% 10.00% +3,702 +209 -2.05%
7th grade
11.74% 11.98% 11.60% +2,843 +234 -1.18%
8th grade
11.98% 12.21% 12.35% +1,411 +449 +3.00%
9th grade
14.94% 14.40% 14.14% -32 -624 -5.39%
10th grade
16.72% 17.33% 16.23% -1,582 -610 -2.91%
11th grade
19.48% 19.44% 18.81% -1,296 -707 -3.42%
12th grade
26.44% 26.22% 23.81% +902 -1,520 -9.93%
27
Exhibit 25: Average percentage of chronically absent students per grade | 2017 through 2019
Note: e number of students per grade level is a three-year average for 2017 through 2019.
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
On the OREA survey of principals, respondents oered insight as to why certain grades may be more or less
likely to be chronically absent. In kindergarten, students are adjusting to a new schedule and an unfamiliar
environment and attendance is inconsistent for some students as a result. In addition, some younger students
are exposed to new germs upon entering kindergarten, leading to a higher number of absences due to illness,
according to principals.
In the higher grades, especially high school,
principals stated that some students start to miss
more school as they develop a more independent
life outside of school (e.g., driving themselves,
getting a job, etc.). Several principals specically
mentioned that high school seniors’ attendance
rates may decline because of decreased parental
supervision and an easier class schedule. In
addition, truancy laws no longer apply to
students who reach the age of 18, which occurs for some students during their senior year.
Some districts schedule graduation ceremonies before the nal day of school (i.e., before the 180th
instructional day of the school year), and students who discontinue attending classes after graduation are
counted as absent for any days remaining in the school year and may still be identied as chronically absent.
For example, high school graduation ceremonies were held early in one Tennessee school district in 2019, and
the chronic absenteeism rate for the school district’s 12th graders increased thereafter as graduating seniors
were absent for the eight days remaining in the school year.
9,427, 8%
27,129, 22%
32,191, 26%
53,933, 44%
Kindergarten 1st-4th 5th-8th 9th-12th
Kindergarten
1st-4th
5th-8th
9th-12th
“Seniors play the system for truancy. They learn and
push the envelope on the laws for school truancy. Once
students get close to or past 18 years old, they will miss at
their will, often do not correct when attendance becomes a
problem. I would like to see this law changed. If a student
turns 18 during their senior year, they must comply with
compulsory attendance laws.”
Respondent to OREA survey of principals, Dec. 2019
22%
26%
8%
28
Exhibit 26: Reasons for higher chronic absenteeism in certain grades, according to principals
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
Laws to combat absenteeism in upper grades
Two tools exist in law that school ocials may use to address excessive absenteeism among their older students.
Driver license suspension or revocation for excessive truancy
X
One tool available to address the absenteeism of older students
is to suspend or revoke their driver license. State law requires
directors of schools or the school district’s attendance supervisor
to notify the Department of Safety and Homeland Security (SHS)
when a student under the age of 18 accrues 10 consecutive, or
15 total, unexcused absences in a semester, at which point the
student’s learner’s permit or driver license is to be suspended or
denied (i.e., refusal upon rst application).
14
SHS shall notify
the student that his or her driver license or learner’s permit
(or ability to obtain either) has been suspended or denied.
Students then have 30 days to provide proof of compliance with
minimum attendance requirements through improved attendance,
graduation from high school, HiSET completion, emancipation, marriage, or an exemption (i.e., excused due
to circumstances beyond the student’s control). Students who comply with this step may regain their permit
or license by paying fees up to $95. Students who continue to be truant risk having their license revoked until
they graduate from high school, pass the HiSET, or reach the age of 18. State law authorizes school ocials to
report students who are not making satisfactory progress to SHS for license revocation.
Y
SHS is required by state law to annually report the number of students whose driver licenses have been
suspended for attendance or academic reasons, the number whose licenses were reinstated, and the total
number of licenses granted to students during the school year.
Z
In 2018-19, the department suspended 545
driver licenses for excessive truancy (i.e., withdrawn from school).
AA
,
AB
X
is report uses the term excessive truancy in place of withdrawn, which in law refers to a student who has missed 10 consecutive or 15 total unexcused absences in a semester.
Y
Satisfactory progress is dened in state law as making a passing grade in at least three full unit subjects or their equivalency at the conclusion of any grading period.
Z
By September 1 of each year, the department is required by law to report this information to both the House and Senate education committees.
AA
In 2018-19, 61,592 students were granted a license; 1,966 students’ licenses were suspended; and 639 licenses were reinstated. e number of suspended licenses includes
those suspended for failure to maintain academic progress as well as excessive truancy (i.e., 10 consecutive or 15 total unexcused absences in a semester). is data comes from
an updated set provided by TDOE, which varies slightly from the total of suspensions in Exhibit 27. See Appendix E for a list of license suspensions by county.
AB
ere were 208,836 students enrolled in grades 10-12 for the 2018-19 school year.
“Seniors play the system for truancy.
They learn and push the envelope
on the laws for school truancy. Once
students get close to or past 18 years
old, they will miss at their will, often do
not correct when attendance becomes
a problem. I would like to see this law
changed. If a student turns 18 during
their senior year, they must comply with
compulsory attendance laws.”
Respondent to OREA survey of principals, Dec. 2019
29
Exhibit 27: License suspension for excessive truancy (i.e., withdrawn) vs. lack of academic
progress
Note: Suspension data include any student aged 15-17 regardless of whether the student has been issued any type of driver license. e law requires the department
to suspend the oender’s ability to obtain as well as retain a license.
Source: Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security.
e number of driver licenses reinstated includes students who have reached age 18 and are thus no longer
subject to compulsory education laws. e reinstatements for 2015 through 2019 are broken down by reason
in Exhibit 28.
Exhibit 28: Types of compliance for license reinstatement for 2015 through 2019
Source: Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security.
Attendance supervisors and principals were asked to rate the eectiveness (e.g., preventing future unexcused
absences) of the law. Of the respondents whose districts or schools serve students of driving age, most found
the law to be somewhat eective, including 63 percent of attendance supervisors (58 of 92 respondents) and
46 percent of principals (83 of 179 respondents). In their comments, some attendance supervisors indicated
the threat of losing a driver license is eective with
their students and that they make a point to remind
students of this possibility. Others stated that most
truant students in their district are unfazed by the
law because they either do not care enough about
having a license or are content to wait until they
reach age 18 and are no longer subject to possible
1,322
1,561
1,708
1,423
666
967
671
545
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
Withdrawn Academic
Reason for reinstatement # of reinstatements
18 years of age
708
Diploma or GED
163
HiSET (i.e., passed the state’s high school equivalency exam)
9
Home school form
58
Online school
49
Satisfactory attendance
1,432
Satisfactory academic progress
794
Truancy exemption
46
Total number of reinstatements 3,259
Implementation of the law varies by district.
“My director does not want me pulling licenses and
my general sessions judge will only pull them in rare
circumstances. I feel there is lack of support for this in
my district.”
-Respondent to OREA survey of principals, Dec. 2019
30
license suspension and revocation based on school attendance. Some respondents thought the number of
days students must miss before the penalty can be triggered is too lenient. One respondent suggested aligning
the specications of this law with the newest attendance laws to strengthen its eectiveness (i.e., decrease the
denition of withdrawal to ve unexcused absences to align with the progressive truancy intervention plan).
Some attendance supervisors and principals indicated they were unaware of the law’s existence or do not
implement it in their district for an unspecied reason.
AC
Exhibit 29: Effectiveness of suspending licenses for excessive truancy, according to
attendance supervisors and principals
Note: is data does not include survey respondents whose districts or schools do not serve students ages 15 to 17.
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
In 2020, the Department of Safety and Homeland Security created a COVID-19 Proof of School Attendance
Adavit for students unable to provide proof of school attendance and academic progress due to school
closures. When completed with a notarized parent signature, students could submit this form in lieu of
documentation from the school.
Directors of schools may enter a place of employment
State law gives directors of schools the right to enter any oce, factory, or business employing children zoned
to attend schools within the school district.
15
e employer must produce certain documents that allow the
student to work in the place of employment during the school day.
AD
Sixty-eight respondents (67 percent) to
OREA’s survey of attendance supervisors said that to their knowledge no one in their districts had entered
a place of employment to conrm that compulsory education laws were being followed. One attendance
supervisor stated school ocials have used this law for students with jobs who frequently miss school and that
the tool is useful.
Chronic absenteeism by district
OREA sorted school districts by chronic absenteeism rate using the levels dened by Attendance Works in its
2018 Data Matters report. Districts with a rate of 30 percent or higher are considered to have extreme chronic
absenteeism; in 2017, three Tennessee districts were in this category, but no districts had a rate this high in
2018 or 2019. e next highest category, high chronic absenteeism, captures schools with rates between 20
and 29.9 percent. e number of Tennessee districts in this category rose from seven to nine districts from
AC
Ten attendance supervisors and 360 principals were ltered out of the results because their school or district does not serve students ages 15 to 17.
AD
TCA 49-6-3008 was rst enacted in 1947 and has remained largely unaltered over the past 74 years.
16
58
18
57
83
39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Effective Somewhat effective Not effective
Attendance supervisors (n=92) Principals (n=179)
31
2017 to 2018, but then dropped to six districts in 2019. e biggest changes over the time period examined
occurred in the signicant and modest chronic absenteeism categories. e number of districts with signicant
chronic absenteeism (between 10 and 19.9 percent) decreased by 14 districts between 2017 and 2019,
while the number of districts with modest chronic absenteeism (between 5 and 9.9 percent) increased by 17.
Attendance Works identies schools with chronic absenteeism rates of 0 to 4.9 percent as having low chronic
absenteeism; the number of districts in this category increased from seven in 2017 to nine in 2019.
Exhibit 30: District chronic absenteeism rates | 2017 through 2019
Note: OREA used level breaks and terminology found in the Data Matters report published by Attendance Works in 2018.
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
e state’s urban school districts – Metro Nashville, Hamilton County, Knox County, and Shelby County
(including all ASD schools) – had an overall chronic absenteeism rate of 16.12 percent based on the 2017,
2018, and 2019 school years. Over the three-year period, a larger proportional share of students in these urban
districts were chronically absent than in county districts, municipal districts, and special school districts.
e chronic absenteeism rate in the state’s big four urban school districts rose from 15.84 percent in 2017 to 16.76
percent in 2019, an increase of almost 3,000 students, while the total student population was relatively static.
3
7
85
40
7
0
9
79
47
8
0
6
71
57
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Extreme chronic
absenteeism
(30%+)
High chronic
absenteeism
(20-29.9%)
Significant chronic
absenteeism
(10-19.9%)
Modest chronic
absenteeism
(5-9.9%)
Low chronic
absenteeism
(0-4.9%)
2016-17 (142 districts) 2017-18 (143 districts) 2018-19 (143 districts)
State rates
2016-17: 13.6%
2017-18: 13.3%
2018-19: 13.1%
During the fall of 2019, OREA contacted districts with notable decreases in their chronic absenteeism rate to ask
about the possible reasons behind the trends. Ocials in three such districts – Rhea County, Cannon County,
and Stewart County – cited new strategies aimed at encouraging student attendance to explain the decrease
in their rates. The Cannon County attendance supervisor, whose district saw a nine-point decrease from 2017
to 2019, specically cited setting attendance goals, holding celebrations when attendance goals were met,
implementing the progressive truancy intervention plan (PTIP), and creating a truancy board. Stewart County
ocials attributed their seven-point decrease to a sharper focus on chronic absenteeism, greater involvement
in student attendance matters from other school personnel beyond the attendance supervisor, and improved
communications with parents as contributing factors to reducing chronic absenteeism in the district. Rhea
County’s attendance supervisor credited strategies similar to those used in Cannon County and Stewart County
for the district’s seven-point decrease.
32
Chronic absenteeism by school
Using the categories established by Attendance Works, OREA sorted all schools by their chronic absenteeism
rates for each school year from 2017 through 2019. Approximately 100 schools fell into the category of
extreme chronic absenteeism (30 percent or higher) each year from 2017 to 2019. Most Tennessee schools
(around 670 each year) had a chronic absenteeism rate between 10 and 19.9 percent, placing them in the
signicant chronic absenteeism category. e schools in the signicant category collectively served over 1.1
million students during the three-year period examined. A large number of schools each year (approximately
550 schools each year) were at the level of modest chronic absenteeism, with rates of 5 to 9.9 percent. An
average of 265 Tennessee schools had low chronic absenteeism each year between 2017 and 2019.
Exhibit 31: Levels of school chronic absenteeism | 2017 through 2019
6%
9%
38%
31%
15%
6%
10%
39%
30%
15%
6%
9%
37%
33%
15%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Extreme chronic
absenteeism
(30%+)
High chronic
absenteeism
(20-29.9%)
Signficant chronic
absenteeism
(10-19.9%)
Modest chronic
absenteeism
(5-9.9%)
Low chronic
absenteeism
(0-4.9%)
2016-17 (1,741 schools) 2017-18 (1,748 schools) 2018-19 (1,770 schools)
Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
OREA used level breaks and terminology found in the Data Matters report published by Attendance Works in 2018.
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
Most schools in the state’s big four urban districts (nearly 200 of approximately 550 schools) fell into the
signicant chronic absenteeism category for each of the three years. e number of schools in the extreme
chronic absenteeism category increased by 15 in 2019. e low chronic absenteeism category encompassed
fewer schools over the three-year period, falling from 87 schools in 2017 to 51 schools in 2019.
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Extreme (30%+)
110 97 109
High (20-29.9%)
165 176 160
Signicant (10-19.9%)
666 680 651
Modest (5-9.9%)
543 527 578
Low (0-4.9%)
257 268 272
Total 1,741 1,748 1,770
33
Exhibit 32: Chronic absenteeism levels of schools in large urban districts | 2017 through 2019
12%
16%
37%
19%
16%
11%
15%
37%
23%
14%
14%
17%
35%
25%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Extreme chronic
absenteeism
(30%+)
High chronic
absenteeism
(20-29.9%)
Significant chronic
absenteeism
(10-19.9%)
Modest chronic
absenteeism
(5-9.9%)
Low chronic
absenteeism
(0-4.9%)
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Note: Large urban districts include the Achievement School District, Davidson County, Hamilton County, Knox County, and Shelby County.
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
Chronically Out of School Indicator
e Chronically Out of School Indicator measures year-to-year changes in chronic absenteeism, but a district
or school’s chronic absenteeism rate alone is not necessarily indicative of its indicator rate. is is because the
indicator is based on the attendance of all students from year-to-year as well as that of student subgroups.
AE
For
example, a school’s overall chronic absenteeism rate may be 7 percent – below the statewide average – but if
the rate for a particular student subgroup, such as economically disadvantaged students, is high and/or if the
school’s overall rate of 7 percent is unchanged from the previous year, the school’s indicator rate may be lower.
e Chronically Out of School Indicator is based on multiple measures:
Measure 1: the percentage of students who are chronically out of school.
Measure 2: the percentage of students who are chronically out of school compared to an established target.
Measure 3: a student-level comparison that measures the reduction in chronic absenteeism for students who
were chronically absent in the prior year, which is then compared to statewide numbers for districts only.
For schools, the indicator score is calculated based on Measure 1 or Measure 2, whichever the school scores best on.
AE
Note: Students who are enrolled in two schools or districts for exactly 50 percent of the school year will count for both schools and both districts for accountability
purposes.
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Extreme (30%+)
63 62 77
High (20-29.9%)
87 82 94
Signicant (10-19.9%)
198 199 195
Modest (5-9.9%)
102 122 136
Low (0-4.9%)
87 77 51
Total 537 542 553
34
For districts, the score is calculated by averaging Measure 1 or Measure 2, whichever the district scores best on,
with Measure 3. Districts receive points for Measure 1 based on the percentage of students who are chronically
absent and for Measure 2 by comparing performance to targets.
Districts receive points for Measure 3 based on the number of
improved or resolved cases of chronically absent students. e
most points (four) are awarded to districts that score in the
top one-fth of districts in the state on each measure. Scoring
continues in this manner through the remaining quintiles of
statewide performance, as shown in Exhibit 33.
AF
Districts and schools are assessed on the performance of all
students and of student subgroups for each measure used in the
indicator calculation.
Rates for the indicator were not calculated for the 2019-20 school
year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In survey comments and interviews with OREA, several school
ocials expressed frustration with the use of the indicator in cases
where a school’s low score was seen as largely the result of student
absenteeism because of illness and medical appointments.
Progressive truancy intervention plan
A 2017 state law requires school districts to implement a progressive truancy intervention plan (PTIP) for
all truant students.
AG,AH
For the purposes of the PTIP, the law
16
classies a student as truant upon accruing ve
unexcused absences.
AI
(For more about how absences are determined to be unexcused, see pages 6-8.) Once
a student has accrued ve unexcused absences, districts must implement a progressive truancy intervention
plan. e purpose of the plan is to: (1) reduce truancy by addressing the root causes of students’ unexcused
absences, and (2) reduce the number of truancy cases referred to juvenile court by eectively addressing such
cases through the school system.
e PTIP includes punitive and nonpunitive measures in a tiered system, with the interventions becoming
progressively more intense if earlier measures are unsuccessful.
AF
See Appendix B for more details on State Report Cards and how the Chronically Out of School Indicator score is calculated.
AG
All research, including survey data, reects procedures and policies in place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
AH
In 2016, the General Assembly created the Juvenile Justice Realignment Task Force to study new approaches to the administration of juvenile justice. e task
force's nal report recommended revising Tennessee's truancy laws, implementing school-based strategies to reduce student court referrals, and encouraging more
partnerships between juvenile courts and school districts, among other recommendations. Based on these recommendations, the General Assembly passed Public
Chapter 379 (2017), which requires school districts to implement a progressive truancy intervention plan (PTIP) for all truant students.
AI
School districts may implement the PTIP prior to a student’s accrual of ve unexcused absences. In addition, state law allows the director of schools or the school
district’s attendance supervisor to send a written notice to the parents of students with three unexcused absences.
Exhibit 33: Scoring for Chronically
Out of School Indicator
35
Exhibit 34: Progressive truancy intervention plan
Source: OREA analysis of TCA 49-6-3007 and 3009.
According to the law, the director of schools or the district attendance supervisor may send a written notice
to the parents of students with three unexcused absences. On OREA surveys, 74 percent of districts and 77
percent of schools represented by respondents indicated such notices are sent to parents.
Tier 1 | Must be implemented once a student accrues ve unexcused absences
State law requires the director of schools or the school district’s attendance supervisor to serve (or cause to
be served) written notice to the parents of a student who has accumulated ve unexcused absences. In some
districts, parents may submit notes to excuse the absences that led to the written notice. If parents do not
submit such notes after receiving the written notice, however, the PTIP is then activated.
AJ
At Tier 1, schools must organize a conference
with the student, parent or guardian, and school
administration to discuss an attendance contract that
all parties must agree to and sign. e attendance
contract must include specic expectations for the
student, the period for which the contract is in eect, and the penalties if the student continues to be truant.
e law requires school administrators to hold regular follow-up meetings with the student and the parents to
discuss the student’s progress during Tier 1.
17
On OREA surveys, most respondents, including 35 attendance
supervisors (34 percent) and 179 principals (33 percent), stated that such follow-up meetings usually occur.
Given diculties in getting some parents to attend a formal, face-to-face meeting and other scheduling
challenges, the Tier 1 follow-up meetings may take the form of a conversation by phone or a brief exchange
between school ocials and parents in the pick-up line after school is dismissed. Based on survey comments,
school ocials typically hold follow-up meetings for Tier 1 only if attendance has not improved.
AJ
e PTIP must be implemented by ve unexcused absences, but some district policies call for implementation once a student has accumulated three unexcused
absences. Districts with policies that call for earlier implementation of the PTIP may not implement the plan until a student has accumulated more than three
unexcused absences, however, according to survey respondents. Reasons for delayed implementation in these districts included problems scheduling PTIP meetings,
uncooperative parents, and a lack of personnel and resources.
Referral to
juvenile court
Individualized assessment
& possible referral to counseling,
community-based services, or other
services to address student's
attendance problems.
Possible referral to school-based community
services or other programs designed to improve
attendance and behavior.
Written notice to parents; conference with student and
parent resulting in signed attendance contract with
specic attendance expectations.
Principal may send letter reminding students and parents of
compulsory attendance law and truancy plan.
Principal shall provide written notice of all attendance policies at
the beginning of each school year.
Continued truancy after Tier 3
Tier 3: Continued truancy after Tier 2
Tier 2: Continued truancy in violation
of Tier 1 attendance contract
Tier 1: Students with ≤5 unexcused
Students with 3+
unexcused absences
All
“It helps all involved to be aware of student's
absences and to constantly remind them of good
attendance benets.”
Respondent to OREA survey of principals, Dec. 2019
36
Exhibit 35: Frequency of follow-up meetings occurring during Tier 1, according to attendance
supervisors and principals (n=647)
Note: is graph combines the attendance supervisor and principal survey results because the trends between the two surveys were consistent with one another.
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
In cases where a student’s attendance has not improved after implementation of the Tier 1 attendance
contract, school administrators might move directly to Tier 2 without a Tier 1 follow-up meeting or meetings.
If attendance problems continue, students progress to the next tier of the PTIP. On OREA surveys, almost
half of attendance supervisors (50 of 102) said that students sometimes move from Tier 1 to Tier 2 compared
to 73 percent of principals (398 of 545). In some cases, lack of progression may be due to the amount of time
it takes to move through the process as opposed to actual improved attendance.
Exhibit 36: Progression of students from Tier 1 to Tier 2 of the PTIP, according to attendance
supervisors and principals (n=647)
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
205, 32%
214, 33%
205, 32%
23, 3%
Always Usually Sometimes Never
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
11, 2%
169, 26%
448, 69%
19, 3%
Always Usually Sometimes Never
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
32%
33%
26%
2%
37
Tier 2 | Implemented if student violates the attendance contract signed in Tier 1
State law requires schools to initiate Tier 2 of the PTIP upon a student’s accrual of additional unexcused
absences in violation of the Tier 1 attendance contract. In most districts, Tier 2 is implemented once a student
has accrued between 5 and 8 unexcused absences.
For Tier 2, school employees must complete an
individualized assessment of the student to pinpoint
the reasons for continued unexcused absences. School
ocials may then refer the student to counseling,
community-based services, or other in-school or
out-of-school programs aimed at addressing the
student’s attendance problems. e majority of survey
respondents, 64 attendance supervisors (63 percent) and 240 principals (44 percent), estimated that students in
their districts who reach Tier 2 of the PTIP are sometimes referred to services to address attendance problems.
Exhibit 37: Frequency of Tier 2 students referred to services for attendance problems,
according to attendance supervisors and principals
Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
Students whose attendance issues persist will progress to the next tier of the PTIP. On OREA surveys, 82
attendance supervisors (80 percent) and 407 principals (75 percent) indicated students who reach Tier 2
sometimes progress to Tier 3.
“We have found it more eective to place the
students and parents into the juvenile court at ve
unexcused [absences]. It generally stopped the
issue with less time spent on the administration of
the tiers.”
Respondent to OREA survey of principals, Dec. 2019
8%
28%
63%
1%
25%
23%
44%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Always Usually Sometimes Never
Attendance supervisors (n=102) Principals (n=545)
38
Exhibit 38: Progression of students from Tier 2 to Tier 3 of the PTIP, according to attendance
supervisors and principals (n=647)
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
Tier 3 | Implemented if student continues to accrue unexcused absences after Tier 2
Students who continue to accumulate unexcused absences despite the Tier 2 interventions progress to Tier
3 of the PTIP. In most districts, Tier 3 is implemented once a student has accrued 10 or more unexcused
absences. Tier 3 ensures that schools attempt at least one more intervention before then referring the student
to juvenile court if unexcused absences continue to be accrued.
Tier 3 may consist of one or more of the following:
• school-based community services,
• participation in a school-based restorative
justice program,
• referral to a school-based teen court, or
• Saturday or after school courses designed to
improve attendance or behavior.
18
OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals asked respondents to indicate which services they use
for students in Tier 3. irty-two supervisors and 154 principals (around 30 percent of each) stated school-
based community services (e.g., mental health services) are used for students who reach Tier 3.
Most respondents, however, including 61 supervisors (60 percent) and 255 principals (47 percent), selected
Other. Sixteen attendance supervisors and 38 principals who selected this response indicated a truancy board
is used for students who reach Tier 3. Composed of school ocials, mental health professionals, and/or other
parties (e.g., DCS representatives), truancy boards review truancy cases and typically prescribe and coordinate
a multidisciplinary program designed to improve student attendance and academic achievement. Sixty percent
of juvenile court judge respondents (25 judges) to the OREA survey indicated truancy boards are used in
their counties. Some truancy boards are run by the school system, while others are managed by the court or
through a partnership between the court and the school system, according to survey respondents.
6, 1%
78, 12%
489, 76%
74, 11%
Always Usually Sometimes Never
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
“[The progressive truancy intervention plan] appears
to be a necessary evil that since state law mandates
it school districts must comply. This ties the hands
of districts that have a great working relationship
with juvenile courts and juvenile sta.”
Respondent to OREA survey of attendance supervisors, Dec. 2019
39
Exhibit 39: Usage of services for Tier 3, according to attendance supervisors and principals
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
Two attendance supervisors and nine principals who selected Other indicated Tier 3 students are referred
to campus court, a nonpunitive extension of the district juvenile court. Almost all of these responses were
from Bradley County, where the campus court is a partnership among Cleveland City Schools, Bradley
County Schools, and the juvenile court. Campus court meetings include mediators who provide information
to families about the various resources available to address attendance barriers. School ocials also attend
campus court meetings with all applicable student records. If all the necessary parties agree on a plan, the
mediator presents a pretrial agreement for approval. If an agreement is not reached, the mediator ends the
hearing and a truancy petition is then led in juvenile court.
AK
SBE rule encourages districts to develop truancy boards, youth courts, or other alternative programs to serve
as an intervention for students with excessive absences. ese may be in addition to or a part of the PTIP.
Legal action after the progressive truancy intervention plan
If all three tiers of the PTIP have been completed and a student continues to accrue unexcused absences,
the director of schools, after providing parents with a written notice, shall report the truant student to
juvenile court.
19
Depending on the district, truancy cases may be heard on a dedicated truancy docket. Just over half (53
percent) of juvenile court judges who responded to the OREA survey stated that their court has a separate
docket that deals exclusively with truancy cases. Larger counties are more likely to have a dedicated truancy
docket to handle a higher number of truancy cases.
Of the 52 juvenile court judges who responded to this question on the OREA survey, 42 percent stated they
hear truancy cases at least once a week. Twenty-seven percent hear truancy cases at least once a month, and 13
percent indicated they hear a truancy case approximately every other month.
AK
OREA learned from interviews and surveys that school ocials sometimes use the PTIP for their chronically absent students to address factors leading to excessive
absences, but there are no legal repercussions for chronically absent students with few, if any, unexcused absences. See pages 14-31 for information on chronic absenteeism.
31%
21%
5%
25%
60%
28%
23%
15%
7%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
School-based
community
services
School-based
restorative justice
program
School-based teen
court
Saturday or after
school courses
Other
Attendance supervisors (n=102) Principals (n=545)
Several principals stated that implementing the PTIP consumes a large portion of their time and resources,
especially the coordination of PTIP meetings (involving parents, counselors, attendance supervisors, and other
individuals) for multiple truant students. Many survey respondents expressed the desire for a more ecient
system that would lighten their workloads and also indicated additional resources and manpower are needed to
implement the PTIP.
40
Exhibit 40: Frequency of hearing truancy cases in juvenile courts
Source: OREA survey of juvenile court judges, February 2020.
Measures taken by juvenile court judges in truancy cases
Juvenile court judges vary in how they respond to the truancy cases brought before them. According to state
law, each truancy case must be dealt with in such a manner as the judge deems to be in the best interest of
the student.
Most survey respondents (27 judges) indicated that they frequently refer truant students and/or their parents to
counseling services. Twenty-six judges stated that they frequently refer truancy cases to DCS.
Exhibit 41: Frequency of measures taken by juvenile court judges in truancy cases (n=41)
Source: OREA survey of juvenile court judges, February 2020.
Charges against parents
Juvenile court judges may also penalize parents based on their children’s truancy. Parents who violate the
provisions of the PTIP commit educational neglect, a Class C misdemeanor that includes a penalty of no
greater than 30 days of jail time.
20
3, 6%
22, 42%
14, 27%
7, 13%
4, 8%
2, 4%
On a daily basis At least once a week At least once a month
Every other month or so Very infrequently Never
On a daily basis
At least once a week
At least once a month
Every other month or so
Very infrequently
Never
27
26
12
4 4
2
0 0
14 14
5
14
12
5
26
8
0
1
24
23
25
34
15
33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Referral to
counseling
services
Referral to
DCS
Referral to
truancy
board
Fines Revocation
of student
driver
license
Referral to
youth court
Jail time for
parent
Detention
for student
Number of judges
Frequently Sometimes Never
42%
41
e law species that each school day a student is unlawfully absent constitutes a separate oense, meaning
each unexcused absence can result in a separate Class C misdemeanor.
Out of 41 respondents who answered this question, 26 judges stated they sometimes assign jail time to parents
of truant students. ese judges indicated that if jail time is assigned, the sentence may be as little as one
day or as much as 30 days depending on the severity of the case, and that they may suspend the sentence.
Nineteen of the judges who have ordered jail time for parents (47 percent of total respondents) rated it as an
eective way of reducing future truancy.
In addition to jail time, judges may also impose a ne not to exceed $50 on parents who violate the provisions
of the PTIP and commit educational neglect. Over half of the judges who responded to OREA’s survey (23 of
41 respondents) indicated they never impose nes on parents. One judge noted that imposing nes would add
to the problems of families that are already struggling nancially. By contrast, two judges stated court-imposed
nes are an eective way of reducing future truancy.
State law also permits judges to assess a ne of up to $50 against the parent of a student adjudicated to be unruly
because the student has accumulated ve or more days of unexcused absences during a school year. In these
cases, the judge may require ve hours of community service for the parent instead of a ne. irteen judges
who responded to the OREA survey indicated they have required community service for parents in truancy
cases, and over half of those who have used this consequence rated it as eective in reducing future truancy.
Seventy-one percent of judges on the OREA survey (30 respondents) indicated their counties handle truancy
cases dierently based on the age of the student, with some judges using a specic age threshold. For example,
one judge stated that the preferred procedure in their court is that a dependent and neglected petition be led
against parents for educational neglect for students under age 12. Fourteen judges indicated they follow a
similar practice. Some judges order DCS investigations for truant elementary school students. Eleven judges
rated referring truancy cases to DCS as an eective measure for reducing future truancy. In some truancy cases
involving older students, judges impose consequences on the students instead of the parents. Twenty-nine judges
have assigned community service to truant students, and 10 nd it to be an eective preventive measure.
In cases of severe truancy, charges may be brought against parents for contributing to the delinquency of a
minor, a Class A misdemeanor that carries a penalty of imprisonment for no greater than 11 months and
29 days, a ne not to exceed $2,500, or both.
AL
According to some judges, the stier penalties for a Class A
misdemeanor are more eective with some parents than the lesser penalties for educational neglect, a Class
C misdemeanor that carries with it the penalty of a ne up to $50, up to 30 days of jail time, or both.
21
One
judge emphasized that arresting and imprisoning some parents because of their child’s severe truancy has been
eective in conveying to them the seriousness of the matter. e attendance supervisor in this judge’s district
indicated this strict approach has resulted in very few repeat oenders.
Judges may order other consequences for truancy cases and these measures vary in eectiveness, according
to survey respondents. Placing parents and/or students on probation was rated as eective in truancy cases
by some respondents. Fourteen judges considered probation to be an eective disciplinary action for truant
students, while 10 judges found probation to be eective for the parents of truant students. In these cases, the
individual placed on probation reports to a probation ocer for regular check-ins while also completing any
intervention programs assigned by the court.
AL
As dened in TCA 37-1-156(a)(1), any adult who contributes to or encourages the delinquency or unruly behavior of a child, whether by aiding or abetting or
encouraging the child in the commission of an act of delinquency or unruly conduct or by participating as a principal with the child in an act of delinquency, unruly
conduct or by aiding the child in concealing an act of delinquency or unruly conduct following its commission, commits a Class A misdemeanor.
42
Exhibit 42: Effectiveness of court-ordered consequences, according to juvenile court judges
(n=41)
Source: OREA survey of juvenile court judges, February 2020.
Philosophies about how truancy cases should be handled and how truancy laws should be interpreted may be
more or less aligned between school ocials and juvenile court judges. Some attendance supervisors expressed
great appreciation for judges who were tough on truancy cases. ese supervisors thought the credible threat
of going to court for truancy problems and facing a tough judge gave the supervisors leverage when working
with parents and students on improving student attendance.
Other supervisors were frustrated with judges who dismiss truancy cases or frequently use consequences, such
as probation, the supervisors considered insucient. ese supervisors believed students and parents would
take attendance matters more seriously if they feared tougher consequences in court.
Regarding the interpretation of truancy laws, 63 percent of juvenile court judges who responded to the survey
indicated they will not hear a truancy case unless they have received proof from the school district that all tiers
of the PTIP have been implemented.
is interpretation of the law may be
based on TCA 49-6-3009(g), which
states that schools may report a truant
student to juvenile court after PTIP
interventions have failed. State law
requires that truancy referrals be
dismissed if the judge nds the school
district did not implement the PTIP
to meaningfully address the student’s
attendance problems. Five attendance
supervisors and ve principals indicated
that the judges in their districts would
not hear the cases unless each tier of
the PTIP was documented as complete.
19
14
12
11
10 10
7
6
5
2 2
0
7
16
25
26
12
11
3
10
8
9
7 7
3
2 2
3 3
8
3
1
3
11
3
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jail time for
parent
Probation for
student
Referral to
counseling
services
Referral to
DCS
Probation for
parent
Community
service for
student
Community
service for
parent
Referral to
truancy
board
Revocation
of student
driver license
Fines Detention for
student
Referral to
youth court
Effective Somewhat effective Not effective Not used
24, 63%
14, 37%
Yes No
Yes
No
Exhibit 43: Juvenile court judges requiring proof of PTIP
implementation (n=38)
Source: OREA survey of juvenile court judges, February 2020.
63%
43
Working relationship between attendance supervisors and judges
Attendance supervisors and other stakeholders stated in interviews with OREA that the quality of the
relationship between the school system and the local juvenile court judge is an important factor in eectively
addressing truancy.
Attendance supervisors and juvenile court judges have a similar perception of their working relationship with
the other party regarding truancy matters, according to OREA survey results. “Working relationship” was
dened on the survey as having an open line of communication and feeling comfortable talking to him or her
about student attendance issues. A 0-10 rating scale was used, with a 0 signifying “we don’t work together at
all” and a 10 signifying “we work extremely well together.”
Forty-three percent of attendance supervisors rated their working relationship with their juvenile court judges as
a 10 out of 10. As for juvenile court judges, 45 percent (17 respondents) rated their working relationships with
schools as a 10 out of 10.
A minority of respondents assigned a low rating to the working relationship between the two parties. Ten
attendance supervisors rated their working relationship with the juvenile court judges as a 2 or lower out of 10.
One judge rated the working relationship with the schools as a 2 out of 10.
Exhibit 44: Working relationship of schools and juvenile court judges
Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and juvenile court judges, 2019-20.
4%
1%
5%
0%
6% 6%
4%
7%
13%
12%
43%
0% 0%
3%
0% 0% 0%
3%
5%
24%
21%
45%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Percentage of respondents
Rating on scale of 0-10
Attendance supervisors (n=102) Juvenile court judges (n=38)
44
Skipping tiers due to lack of parent cooperation
Parents are essential to the successful implementation of the PTIP, but not all parents cooperate with school
ocials in addressing truancy problems. Several attendance supervisors and principals indicated that contacting
parents can be dicult and that parents may not attend PTIP meetings about their child’s attendance. Since
the PTIP was rst implemented in 2018, state law has allowed the director of schools or a designee to report
a student’s unexcused absences to the appropriate juvenile judge if attendance does not improve and if school
ocials can document that the student’s parents are unwilling to participate in the PTIP.
On OREA’s surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, 52 supervisors (51 percent) and 195 principals
(36 percent) stated they sometimes skip the tiers of the PTIP due to parents’ unwillingness to cooperate with
the process. Fifteen supervisors (15 percent) and 168 principals (31 percent) responded that they never skip
tiers for uncooperative parents because they were unaware this was an option.
Exhibit 45: Frequency of skipping tiers due to lack of parent cooperation, according to
attendance supervisors and principals
Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
A 2020 state law (Public Chapter 748) claries that district and school ocials can skip PTIP tiers in cases
where a student’s parents are uncooperative. e new law expressly states that school ocials may refer
uncooperative parents to court without having to complete the PTIP tiers. A parent’s failure or refusal,
on multiple occasions, to attend conferences, return phone calls, attend follow-up meetings, enter into an
attendance contract, or actively participate in any of the tiers of the PTIP are specied in the 2020 law as
examples of a parent’s unwillingness to cooperate.
Restarting PTIP tiers at the beginning of each year
Ninety-one percent of all attendance supervisors and principals who responded to the OREA surveys restart
the PTIP tiers at the beginning of each school year for all students. A few attendance supervisors indicated
the juvenile court judge that hears truancy cases from their school district interprets state law as requiring the
PTIP to restart for all students at the beginning of each school year. TCA 49-6-3007(e), when referring to the
notice school ocials must send to parents at the beginning of the school year regarding the PTIP, states, “e
written notice must inform the parent, guardian, or other person having control of a student that a student
who accumulates ve days of unexcused absences during the school year is subject to the district’s progressive
truancy interventions.” While not explicit in law, TDOE guidance is for districts to restart the tiers of the
PTIP for all students at the beginning of each new school year.
17%
51%
18%
15%
5%
36%
29%
31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Frequently Sometimes Never, though I am
aware this is an option
Never, and I am
unaware of this as an
option
Attendance supervisors (n=102) Principals (n=545)
45
Eleven principals of schools where the PTIP must be restarted at the beginning of each school year were
critical of the practice, stating that it delays responding sooner with more intense interventions for students
with attendance problems that span multiple school years. Some districts and schools that restart the PTIP
at the beginning of each school year expedite the PTIP process for students with truancy problems in the
previous year, however, especially students who reached Tier 3 of the PTIP during the previous school year or
are still under a court order.
Other districts and schools do not restart the PTIP each year for all students and instead continue with
whatever tier of the PTIP a student reached at the end of the last school year.
Exhibit 46: Restarting the PTIP at the start of each year, according to attendance
supervisors and principals (n=647)
Note: is graph combines the attendance supervisor and principal survey results because the trends between the two surveys were consistent with one another.
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
Top factors among chronically absent and/or truant
students
ere are many factors that may prevent a student from attending school or hinder a school’s ability to
intervene when a student struggles with attendance.
AM
In some cases, as with family vacations or oversleeping,
the student or parent has a greater degree of control and can make changes to improve attendance. In other
cases, such as for students with chronic health conditions, the students, parents, and school ocials may have
much less ability to control the eects on school attendance.
On OREA’s surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, respondents were asked to rate various potential
contributors to their students’ chronic absenteeism or truancy as common, neither common nor uncommon, or
uncommon. Typical physical illnesses (e.g., u, common cold, etc.) received the highest number of common
ratings on both surveys.
Of the issues among chronically absent and/or truant students in grades K-8, 84 percent of principals (239 of
284 respondents) said that typical physical illness was a common factor.
AM
Note: All research, including survey data, reects procedures and policies in place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
590, 91%
57, 9%
Yes No
Yes
No
91%
46
Exhibit 47: Contributions to chronic absenteeism and/or truancy rated as common by
principals | K-8th grades (n=284)
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
Common physical illness also received the most common ratings from the principals of students in grades
9-12. Almost 63 percent (80 of 128 respondents) indicated that students who are 18 and over – and therefore
no longer subject to compulsory education laws – is a common factor in the chronic absenteeism and/or
truancy status of students.
Exhibit 48: Factors in chronic absenteeism and/or truancy rated as common by principals |
grades 9th-12th grades (n=128)
Note: is grouping includes 99 HS principals and 29 principals of K-12 schools.
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
Absences for common physical illnesses may be excused by a doctor’s note in every Tennessee district,
and a parent note may be accepted in some cases in lieu of a doctor’s note to excuse the absence. ough
excused, these absences still count when determining whether a student is chronically absent. Several survey
respondents expressed frustration that student absences associated with common physical illnesses excused by
doctor’s notes count against the district from an accountability standpoint. An accrual of at least 18 absences
for any combination of these reasons would lead to a student’s designation as chronically absent. If notes are
5%
8%
9%
22%
23%
32%
48%
55%
63%
75%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Bullying
Non-school related extracurriculars
Pregnancy
Poor nutrition
Infestation (e.g., lice)
Weather
Student drug use
Travel
Homeless/transient
Lack of transportation
Parent drug use
Mental illness of student
Prolonged physical illness
Parent issues (e.g., apathy, health)
Student attitude
Notes from parents
Students 18+
Notes from doctors
Common physical illness
0%
1%
5%
16%
26%
29%
31%
52%
70%
84%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Student drug use
Pregnancy
Students 18+
Bullying
Non-school related extracurriculars
Poor nutrition
Mental illness of student
Weather
Homeless/transient
Student attitude
Lack of transportation
Infestation (e.g., lice)
Travel
Parent drug use
Prolonged physical illness
Parent issues (e.g., apathy, health)
Notes from parents
Notes from doctors
Common physical illness
47
not provided, students accrue unexcused absences that may eventually lead to truancy. (See pages 6-11 for
information on district and school policies on parent notes.)
Schools are not legally required by state law to excuse absences based on doctor’s notes but are mandated
by SBE rule to create policies that address the excusing of absences for reasons including injury, illness,
pregnancy, hospitalization, etc. e rule does not explicitly state that schools must excuse absences that are
accompanied by doctor’s notes, but most districts will record an absence as excused when presented with a
doctor’s note. All districts allow an unlimited amount of doctor’s notes with varying degrees of specications.
Another perspective on doctor’s notes emerged during OREA interviews with attendance supervisors. Many
supervisors interviewed expressed frustration with students and parents who obtain an excessive number
of notes from doctors’ oces and walk-in clinics to use for excused absences. A few attendance supervisors
used the term “doctor shopping” to refer to the practice of families obtaining notes from multiple doctors
and walk-in clinics so that no single oce or clinic is aware of a student’s total number of absences. Five
attendance supervisors indicated the note practices of urgent care clinics were more of an issue in their district
than doctors’ oces. One supervisor stated that families that are unable to obtain additional notes from a
pediatrician may visit an urgent care clinic where it is easier to obtain one.
One supervisor mentioned a student who missed 90 days over the course of one school year, with 81 of those
absences excused by a doctor’s note. (e remaining nine absences were excused by parent notes.) In such a
case, the student would be chronically absent but not truant. In addition, four dierent attendance supervisors
said that forging doctor’s notes had been an issue in their districts.
Some districts have communicated with area doctors about tightening their issuance of doctor’s notes. Fifteen
supervisors (15 percent) stated area doctors tightened their policies for issuing notes in response. In one school
district, doctors agreed to stop backdating notes (e.g., the doctor ceased writing a note on Friday to excuse
the preceding Monday through ursday). Similarly, another district now requires that doctor’s notes specify
the date and duration of a visit (e.g., a note from a dentist must state, “Student was seen on March 21, 2019,
from 12 pm to 1 pm.”).
Another 37 supervisors (38 percent) indicated their communications with local doctors led to varying results
(i.e., some doctors tightened their policies while others did not). Twenty-one supervisors (21 percent) stated
their communications with doctors did not lead to any change in area doctors’ practices. e remaining 26
respondents (26 percent) had not communicated with area doctors’ oces. In districts with large numbers of
doctor oces and urgent care clinics, school ocials may lack the necessary time and sta to communicate
with each one about student attendance and note practices.
Prolonged or chronic physical illnesses
Students with prolonged or chronic physical illnesses (e.g., asthma, cancer, diabetes, etc.) may accumulate a
high number of absences.
AN
ese students may be placed on homebound instruction, during which they are
not counted as absent and cannot be penalized for grading purposes or denied course completion per state law.
AO
Without a designation of homebound instruction status, a student’s absences accrue as normal. Even if the
absences are excused by doctor’s notes, such students will be classied as chronically absent once they have
missed at least 10 percent of the instructional days in a school year.
AN
Asthma is the most common chronic illness among children in Tennessee.
AO
SBE Rule 0520-01-02-.10 denes homebound instruction as instruction provided at home or at a hospital or related location for students who are unable to
attend the regular instructional program due to a medical condition. A student is eligible for homebound instruction if the student has obtained certication by the
student’s treating physician that shows the student has a physical or mental condition that will require the student’s absence from school for more than 10 consecutive
instructional days over the period of the school year.
48
On OREA surveys, nearly half of principals (240 of 485 respondents) and 63 percent of attendance
supervisors (62 respondents, each representing a dierent district) rated prolonged physical illness as a common
factor for the chronically absent and/or truant students in their school.
Mental health
Students who miss school for the symptoms or treatment of mental health problems are at risk for chronic
absenteeism and truancy. Mental health issues include anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and
other conditions.
On OREA’s survey of principals, 26 percent (127 respondents) rated mental illness as a common factor among
chronically absent and/or truant students, while 30 percent said it was uncommon. Over half of attendance
supervisors (52 respondents) indicated that mental illness is a common factor for students with attendance
problems in their districts, while 17 percent (17 respondents) indicated it was uncommon. One attendance
supervisor characterized mental health problems as an “epidemic” in his district.
Based on principals’ survey responses, mental illness is more likely to be a factor among chronically absent
and/or truant students in high school, as shown in Exhibit 49.
Exhibit 49: Mental illness as a factor among chronically absent and/or truant students,
according to principals by grades served
Note: Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Other includes responses from principals who serve K-8 or K-12 schools.
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
Alternative attendance plans
One option for students with a prolonged or chronic illness who do not qualify for homebound education
status is an alternative attendance plan. is option is available for students with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) or who have a Section 504 plan. (See Section 504 and IDEA.) According to the TDOE
Attendance Manual, students receiving special education services may attend part-time days, alternating days,
or for a specic amount of time as indicated in their IEP or 504 plan. Students with an alternative attendance
plan remain enrolled and are counted as present in their school’s student information system for the days or
time they are allowed to miss.
16%
35%
47%
21%
27%
27%
35%
23%
36%
28%
12%
36%
21%
10%
5%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Elementary Middle school High school Other
Common Neither common nor uncommon Uncommon N/A
49
Not all school ocials are aware of the alternative attendance plan option. A quarter of principals (121
respondents) were unaware of this option, as were six attendance supervisors (6 percent). e majority of
OREA survey respondents, including 84 attendance supervisors (85 percent) and 317 principals (65 percent),
however, were aware of the option and use it, while close to 10 percent each of principals (47 respondents)
and supervisors (nine respondents) were aware of the option but stated they were not currently using an
alternative attendance plan with any students.
Exhibit 50: Attendance supervisor and principal awareness of using alternative attendance
plans for qualifying students
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
Some school ocials were unclear about how students on an alternative attendance plan should be coded
in their districts' student information systems for the days or hours they are not in school. On the surveys,
51 supervisors (61 percent) and 151 principals (47 percent) stated that students with alternative attendance
plans are counted as present for the time they miss. Fourteen supervisors (16 percent) stated such students are
counted as absent in their districts, and over half of principals (53 percent or 171 respondents) gave the same
response. Of the 19 responses in the Other category (23 percent), 15 attendance supervisors indicated they
were unsure whether such students are counted as present or absent in their districts, and the remaining four
respondents stated it varies by school in their districts.
85%
9%
6%
65%
10%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aware of option and used for
qualified students
Aware of option but not used for
qualified students
Not aware of option
Attendance supervisors (n=99) Principals (n=485)
Section 504 and IDEA
Tennessee students with disabilities can receive services and accommodations under two federal programs:
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and/or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). IDEA is a federal law that ensures education for all eligible students with disabilities (e.g., a student with
an intellectual disability who requires a signicant level of special education services). Section 504 ensures that
no otherwise qualied student with a disability is excluded from access or participation in any federally funded
program or activity because of a disability (e.g., a student with a broken arm wearing a cast may have a 504
plan to ensure accommodations for the ability to write).
50
Exhibit 51: Attendance supervisor and principal responses for counting students with
alternative attendance plans
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
Parent issues
A good relationship and open lines of communication between school ocials and a student’s parents makes
student attendance problems less likely. State law requires schools to take steps to engage parents throughout
nearly every step of the attendance process. Schools must communicate with parents about the compulsory
attendance laws, attendance policies, excessive unexcused absences, attendance contracts, and other related
matters. On the OREA survey of principals, 76 percent of respondents stated their school contacts parents
each time their child is absent as an attempt to keep parents informed and hopefully prevent future truancy
and/or chronic absenteeism.
Over half of respondents (53 percent), however, said that parent issues (e.g., apathy, job stress, nancial strain,
illness, drug or alcohol problems, etc.) are common contributors to their students’ chronic absenteeism and/or
truancy. When asked about changes they wish they could make to improve student attendance, many principals
mentioned their desire to change the attitude some parents have toward their child’s school attendance.
Exhibit 52: Desired changes to improve student attendance, according to principals
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
61%
17%
23%
47%
53%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Counted present Counted absent Other
Attendance supervisors (n=84) Principals (n=322)
51
Students 18 and over
According to Tennessee’s compulsory attendance laws, children ages six through 17 are required to attend
public or nonpublic school. Once a student reaches age 18, he or she is no longer subject to the compulsory
attendance laws – however, these students’ absences are still factored into the chronic absenteeism rate used
for district and school accountability. Regarding truancy, schools may continue implementing the progressive
truancy intervention plan with such students, though the threat of going to court no longer applies since the
student is no longer a juvenile.
According to the TDOE Attendance Manual, any student, including one who is age 18 or older, who
accrues 10 consecutive days of unexcused absences is considered a dropout after all requirements for truancy
intervention have been followed by the school and district. e number of dropouts counts against schools
and districts relative to graduation rates, another accountability measure in Tennessee’s ESSA plan.
AP
Nearly 64 percent of supervisors (63 of 99 respondents to this question) and 53 percent of principals (84 of
159 respondents) indicated that aging out of compulsory attendance laws (i.e., students who turn 18 while
still enrolled in high school) is a common issue among their chronically absent students.
AQ
Exhibit 53: Students age 18 and over as a factor among chronically absent students,
according to both attendance supervisors and principals (n=258)
Note: Almost 64 percent of supervisors and 53 percent of principals selected common. Seventeen percent of principals and 6 percent of supervisors selected uncommon.
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
Student attitude
Attendance problems may also result from student attitudes about school based on feedback from attendance
supervisors and principals. Forty-four percent of principals indicated that student attitude (e.g., apathy, not
feeling connected at school) is a common factor for students with poor attendance.
Juvenile court judges were also surveyed about the most common factors in their truancy cases. e
overwhelming majority of judges, 98 percent, cited issues with parents (e.g., uncooperative attitude, drug use,
lack of economic resources) as a common factor. Issues with students’ attitudes (e.g., apathy toward school,
delinquent behavior) were also rated as common by 83 percent of judges who responded to the survey.
AP
e Ready Graduate indicator, the graduation-related indicator of the state’s ESSA plan, accounts for 25 percent of the overall score for high schools. Academic
achievement, academic growth, English language prociency, and chronically out of school make up the remaining 75 percent.
AQ
Of the 485 respondents to this question on the survey of principals, 344 stated that this issue was N/A (i.e., not applicable) for their schools. Of those responses,
all but 18 principals selected N/A because their school does not serve students who are 18 or older (i.e., no juniors or seniors), leaving a total of 159 principals whose
schools serve this age group. Over half of these principals (84 respondents) said that being 18 or older is a common factor among their chronically absent students.
147, 57%
47, 18%
33, 13%
31, 12%
Common Neither common nor uncommon Uncommon N/A
Common
Neither common nor uncommon
Uncommon
N/A
57%
52
Exhibit 54: Common factors in truancy, according to juvenile court judges (n=41)
Source: OREA survey of juvenile court judges, February 2020.
Tools for addressing student attendance
OREA was asked to describe to legislators any tools that school districts use to address both chronic
absenteeism and truancy among their students.
AR
Some school districts have greater access to resources to fund
and support programs and services that can improve student attendance. On OREA’s surveys of attendance
supervisors and principals, respondents indicated which tools they use to address student attendance in their
districts and schools. e following section describes some of these tools.
Exhibit 55: Percentage of school ofcials using tools to combat issues of student attendance
Note: DMHSAS stands for the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.
Source: OREA surveys of attendance supervisors and principals, December 2019.
AR
Note: All research, including survey data, reects procedures and policies in place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
98%
83%
71%
61%
59%
51%
46%
42%
41%
39%
39%
39%
36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Parent issues
Student attitude
Drug use of parent
Low socioeconomic status
Mental illness of student
Delinquent behavior of student
Physical illness
Homelessness/transient
Criminal behavior of parent
Lack of transportation
Drug use of student
Abusive home
Lack of basic resources
n=41
86%
7%
77%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Principals (n=459) Attendance supervisors (n=99)
53
Coordinated School Health
Coordinated School Health (CSH) is a framework developed by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) designed to improve student health, promote a healthy school environment, and encourage
family and community involvement. CSH addresses eight components of health: health education; physical
education and physical activity; health services; school counseling, psychological, and social services; nutrition;
healthy school environment; sta wellness; and student, family, and community involvement. Healthier
students are more likely to attend school and succeed academically.
Each school district is authorized to implement a CSH program and employ a school health coordinator
to oversee the district’s program. CSH programs are partially funded by an annual appropriation from the
General Assembly which is distributed to school districts in the form of a CSH grant. All school districts in
Tennessee employ a school health coordinator who works to fulll the requirements of the CSH grant. Some
schools have additional health-related sta members who assist the school health coordinator. On OREA’s
surveys, 83 attendance supervisors (84 percent) and 223 principals (49 percent) indicated CSH programs are
used to address student attendance problems.
Exhibit 56: Eight components of Coordinated School Health
Source: Tennessee Department of Education.
School health component Link to attendance
Health education: a planned, sequential, preK-12
curriculum and program that addresses the physical,
mental, emotional, and social dimensions of health
The understanding of basic health concepts and the
development of personal and social skills empowers
students to promote and enhance their health, leading to
better attendance.
Physical education and physical activity: a
planned, sequential, preK-12 curriculum program that
follows national standards in providing developmentally
appropriate, cognitive content and learning experiences in
a variety of physical areas
Physical activity keeps children healthy and alert for
learning.
Health services: provided and/or supervised by school
health nurses to assess, protect, and promote the health
of students
Students whose health needs can be met by a school
nurse may avoid a trip to a doctor or being sent home from
school, which means less instructional time in school is
missed.
School counseling, psychological, and social
services: provided to assess and improve the mental,
emotional, and social health of every student
Students feel heard and supported, alleviating some of the
stresses that might otherwise cause them to stay home.
Nutrition: services assure access to a variety of
nutritious, aordable, and appealing meals in school
that accommodate the health and nutrition needs of all
students
Students with food insecurity have been known to miss
school more frequently. Participating in school nutrition
programs can decrease student risk for food insecurity.
Healthy school environment: relates to the quality of
the physical and aesthetic surroundings; the psychosocial
climate, safety, and culture of the school; school safety
and emergency plans; and the periodic review and
testing of the factors and conditions that inuence the
environment
Healthy school environments are sanctuaries of comfort
and stability for students with unstable home lives.
Staff wellness: wellness opportunities such as health
assessments, health education, and physical tness
activities provided to all school sta to improve their health
status
Teachers who attend school regularly reinforce the
importance of attendance in the minds of their students.
Student, family, and community involvement:
active solicitation of family involvement and engagement
of community resources, expertise, and services to
respond eectively to the health needs of students and
families
When parents feel connected to a school and have a
trusting relationship with the sta, they are more likely to
make attendance a priority for their children.
54
School nurses
School nurses were identied by several attendance supervisors as important players in eorts to address
student absenteeism, and multiple principals described school nurses as “vital” in their eorts to reduce
student absenteeism. As described on pages 42-47, student health issues commonly factor into student
absences. Some physical illnesses can be treated by a school nurse, which can mean less instructional time in
school is missed if the student is not sent home from school or released to visit the doctor. According to health
services data collected by TDOE for the 2018-19 school year, 87 percent of visits to the school nurse resulted
in a return to class. Additionally, students with asthma or diabetes may receive regular treatment from school
nurses that enables them to attend school on a regular basis.
Specic to truancy, school nurses may help implement districts’ progressive truancy intervention plans, such
as by attending Tier 1 conferences and completing the individual assessments of students called for as part of
Tier 2. School nurses may also contact doctors’ oces and clinics to verify dates and times for notes used to
excuse student absences and to discuss chronic absenteeism and other matters related to student attendance.
e BEP generates funding for one school nurse for every 3,000 students in a district, with a minimum of one
school nurse position funded for each district. Tennessee school districts employed approximately 1,734 nurses
for the 2018-19 school year.
Incentives and competitions
Attendance supervisors and principals were asked on the OREA survey to identify the tools they use most
often to encourage student attendance. e tool selected most often by supervisors and principals was the use
of incentives, competitions, and other programs that promote student attendance. rough such programs,
school ocials hope to reach students who might attend school more often to win prizes and recognition.
Attendance supervisors interviewed by OREA indicated the positive impact of incentives and competitions
on student attendance can be temporary, however, and may be less eective with students who have more
signicant attendance problems.
In an interview with OREA, ocials from Bristol City Schools shared information about their 2018-19
citywide “Be Present!” campaign, a community initiative inspired by Publishers Clearing House. Using
a family resource center grant, the district purchased promotional signs to post throughout Bristol and
produced videos for social media starring the Prize Patrol (portrayed by two coaches from King University).
Local businesses donated prizes that were awarded to the schools with the largest percentage increase in
attendance over the past year. e prizes were presented by the Prize Patrol at a celebratory pep rally. e
chronic absenteeism rate of Bristol City Schools was 9.97 percent for 2018-19, compared to rates of 11.15
percent and 11.68 percent for the two previous school years. School ocials cited community involvement as
one key factor in the success of the “Be Present!” campaign.
An attendance initiative in Coee County Schools catered to the interest of students in seles and social
media. In December 2017, the district launched its Get Your Sele to School campaign, giving promotional
T-shirts to teachers and students and placing yard signs in front of every school in the district. Students with
improved attendance were eligible for having a photo taken of them next to the promotional yard sign at their
school. Teachers were given sele sticks to use for group seles of their class on days when all students were
present. To further incentivize the program for the 2018-19 school year, each school was given an iPad to
award to the student with the most improved attendance from the previous year. Most of the funding for this
campaign came from a grant that Coee County Schools no longer receives, so the initiative has since been
scaled back.
55
Community school initiatives
Community school initiatives are another tool used
by school ocials to address absenteeism. Students
and families are connected to a broad range of
services, including food and clothing assistance,
mental health treatment, and academic enrichment,
through community school initiatives, which aim to
meet the educational, physical, and emotional needs
of economically disadvantaged students, families,
and communities.
On OREA surveys, 60 principals (13 percent) and
26 attendance supervisors (26 percent) stated they
have used community school initiatives to address
student attendance in their schools.
Communities in Schools (CIS)
One community school model operating on a
national level is Communities in Schools (CIS). A
nonprot organization founded in 1977, CIS was serving 1.56 million students in 2,300 schools nationwide
as of 2018. CIS rst came to Tennessee in 2012, beginning with a pilot program in four Nashville schools
before expanding to Memphis in 2014. As of the 2019-20 school year, CIS has expanded to 17 schools in
Metro Nashville and 27 schools in Shelby County and the Achievement School District. While the national
organization (including CIS of Memphis) focuses primarily on students at risk of dropping out of school,
CIS of Tennessee chose to focus on chronic absenteeism.
AS
Over the past year, CIS of Tennessee has shifted its
focus to address more explicitly whole child needs, including social and emotional development, basic needs
supports, and more, all of which are contributors to chronic absenteeism.
CIS hires, trains, and pays for a site coordinator at each of its 38 partner schools in Tennessee.
AT
(e principal
at each CIS partner school may provide input in the nal phase of the site coordinator hiring process.)
When beginning work at a partner school, CIS site coordinators conduct a needs assessment, collect data,
interview school ocials, recognize what the school is doing well, and identify issues that may lead to chronic
absenteeism. ey then work with school sta to write a school support plan that includes a road map of
services the site coordinator will ensure are provided over the course of the school year.
e CIS model involves three levels of services that site coordinators tailor to t the needs of their schools. All
Tier 1 services are available to every student, and these services address issues that are associated with student
absenteeism, such as lack of clothing, food, and health checkups and screenings. In Tier 2, site coordinators
build caseloads of 10 percent of the student body (up to 50 students) who have been identied as high risk
and work with them in small groups based on their specic needs (e.g., grief support, tutoring, etc.). Students
in Tier 3 receive more individualized supports aimed at removing their specic barriers to attending school.
CIS has reported successful results in some schools. For example, the organization points to a decrease in the
absenteeism rate from 24 percent to 7 percent at Wooddale Middle School, an Achievement School District
charter school in Memphis, in 2017 following the implementation of various incentives designed to increase
student attendance. In 2018-19, 13 of the 17 CIS schools in Nashville reduced their schoolwide chronic
absenteeism rate by at least 2 percent.
AS
CIS of Tennessee and CIS of Memphis operate independently of one another, with CIS of Tennessee managing all CIS schools outside of Memphis.
AT
See Appendix D for a list of CIS partner schools.
Telemedicine or telehealth services
Telemedicine or telehealth services also provide
students with access to healthcare at school and
may keep them in attendance for more of the day.
Telemedicine services have grown in popularity
in recent years not only in rural communities with
limited access to hospitals and clinics but also
in schools. Telemedicine services enable school
nurses to consult with a doctor to treat more complex
student health conditions while remaining onsite at
the school.
On OREA surveys, 105 principals (23 percent) and
21 attendance supervisors (20 percent) stated their
schools have telemedicine services available for
students.
TCA 56-7-1002 requires school clinics using such
services to be staed by a healthcare services
provider and held to the same regulations as
traditional medical services.
56
Following a 2019 report by the Tennessee Educational Equality Coalition (TEEC) that argued Tennessee’s
rural schools are overlooked relative to their urban counterparts, the General Assembly appropriated funding
to assist with an expansion of the CIS model to the state’s rural areas, specically to 15 economically distressed
counties. (e General Assembly appropriated $4.5 million in grant funding, to be awarded in annual
installments of $1.5 million for three years, beginning with the 2019-20 school year.) CIS site coordinators
have been placed in 23 high schools within the 15 selected counties, as shown in Exhibit 57.
Exhibit 57: Communities in Schools – Rural Expansion
Note: Perry County ranked in the top 15 economically distressed counties in Tennessee for 2019 but was not included because of the support provided to students in
Perry County Schools through the Ayers Foundation; Wayne County was selected for the CIS grant in place of Perry County.
School districts choose whether to share data with CIS, and all but a few schools in the rural expansion
allowed full data access for the CIS coordinators. e remaining coordinators were able to periodically
procure data from school employees. e overall goal for the rst year of the program (the 2019-20 school
year) was that chronic absenteeism would be reduced by 2 percent in each participating high school. A CIS
representative stated that while the attendance of case-managed students did improve, most schools did
not improve their overall attendance due to data limitations and challenges resulting from the COVID-19
pandemic. When Tennessee schools closed, CIS pivoted from the school buildings to providing critical
support remotely. Using informal needs assessments collected from families, CIS identied the social,
emotional, and physical needs of students and worked to address them in a variety of ways (e.g., securing
housing for homeless families, delivering food and other supplies to homes, and connecting families with
mental healthcare providers). Moving forward, CIS plans to measure and report on the socioemotional and
basic needs services they provide in addition to attendance.
Other forms of student outreach
Coee County Schools uses a program called “Check In/Check Out.” rough this program, students who
are at risk for chronic absenteeism are assigned teacher mentors with whom they meet every day. Students
check in with their mentors in the morning and check out with them in the afternoon. ese check-ins
provide participating students with a predictable source of one-on-one daily interactions with a mentor
who cares about them. Students may reveal personal issues that contribute to missing school through these
interactions, which school ocials may be able to then address.
West Middle East
Hardeman County
Bolivar Central HS
Middleton HS
Lake County
Lake County HS
Lauderdale County
Halls HS
Ripley HS
McNairy County
McNairy Central HS
Adamsville Senior HS
Wayne County
Wayne County HS
Bledsoe County
Bledsoe County HS
Clay County
Clay County HS
Fentress County
Clarkrange HS
Alvin C. York Institute
Grundy County
Grundy County HS
Jackson County
Jackson County HS
Van Buren County
Van Buren County HS
Cocke County
Cocke County HS
Cosby HS
Hancock County
Hancock County HS
Morgan County
Wartburg Central HS
Coaleld School
Oakdale School
Sunbright School
Scott County
Scott HS
57
Discipline
School ocials may use various disciplinary measures in their eorts to improve student attendance. e
loss of eld trip or other privileges, as well as the use of in-school suspensions and detention during lunch or
after school are the most common disciplinary measures used to address attendance issues, based on survey
responses from principals. (See Exhibit 58.) Imposing a loss of eld trip privileges (or establishing good
attendance as a condition for eld trip participation) was rated somewhat eective or eective more often than
other disciplinary measures.
Exhibit 58: Use and effectiveness of disciplinary measures for attendance issues within the
last ve years (n=545)
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
Elementary-aged children are usually truant for dierent reasons than older students, and parents typically
bear more responsibility when younger students miss school. For this reason, school ocials usually do
not employ punitive measures against younger students who repeatedly miss school, focusing instead on
intervening with parents. According to OREA surveys, principals increase their use of disciplinary measures as
students get older. For example, 67 percent of high school principals indicated using in- school suspension as
a penalty for poor attendance compared to 36 percent of middle school principals and 8 percent of elementary
principals. For each disciplinary measure presented on the survey, usage was signicantly higher among
principals with older students.
Change in use of out-of-school suspension since chronic absenteeism measured
Some districts and schools have reduced the use of out-of-school suspension in recent years. Students are
marked as absent while serving an out-of-school suspension, which means these missed days count toward the
chronic absenteeism rate used for district and school accountability. On the OREA survey of principals, half
of respondents stated their use of out-of-school suspension has decreased since chronic absenteeism was added
to the accountability system. irty-ve percent of principals, however, indicated there has been no change in
their use of out-of-school suspension during this period.
12
22
12 12
16
12
26 26
20
41
27
34
47
30
73
82 82
91
100
118
17
18
17
35
22
39
30
32 32
21
10%
14%
14%
14%
20%
24%
25%
27%
28%
33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Saturday
school
Alternative
school
Mandatory
bus riding
Out of
school
suspension
Social
probation
Lunch
detention
Loss of
privileges
After school
detention
In-school
suspension
Loss of field
trip
privileges
Percent of usage
Number of respondents
Effective Somewhat effective Not effective Usage
58
Exhibit 59: Changes in use of out-of-school suspension since chronic absenteeism measured
(n=479)
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
Student attendance and COVID-19
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the General Assembly passed Public Chapter 652 (2020), which
cancelled the TN Ready testing for the 2019-20 school year and specied that no penalty against schools,
teachers, and students on certain accountability measures would result from the cancellation. e law also
waived the state mandate of 180 instructional days.
In advance of the 2020-21 school year, numerous Tennessee districts submitted hundreds of requests to the
Tennessee Department of Education for one-year waivers to state mandates, including many related to student
attendance. ree districts requested that chronic absenteeism accountability be waived for the year, and the
department recommended that these requests be denied by the State Board, stating there was no state law or
rule to be waived. Because district and school accountability for chronic absenteeism rates is a component of
Tennessee’s approved plan for meeting the requirements of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, any waiver
would instead be granted by the U.S. Department of Education.
10, 2%
238, 50%
170, 35%
61, 13%
Increased Decreased No change Other
Increased
Decreased
No Change
Other
50%
59
Conclusions
Variation in policies and practices at the district and school
levels, especially for parent notes and conversion absences,
results in the inconsistent classication of absences as excused
or unexcused across the state.
State law species three circumstances for which absences must be excused (court appearances, visitation with
a military parent, and working as an election ocial).
AU
,
AV
Beyond those circumstances, each district determines
through its own policies whether an absence will be excused. In addition, some districts grant principals
discretion to set the attendance policy for their school. In these cases, a school’s attendance policy regarding
unexcused absences and other attendance matters may dier among schools within the same district.
Local variation is particularly pronounced with parent note policies and conversion absence policies. is
variation means absences classied as unexcused in one district may be classied as excused in another district;
thus, a student who has been absent for ve days might be considered truant in one district (all ve absences
are unexcused and the PTIP is initiated, which may result in possible court involvement), but not in another
(two of the ve absences are unexcused, while the other three absences are excused).
For example, District A may allow more parent notes (or set no limit on the number of parent notes) while
District B may allow relatively few parent notes (e.g., ve notes per semester). Continuing with the example,
after ve parent notes have been supplied to excuse ve absences in District B, any additional absences will
be recorded as unexcused. In District A, however, a student may have few if any missed days recorded as
unexcused if a parent note has been provided. is situation makes comparing district truancy rates, which are
based on the number of unexcused absences, problematic. In districts where principals have discretion to set
their own attendance policies, the challenge of analyzing truancy rates is even greater given possible variation
among schools in the same district.
Even tracking unexcused absences in the same district over time can prove problematic without knowing
whether the district’s parent note policy changed over the time period examined. Some districts represented
in OREA surveys and interviews indicated they were in the process of changing their parent note policies to
allow fewer notes per year in an eort to curb what they considered excessive use by parents. Other districts
are considering no longer allowing parent notes, at least at certain grade levels.
AU
All research, including survey data, reects procedures and policies in place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
AV
See page 7 for further explanation.
60
Exhibit 60: Local variation with the progressive truancy intervention plan
TOTAL UNEXCUSED ABSENCES: 3 TOTAL UNEXCUSED ABSENCES: 0
TOTAL UNEXCUSED ABSENCES: 5 TOTAL UNEXCUSED ABSENCES: 0
TOTAL UNEXCUSED ABSENCES: 7 TOTAL UNEXCUSED ABSENCES: 0
61
Parent note policies
Parent notes are provided by parents to excuse their child’s absence from school for such reasons as illnesses
that do not require a visit to the doctor, family emergencies, and vacations. Parent notes are not explicitly
addressed in state law, SBE rule, or TDOE guidance; parent note policies and practices are instead entirely
determined at the district level (and in some cases at the school level).
According to OREA surveys, most districts allow ve to 10 absences per year to be excused with parent notes.
e most common response given by attendance supervisors and principals to OREA’s survey was that ve
parent notes are allowed per school year. e second most common response was 10 parent notes per school
year, with some of these districts setting a limit on the number allowed per semester (e.g., ve parent notes per
semester). A small number of districts allow an unlimited number of parent notes, and some districts allow none.
Each district’s attendance policy determines whether parent notes to excuse absences will be accepted, the
circumstances under which parent notes will be accepted, and the number of parent notes allowed to excuse
absences. A district’s parent note policy may also dier by grade level, with some districts accepting fewer
parent notes to excuse the absences of students in the upper grades (i.e., high school students).
A bill introduced in the Tennessee General Assembly in 2012 included language limiting parent notes by
grade band (10 per year for grades K-5 and four per semester for grades 6-12) and requiring doctor or school
nurse notes for illnesses.
AW
e sponsor of the bill cited inconsistent policies across the state that result in
students being treated dierently from district to district as one reason for the proposed legislation. According
to the bill’s scal note, the proposed changes would have increased truancy cases and resulted in more
educational neglect investigations performed by the Department of Children’s Services, increasing costs.
AX
School districts would also incur additional costs according to the scal note. Ultimately, the bill failed to
progress due in part to the scal note.
Connecticut addressed local variation in parent note policies by requiring all schools to follow a uniform
policy. In 2011, the Connecticut General Assembly passed legislation requiring the State Board of Education
to dene excused and unexcused absences. e state established two levels for excused absences based on the
number of days missed, with parent note policies diering by level. At Level 1, which covers a student’s rst
nine absences, parents may submit notes to excuse absences for any reason. Starting with the tenth absence,
however, the student moves to Level 2, at which point absences are excused only for specied reasons,
including student illness (and only with a valid doctor’s note), observance of a religious holiday, or a death in
the family. Unless these criteria are met, the absence is classied as unexcused.
AY
Conversion absence policies
In addition to parent note policies, there is also variation in conversion absence policies across districts. Under
a conversion absence policy, a district converts a specied number of tardies and early dismissals into an
absence; for example, a district may assign a student one unexcused absence for every ve unexcused tardies.
Conversion absence policies are not explicitly addressed in state law, SBE rule, or TDOE guidance; conversion
absence policies and practices are instead entirely determined at the district level (and in some cases at the
school level).
AW
In addition to addressing parent notes, HB 3611 (2012) also dened unexcused absences, dened two classications of truancy (habitually truant and chronically
truant), specied the conversion of ve tardies/early dismissals to one absence, set and claried the use of consequences for truant students and parents, and claried
the denition of educational neglect.
AX
e bill’s scal note estimated that HB 3611 would result in 49 DCS cases not already in state custody to be taken into state custody. e increased load would
require the hiring of three new employees in addition to increased costs for housing expenditures.
AY
Absences for disciplinary reasons (e.g., out of school suspension) are also classied as unexcused.
62
Over half of attendance supervisors responding to an OREA survey indicated their districts allow conversion
absences either through district policy or through discretion given to principals at the school level.
AZ
Most
districts and schools represented on the OREA surveys convert three to ve unexcused tardies or early
dismissals to one unexcused absence. In these districts and schools, a student’s PTIP status may be determined
in part by the number of conversion absences.
Forty-three percent of attendance supervisors and 57 percent of principals who responded to the OREA
survey indicated conversion absences were not allowed in their districts, and that principals were not
allowed to institute such policies at the school-level. Some respondents stated a conversion absence policy
has not been adopted in their district or school because of local questions about the legality of the practice.
ese respondents noted that the absence of any law addressing conversion absences has deterred the
implementation of such a policy in their districts.
Juvenile court judges who responded to OREA’s survey were split regarding conversion absences, with 12
judges that consider conversion absences when making decisions in truancy cases, 14 judges that do not,
BA
and
17 judges indicating that conversion absences may or may not be considered in truancy cases depending on
case specics.
A bill introduced in the Tennessee General Assembly in 2012 included language specifying that ve tardies/
early dismissals would convert to one absence, with the conversion absence classied as excused or unexcused
based on whether the converted tardies/early dismissals were excused or unexcused.
BB
Variation in local policies and practices and the inconsistent
classication of absences as excused or unexcused across
the state makes analyzing and comparing district truancy data
problematic. This prevented OREA from fully evaluating the
effectiveness of the progressive truancy intervention plan (PTIP).
As explained above, local variation in district and school policies and practices results in the inconsistent
classication of absences as excused or unexcused across the state. In addition to the inconsistent classication
of absences, the number of unexcused absences a student must have accrued to be considered truant also varies
by district.
BC
e state does not calculate truancy rates by district and school. TDOE collects attendance data from districts
several times each school year, and this data is used to calculate chronic absenteeism rates, which are based
on excused absences as well as unexcused absences, and for other attendance-related purposes. e unexcused
absence data is not, however, currently used to calculate truancy rates. In addition, state law does not dene
“truancy,” and there is no uniform denition of “unexcused absence” used by all districts.
Taken together, the dierences among districts pose signicant challenges to comparing district truancy
data, identifying promising initiatives to reduce truancy, and verifying the eectiveness of local policies and
practices. ese issues also prevented OREA from fully evaluating the eectiveness of the PTIP because a
student’s number of unexcused absences determines (1) when the PTIP is rst implemented, and (2) the pace
of a student’s progression through the PTIP tiers. State law requires all districts to implement the rst tier of
the PTIP once a student accumulates at least ve unexcused absences, but districts may implement the rst
AZ
See pages 9-11 for more information on conversion absences.
BA
Two juvenile court judges commented that they do not interpret state law as allowing conversion absences to count in truancy cases.
BB
In addition to language addressing the conversion of tardies/early dismissals to an absence, HB 3611 (2012) also dened unexcused absences, dened two
classications of truancy (habitually truant and chronically truant), set a parent note policy, set and claried the use of consequences for truant students and parents,
and claried the denition of educational neglect.
BC
See pages 6-8 for more information on how policy variations impact whether a student is classied as truant.
63
tier earlier. Nearly a third of attendance supervisors who responded to OREA’s survey indicated Tier 1 begins
at three unexcused absences in their districts.
BD
Students in these districts may be considered truant (for PTIP
purposes) at three unexcused absences and, as a result, may progress to the higher PTIP tiers and possible
referral to juvenile court based on a lower or higher total number of unexcused absences than students in other
districts.
BE
In addition, in some districts, principals use their discretion to begin implementation of the PTIP at
a dierent threshold than district policy; 12 percent of principal respondents to the OREA survey indicated that
their schools start the PTIP either earlier or later than what is specied by their district, adding further variation.
Variation at the court level
If the interventions implemented or initiated by schools and districts through the PTIP are ineective in
addressing a student’s truancy, the student and the student’s parents must be referred to juvenile court.
Truancy-related court referrals and the outcomes of truancy cases are important measures of the PTIP’s
eectiveness, but the degree of variation among juvenile courts in the tracking of truancy cases is another
barrier to fully evaluating the PTIP. Responses to OREA’s survey of juvenile court judges indicated courts
dier in how truancy cases and oenses are classied and tracked.
BF
For example, a single truancy case in one
court might include multiple truancy oenses. In another court, however, the same number of truancy oenses
might be recorded as multiple truancy cases (e.g., two truancy oenses would be recorded as a single truancy
case in one court, while two truancy oenses in another court would be recorded as two truancy cases).
Qualitative data used by OREA to evaluate the PTIP
Given all the challenges described above, OREA turned to qualitative data (e.g., interviews, surveys) to
gauge school and court ocials’ perceptions of PTIP eectiveness and various truancy-related trends, such as
progression through the tiers and referrals to juvenile court. Sixty-eight percent of attendance supervisors and
65 percent of principals rated the PTIP as somewhat eective at preventing future unexcused absences among
their students.
Regarding perceptions of the number of students referred to juvenile court, the most common response from
attendance supervisors, selected by 41 respondents (40 percent), was that the number of court referrals for
truancy in their districts had signicantly decreased after one full year of PTIP implementation. Most principals
who responded to the survey, however, perceived no change in the number of court referrals. An almost even
percentage of respondents (29 percent of attendance supervisors and 27 percent of principals) indicated
that court referrals had slightly decreased since the implementation of the PTIP. Most juvenile court judges
who responded to OREA’s survey reported a decrease in their truancy caseload after one full year of PTIP
implementation in school districts, with the majority reporting a slight to signicant decrease in truancy cases.
State law does not address whether the PTIP should restart each
school year for all students.
e majority of districts represented on the OREA attendance supervisor survey restart the PTIP each school
year for all students regardless of a student’s attendance history the previous school year (i.e., a student who
reached Tier 3 of the PTIP the previous school year will begin the next school year with zero unexcused
absences).
BG
Some attendance supervisors stated they interpret state law as requiring that the PTIP tiers restart
for all students, and a few indicated the juvenile court judge who hears their school district’s truancy cases
interprets state law as requiring that the PTIP restart for all students.
BD
e actual implementation of the PTIP in some districts occurs later than called for in local policy, however. Reasons for delayed PTIP implementation noted by
survey respondents included problems scheduling PTIP meetings, uncooperative parents, and a lack of manpower and resources.
BE
Twenty-seven principals indicated their school’s threshold for Tier 1 is six unexcused absences. State law requires that Tier 1 be implemented once a student accrues
ve unexcused absences.
BF
Fifteen judges (39 percent of survey respondents) were unsure if and how truancy data is tracked in their court. One judge indicated that truancy data is not
tracked in their court.
BG
Some districts and schools that restart the PTIP for all students may expedite the PTIP process for some students, especially those who reached Tier 3 of the PTIP
or that remain under a truancy-related court order.
64
But 11 percent of attendance supervisors who responded indicated their districts do not always restart the
PTIP for all students. Some students in these districts may instead begin a new school year by continuing with
wherever they left o with the PTIP process at the close of the previous school year.
TDOE guidance is for districts to restart the tiers of the PTIP for all students at the beginning of each new
school year.
State chronic absenteeism rates have remained steady since
chronic absenteeism was rst included as an accountability
measure on the State Report Card.
In 2017, there were 134,675 chronically absent students in Tennessee, accounting for 13.6 percent of the
total K-12 student population. e statewide rate of chronic absenteeism remained steady over the following
two years, dropping slightly to 13.3 percent in 2018 (the rst year chronic absenteeism was included as an
accountability measure on the State Report Card), and to 13.1 percent in 2019. (Chronic absenteeism rates
were not calculated in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.)
Most Tennessee schools have modest to signicant chronic absenteeism based on categories created by
Attendance Works, a national nonprot. If these categories are used, around 670 schools had a chronic
absenteeism rate in the signicant category, with rates between 10 and 19.9 percent, from 2017 to 2019.
Around 550 schools per year had modest chronic absenteeism rates of between 5 and 9.9 percent. e fewest
number of schools fell into the more acute categories, with approximately 100 schools at the level of extreme
chronic absenteeism (30 percent or higher) and approximately 167 schools with high chronic absenteeism (20-
29.9 percent) during the three-year time frame.
Students who are economically disadvantaged and students with
disabilities are more likely to be chronically absent than their
peers.
Between the 2017 and 2019 school years, the percentage of economically disadvantaged students who
were chronically absent was 20.9, as compared to 9.3 percent of students not economically disadvantaged.
Attendance supervisors and principals who responded to OREA’s survey indicated factors such as a lack
of basic resources (food, clothing, and shelter), frequent changes of address, and a lack of transportation
negatively aect the school attendance of economically disadvantaged students.
During this same time frame, students with disabilities were nearly 1.45 times more likely to be chronically
absent than students without disabilities. According to attendance supervisors and principals, these students
tend to miss more school because of physical or mental limitations that hinder their ability to navigate the
typical school day. ese students may also miss school more often than their peers because of frequent
doctor’s appointments.
Examining chronic absenteeism rates by minority group shows Black students had higher chronic absenteeism
rates than either White or Hispanic students during the 2017, 2018, and 2019 school years. Hispanic students
were chronically absent at a lower rate than both Black and White students during this period.
65
High school students, especially seniors, are more likely to be
chronically absent than students in other grades.
High school students had the highest rate of chronic absenteeism in 2017, 2018, and 2019. During this time
frame, nearly half of all chronically absent students in Tennessee were in high school. As students progress
from freshman to senior year, the likelihood of chronic absenteeism increases. On average, 25 percent of high
school seniors were chronically absent compared to about 15 percent of freshmen.
Attendance supervisors and principals who responded to OREA’s surveys and participated in interviews for
this project explained that it becomes especially dicult to encourage school attendance among high school
students once they reach age 18. High school students in Tennessee are not legally required to attend school
after reaching age 18. Because these students are not required to attend school, they can no longer be classied
as truant and are no longer subject to the PTIP interventions, though they are still factored into the chronic
absenteeism rates of their schools and districts. Some school ocials recommended the state’s compulsory
education laws be extended to include 18-year-olds, expressing frustration that their districts and schools are
penalized for the absences of students who are legally no longer required to attend school.
In some states, the compulsory education laws apply to students who are 18 or older. e compulsory
education laws in Texas apply to students through age 19, and students who are 18 in Kentucky can still be
classied as truant.
Accountability for chronic absenteeism and for truancy are
different. Districts and schools are held accountable for
chronic absenteeism rates, while students and parents are held
accountable for truancy rates.
Districts and schools are graded based on their chronic absenteeism rates, but truancy rates are not part of
the state’s K-12 accountability system for districts and schools.
BH
For students and parents, however, there are
consequences attached to truancy status, such as possible referral to juvenile court. By contrast, school ocials
cannot refer students to juvenile court based on chronic absenteeism status alone or based on a student’s
number of excused absences.
e focus on chronic absenteeism has also caused some school ocials to change their policies and practices
for parent notes and doctor’s notes, both of which are used to excuse student absences. On the OREA surveys
of attendance supervisors and principals, most respondents indicated that common physical illness was the
most likely contributor to the chronic absenteeism of their students. All absences, regardless of reason, factor
into the chronic absenteeism rate that districts and schools are graded on, and some school ocials took
exception to being held accountable for medical-related absences in certain cases. In response, some districts
and schools have set limits on the number of parent notes that can be used to excuse absences for illness,
requiring doctor’s notes for some or all medical-related absences.
BI
Other districts have asked healthcare
providers in their area to change their doctor’s note policies to encourage school attendance, such as by
specifying on the note that a student should return to school after the medical appointment, if applicable,
rather than miss the entire day of school.
BJ
Not all healthcare providers may wish to change their practices in
response to school ocials’ requests, however. Ensuring that school district communications about student
absenteeism and doctor’s note practices reach all healthcare providers, especially in urban areas of the state
with a substantial number of providers to contact, can be a challenge for school ocials.
BH
In accordance with the state’s ESSA plan, all Tennessee schools and districts receive a grade on the State Report Card for chronic absenteeism in the form of the
Chronically Out of School Indicator. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these indicator scores were not issued for the 2019-20 school year.
BI
OREA did not identify any districts or schools that place a limit on the number of doctor’s notes that can be used to excuse a student’s absence.
BJ
Some doctor’s oces limit the number of notes they will provide to certain students (i.e., those considered to have obtained an excessive number of notes).
66
e relatively recent emphasis on chronic absenteeism and establishment of the Chronically Out of School
Indicator used for district and school accountability has also prompted some districts to use a PTIP-type
process for chronically absent students. While the student may not be referred to court for excused absences,
the interventions used in the PTIP could address the barriers faced by chronically absent students as well as
truant students. A student with anxiety or depression who brings in parent notes to excuse missed school days
could benet from the therapeutic components of the PTIP, for example.
Confusion exists among some school ofcials about how to use
alternative attendance plans for qualied students as part of an
IEP or Section 504 plan.
Students who miss a large number of school days due to chronic illness and frequent doctor visits may
qualify for an alternative attendance plan as part of an IEP or Section 504 plan. Students with an alternative
attendance plan remain enrolled and are counted as present in their school’s student information system for
the days or time they are allowed to miss; thus, these students do not become chronically absent or truant for
the approved days missed.
Although most school ocials who responded to OREA surveys are aware of alternative attendance plans, a
quarter of principals who responded were unaware of this option for qualied students. Even school ocials
who are aware may not implement the option correctly. Over half of principals and approximately 17 percent
of attendance supervisors who registered on the survey that they were aware of such plans indicated students
who were on the plans were counted as absent for the time they missed.
BK
TDOE indicates that students on an
alternative attendance plan should instead be counted as present for the time they miss.
BL
Policy options
The General Assembly may wish to require additional reporting by
districts and schools of PTIP data and other attendance-related
data.
ere is a considerable degree of variation among districts and schools regarding PTIP implementation, parent
note policies, conversion absence policies, and other attendance-related matters.
BM
School ocials have used
the exibility granted them by the state to tailor policies and procedures to t local conditions, but the current
degree of variation among districts and schools poses signicant challenges to analyzing truancy-related data,
such as truancy rates, and evaluating the PTIP. Enhanced reporting from districts and schools would provide
the data needed for this purpose. Additionally, more data would enable the state to better evaluate pilot
programs such as the rural expansion of Communities in Schools.
Districts already collect and report some attendance-related data to the state (e.g., unexcused absences, excused
absences, and chronic absenteeism rates), but the current level of reporting is inadequate for a sound analysis
and comparison of district truancy rates and a full evaluation of the PTIP. State law does not require school
ocials to collect and report PTIP data at the school and district levels.
BK
It is possible that some of these answers were the result of respondent error.
BL
Students on an alternative attendance plan may be counted as absent if they do not abide by the specications of the plan.
BM
All research, including survey data, reects procedures and policies in place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
67
e General Assembly could require districts and schools to report the following information annually:
Number of unexcused absences required for Tier 1 of the PTIP
Districts (and schools in some cases) dier on the number of unexcused absences a student must accrue
before the PTIP is initiated. State law requires all districts to implement the rst tier of the plan once a
student accumulates at least ve unexcused absences, but districts may implement the rst tier earlier. Nearly
a third of attendance supervisors who responded to OREA’s survey indicated Tier 1 begins at three unexcused
absences in their districts, for example.
BN
In addition, in some districts, principals have discretion to begin
implementation of the PTIP at a dierent threshold from their district’s attendance policy; 12 percent of
principal respondents to the OREA survey indicated the unexcused absence threshold for triggering the PTIP
used in their school diered from that of their district.
Further, the points at which the successive tiers of the PTIP begin are determined in part by when the plan
is rst initiated at Tier 1. For example, districts implement Tier 2 after a student violates the attendance
contract created during Tier 1, and if the student continues to accrue additional unexcused absences after Tier
2 has been reached, Tier 3 is then implemented. In districts and schools that begin Tier 1 at a lower level of
unexcused absences (e.g., three unexcused absences as opposed to ve), students may progress to the higher
PTIP tiers and possible referral to juvenile court based on a lower or higher number of unexcused absences
than students in other districts.
Number of students who move through each tier of the PTIP
Districts and schools are not currently required to track the number of students who move through each tier
of the PTIP each school year. Over 60 percent of attendance supervisors and 50 percent of principals who
responded to OREA’s survey indicated this data is not tracked.
BO
Reporting the number of students who move through the PTIP tiers would provide useful data for evaluating
the eectiveness of the plan in reducing truancy and lowering the number of students referred to juvenile court.
Number of students referred to court for truancy and their number of unexcused absences
One reason for the PTIP’s creation was to reduce the number of students referred to court for truancy. To
measure the PTIP’s success at accomplishing this goal, schools could begin reporting the number of students
referred to court for truancy each year and the number of unexcused absences accrued by such students.
Data on the number of unexcused absences accrued by students who are ultimately referred to court could
be compared to district PTIP thresholds to gauge how long it takes students to progress through the plan.
Even if districts specify a certain number of unexcused absences as a threshold for each tier in their policies,
students may accrue additional unexcused absences between each tier due to factors such as a lack of parent
cooperation with the implementation of the PTIP.
BN
e actual implementation of the PTIP in some districts occurs later than called for in local policy, however. Reasons for delayed PTIP implementation noted by
survey respondents included problems scheduling PTIP meetings, uncooperative parents, and a lack of manpower and resources.
BO
irty-seven attendance supervisors and 270 principals who completed the OREA surveys indicated they track the number of students by PTIP tier and provided
OREA with PTIP data for the 2018-19 school year. Data from these districts and schools shows that, in general, the number of students decreases at each successive
tier of the PTIP. A common theme in survey responses was that fewer students reach the higher PTIP tiers because of the amount of time required to complete the
lower-level tiers.
68
Number of times PTIP tiers were skipped due to lack of parent cooperation
State law allows school ocials to refer truancy cases to juvenile court before completing the PTIP when
parents do not cooperate in the implementation of the plan. In addition to gauging the frequency of
this practice following the passage of a 2020 state law that claried districts’ ability to skip PTIP tiers in
such circumstances, this data would provide more insight into the degree of parental involvement in plan
implementation.
Number of students in the PTIP based on absences from the previous school year
State law does not specify whether the PTIP should restart each school year for all students. Nearly 90 percent
of attendance supervisors on the OREA survey reported that their districts restart the PTIP for all students,
but the remaining respondents indicated this is not the case in their districts. In such cases, it is unclear the
extent to which a student’s truancy status is based on unexcused absences in the current school year versus
unexcused absences from the previous school year. Having districts report the number of students who are
in the PTIP based on unexcused absences from the previous school year would help produce a more precise
calculation of truancy rates.
Parent note policy
Knowledge of the parent note policy used in each district and school is essential for making sound comparisons
of truancy rates among districts and schools and fully evaluating the PTIP. More student absences will be
classied as unexcused in districts and schools with tighter limits on parent note policies. By contrast, fewer
student absences will be classied as unexcused in districts with minimal or no limits on parent notes.
Conversion absence policy
Knowledge of the conversion absence
BP
policy used in each district and school is essential for making sound
comparisons of truancy rates among districts and schools and fully evaluating the PTIP. Students who are
frequently late to school or that leave early are more likely to enter the PTIP if they attend a school that
converts tardies and early dismissals to unexcused absences.
District conversion absence policies can also be considered when evaluating chronic absenteeism rates.
In districts that issue conversion absences and factor them into chronic absenteeism rates, the number of
chronically absent students may be higher than in districts that do not issue conversion absences.
In addition, the PTIP is relatively new: at the time of this report’s publication, only one year of attendance
data (for the 2018-19 school year) under the PTIP was available. Enhanced reporting over multiple years will
better position the state for an analysis of district truancy rates, including the identication and verication
of eective policies and practices, as well as a fuller evaluation of the PTIP’s eectiveness in reducing truancy
rates and lowering the number of court referrals.
The General Assembly may wish to clarify certain aspects of the
PTIP given confusion on the part of some districts, schools, and
juvenile courts.
rough interviews and surveys of school and court ocials, OREA learned of opportunities to clarify certain
aspects of the PTIP. In some districts, school ocials operate with certainty that a PTIP-related practice is
mandated by law, while school ocials in other districts believe the same PTIP-related practice is not allowed.
BP
Conversion absences are absences that result from the accrual of a set number of tardies and/or early dismissals, as determined by district or school policy. See pages
9-11 for more information on conversion absences.
69
e practice of restarting the PTIP each year for all students is one example. State law does not specify if the
PTIP is to be restarted at the beginning of each school year, and dierences among districts regarding this
practice are based in part on how the law’s lack of specicity is interpreted. TDOE guidance is for districts to
restart the PTIP at the beginning of each new school year.
In other cases, such as when to begin the PTIP, the General Assembly has expressly granted exibility in
state law to school districts so that implementation of the PTIP can be tailored to local conditions. State
law requires all districts to implement the rst tier of the PTIP once a student accumulates at least ve
unexcused absences, but districts may implement the plan earlier. Some districts begin PTIP implementation
once a student accumulates three unexcused absences, for example. In these districts, students are therefore
considered truant (for PTIP purposes) at three unexcused absences and, as a result, may progress to the
higher tiers of the plan and possible referral to juvenile court based on a lower or higher number of unexcused
absences than students in districts and schools that begin the PTIP at ve unexcused absences.
For other practices, the law is silent, and some local ocials are unsure whether certain practices are allowed. For
example, the law does not refer to conversion absences, the practice of converting tardies and early dismissals to
an absence. Some districts convert tardies and early dismissals to absences while other districts do not.
e General Assembly recently claried one aspect of the PTIP: whether districts may refer truancy cases to
juvenile court before completing the PTIP under certain conditions. A 2020 law claries that this practice is
allowed if parents are uncooperative. Before this law’s passage, however, some districts were uncertain whether
skipping PTIP tiers was permissible in such cases. Prior to passage of the 2020 law, a director of schools
could refer a student with continuing attendance problems to juvenile court prior to completing the PTIP
if documentation could be provided that the student’s parents were unwilling to participate in the PTIP.
Seventeen attendance supervisors and 168 principals who responded to OREA surveys nevertheless indicated
PTIP tiers had not been skipped in their district or school because they were unaware doing so was an option.
e 2020 law expressly states that school ocials may refer truancy cases to court before all PTIP tiers are
completed in such cases and denes the term “uncooperative parents.”
e General Assembly could clarify other aspects of the PTIP, including:
Restarting tiers for all students each year
Currently, state law does not explicitly state whether the PTIP must be restarted for all students at the
beginning of each school year, and local practices dier based on interpretations of the law. Most districts
represented on the OREA survey restart the PTIP for all students every year (i.e., all students start each school
year with zero unexcused absences), but 11 percent of attendance supervisors indicated their districts do not
always restart the plan for all students. Some students in these districts may instead begin a new school year by
continuing with wherever they left o with the PTIP at the close of the previous school year.
e General Assembly could amend state law to clarify whether restarting the PTIP at the beginning of a new
school year for all students (eectively starting all students with zero unexcused absences at the outset of each
school year) is permissive or mandatory.
Conversion absences
On the OREA survey of attendance supervisors, over half of respondents (each representing a dierent
district) indicated tardies/early dismissals are converted to absences in their district, either through a
districtwide policy that applies to all schools or a policy that delegates the decision to school principals.
BQ
Some
BQ
Conversion absences are absences that result from the accrual of a set number of tardies and/or early dismissals, as determined by district or school policy. See pages
9-11 for more information on conversion absences.
70
survey respondents, however, stated a conversion absence policy has not been adopted in their district or
school because of local questions about the legality of the practice. ese respondents noted that the absence
of any law expressly allowing conversion absences has deterred the implementation of such a policy in their
districts and schools.
e General Assembly could amend state law to clarify whether conversion absences are prohibited,
permissive, or mandatory. Further specication might also be provided as to the number of tardies or early
dismissals a student must have accrued to equal one conversion absence and how to classify conversion
absences (as excused or unexcused), or these decisions could be left to school districts.
The General Assembly may wish to make certain attendance-
related policies more uniform for all districts and schools.
A considerable degree of variation currently exists among districts and schools regarding parent notes and
conversion absences, neither of which is explicitly addressed in state law, SBE rule, or TDOE guidance. A bill
introduced in the General Assembly in 2012 addressed parent notes and conversion absences along with other
attendance-related matters. e sponsor of the bill cited inconsistent policies across the state that result in
students being treated dierently from district to district as one reason for the proposed legislation.
Parent notes
e 2012 bill limited parent notes by grade band (10 per year for grades K-5, and four per semester for grades
6-12) and required doctor or school nurse notes for illnesses.
BR
If the General Assembly were to address parent notes in state law, the following questions might be
considered:
1. How many parent notes would be allowed for excused absences per student each year?
2. Should parent notes excuse absences for any reason or will reasons be limited to those specied in law?
3. Should the parent note policy vary by grade band (e.g., fewer parent notes allowed for high school
students)?
4. Should a doctor’s note be required to excuse some or all absences, if any, for illness?
e state of Connecticut oers another option to consider if the General Assembly chooses to bring about
more uniformity in district and school attendance policies. In 2012, Connecticut created a two-level system
for excused and unexcused absences used by all the state’s schools. At the rst level, a student may excuse up
to nine absences by submitting a parent note for any reason deemed acceptable by their parents. Starting with
the tenth absence, students move to the second level, which limits the reasons for which parent notes may be
submitted and requires a doctor’s note for medical absences. e policy considers any absence that does not
follow the guidelines, including absences for medical reasons, to be unexcused.
Conversion absences
e 2012 bill introduced in the General Assembly also addressed conversion absences, specifying that ve
tardies/early dismissals would convert to one absence, and that the absence would be classied as excused or
unexcused based on the classication of the tardies/early dismissals.
BS
BR
In addition to addressing parent notes, HB 3611 (2012) also dened unexcused absences, dened two classications of truancy (habitually truant and chronically
truant), specied the conversion of ve tardies/early dismissals to one absence, set and claried the use of consequences for truant students and parents, and claried
the denition of educational neglect.
BS
In addition to addressing tardies/early dismissals, HB 3611 (2012) also dened unexcused absences, dened two classications of truancy (habitually truant and
chronically truant), set a parent note policy, set and claried the use of consequences for truant students and parents, and claried the denition of educational
neglect.
71
If the General Assembly were to address conversion absences in state law, the following questions might be
considered:
1. Should conversion absences be allowed/required?
2. How many tardies/early dismissals would equal one absence?
3. Should a limit be placed on the number of conversion absences assigned to a student?
4. Should conversion absences be factored into a student’s chronic absenteeism status?
5. Should conversion absences based on unexcused tardies or early dismissals be factored into a student’s
PTIP status?
A more uniform parent note policy and/or conversion absence policy in Tennessee would make the
classication of excused and unexcused absences more consistent across the state but would reduce the
exibility of districts and schools to tailor such policies to t local conditions.
TDOE may wish to begin calculating truancy rates for districts and
schools, taking into account local policy and practice variations.
TDOE already collects unexcused absence data by district, school, and student. is data is used primarily
for general attendance tracking purposes and for calculating chronic absenteeism rates. e state does not
calculate truancy rates by district and school, however.
Any future calculations of truancy rates should account for certain factors. First, there is no uniform denition
of “unexcused absence” used by all districts. What is considered an unexcused absence in one district may
have been excused in another with a parent note, for example. A second factor to consider is the number of
unexcused absences a student must accrue to be considered truant. Although “truancy” and “truant student”
are not dened in state law, ve unexcused absences is used as a truancy-related threshold multiple times in
state law and could be used to calculate truancy rates. Five unexcused absences is the threshold specied in
state law at which schools must initiate the PTIP.
BT
Truancy rates for each district and school that account for local policy and practice variations, such as parent
notes and conversion absences, would enable policymakers and researchers to track trends in truancy rates,
compare districts’ rates, identify promising initiatives, and verify the eectiveness of local policies and practices
designed to reduce truancy. In addition, such data would allow for a fuller evaluation of the PTIP.
Juvenile courts may wish to adopt a uniform denition of truancy
case and a more uniform method for tracking truancy cases and
actions taken.
Currently, a single truancy case in one court might include multiple truancy oenses. In another court,
however, the same number of truancy oenses might be recorded as multiple truancy cases (e.g., two truancy
oenses would be recorded as a single truancy case in one court, while two truancy oenses in another court
would be recorded as two truancy cases).
In addition to adopting a uniform denition of “truancy case,” a more uniform method for tracking the
number of court referrals received by each court, both overall and by student, and the actions taken by the
court (e.g., dismissal, warning, disciplinary action) might be adopted and used by the courts. OREA learned
through interviews that judges take a variety of actions in truancy cases, including nes, jail time for parents,
referral to counseling services, referral to DCS, among others.
BU
BT
e ve unexcused absence threshold is also mentioned in law as when a student is adjudicated to be unruly and the parents ned or assigned community service.
BU
See pages 38-39 for more information on survey respondents’ ratings of the eectiveness of these actions.
72
Juvenile courts might also clarify the reason(s) for which a truancy case is dismissed. According to TCA 49-
6-3009(i), a court shall dismiss a complaint or referral made by a school district if it is not accompanied by a
statement certifying that the school applied the PTIP but the interventions failed to meaningfully address the
student’s attendance. On the OREA survey of juvenile court judges, 63 percent of respondents indicated that
they require proof from the school district that all tiers have been completed before they will hear a truancy
case. Districts may, however, refer truancy cases to juvenile court before PTIP completion if parents refuse to
cooperate with the plan.
A uniform denition of “truancy case” used by all courts and a more uniform method for tracking truancy
cases and actions taken by the courts would bring more consistency to the truancy data from the state’s
juvenile courts and enable a fuller evaluation of the PTIP. Based in part on results from a 2019 survey of
juvenile court judges and court administrators, the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Reform Implementation
Council
BV
concluded there was a need for clear data collection expectations and improved technology within
the court system, including uniform denitions, collection parameters, and new case management systems.
is conclusion was consistent with a 2018 report from the AOC, DCS, and Tennessee Commission
on Children and Youth that concluded state ocials are not receiving quality, uniform data concerning
the juvenile justice system because of inconsistent data and a lack of case management systems that can
electronically report current data to the AOC.
Schools districts may wish to share best practices for addressing
student attendance issues.
From school laundromats and clothes closets to prizes and competitions, school ocials across Tennessee
have implemented a number of initiatives to address chronic absenteeism and truancy. Some methods that
have proven successful in one district may nd similar success in another. For example, some school ocials
indicated in their survey responses that they start students on the PTIP (or an alternate version of it) for
chronic absenteeism in addition to truancy. Other school districts may want to consider such an approach.
Another opportunity for school districts to share best practices concerns alternative attendance plans for
qualifying students. While the TDOE Attendance Manual contains guidelines for the use of alternative
attendance plans, some confusion still exists among school ocials, with some unaware of the option and
others who may not be implementing it correctly. Proper implementation of this option for qualifying
students could lower the chronic absenteeism rate of schools and districts with a high number of such
students.
Groups such as the Tennessee Data and Attendance Supervisors Conference (TDASC) provide district and
school ocials with opportunities for networking, collaboration, and sharing best practices for improving
student attendance.
BV
e Governor’s Juvenile Justice Reform Implementation Council was established in 2019 to assist in ensuring the successful implementation of the Juvenile Justice
Reform Act of 2018.
73
Endnotes
1
State Board of Education, Chapter 0520-01-02-.17(5)(a), Revised Nov. 2020.
2
TCA 49-6-3001(c)(2)(B) and 3005(a)(1-5).
3
State Board of Education, Chapter 0520-01-02-.17, Revised Nov. 2020.
4
Tennessee Department of Education, Student Membership and Attendance and Procedures Manual, 2020,
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/reports/331958_membership_attendance_manual.pdf (ac-
cessed Feb. 12, 2021).
5
Hedy N. Chang, Lauren Bauer, and Vaughan Byrnes, Data Matters: Using Chronic Absence to Accelerate Ac-
tion for Student Success, Attendance Works, Sept. 2018.
6
Lauren Bauer, Patrick Liu, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Jay Shambaugh, e Hamilton Project: Re-
ducing Chronic Absenteeism under the Every Student Succeeds Act, Brookings, April 2018.
7
TCA 49-6-3004.
8
Hedy N. Chang, Lauren Bauer, and Vaughan Byrnes, Data Matters: Using Chronic Absence to Accelerate Ac-
tion for Student Success, Attendance Works, Sept. 2018.
9
TCA 49-2-115(a).
10
Tennessee Department of Human Services, Chapter 1240-01-47-.15, Revised Dec. 2016.
11
Tennessee Department of Human Services, Chapter 1240-01-47-.15(2-3), Revised Dec. 2016.
12
U.S. Department of Education, “Chronic Absenteeism in the Nation’s Schools,” https://www2.ed.gov/
datastory/chronicabsenteeism.html (accessed Dec. 9, 2020).
13
Ibid.
14
TCA 49-6-3017.
15
TCA 49-6-3008.
16
TCA 49-6-3007(e)(4)(B).
17
TCA 49-6-3009(d)(1)(C).
18
TCA 49-6-3009(d)(3).
19
TCA 49-6-3009(g).
20
TCA 49-6-3009(a); TCA 40-35-111(e)(3).
21
TCA 37-1-156(a)(1); TCA 40-35-111(e)(1).
74
Appendix A: Methodology
During the summer and fall of 2019, OREA conducted a total of 52 interviews with individuals with roles
relative to student attendance. OREA met with representatives from 27 school districts, six juvenile courts,
two nonprot agencies, and nine state agencies to gain insight about student attendance in Tennessee. Inter-
views were conducted over the phone, through email, or in person.
Exhibit 1: Interviews conducted by OREA
Surveys
In December of 2019, OREA distributed online surveys to every district attendance supervisor and public
school principal in Tennessee. Additionally, OREA distributed an online survey to every juvenile court judge
in Tennessee.
Survey of attendance supervisors
On OREA’s December 2019 survey of attendance supervisors, the original 169 respondents were rst asked
to verify their role of attendance supervisor, and any respondent who selected “no” was disqualied from the
survey. From that point, analysts ltered out incomplete surveys, using the end of the section on the Progres-
sive Truancy Intervention Plan to be the cuto point. If respondents answered questions through that section,
the survey was included in the nal data set, even if they stopped answering questions before the end of the
survey. Using this guideline, the nal data set included responses from 102 attendance supervisors, each repre-
senting a unique district.
e districts that participated in OREA’s survey of attendance supervisors are spread almost evenly across the
state with 28 representing a West Tennessee district, 38 from Middle Tennessee, and 36 from East Tennessee.
State agencies Juvenile Courts
Dept. of Children’s Services Davidson County
Dept. of Education Hamilton County
Dept. of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Henry County
Dept. of Safety and Homeland Security Jackson-Madison County
Administrative Oce of the Courts Montgomery County
State Board of Education Shelby County
Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth
Other agencies
Communities in Schools
International Association for Truancy and Dropout Prevention
Tennessee Data and Attendance Supervisors Conference
Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents
Tennessee School Boards Association
75
Exhibit 2: Attendance supervisor survey respondents by Tennessee Grand Division (n=102)
Source: OREA survey of attendance supervisors, December 2019.
Survey of principals
On OREA’s survey of principals, the original 768 respondents were rst asked to verify their role of principal,
and any person who selected “no” was disqualied from the survey. As with the attendance supervisors, ana-
lysts ltered out incomplete surveys, using the end of the section on the progressive truancy intervention plan
as the cuto point. If respondents answered questions through that section, the survey was included in the
nal data set, even if they stopped answering questions later in the survey. Using this guideline, the nal data
set included 545 usable responses to the survey of Tennessee principals.
e nal 545 surveys included 232 principals from East Tennessee (43 percent), 220 from Middle Tennessee
(40 percent), and 87 from West Tennessee (16 percent). Six principals (1 percent) did not indicate their LEA
and could not be sorted by Grand Division.
Exhibit 3: Principal survey respondents by Tennessee Grand Division (n=545)
Source: OREA survey of principals, December 2019.
In total, 130 school districts participated in the attendance study through the survey, interviews, or both.
36, 35%
38, 37%
28, 28%
East Middle West
East
Middle
West
232, 43%
87, 16%
220, 40%
6, 1%
East West Middle Unknown
East
Middle
West
Unknown
35%
43%
76
Exhibit 4: District participants in OREA attendance study
District Attendance supervisors Principals Interviews
Alamo City 1 0 0
Alcoa City 1 2 0
Alvin C. York Institute 1 1 0
Anderson County 1 9 0
Arlington City 1 1 0
Athens City 1 4 0
Bartlett City 1 7 0
Bedford County 1 1 0
Bells City 1 0 0
Benton County 1 2 1
Bledsoe County 1 3 1
Blount County 0 2 0
Bradley County 0 14 0
Bristol City 1 6 1
Campbell County 0 1 0
Cannon County 1 2 1
Carroll County 1 0 0
Cheatham County 0 1 0
Chester County 0 4 0
Claiborne County 1 8 0
Cleveland City 1 4 0
Clinton City 1 0 0
Cocke County 1 2 1
Coee County 1 3 1
Collierville City 1 0 0
Crockett County 1 4 0
Cumberland County 1 5 1
Davidson County 1 6 0
Decatur County 0 1 0
DeKalb County 1 1 0
Dickson County 1 6 0
Dyer County 0 1 1
Dyersburg City 1 2 1
Elizabethton City 1 0 0
Fayette County 1 0 0
Fentress County 1 0 1
Franklin County 1 0 0
Franklin SSD 1 0 0
77
District Attendance supervisors Principals Interviews
Germantown City 1 4 0
Gibson County SSD 1 5 0
Giles County 1 4 0
Grainger County 0 3 1
Greene County 0 7 0
Greeneville City 1 3 1
Grundy County 1 6 0
Hamblen County 1 0 1
Hamilton County 0 2 1
Hancock County 1 2 0
Hardeman County 1 4 0
Hardin County 1 7 0
Hawkins County 1 13 1
Haywood County 1 2 1
Henderson County 0 3 0
Henry County 1 4 1
Hickman County 1 2 0
Houston County 1 3 1
Humboldt City 1 2 0
Humphreys County 1 6 0
Jackson County 1 1 0
Jackson-Madison County 0 0 1
Jeerson County 1 11 0
Johnson City 1 5 0
Johnson County 1 9 0
Kingston City 1 0 0
Knox County 0 39 0
Lake County 1 3 0
Lakeland City 1 0 0
Lauderdale County 1 5 0
Lawrence County 1 7 1
Lebanon SSD 1 3 0
Lenoir City 1 2 0
Lexington City 1 1 0
Loudon County 2 8 0
Macon County 1 7 0
Manchester City 1 1 0
Marion County 1 4 0
78
District Attendance supervisors Principals Interviews
Marshall County 1 9 0
Maryville City 1 0 0
Maury County 1 17 0
McMinn County 1 6 0
McNairy County 0 1 1
Meigs County 1 2 0
Milan SSD 1 2 0
Monroe County 0 9 0
Montgomery County 0 15 1
Moore County 1 3 0
Morgan County 1 3 0
Murfreesboro City 0 10 0
Newport City 1 0 0
Not selected 0 6 0
Oak Ridge City 0 4 0
Obion County 1 6 1
Oneida SSD 0 2 0
Overton County 1 6 0
Paris SSD 1 1 0
Perry County 0 2 0
Pickett County 1 2 0
Polk County 0 4 0
Putnam County 1 8 0
Rhea County 1 0 1
Richard City 1 0 0
Roane County 1 3 0
Robertson County 0 11 1
Rogersville City 1 1 1
Rutherford County 1 25 0
Scott County 1 1 0
Sequatchie County 1 1 0
Sevier County 1 19 0
Shelby County 1 2 3
Smith County 1 10 0
South Carroll SSD 1 0 0
Stewart County 1 3 1
Sullivan County 1 1 0
Sumner County 0 3 1
79
Survey of juvenile court judges
In February of 2020, OREA distributed surveys to each of Tennessee’s juvenile court judges with the help of
the Administrative Oce of the Courts. Fifty-two judges started the survey, and those whose courts do not
handle truancy cases were disqualied, leaving 43 usable responses.
District Attendance supervisors Principals Interviews
Sweetwater City 0 1 0
TN School for the Deaf 1 1 0
Tipton County 1 8 1
Trenton SSD 1 2 0
Tullahoma City 1 1 0
Unicoi County 0 5 0
Union County 1 8 0
Van Buren County 1 0 0
Warren County 1 6 0
Washington County 0 4 0
Wayne County 0 7 0
Weakley County 1 1 1
West Carroll SSD 0 2 0
West TN School for the Deaf 0 1 0
White County 1 0 0
Williamson County 1 6 0
Wilson County 1 3 0
Total 102 545 33
80
Appendix B: Chronically Out of School Indicator
e Chronically Out of School Indicator accounts for 10 percent of a school’s overall score on the State Re-
port Card.
Exhibit 1: Indicators for annual Tennessee school report cards
Source: Tennessee Department of Education.
Within each indicator of the report card, the performance of student groups is considered as well as the overall
school population. Certain student subgroups (Black, Hispanic, or Native American students, economically
disadvantaged students, English learners, and students with disabilities) are weighted at 40 percent, while the
full population (all students) makes up the other 60 percent of the rating. Scores are determined by how well a
school performed during that particular school year as well as any improvements shown from the previous year.
Exhibit 2: Weight of student groups in each indicator of the state report card
Source: Tennessee Department of Education.
e Chronically Out of School Indicator measures how many students who were chronically absent in the
previous year are not chronically absent in the current school year. Schools receive the most points for the
highest number of improved or resolved cases of chronically absent students. e numeric score is based on
how the school compares with other schools across the state, as shown in Exhibit 3.
Achievement Growth
Ready Graduate Chronically Out of School
ELPA Graduation rate
Full student
population
60%
Student
groups
40%
Full student population Student groups
Achievement Growth Chronically Out of School
ELPA
High
Schools
K-8 Schools
Achievement
Ready Graduate
ELPA
Growth
Chronically Out of School
Graduate rate
Chronically Out of School
ELPA
Achievement
Growth
Achievement
30%
Growth
25%
Ready
Graduate
20%
Chronically
Out of School
10%
ELPA
10%
Graduation
rate
5%
High Schools
Achievement Growth
Ready Graduate Chronically Out of School
ELPA Graduation rate
Full student population Student groups
10%
10%
45%
35%
10%
10%
5%
30%
25%
20%
40%
60%
81
Exhibit 3: Calculation of the chronically out of school indicator by measure
Source: Tennessee Department of Education.
# of points
received
Absolute performance
pathway
(Schools and districts)
AMO target
(Schools and districts)
Value-added goal
(Districts only)
4
CA rate is greater than or
equal to 8%
CA rate less than or equal to
the double AMO target
Percent of students CA in prior
year and not CA in current
year is in top quintile of
statewide performance
3
CA rate is greater than 8%
and less than or equal to
11.5%
CA rate less than or equal to
AMO target but greater than
the double AMO target
Percent of students CA in prior
year and not CA in current
year is in fourth quintile of
statewide performance
2
CA rate is greater than 11.5%
and less than or equal to
16.5%
Lower bound of the
condence interval of the CA
rate decreases compared to
the previous year but fails to
meet the AMO target
Percent of students CA in prior
year and not CA in current
year is in third quintile of
statewide performance
1
CA rate is greater than 16.5%
and less than or equal to 25%
Lower bound of the
condence interval of the CA
rate decreases compared to
the previous year but fails to
meet the AMO target
Percent of students CA in prior
year and not CA in current
year is in second quintile of
statewide performance
0
CA rate is greater than 25% Lower bound of the
condence interval of the CA
rate is greater than or equal to
the prior year’s CA rate
Percent of students CA in prior
year and not CA in current
year is in bottom quintile of
statewide performance
82
Appendix C: Chronic absenteeism of student
subgroups
Exhibit 1: Chronic absenteeism of student subgroups, average by year | 2017 through 2019
Note: e combined numbers of Black and Hispanic students are used in accountability measures by TDOE along with Native American students (not shown here).
Source: OREA analysis of TDOE data.
Average
chronically
absent per
year
Average not
chronically
absent per
year
Average total
enrollment
per year
Percentage
of all
students in
TN
Percentage
of all CA
students in
TN
Economically
disadvantaged
72,068 272,924 344,992
34.8% 54.6%
Black/Hispanic
Students
51,241 286,396 337,637
34.1% 38.8%
Students with
disabilities
23,550 104,859 128,409
13.0% 17.8%
English
learners
5,817 56,170 61,988
6.3% 4.4%
83
Appendix D: Communities in Schools
Exhibit 1: Communities in Schools 2020-21 Partner Schools
Source: Communities in Schools-Tennessee and Communities in Schools-Memphis.
CIS Memphis CIS Nashville
Belle Forrest ES Kirby MS Riverview K-8 Amqui ES Ida B. Wells ES Tom Joy ES
Dunbar ES Melrose HS
Southern Avenue
Charter
Apollo MS J. T. Moore MS
Warner Arts
Magnet ES
Georgian Hills
ES
Memphis College
Prep
Southwest TN
Community
College
Bellevue MS
KIPP Academy
Nashville
Whites Creek HS
Hamilton HS MLK Prep Trezevant HS
Bellshire Design
Center
KIPP Nashville
College Prep
Humes
Preparatory
Academy MS
Oakhaven HS Westside MS Cumberland ES
KIPP Nashville
Collegiate HS
Journey Hanley
ES
Promise
Academy ES
Wooddale MS Glengarry ES Paragon Mills ES
KIPP Memphis
Academy
Raleigh-Egypt
HS
Wooddale HS
Goodlettsville
MS
Shwab ES
84
Appendix E: Driver license suspensions by county
Exhibit 1: Implementation of
TCA
49-6-3017 by county
County 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 County 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Anderson 53 103 133 Lauderdale 0 0 1
Bedford 9 18 1 Lawrence 0 1 2
Benton 1 1 0 Lewis 0 0 0
Bledsoe 0 0 1 Lincoln 40 1 1
Blount 88 72 162 Loudon 37 47 27
Bradley 3 3 0 Macon 2 2 4
Campbell 12 114 34 Madison 154 172 177
Cannon 0 3 0 Marion 1 9 12
Carroll 1 2 2 Marshall 2 9 4
Carter 7 6 1 Maury 7 99 72
Cheatham 1 1 0 McMinn 9 48 17
Chester 2 2 1 McNairy 0 0 0
Claiborne 15 38 22 Meigs 0 3 0
Clay 0 0 0 Monroe 4 3 2
Cocke 19 36 41 Montgomery 21 5 5
Coee 67 31 47 Moore 2 2 1
Crockett 1 0 0 Morgan 1 1 4
Cumberland 4 3 0 Obion 3 53 33
Davidson 40 28 24 Overton 0 2 1
Decatur 0 1 0 Perry 0 4 6
DeKalb 3 1 0 Pickett 0 0 0
Dickson 32 14 1 Polk 0 0 3
Dyer 2 3 2 Putnam 9 16 8
Fayette 23 10 0 Rhea 0 1 0
Fentress 0 0 1 Roane 7 9 8
Franklin 26 11 9 Robertson 29 13 44
Gibson 21 12 13 Rutherford 184 183 161
Giles 2 2 1 Scott 2 5 1
Grainger 1 1 0 Sequatchie 5 12 17
Greene 40 30 22 Sevier 6 12 6
Grundy 1 1 0 Shelby 313 64 8
Hamblen 20 26 17 Smith 2 3 2
Hamilton 55 64 13 Stewart 7 6 11
Hancock 0 0 0 Sullivan 173 209 152
Hardeman 2 1 1 Sumner 7 8 10
85
Source: Tennessee Department of Safety.
County 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 County 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Hardin 0 0 0 Tipton 9 20 4
Hawkins 75 70 64 Trousdale 3 0 0
Haywood 0 0 1 Unicoi 2 3 0
Henderson 3 0 2 Union 3 5 1
Henry 12 17 10 Van Buren 1 1 0
Hickman 6 2 0 Warren 33 44 43
Houston 7 2 1 Washington 96 70 44
Humphreys 1 0 3 Wayne 0 0 0
Jackson 0 0 1 Weakley 13 25 0
Jeerson 7 4 1 White 2 0 2
Johnson 5 1 0 Williamson 84 54 86
Knox 473 366 267 Wilson 92 43 64
Lake 0 2 1
86
Crockett Co.
Dyer Co.
Dyersburg City (Dyer)
Henry Co.
Humboldt City (Gibson)
Lake Co.
Paris SSD (Henry)
Trenton SSD (Gibson)
Houston Co.
Lebanon SSD (Wilson)
Metro-Nashville (Davidson)
Murfreesboro City (Rutherford)
Robertson Co.
Stewart Co.
Sumner Co.
Wilson Co.
Bledsoe Co.
Clay Co.
Cumberland Co.
Jackson Co.
Pickett Co.
Putnam Co.
Smith Co.
Van Buren Co.
Warren Co.
White Co.
Alcoa City (Blount)
Anderson Co.
Blount Co.
Campbell Co.
Claiborne Co.
Grainger Co.
Jefferson Co.
Lenoir City (Loudon)
Loudon Co.
Maryville City (Blount)
Monroe Co.
Morgan Co.
Oak Ridge City (Anderson)
Oneida SSD (Scott)
Roane Co.
Scott Co.
Sevier Co.
Union Co.
Bristol City (Sullivan)
Carter Co.
Cocke Co.
Greene Co.
Greeneville City (Greene)
Hamblen Co.
Hancock Co.
Hawkins Co.
Johnson City (Washington)
Johnson Co.
Kingsport City (Sullivan)
Washington Co.
Chester Co.
Decatur Co.
Haywood Co.
Lauderdale Co.
McNairy Co.
Millington Municipal (Shelby)
Shelby Co.
Tipton Co.
Coffee Co.
Franklin Co.
Hickman Co.
Lawrence Co.
Lewis Co.
Lincoln Co.
Manchester City (Coffee)
Maury Co.
Perry Co.
Wayne Co.
Athens City (McMinn)
Grundy Co.
Hamilton Co.
Polk Co.
Richard City (Marion)
Last updated August 2020
Appendix F: Family resource centers map
86
87
Appendix G: SBE Attendance Policy 4.100
88
89
90
91
Appendix H: TDOE Attendance Manual
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/reports/331958_membership_attendance_manual.pdf
92
Oce of Research and Education Accountability Sta
Director
♦ Russell Moore
Assistant Director
♦ Linda Wesson
Principal Legislative Research Analysts
♦ Tara Bergfeld
Carolynn Polanchek
♦ Kim Potts
♦ Lauren Spires
Associate Legislative Research Analysts
♦ Dana Brimm
Anna Johnson
Juan Napoles
Cassie Stinson
Publication Specialist
♦ Paige Donaldson
Program Coordinator
♦ Caitlin Kaufman
♦ Indicates sta who assisted with this project
Oce of Research and Education Accountability
Russell Moore | Director
425 Rep. John Lewis Way N.
Nashville, Tennessee 37243
615.401.7866
www.comptroller.tn.gov/OREA/
