Updated 7/2/2025
Chronic absenteeism is trending in the right direction—dropping from its peak of 28 percent in 2022 to 23 percent in 2024—but it remains a significant challenge nationwide. While student attendance has traditionally been managed at the local level, state lawmakers are increasingly stepping in with legislation focused on early intervention, improved data collection, and supportive strategies to keep students in school.
Unlike truancy, which focuses on unexcused absences and often carries legal penalties, chronic absenteeism includes all absences—excused or not—recognizing that any missed instructional time can negatively impact student outcomes. Many states are now moving away from punitive truancy policies and instead focusing on identifying at-risk students early and offering appropriate supports.
FutureEd has identified 56 bills across 22 states this session addressing chronic absenteeism and attendance challenges. While the primary focus is on legislation specifically targeting chronic absenteeism, the scan also includes bills that revise truancy laws—particularly where those revisions signal a shift in disciplinary approaches or address punitive measures.
So far this session, 15 bills have been enacted, including:
- Georgia’s SB 123, which prohibits expelling students solely for absenteeism and requires local school boards to establish attendance review teams and intervention plans for chronically absent students. Lawmakers also passed HR 711 and SR 217, calling for studies on absenteeism.
- Maryland’s HB 1442, which mandates reporting on the state’s existing Truancy Reduction Pilot Programs, and HB 879, which creates a statewide task force to study chronic absenteeism.
- Indiana’s SB 482, which defines chronic absenteeism, bans punitive discipline based solely on truancy, and directs the state to provide schools with resources, data collection tools, and intervention procedures.
- Oklahoma’s SB 711 removes chronic absenteeism from the A‑F school report card as a measure of school quality or student success, replacing it with school‑climate surveys.
- Virginia’s HB 2601 requires schools to strengthen their attendance tracking, maintaining not only a daily record of attendance at the start of the school day but also class-by-class records to ensure more accurate and detailed data.
- Texas’s SB 991 adds chronically absent students to the definition of those “at risk of dropping out.”
[See 2024 legislation]
Other bills were introduced, with several that proposed broader reforms aimed at identifying and addressing absenteeism systemically. In New Jersey, S 4116 would require school districts with high absenteeism rates to create attendance review teams and directs the state education department to develop prevention and intervention plans for districts to adopt. Washington’s SB 5007 proposed strengthening educator training, implementing early warning systems, and funding community partnerships that emphasize family engagement and student support through an expanded dropout prevention initiative.
Some states wanted to pilot attendance-focused programs and public awareness campaigns, though these efforts often fall short of addressing the root causes of absenteeism. In Hawaii, one bill proposed a pilot program offering ice cream incentives for good attendance at an elementary school. Utah’s HB 206 would provide up to $400 annually in 529 savings account deposits to 100 families across five pilot schools to improve student attendance. Minnesota’s HF 2043 allocated $250,000 for a marketing campaign to raise awareness about the importance of attendance and its impact on learning.
Several legislatures also reconsidered the disciplinary response to absenteeism. Bills in Indiana (HB 1201) and Florida (HB 1367) would prohibit suspensions or expulsions based solely on attendance and instead require schools to develop supportive interventions and family engagement strategies. In contrast, New Mexico’s HB 432 would impose fines or possible jail time on parents for allowing repeated student absences.
States also sought to refine how absenteeism is defined, tracked, and reported. Indiana’s HB 1201 formally defined chronic absenteeism as missing 10 percent or more of the school year for any reason, while also distinguishing between excused and unexcused absences. Iowa’s SF 88 would excuse one absence per year for students participating in civic or political events and exclude that absence from chronic absenteeism calculations. Virginia’s HB 1788 proposed excluding “unexpected excused absences” from the chronic absenteeism count under the state’s school accountability framework. At the same time, other states, including Indiana through SB 319, called for more detailed reporting to improve transparency and strengthen accountability.
We will continue to monitor and update the tracker as new bills are introduced and progress through the legislative process.