The Persistent Problem and State Goals
The recently released Ohio school and district report cards for the 2024–2025 school year highlighted the concerning 25.1% chronic absenteeism rate. This means that a quarter of Ohio’s students are missing foundational and advanced skills vital for their educational success. The state’s aspirational target of 12.8% is proving difficult to achieve, especially considering that even pre-pandemic rates were often around 15% to 16%.
Jessica Horowitz-Moore, Chief of Student and Academic Supports at the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (DEW), acknowledged the magnitude of the task, stating that reaching the target is “a big goal and it’s going to take a lot of work.” She emphasized the direct link between attendance and academic outcomes: students who are never chronically absent are statistically three times more likely to be proficient in English language arts and 3.9 times more likely to be proficient in math. “Each day matters,” Horowitz-Moore underscored, as missed class time is often not easily or effectively made up.
Historical Context of Chronic Absenteeism
Ohio has grappled with elevated chronic absenteeism for nearly a decade, with a stark increase corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic. State data from the DEW illustrates this trend:
| School Year | Chronic Absenteeism Rate |
| 2017–2018 | 15.9% |
| 2018–2019 | 16.7% |
| 2019–2020 | 11.2% |
| 2020–2021 | 24.0% |
| 2021–2022 | 30.2% (Post-Pandemic Peak) |
| 2022–2023 | 26.8% |
| 2023–2024 | 25.6% |
| 2024–2025 | 25.1% |
While the 2024–2025 rate shows a slight decrease from the peak, it remains alarmingly high, reflecting a post-pandemic recalibration of attendance habits that the state is actively trying to reverse. DEW officials have stressed the importance of preventing this high rate from becoming normalized.
Disparities by Grade Level and Demographics
Chronic absenteeism is not uniformly distributed across the student population; rates are notably higher in specific grade levels and among certain student demographics.
Affected Grade Levels
Both the youngest and oldest students exhibit the highest rates of chronic absence:
* High School Students lead the issue, with rates climbing throughout the grades:
* Seniors: 35.9%
* Juniors: 35.0%
* Sophomores: 31.8%
* Freshmen: 31.1%
* Kindergarten Students also register a high rate, with 24.9% chronically absent in 2024–2025. This rate, while down from the 2021–2022 high of 31.6%, is concerning because attendance decisions for this age group are made by parents.
Horowitz-Moore suggested that a common misconception among parents is that missing a few days of kindergarten is inconsequential, ignoring the foundational learning that occurs in these early grades.
Student Demographics
Disparities are particularly evident when looking at socio-economic status, disability, and district type:
* Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Students face significantly higher rates:
* Students experiencing homelessness: 58.9%
* Students in foster care: 33.6%
* Students from low-income families: 33.3%
* Special Education Students are also disproportionately affected, with a 34% chronic absence rate overall. This is notably higher for students with emotional disturbance (53.9%) compared to those with speech and language impairments (19.1%).
* Major Urban Districts are experiencing nearly double the state average, with 48.6% of students chronically absent. This compares sharply with suburban districts at 16.4%. Major urban districts—including Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown—are home to a significant concentration of poverty and resource gaps, which are contributing factors, according to school psychologists.
Policy and Intervention Strategies
The state is pursuing a multi-pronged approach combining legislative changes, proactive intervention, and public engagement to combat chronic absenteeism.
The Shift in Truancy Law
A significant change in state attendance law, passed in the most recent legislative budget, mandates a shift from a reliance on warning letters to a requirement for local districts to create proactive attendance plans. Previously, schools simply sent letters home after a student missed a certain number of days, a practice Horowitz-Moore noted “has not helped move the needle.”
The new approach, which must be reflected in local district policy by August 2026, requires schools to:
* More proactively intervene once smaller amounts of absences are noticed.
* Develop specific support plans for students, instead of waiting for them to reach the chronic threshold.
These plans are intended to address underlying causes, such as offering reading intervention if a student’s difficulty or embarrassment with reading is leading to school avoidance.
Debate on Incentives vs. Penalties
Chad Aldis, Vice President for Ohio policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank, suggested that while the state is utilizing “carrots” (incentives), the time may have come to consider a “stick” (penalty) approach, particularly for high school students. Aldis noted that despite doing “a lot of the right things,” the numbers are not changing appreciably. For older students, he suggested leveraging desirable items like driver’s licenses or graduation as incentives for consistent attendance, perhaps through creative policy.
“Stay in the Game!” Attendance Network
A major statewide initiative is the Stay in the Game! Attendance Network, a collaborative effort launched by the Cleveland Browns Foundation and now including the Columbus Crew, FC Cincinnati, and the Pittsburgh Steelers. This network partners with the DEW and organizations like Harvard’s Proving Ground to offer data-informed attendance campaigns, interactive playbooks for strategy development, and localized resources to participating districts. The program serves approximately 575,000 students in 219 districts and focuses on identifying individual students who are missing class rather than relying on average daily attendance rates, which can mask the problem.
While a formal review of the 2024–2025 data is pending, past performance indicates that districts participating in Stay in the Game! with higher-than-average chronic absence rates see their rates decrease by a higher percentage than the state average.
Conclusion and Outlook
Ohio’s persistent chronic absenteeism, with its disproportionate impact on high school, kindergarten, urban, and disadvantaged student populations, demands urgent and sustained attention. The new legislative requirement for proactive attendance plans represents a constructive step toward intervention and support, aiming to address the root causes of non-attendance. However, the plateaued rates—hovering around one in four students—suggest that current efforts need to be intensified. As DEW officials noted, allowing a 25% chronic absence rate to become the “new normal” is unacceptable. The coming years will be critical in determining whether the combination of community-based engagement, proactive support, and potentially more forceful policy measures can successfully move the needle toward the state’s ambitious goal of 12.8%.