Disparities in Unexcused
Absences Across California
Schools
Clea McNeely
Hedy N. Chang
Kevin A. Gee
with
Joshua Childs
Cecelia Leong
Janet E. Rosenbaum
March 2023
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across
California Schools
Clea McNeely, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Hedy N. Chang, Executive Director, Attendance Works
Kevin A. Gee, University of California, Davis
with
Joshua Childs, University of Texas at Austin; Cecelia Leong, Vice President of Programs, Attendance Works;
and Janet E. Rosenbaum, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn
Acknowledgements
The primary authors of this report—Clea McNeely (University of Tennessee, Knoxville), Hedy N. Chang (Attendance
Works), and Kevin A. Gee (University of California, Davis)—would like to thank the many people who contributed to its
development. We are grateful to Joshua Childs, Cecelia Leong, and Janet E. Rosenbaum for their thought partnership
and astute additions throughout the writing process. We thank our report reviewers, including Amir Alavi, Jennifer
Elena, Katrina Gonzales, Shelly Masur, and Deborah Look. We are especially indebted to Stacy Erlich Loewe of the
University of Chicago for her careful critique of multiple drafts and close examination of our methods and charts and
to Jeannie Myung at PACE for her ongoing support and editorial guidance.
Several talented students participated in the content analysis of attendance policies. We thank Tseng Vang at the
University of California, Davis, for creating the sampling frame and drawing the random sample of schools. Dorah
LaBatte and Angelika Filippone-Marino of SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University helped to develop the coding
scheme for schools’ responses to unexcused absenteeism. Rachel Laribee and Jack Duncan of the University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, located school documents, refined the coding scheme, and coded data from the 40 schools
in the sample. We are grateful for your assistance and insights.
Last but certainly not least, this report would not be possible without the California Department of Education (CDE),
which set a precedent for the nation by publishing data on absenteeism (excused and unexcused), making sure
they are easy to examine and review. Although the conclusions in this report are those of the authors alone, we
appreciate our CDE colleagues (Jonathan Isler, Cindy Kazanis, Kim Mundhenk, and Dan Sackheim) for taking time
to review our draft report.
This report, like all PACE publications, has been thoroughly reviewed for factual accuracy and research integrity.
The authors assume full responsibility for the accuracy of the report contents.
Suggested Citation
McNeely, C., Chang, H. N., & Gee, K. A. (2023, March). Disparities in unexcused absences across California schools
[Report]. Policy Analysis for California Education. edpolicyinca.org/publications/disparities-unexcused-absences-
across-california-schools
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools1
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Executive Summary
Finding eective ways to improve school attendance is more important than ever given the
dramatic increases in chronic absence nationwide and in California. This report presents
a compelling case for using data about unexcused absences to advance a more preventive,
problem-solving, and equitable response to poor attendance.
When an absence is labeled unexcused, it aects how a student and their family are treated.
Although students face no negative consequences for excused absences, they can be denied
credit for missed work, excluded from extracurricular activities, and eventually taken to court
and fined for unexcused absences. As absences accumulate, responses generally become
more punitive. Yet punitive responses are unlikely to improve attendance when absences
occur for reasons beyond the control of the student and their family. Rather, overuse of the
unexcused-absence label could undermine eorts to partner with students and families to
improve attendance.
Our analyses of statewide data show:
• During the 3 school years examined in this report (2017–18, 2018–19, and 2021–22),
the percentage of absences labeled unexcused held constant at around 38 percent in
California. Schools with higher percentages of unexcused absences typically had
lower attendance rates while schools with lower percentages of unexcused absences
had higher levels of attendance.
• Socioeconomically disadvantaged students are much more likely to have their
absences labeled unexcused. This is also true for Black, Native American, Latinx, and
Pacific Islander students relative to White, Asian American, and Filipino students. Black
students experience the largest disparity. These disparities cannot be fully explained
by poverty since they remained across dierences in socioeconomic status.
• Although English learners and students with disabilities were more likely to be chronically
absent, disparities in unexcused absences for these groups were relatively small
compared to disparities across socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups.
• Preliminary data suggest that schools serving more socioeconomically disadvantaged
students communicate more punitive approaches. More research is needed
to understand why. The good news is some schools are “bright spots,” with high
attendance rates, less frequent use of the unexcused-absence label, and fewer
disparities in labeling absences as unexcused.
The report concludes with recommendations for how stakeholders can use data to detect
and address disparities in the labeling of unexcused absences and advance more equitable
opportunities to learn.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools2
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Introduction
Two students are sick. Both miss 5 days of school. One student has a family physician,
and their parents are familiar with school policies. This student returns to school with a doctor’s
note, and their five absences are excused. The other student’s family cannot aord to see a
doctor. This second student returns to school without a doctor’s note, and their five absences are
unexcused. The family receives a letter stating that their child is truant and they may be taken to
court if the absenteeism continues.
This scenario happens in many schools and districts. In your district, do some students,
especially those with fewer resources, end up with their absences labeled unexcused despite
facing a major barrier to getting to school? If so, how does that aect the ability of your schools
to partner with students and families to identify and address underlying causes of absenteeism
and support engagement in school? Which student populations are most aected?
Showing up regularly to school matters. Students not only gain from curriculum and
instruction but also benefit from connecting with peers and adults as well as accessing critical
resources available on school campuses (Attendance Works, 2022a). When students miss school,
it is easy for them to fall behind academically and socially, especially if their families lack the means
to make up for lost opportunities to learn and develop at school. A growing body of research has
established that students who are chronically absent from school (missing 10 percent or more of
school days for any reason) are at risk of falling behind academically, getting suspended in middle
school, and eventually dropping out of school (Balfanz et al., 2007; Chang & Romero, 2008;
Ehrlich et al., 2014; Gottfried, 2014; Utah Education Policy Center, 2012). The continual disruptions
to schooling that students experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic have made even more
clear the value of being in school and the adverse impact of too many absences.
The number of students who are chronically absent from school has doubled nationwide
since the pandemic began, increasing from one out of six students in the 2018–19 school year
to nearly one out of three students by the end of the 2021–22 school year (Chang et al., 2022).
In California, 30 percent of students—nearly 1.8 million—were chronically absent during the
2021–22 school year. This is more than twice the 12.1 percent of students chronically absent
during 2018–19.
This rise in absenteeism can be attributed to several factors. Although illness and quarantine
were major contributors to chronic absences during the pandemic, practitioners have shared
that school stang challenges (e.g., no bus drivers), health fears, anxiety, and the lack of a regular
routine of learning have also exacerbated absenteeism. These pandemic-related challenges were
layered on top of preexisting barriers to attendance, such as poor transportation, trauma, housing
insecurity, lack of access to health care, and community violence (Blad, 2022; Fortin, 2022).
Communities that struggled economically before the pandemic have been especially hard hit.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools3
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
The highest levels of absenteeism were experienced by Native American, Black, Pacific Islander,
and Latinx students as well as students who were socioeconomically disadvantaged, involved in
special education, or English learners (California Department of Education, 2022c).
This jump in chronic absence occurred in tandem with significant declines in achievement
between the 2018–19 and 2021–22 academic years. California students’ performance on
statewide assessments in language arts and math decreased statewide,
1
leaving large disparities
intact for Black, Native American, Latinx, Pacific Islander, and socioeconomically disadvantaged
students (California Department of Education, 2022b). Addressing these disparities is critical,
not just for individual students but also for the economic well-being of California.
In California, state law requires districts to monitor key indicators and address education
disparities as part of their Local Control and Accountability Plans (California Department of
Education, n.d.-b). Chronic absence is one of these key indicators. High rates of absenteeism
and large racial and ethnic disparities in the rate of absenteeism can reveal challenges that school
districts face in engaging, educating, and supporting all students.
This report highlights the value of digging even deeper into attendance metrics to
understand how applying the unexcused-absence label to student absences could be impeding
systemwide eorts to improve attendance as well as deepening education inequities, particularly
among socioeconomically disadvantaged students
2
and students from communities of color.
Multiple years of state data show that students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged as
well as those who are Black, Native American, Pacific Islander, or Latinx are much more likely
to have their absences labeled unexcused.
3
Understanding why these disparities exist and how they can be addressed is critically
important for reducing education inequities (McNeely et al., 2001). When an absence is labeled
unexcused, it aects how the student and their family are treated. For example, teachers are not
required to help students make up for missed learning opportunities after unexcused absences,
but they must do so for excused absences.
As unexcused absences accumulate, responses typically become more punitive and
can involve denial of credit for missed work, exclusion from extracurricular activities, court
appearances, and fines for students and parents. Punitive responses are unlikely to improve
attendance when absences occur for reasons beyond the control of a student and their family.
1
Between 2018–19 and 2021–22, the statewide average of English language assessment scores declined from 51.1 percent to
47.1 percent of students meeting or exceeding standards. Math scores decreased from 39.7 percent to 33.4 percent of students
meeting or exceeding standards.
2
See Table 1 later in this report for specific criteria for socioeconomic disadvantage from the California Longitudinal Pupil
Achievement Data System (CALPADS).
3
For these data, see DataQuest at dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools4
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Moreover, such punitive responses may backfire. When students and families perceive that the
unexcused-absence label is unfairly applied (e.g., when they did not have access to a doctor to
get an excuse), they may lose trust in schools and disengage from learning (Bryk & Schneider,
2002), and strategies to improve attendance are thus less likely to succeed.
The good news is that schools and districts are uniquely well positioned to change
disparities in the coding of absences. Unlike many other disparities, the locus of control for
deciding whether an absence is excused versus unexcused lies within the control of school
leadership, who by law have discretion over how absences are coded.
Data are now available from the California Department of Education (CDE) DataQuest
portal on excused- and unexcused-absenteeism rates by student population, grade, and school.
Educators can use these data to identify where disparities in unexcused absences exist in their
schools or districts and then work with students, families, and community partners to identify and
address the root causes of these disparities.
Report Purpose
This report is for everyone who cares about improving school attendance, including
policymakers, educators, advocates, community partners, families, students, researchers, and the
groups helping to build capacity in schools. The recommendations given in this report can be
applied at the local and state level in California as well as by other states interested in using their
own data to examine disparities and determine how to improve their truancy-related practices
and policies.
This report is a call to action to leverage this rich and compelling information about
unexcused absences to advance a more preventive, problem-solving, and equitable response
to poor attendance. We first provide an overview of current policies for labeling and responding
to unexcused absences and then answer the following key questions using statewide data
for California:
• What proportion of absences is unexcused?
• Can schools that label relatively few absences unexcused achieve high attendance rates?
• Are some groups of students more likely to have their absences labeled unexcused?
Specifically, how does the labeling of absences vary by socioeconomic disadvantage,
race and ethnicity, and English learner and disability status?
• Are some types of schools more likely to adopt and communicate punitive attendance
policies? Specifically, are policies more punitive in schools that predominantly serve
socioeconomically disadvantaged students?
• Are there “bright spot” schools with high overall attendance, low proportions of
absences labeled unexcused, and small racial and ethnic disparities in labeling
absences unexcused?
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools5
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
The report concludes by synthesizing the answers to these questions into recommendations
for how key stakeholders can detect and address disparities in the labeling of unexcused absences,
thereby advancing equitable opportunities to learn. This approach builds on long-standing eorts
to advance prevention-oriented approaches to improving school attendance.
California’s Evolving Approach to Addressing Unexcused Absences
In California, state law requires children between the ages of 6 and 18 to attend school
unless there is a specific exemption or a valid excuse.
4
Reasons for valid excused absences
include illness, quarantine, funeral services for immediate family, medical appointments, and time
spent with a family member on leave from active military service.
5
The law has been amended
over time to add new valid reasons for school absence. In 2013, school administrators were
given discretion, based on their assessment of a student’s individual circumstances, to excuse
absences for reasons not included by state law.
6
In 2021, mental or behavioral health needs and
cultural ceremonies or events were added as reasons for excused absences.
7
Even in these cases,
an absence typically requires proper documentation from a parent to be marked as excused.
Without this documentation, students may be marked unexcused.
The distinction between excused and unexcused significantly influences the response
to absences. Teachers are required to allow students to make up missed work for full credit
after an excused absence but not after an unexcused absence. Schools can take further punitive
actions for unexcused absences, such as denying students the opportunity to participate in
extracurricular activities.
By California law, once students are absent from school three times or are late to class
for more than 30 minutes three times during the school year without valid excuses, they are
considered truant.
8
When this occurs, districts must notify parents and inform them that they
could be prosecuted for their child’s truancy if unexcused absences continue.
9
If a student has
been reported as a truant three or more times in one school year and the school has sent a
letter or called the parent requesting a meeting regarding their child’s attendance, the student
is deemed a habitual truant.
10
Habitual truants and students who are chronically absent may be
referred to a school attendance review board (SARB; California Department of Education, n.d.-c)
4
See California Compulsory Education Law, Cal. Education Code § 48200.
5
See California Compulsory Education Law, Cal. Education Code § 48205.
6
See California Compulsory Education Law, Cal. Education Code § 48260.
7
The California Education Code was amended by Assembly Bill (AB) 516 to include cultural ceremonies and by Senate Bill (SB) 14
to include mental and behavioral health needs during the 2021–22 legislative session.
8
See California Compulsory Education Law, Cal. Education Code § 48260.
9
See California Compulsory Education Law, Cal. Education Code § 48260.5.
10
See California Compulsory Education Law, Cal. Education Code § 48262.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools6
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
or a truancy mediation program.
11
If unexcused absenteeism continues, courts can become
involved. Courts can require participation in a community service or truancy prevention program,
and they can administer fines ($50) to students.
12
In addition, judges can fine parents (up to
$500 for a third or subsequent conviction) as well as order placement in a parent education and
counseling program,
13
and parents may be prosecuted for a misdemeanor.
14
In California, courts
cannot, however, place a child on probation solely based on truancy.
15
Punitive Approaches Are Less Eective
A growing body of research suggests that punitive approaches typically are not the best
way to improve academic outcomes, including attendance, and are sometimes counterproductive
(Anderson, 2020; Yaluma et al., 2022). Studies (Attendance Works & Healthy Schools Campaign,
2015; Brundage et al., 2017; Chang et al., 2019; Sullivan & Attisha, 2019) show that a large number
of absences are caused by challenges experienced in the community that are beyond a student’s
or family’s control (e.g., lack of access to health care, unreliable transportation, unstable housing,
lack of safe paths to school, etc.) as well as challenges experienced in school (e.g., bullying,
struggling academically, etc.). In the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, students may be
absent because of isolation or quarantine requirements but lack documentation, or parents may
keep their children home as a precaution during a period of high viral transmission (e.g, December
2021 and January 2022). When absences are the result of such challenges, a punitive approach
is not likely to be eective and may even undermine strategies that emphasize partnering with
students and families to identify and address the underlying reasons that students miss school.
Research supports beginning with engagement and problem-solving rather than punitive
action. A study conducted in California, for example, found that rewriting traditional truancy
notifications increased their eectiveness at promoting attendance (Lasky-Fink et al., 2019). The
key was making sure the notices did not begin with the state-mandated legalistic language that
threatened punitive action. The more eective letters listed the specific days a student missed
then oered clear information about the potential consequences of chronic absence on learning
and the important role parents play in getting their children to school. The more eective letters
also encouraged parents and guardians to help their children get to school.
The Attendance Playbook produced by FutureEd at Georgetown University and
Attendance Works oers a broad understanding of how to invest in prevention (Jordan, 2020).
It showcases an array of evidence-based universal “Tier 1” strategies, such as eective messaging,
school-based health services, transportation supports, and breakfast in the classroom, as well as
“Tier 2” early interventions, including mentoring and early-warning systems.
11
See California Compulsory Education Law, Cal. Education Code § 48263 and § 48291.
12
See California Compulsory Education Law, Cal. Education Code § 48264.5(d).
13
See California Compulsory Education Law, Cal. Education Code § 48293(a).
14
See Cal. Penal Code § 270.1 and § 272.
15
See California Juvenile Court Law, Cal. Welfare and Institutions Code § 601.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools7
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Investing in prevention and early intervention is critical. When students become involved
with the legal system for truancy, they can easily become stigmatized and less likely to receive
needed support from schools. A study conducted in South Carolina by the Council of State
Governments Justice Center found, for example, that “an arrest, court involvement, and/or system
supervision for youth who are truant or commit other low-level oenses actually decreases their
likelihood of attending school and completing high school” (Weber, 2020). Investing in prevention
at schools keeps students who are not engaged in criminal activity out of the legal system.
California’s Progress Towards Less Punitive Approaches to Truancy
Over the years, multiple eorts have advanced a more supportive response to truancy.
For the past decade, the California SARB, which promotes statewide policy coordination
and professional development, has used its training, guidance, and Model SARB program to
encourage and recognize a prevention-oriented approach to truancy. A commitment to earlier
intervention is also reflected in the adoption of absenteeism as an accountability measure in the
state’s plan for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act.
California Education Code has also been changed to make approaches to truancy less
punitive. In 2011, the law was amended to clarify that schools should find alternatives to
suspension or expulsion when students are tardy or truant.
16
Assembly Bill 901, passed into law in
2020, sought to decriminalize the response to poor attendance by prohibiting holding students
in secure facilities or removing them from the custody of their parents or guardians for habitual
truancy.
17
Unfortunately, the strides taken by California to date, although necessary, may still not
be sucient to ensure equitable labeling of and response to unexcused absenteeism.
Examining Disparities in the Designation of Unexcused Absences
To examine the proportion of absences labeled unexcused and disparities in the application
of the unexcused-absence label for student absences, we used data on unexcused absences
that are unique to California. Although many states release data on chronic absences, in November
2020 California became the first state to publish data on excused and unexcused absences and
suspensions. Specifically, we used data on absenteeism from the DataQuest database and publicly
available data files for school years 2017–18, 2018–19, and 2021–22.
Because of challenges with data quality and consistency in coding attendance data
during hybrid and distance learning, CDE did not release any data for the 2019–20 school year,
and we excluded data from 2020–21 because many districts maintained distance learning
through spring 2021.
16
See Cal. Education Code § 48900(w)(1).
17
See Cal. AB 901 (2019–20 legislative session), Chapter 323, Section 2 (Cal. Stat. 2020).
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools8
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
To answer the question of how schools inform students and families about attendance
policies, we conducted a scan of district and school attendance policies for a random sample
of 40 middle and high schools for the 2021–22 school year. See Appendix A for more details
about methods.
What Proportion of Absences Is Unexcused?
The purpose of this first question is to establish a baseline estimate to study disparities
and examine trends over time. In the 2 school years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (2017–18
and 2018–19), 38 percent of all student absences were labeled unexcused (Figure 1). This trend
continued once students returned to school full time. During 2021–22, schools again labeled
38 percent of all student absences unexcused.
Figure 1. Percentage of student absences labeled unexcused in Grades K–12 in regular
(nonalternative) schools
38
38 38
100
80
60
40
20
0
Percentage of absences labeled unexcused
Academic year
2017–18 2018–19 2 021–22
High school students were most likely to have their absences marked unexcused.
In 2021–22, approximately 43 percent of absences for students in Grades 9–12 were unexcused,
compared to less than 35 percent of absences for students in earlier grades (Figure 2). This pattern
was similar to the 2017–18 and 2018–19 school years.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools9
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Figure 2. Percentage of absences labeled unexcused by grade and year in regular (nonalternative)
K–12 schools
Grade
100
80
60
40
20
0
Percentage of aabsences unexcused
6 74 52 3K 1 8 9 10 11 12
2021–22
2018–19
2017–18
Can Schools That Label Relatively Few Absences Unexcused Achieve High Attendance Rates?
Given that labeling absences as unexcused was adopted to improve attendance, it is
important to examine whether greater proportions of unexcused absences are associated with
higher attendance. To look at this relationship, we compared how attendance rates diered
between schools that labeled a higher-than-average percentage of student absences unexcused
(greater than 33.8 percent) and those that labeled a lower-than-average percentage of absences
unexcused (less than or equal to 33.8 percent).
18
For this analysis, we used downloadable data
files from DataQuest providing school-level rates of unexcused absences and attendance rates
for the 2021–22 school year.
Figure 3 shows that during 2021–22 there was wide variability in the average number of
days that students missed in both groups of schools, but schools that used the unexcused-
absence label more sparingly had, on average, lower absenteeism rates. Students in those schools
missed 13.7 school days on average. In contrast, schools that frequently labeled absences as
unexcused, which typically leads to more punitive responses, tended to have higher absenteeism.
Students in those schools missed 16.8 days on average. This pattern was similar in prior years.
18
This mean represents the average school-level mean for the percentage of absences labeled unexcused. For this reason it diers
from the mean percentage of absences that were unexcused statewide (see Figure 1).
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools10
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Figure 3. Mean number of days students were absent in regular (nonalternative) K–12 schools that
labeled a higher-than-average percentage of absences unexcused (n = 4,154) versus schools that
labeled a lower-than-average percentage of absences unexcused (n = 4,702), 2021–22
0 10 20 30 5040
High unexcused schools
Low unexcused schools
Mean number of days absent
Number of schools
400
450
350
250
200
300
100
150
0
50
Not only was the mean number of absences lower in schools that used the unexcused-
absence label less frequently (13.7 vs. 16.8 days), but rates of chronic absence were also lower
(27.7 percent vs. 37.5 percent). This finding helps to allay concerns that adopting practices to
reduce the use of the unexcused-absence label would cause absenteeism to spike among students.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools11
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Are Some Groups of Students More Likely to Have Their Absences Labeled Unexcused?
We examined disparities in the labeling of unexcused absences across four categories:
socioeconomic disadvantage, race and ethnicity, disability status, and English learner status. Table
1 presents the definitions used by the CDE for each of these groups. Students in each of these
groups experience higher levels of absenteeism compared to their peers.
Table 1. Definitions used to examine disparities in labeling absences as unexcused
Category Definition
Socioeconomic
disadvantage
Students meet at least one of the following criteria (California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data
System, n.d.):
• Neither of the student’s parents has received a high school diploma.
• The student is eligible for or participating in the free or reduced-price meal program.
• The student is eligible for or participating in the Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Program.
• The student is considered homeless.
• The student is eligible for the foster program or as tribal foster youth.
• The student is directly certified as socioeconomically disadvantaged.
• The student is enrolled in a juvenile court school.
Race and ethnicity Following federal requirements, two questions are used to collect self-reported data on ethnicity and
race (California Department of Education, 2022a). The first question asks respondents about whether
they identify as Hispanic or Latino. The second question asks respondents to select one or more races
from the following categories: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White. In addition, California law requires the detailed collection
of Asian and Pacific Islander subpopulations.
19
Respondents may report multiple races. Students of all
races are categorized as Hispanic or Latino if they self-report as Hispanic on the first question.
English learner A student for whom there is a report of a language other than English on the Home Language
Survey (HLS) and who, upon initial assessment using the English Language Proficiency Assessments
for California (ELPCA) and from additional information when appropriate, is determined to lack the
clearly defined English language skills of listening, speaking, reading, and/or writing necessary to
succeed in the school’s regular instructional programs (California Department of Education Data
Reporting Oce, n.d.).
Disability A student who has an Individualized Education Plan for any of the following disabilities: intellectual,
hard of hearing, deafness/hearing impairment, speech or language impairment, emotional disturbance,
orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, established medical disability, specific learning
disability, deaf-blindness, multiple disabilities, autism, or traumatic brain injury (California Department
of Education, n.d.-a).
19
See Calif. Government Code § 8310.5.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools12
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Socioeconomic disparities. Students from socioeconomically disadvantaged families
were more likely than other students to have their absences labeled unexcused (Figure 4). In
2017–18 and 2018–19, approximately 43 percent of socioeconomically disadvantaged students
had their absences labeled unexcused, compared to 27 percent who did not experience
disadvantage. This disparity narrowed slightly in 2021–22.
Figure 4. Percentage of student absences labeled unexcused in regular (nonalternative) K–12
schools by year and student socioeconomic disadvantage
43
43
42
27
28
30
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percentage of absences labeled unexcused
2017–18 2018–19 2021–22
Socioeconomically disadvantaged
Not socioeconomically disadvantaged
Academic year
Racial and ethnic disparities. We compared the proportion of excused versus unexcused
absences for eight racial/ethnic groups (Figure 5). Black students were substantially more likely
than all other racial and ethnic groups to have their absences labeled unexcused. In all 3 years,
more than half of Black students’ absences were unexcused. The absences for Native American,
Pacific Islander, and Latinx students were also disproportionately labeled unexcused.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools13
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Figure 5. Percentage of student absences labeled unexcused in regular (nonalternative) K–12
schools by year and by student race and ethnicity
53
43
43
33
30
29
50
31
53
42
42
33
31
28
44
30
51
42
40
33
26
32
42
28
2017–18
2018–19
0 10 20 30 6040 50
2021–22
Academic year
Black
Pacific Islander
Native American
Latinx
Two or more races
Filipino
Asian American
White
Percentage of absences labeled unexcused
Overall mean rate of 38 percent
In 2017–18 and 2018–19, White students were least likely to have their absences labeled
unexcused (28–29 percent). This pattern shifted in 2021–22, when schools labeled more White
students’ absences unexcused (32 percent) and fewer Filipino and Asian American students’
absences unexcused (26 percent and 28 percent, respectively) relative to prior years.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools14
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Although students of color were more likely to live in socioeconomically disadvantaged
families, socioeconomic disadvantage did not fully account for the racial and ethnic disparities
in labeling absences unexcused. If racial and ethnic disparities were due to socioeconomic
conditions, we would expect to see similar unexcused absenteeism rates across racial and ethnic
groups within each level of socioeconomic disadvantage. For example, Black and White students
who were socioeconomically disadvantaged would have similar proportions of unexcused
absences. However, Figure 6 shows that large disparities in unexcused absenteeism persisted
within each socioeconomic stratum in the 2021–22 school year for Black, Pacific Islander, Native
American, and Latinx students compared to White students. These findings raise the question of
whether racial and ethnic bias is a factor in labeling absences unexcused since racial and ethnic
disparities in labeling absences cannot solely be explained by socioeconomic disadvantage.
Figure 6. Racial and ethnic disparities in the percentage of absences labeled unexcused between
students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and those who are not, 2021–22
46
33
37
28
44
36
37
28
42
33
37
28
53
40
37
28
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percentage of absences
labeled unexcused
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Not socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Black
White
Latinx
White
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Not socioeconomically
disadvantaged
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percentage of absences
labeled unexcused
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Not socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Native American
White
Pacific Islander
White
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Not socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools15
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Disparities by English learner and disability status. Disparities in labeling absences
unexcused based on English learner and disability status were much smaller than disparities by
socioeconomic disadvantage or race and ethnicity (Figures 7 and 8).
Figure 7. Percentage of unexcused student absences in regular (nonalternative) K–12 schools by
English learner status
42
37
42
40
37
38
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percentage of absences labeled unexcused
2017–18 2018–19 2021–22
English learner
Not English learner
Academic year
Figure 8. Percentage of unexcused student absences in regular (nonalternative) K–12 schools by
year and disability status
40
41
41
38
38
38
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percentage of absences labeled unexcused
2017–18 2018–19 2021–22
Identified disability
No identified disability
Academic year
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools16
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
These smaller disparities relative to the racial and ethnic disparities are notable and raise
these questions:
• Are schools better equipped (e.g., via sta training or stang patterns) to understand
these students’ situations and therefore less likely to label their absences unexcused?
• Are there specific strategies and policies that promote communication with families
of English learners and students with disabilities that lead to better understanding of
why these students are absent?
Do Schools Serving More Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students Adopt and
Communicate More Punitive Attendance Policies?
Reducing punitive responses to absenteeism will require specific attention to the students
disproportionately aected: socioeconomically disadvantaged students and students of color.
These students tend to be concentrated in high-poverty, racially segregated schools, which
designate much higher percentages of absences as unexcused compared to other schools.
In schools in which more than 90 percent of students were socioeconomically disadvantaged in
2021–22 (n = 1,720), nearly half of all student absences (46.3 percent) were labeled unexcused.
In contrast, in schools in which fewer than 50 percent of students were socioeconomically
disadvantaged (n = 2,748), 28.9 percent of absences were labeled unexcused. These dierential
labeling practices may be exposing students and families from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds to more punitive responses.
To understand the policies and practices that might explain these dierent proportions of
unexcused absences, we reviewed school handbooks as well as school and district websites
of 40 randomly selected middle and high schools in California. We randomly selected 20 schools
from the pool of schools where more than 90 percent of students were socioeconomically
disadvantaged and another 20 where less than half of students were socioeconomically
disadvantaged. Because of patterns of residential segregation, less than 5 percent of students in
the socioeconomically disadvantaged schools were White. In contrast, more than 40 percent
of students in the more auent schools identified as White.
We found that the websites and student handbooks of the high-poverty, racially
segregated schools communicated more punitive policies than the websites and handbooks
of the more auent schools. Fourteen out of 20 (70 percent) of the most socioeconomically
disadvantaged schools communicated policies that multiple unexcused absences could result
in mandated court appearances, compared to nine out of 20 (45 percent) of the more auent
schools. Similarly, the socioeconomically disadvantaged schools were more likely to publish
policies stating that truancy would result in suspension of driver’s licenses, loss of school privileges
like extracurricular participation, and Saturday school or in-school detention.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools17
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Strikingly, the attendance policies in several school handbooks were no longer consistent
with California state law. Several schools had policies indicating that students would be suspended
for truancy even though the Education Code specifies that alternatives to suspension should
be found. Out of the 40 schools, only one had a written policy stating that sta had the discretion
to label absences excused or unexcused. This policy was enacted by the California legislature
in 2013.
We also noted that several schools simply did not communicate policies to parents in
an easily accessible format. In seven of the 40 schools sampled, policies regarding unexcused
absences were available only on dense websites consisting of pages and pages of all the
California Education Codes that applied to the district. They were not available on school
websites and or in student handbooks.
Schools from the two socioeconomic groups diered in their communication strategies
with families. Socioeconomically disadvantaged schools tended to focus on communicating
attendance rules and consequences for not following the rules. A typical example of this
communication strategy is shown in Figure 9. This school’s attendance web page uses a
threatening tone and focuses on legal requirements and mandates.
Figure 9. Web page providing attendance information for families from a school with more than
90 percent of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged families
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools18
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
In stark contrast, schools with few socioeconomically disadvantaged students tended to
adopt communication styles treating parents as partners in promoting attendance and even as
valued clients. An example of this communication strategy is shown in Figure 10. This school’s
attendance web page adopts the position of a concierge (quite literally, showing the photo of a
hotel concierge desk) inviting families, the school’s customers, to contact the school for service.
The attendance clerks are presented as smiling service agents waiting to be called upon.
Figure 10. Web page providing attendance information for families from a school with less than
50 percent of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged families
Clearly, more research is needed to understand why this situation exists. It likely reflects
a complex mix of challenges and circumstances. Understanding the factors that contribute to
communicating strictly punitive approaches will be essential to helping change such approaches.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools19
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Are There “Bright Spot” Schools That Have Fewer Disparities and Higher Attendance?
Bright spots are schools that data suggest are engaged in more equitable practices.
Knowing these schools exist demonstrates that it is possible to equitably and nonpunitively
achieve high attendance.
Using quantitative methods, we identified schools that are bright spots for each racial
and ethnic group for the 2021–22 school year. We defined bright spots as schools that meet
three criteria: (a) above-average levels of attendance (defined as fewer than 11.7 days absent);
(b) below-average levels of unexcused absences (below 33.8 percent); and (c) a disparity between
the racial or ethnic comparison group and White students that is smaller than two tenths of a
standard deviation, which is the customary rule of thumb for a negligible eect size. To identify
bright spots for White students, we chose Black students as the comparison group, resulting in
the same schools being identified as bright spots for both Black and White students. We include
bright spots for all ethnic groups, including White students, because we believe all students
benefit from being in schools with more equitable attendance practices and better attendance.
To be eligible to be considered a bright spot for a racial or ethnic group, schools had to
have an enrollment of at least 100 students, including at least ten White students and at least ten
students of the racial or ethnic group under consideration. In addition, each group had to accrue
at least ten absences total. These eligibility criteria were necessary to assure stable estimates.
The small number of schools eligible to be bright spots for Native American and Pacific Islander
students reflects the fact that most California schools serve few students from these groups.
The same school could be a bright spot for one ethnic or racial group but not another
because either the school did not meet eligibility criteria for both groups or disparities in
the labeling of unexcused absences were greater for one group than the other relative to
White students.
Given the criteria we used to identify bright spots, only a small proportion of schools
could be bright spots. Figure 11 shows that even given our relatively strict criteria, many schools
qualified as bright spots in 2021–22.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools20
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Figure 11. The percentage of schools in 2021–22 considered bright spots for each racial and
ethnic group
10
8
5
14
17
18
16
10
20
16
12
8
4
0
Percentage of schools in each racial/ethnic group
White
(n=4,016)
Black
(n=4,016)
Pacific
Islander
(n=491)
Native
American
(n=401)
Latinx
(n=7,095)
Two or
more races
(n=5,084)
Filipino
(n=2,685)
Asian
American
(n=4,522)
Note. The total number of schools eligible to be a bright spot for each racial/ethnic category is indicated beneath the category’s
name. The number on each bar represents the percentage of eligible schools (those serving at least 10 students of that racial or
ethnic group and 10 White students) that qualify as bright spots.
Not surprisingly, more schools were bright spots for Filipino and Asian American students
as well as for students identifying as two or more races. These groups had the smallest
disparities in labeling absences as unexcused compared to White students (see Figure 5).
A much smaller proportion of schools qualified as bright spots for Black, Pacific Islander,
and Native American students.
Identifying bright spot schools quantitatively is just a starting point, and further research
will be needed to validate the data and unpack the practices that are making a dierence.
Summary of Findings
During the 3 school years of this study (2017–18, 2018–19, and 2021–22), the statewide
percentage of absences labeled unexcused has held constant at around 38 percent, yet
the percentage of unexcused absences varies significantly by school, with some using the
unexcused-absence label much more frequently than others. Schools with higher percentages of
unexcused absences typically had lower attendance rates while schools with lower percentages
of unexcused absences typically had higher levels of attendance.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools21
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged are more likely to have their absences
labeled unexcused. This is also true for Black, Native American, Latinx, and Pacific Islander
students relative to White, Asian American, and Filipino students, with Black students experiencing
the largest disparity. These racial and ethnic disparities could not be fully explained by poverty
since they remained across dierences in socioeconomic status. Interestingly, although English
learners and students with disabilities were more likely to be chronically absent, disparities in
unexcused absences for these groups were relatively small compared to disparities across racial
and ethnic groups.
Preliminary data suggest that schools that serve more socioeconomically disadvantaged
students communicate more punitive approaches. More research is needed to understand
why. The good news is there are some schools that are bright spots, with high attendance rates,
less frequent use of the unexcused-absence label, and fewer disparities in labeling absences
as unexcused.
Recommendations for Action
In California, districts and schools can use data on excused and unexcused absences
to enrich their continuous improvement strategies aimed at bettering student outcomes and
reducing education inequities. We make the following recommendations:
• Use data to learn about disparities and identify bright spots.
• Invest in better practices and data systems for monitoring and understanding reasons
for both excused and unexcused absences.
• Review and update local and state policies related to unexcused absences.
• Assess and improve how attendance practices and policies are communicated to
students and families.
• Invest in professional development to improve attendance and truancy practices.
Use Data to Learn About Disparities
Schools, districts, and community stakeholders can and should use data to find out if
absences for socioeconomically disadvantaged students or students from specific racial and
ethnic groups are more likely to be labeled unexcused. If you are in a district, you can look at your
own data on California’s portal. The data can be used to examine disparities by socioeconomic
disadvantage, racial and ethnic group, and English learner and disability status. You can examine
whether disparities exist only in a particular school or if they are districtwide, which would
suggest they are related to a district policy rather than an individual school’s practice.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools22
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
You can also review data over multiple years to see whether the patterns are persistent,
and these patterns can help to illuminate new policy and practice directions. Keep in mind
that the DataQuest data provide more detail and a broader range of grade levels than the
chronic-absence data on the California School Dashboard.
These data can also be leveraged to identify schools that are bright spots and student
groups (e.g., special education and English learners) that do not experience disproportionality in
the labeling of absences as unexcused. After identifying these schools or student groups,
ask about the schools’ practices aecting attendance, engagement, and learning, and compare
their practices with those of schools experiencing problematic truancy patterns. For example,
are administrators in particular schools achieving more equitable outcomes because they are
more eective at using the 2013 California policy giving them greater discretion to label
absences as excused? Once eective practices have been identified, assess whether and how
they could be spread to other schools or districts. Researchers as well as districts or County
Oces of Education (COEs) could combine quantitative and qualitative research strategies to
assess the eectiveness of these practices.
In sum, examining the practices of schools with more equitable unexcused absences
could yield important insights into how to counter current disparities. These insights can be
applied to promote more equitable outcomes.
Invest in Better Practices and Data Systems
The key to improving attendance is understanding and addressing the underlying
challenges that lead students to miss too much school in the first place. Schools and districts can
better monitor reasons for absences over time so that they can detect when large numbers of
students face similar challenges and tailor attendance strategies to specific reasons for absence.
In the long term, local education agencies with the support of the CDE can develop
a more consistent approach to tracking reasons for absences beyond the labels of excused,
unexcused, unverified, and suspension that is implemented systemwide. The CDE could partner
with COEs and school districts to develop guidance on a common approach to identifying
underlying causes (e.g., lack of transportation, bullying, academic challenges, mental and physical
health, mobility, etc.) as well as protocols and training for coding absences. This would enable
monitoring for common challenges facing a region or even the entire state. It is possible that
some districts have developed approaches to capturing information about reasons for absence
that could inform a statewide approach.
Once available, statewide and regional data on specific reasons for absence can inform
planning and development of interventions across divisions within school districts as well as
the support oered by community partners. California policymakers can also use this information
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools23
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
to update and expand the reasons for legitimately excusing absences as needed to reflect the
realities that students face. Recent legislation adding mental health absences is such an example,
and other reasons are likely to emerge over time.
In the short term, districts and schools can combine quantitative data on patterns of
absenteeism and truancy with qualitative strategies to deepen understanding of the conditions
aecting attendance for specific schools, grades, or student groups. School communities can
use focus groups, surveys, sta observations, case management notes, and other sources
to identify common barriers to attendance as well as what helps students and families attend
school. Such data can inform how school sta and their partners develop and strengthen their
tiered attendance approaches and their school improvement plans.
Update Policies Related to Unexcused Absences
Invest time in reviewing district policies related to designating and responding to unexcused
absences. Given all the recent changes, written and publicly shared policies may not reflect
updates in attendance policy or what is now known about eective practices. A review of current
policies suggests that many do not reflect the need to oer alternatives to suspension or state
law allowing for sta discretion around labeling absences as unexcused. Policies also may not
capture the addition of new valid excuses for missing school.
One area that deserves particularly careful examination is policies and practices related
to in-class assignments, homework, and exams missed due to absence. State law currently does
not require teachers to support students if absences are unexcused, and this matter is left to
local discretion. If the goal is to promote learning and engagement, then schools and districts
should consider how best to allow students with unexcused absences to submit and get feedback
on makeup work (e.g., submit late homework, take tests missed while absent, etc.) so that they
are given the opportunity to stay on track with learning or course credits. We recognize that doing
this well will require striking a balance between equity and personal responsibility.
Improve Communication About Attendance Policies and Practices
How information about unexcused absences and their consequences is communicated
to students and families can have a tremendous impact on whether students and families feel
they can openly discuss the barriers they face to getting to school. Both the tone and clarity of
the language used in handbooks, websites, and letters are extremely important.
Review the attendance information on your school and district websites, in truancy letters
sent to parents and guardians, and in instruction manuals and training for oce sta who monitor
attendance. Is the tone of these communications one of adherence and threat of punitive action
for nonadherence? Or does the tone convey that school sta are willing to work with parents,
guardians, and students to maximize attendance and properly excuse absences?
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools24
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
As part of such an assessment, it is important to take stock of whether students and
families are equipped with information about how to ensure that absences are labeled
appropriately to prevent punitive action. If such guidance does not exist, work with student
groups, parent organizations, and community groups to develop eective communications that
can be incorporated into websites, district handbooks, and truancy letters sent to families.
Invest in Professional Development to Improve Practices
Draw on knowledge gained from reviewing data, policies, and communications to
put in place professional development that helps district and school sta implement equitable
attendance practices. Such professional development aligns with California’s laws that hold
districts and schools accountable for reducing absenteeism and require the appointment and
training of supervisors of attendance charged with attendance improvement. In 2018, California
amended its laws to require district or COE supervisors of attendance to take a data-informed
approach to reducing truancy and chronic absence.
20
These policies create the opportunities to
build capacity, especially through COEs, to take a comprehensive, prevention-oriented, and
tiered approach (Attendance Works, 2022b) to truancy prevention.
Such professional development can also equip supervisors of attendance as well as school
administrators and sta to use their discretion appropriately, including monitoring so that sta
can notice if certain populations of students continue to have disproportionately high levels of
unexcused absences and address the issue. Key strategies include helping sta find out about the
perspectives of students and families and gathering quantitative and qualitative data about what
motivates and helps attendance as well what barriers keep students from showing up to school.
Conclusion
Schools, by law, have discretion over whether absences are labeled unexcused. Schools
also have substantial discretion in how they respond to unexcused absences. We hope the
recommendations in this report will help school leaders identify socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic
disparities in the labeling of absences as unexcused; identify the causes of these disparities;
and begin to put into place more equitable and eective practices to promote good attendance.
20
See California Compulsory Education Law, Calif. Education Code § 48240.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools25
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
References
Allison, M. A., et al. (2019, February 1). The link between school attendance and good health. Pediatrics, 143(2), Article e20183648.
doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3648
Anderson, K. (2020). Academic, attendance, and behavioral outcomes of a suspension reduction policy: Lessons for school leaders
and policy makers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(3), 435–471. doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19861138
Attendance Works. (2022a, April). Showing up matters for R.E.A.L.: A toolkit for communicating with students and families.
attendanceworks.org/resources/toolkits/showing-up-matters-for-real
Attendance Works. (2022b, September). Chronic absence: 3 tiers of intervention. attendanceworks.org/chronic-absence/
addressing-chronic-absence/3-tiers-of-intervention
Attendance Works & Healthy Schools Campaign. (2015, September). Mapping the early attendance gap: Charting a course for
student success. Attendance Works. attendanceworks.org/mapping-the-early-attendance-gap
Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in
urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and eective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 223–235.
doi.org/10.1080/00461520701621079
Blad, E. (2022, April 8). Chronic absenteeism spiked during COVID: Here’s what schools can do about it. Education Week.
edweek.org/leadership/chronic-absenteeism-spiked-during-covid-heres-what-schools-can-do-about-it/2022/04
Brundage, A. H., Castillo, J., & Batsche, G. M. (2017, August). Reasons for chronic absenteeism among secondary students:
Survey summary report. Florida Department of Education and University of South Florida. hsredesign.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/07/Aggregate-RCA-Report-Final-1.pdf
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
California Department of Education. (n.d.-a). CALPADS primary disability category codes. cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/disablecodes.asp
California Department of Education. (n.d.-b). Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). cde.ca.gov/re/lc
California Department of Education. (n.d.-c). School attendance review boards. cde.ca.gov/ls/ai/sb
California Department of Education. (2022a, February 2). Description of racial and ethnic categories. cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/sn/
racialethniccat.asp
California Department of Education. (2022b, October 24). Interpretation guide to the 2021–22 statewide assessment results.
cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/documents/assessmentresultsguide22.docx
California Department of Education. (2022c, December 15). 2022 dashboard summary: What to consider when reviewing specific
indicators. cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/documents/dashboardsummary22.pdf
California Department of Education Data Reporting Oce. (n.d.). Glossary of terms for English learner (EL) reports. dq.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/longtermel/Glossary.aspx
California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System. (n.d.). Socio-economically disadvantaged subgroup.
documentation.calpads.org/Glossary/AccountabilitySubgroupData/Socio-EconomicallyDisadvantagedSubgroup
Chang, H. N., Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2022, September 27). Pandemic shows alarming increase in chronic absence and reveals
need for better data. Attendance Works Blog. attendanceworks.org/pandemic-causes-alarming-increase-in-chronic-absence-
and-reveals-need-for-better-data
Chang, H. N., Osher, D., Schanfield, M., Sundius, J., & Bauer, L. (2019, September). Using chronic absence data to improve conditions
for learning [Report]. Attendance Works. attendanceworks.org/using-chronic-absence-data-to-improve-conditions-for-learning
Chang, H. N., & Romero, M. (2008, September). Present, engaged and accounted for: The critical importance of addressing chronic
absence in the early grades [Report]. National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia
University. nccp.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/text_837.pdf
Ehrlich, S. B., Gwynne, J. A., Pareja, A. S., & Allensworth, E. M. (2014, May). Preschool attendance in Chicago public schools:
Relationships with learning outcomes and reasons for absences (ED553158). ERIC. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED553158.pdf
Fortin, J. (2022, April 20). More pandemic fallout: The chronically absent student. The New York Times. nytimes.com/2022/04/20/
us/school-absence-attendance-rate-covid.html
Gottfried, M. A. (2014, November 6). Chronic absenteeism and its eects on students’ academic and socioemotional outcomes.
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19:2, 53–75. doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.962696
Jordan, P. (2020, June). Attendance playbook: Smart strategies for reducing chronic absenteeism in the era of COVID. FutureEd
and Attendance Works. future-ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/REPORT_Attendance-Playbook-Covid-Edition.pdf
Lasky-Fink, J., Robinson, C., Chang, H., & Rogers, T. (2019). Using behavioral insights to improve school administrative
communications: The case of truancy notifications (Faculty Research Working Paper Series, RWP19-026). Harvard Kennedy
School. attendanceworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/RWP19-026_Rogers.pdf
McNeely, C. A., Alemu, B., Lee, W. F., & West, I. (2021). Exploring an unexamined source of racial disparities in juvenile court
involvement: Unexcused absenteeism policies in U.S. schools. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–17. doi.org/10.1177/23328584211003132
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools26
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Utah Education Policy Center. (2012, July). Research brief: Chronic absenteeism. University of Utah. uepc.utah.edu/our-work/
research-brief-chronic-absenteeism-2012
Weber, J. (2020, September). Rethinking the role of the juvenile justice system: Improving youth’s school attendance and
educational outcomes. Council of State Governments Justice Center. csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/
CSG_RethinkingtheRoleoftheJuvenileJusticeSystem_15SEPT20.pdf
Yaluma, C., Little, A. P., & Leonard, M. B. (2022). Estimating the impact of expulsions, suspensions, and arrests on average school
proficiency rates in Ohio using fixed eects. Educational Policy, 36 (7), 1731–1758. doi.org/10.1177/0895904821999838
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools27
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Appendix A: Methods
Quantitative Data and Analysis
To conduct the quantitative analyses presented in this report, we used DataQuest, an
online system maintained by the California Department of Education (dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest).
We used CDE data on reasons for absence from three school years: 2017–18, 2018–19,
and 2021–22. We excluded the two school years when most schools used hybrid or virtual
education during at least part of the year (2019–20 and 2020–21).
The data presented in Figures 1, 2, and 4–8 were obtained from the online DataQuest
feature that allows users to create reports. We graphed findings from state-level reports for the
relevant subgroups for all regular (nonalternative) schools. Statistical tests were not necessary
for making between-group comparisons because the data are provided for the full population,
not a sample of the population.
The data presented in Figures 3 and 11 come from the data files on reasons for absence
and chronic absence for the 2021–22 school year available through DataQuest.
21
These data files
contain school-level data (vs. student-level data). To select regular (nonalternative) charter and
public schools for the analysis, we merged the Reason Absent data file with the downloadable
file containing school characteristics
22
and excluded all schools that were not regular schools
(i.e., schools with school ownership codes other than 60–67). We also examined the webpages
of outlier schools that had extremely high or low levels of either absenteeism or unexcused
absenteeism and excluded the outlier schools that were designed to support home schooling
or were primarily virtual. Finally, we limited the analysis to schools with at least 100 students to
assure stable estimates of absenteeism rates.
In the analysis to determine bright spots (Figure 11), we excluded schools that did not have
at least ten students in each demographic group and that had fewer than ten total absences
reported for each group. For example, the group of schools eligible to be a bright spot for Black
students included all regular schools with more than 100 students that served at least ten Black
students who together had at least ten absences over the course of the school year and at least
ten White students who also together accrued at least ten absences. This assured that extreme
scores did not skew the overall findings. We also verified that the findings presented, which were
based on school means for ease of interpretation, were consistent with findings based on school
medians. All analyses were conducted using Stata version 16.0.
23
21
Absenteeism by reason data can be downloaded from cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/filesabr.asp.
22
Public schools and districts data files can be downloaded from cde.ca.gov/ds/si/ds/pubschls.asp.
23
StataCorp. (2019). Stata Statistical Software: Release 16.
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools28
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
The findings presented in Figures 9 and 10 are based on a content analysis of school
and district documents for 40 randomly selected middle and high schools. The downloadable
DataQuest files were used to identify strata of schools based on the percentage of students who
were socioeconomically disadvantaged. The most impoverished stratum contained schools in
which greater than 90 percent of the students were socioeconomically disadvantaged and fewer
than 5 percent were White (n = 1,720). The most advantaged stratum contained schools in which
fewer than 50 percent of students were socioeconomically disadvantaged (n = 2,748). From each
of these two strata, we randomly sampled 20 middle and high schools.
For each of the 40 schools, we uploaded to NVivo version 12.0
24
all school and district
documents related to attendance policies. These included webpages and handbooks designed
specifically for families as well as densely written district policies that in some cases described
attendance policies only by referring to California state statutes. Three coders separately
searched for and downloaded all attendance-related documents for five schools and coded all
stated consequences for unexcused absences, making the codes as specific as possible. These
codes were condensed during several interpretive meetings to form a smaller set of mutually
exclusive consequences for unexcused absenteeism. We found low reliability across coders in
the coding of policies due to the dense and complex nature of the policy documents. Therefore,
two coders separately coded all policies for all 40 schools and compared results to assure that
no policies were missed. The third coder reviewed the documents and the coding of five of these
double-coded schools and found that the double coding produced trustworthy findings.
24
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020). NVivo (March 2020 release). qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home
Disparities in Unexcused Absences Across California Schools29
Policy Analysis for California Education edpolicyinca.org
Author Biographies
Clea McNeely is a research professor in the College of Nursing at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
She studies how schools can equitably promote the health and wellbeing of adolescents. Her research on
absenteeism has been funded by the National Institute of Justice and the Spencer Foundation.
Hedy N. Chang is executive director of the nonprofit initiative Attendance Works (attendanceworks.org),
which promotes equal opportunities to learn and advances student success by reducing chronic absence.
Attendance Works was instrumental to the adoption of chronic absence as a national metric and serves
as an invaluable resource for attendance policy and practice.
Kevin A. Gee is an associate professor in the School of Education at the University of California, Davis.
He examines the impact of a broad array of adverse experiences on children’s school outcomes, including
children who are vulnerable to absenteeism, bullying, food insecurity, abuse, and neglect.
Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)
Improving education policy and practice and advancing equity
through evidence
PACE is an independent, non-partisan research center led by faculty directors at
Stanford University, the University of Southern California, the University of California
Davis, the University of California Los Angeles, and the University of California
Berkeley. Founded in 1983, PACE bridges the gap between research, policy, and
practice, working with scholars from California’s leading universities and with
state and local decision makers to achieve improvement in performance and
more equitable outcomes at all levels of California’s education system, from early
childhood to postsecondary education and training. We do this through:
1
bringing evidence to bear on the most critical issues facing our state;
2
making research evidence accessible; and
3
leveraging partnership and collaboration to drive system improvement.
Stanford Graduate School of Education
520 Galvez Mall, Suite 444
Stanford, CA 94305
Inquiry: [email protected]
Media: [email protected]
Oce: 650.576.8484
edpolicyinca.org
Follow us on social media: