Why are some students chronically absent from school?
A recent article “Proof Points: Tracking student data falls short in combating absenteeism at school” discusses the challenges of addressing chronic absenteeism, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic’s disruptions. Whilst exploring the use of data tracking systems to identify at-risk students is well-intentioned, the article’s findings indicate there are critical shortcomings with solely systems-focused approaches. Specifically, the much-touted “early warning system” dashboard implemented by one Southeastern district failed to improve attendance rates for low-income students. As noted in the article, these data tools “don’t tell educators how to help students.”
Especially troubling is that this failure disproportionately impacted students from lower-income families. The article notes “the attendance rates of low-income students didn’t improve at all” compared to slight gains for higher-income peers. However, there is minimal exploration about why attendance lagged for low-income students. Were there specific obstacles these students faced that data systems failed to capture? Without investigating root causes for absenteeism among disadvantaged students, schools will continue implementing incomplete solutions. Whilst data dashboards have a role to play, schools clearly need capacity and resources to address the actual “reasons kids miss school” at the human level. As the article states, “more tailored solutions” are required, especially for Title I schools with higher chronic absenteeism rates. If overlooked, we risk leaving millions of students behind.
What I’ve seen
As a teacher at a Title I school, I have witnessed firsthand how socioeconomic barriers contribute significantly to chronic absenteeism rates. The article discusses insufficiently tailored solutions, but fails to recognise core reasons many disadvantaged students miss school - family obligations and early workforce entry out of financial necessity.
Inside schools, we see the ripple effects of multi-generational poverty up close. By high school, many students from low-income neighborhoods have family responsibilities or work commitments squeezing out school attendance. Some must care for younger siblings whilst parents work multiple jobs. Others miss classes intermittently in order to support family businesses - running a store counter when a parent falls ill, making neighborhood deliveries of home-cooked meals for extra income.
Most heartbreakingly, many capable teens from poor communities leave school altogether for full-time employment, feeling family economic pressures. Parents may pull them out to contribute earnings, or students choose to leave to help make ends meet. These students demonstrate tremendous grit and determination - but systems don't see them as individuals making tough choices given difficult circumstances. They simply become data-points for “chronic absenteeism.”
For meaningful progress reducing absenteeism in Title I schools, interventions must acknowledge and accommodate students embedded within struggling families and neighbourhoods. Supports should empower students to balance obligations, not penalise them for responsibilities beyond their control. With insight and some flexibility, many passionate students can complete their education despite - and because of - the strength and resilience they develop overcoming adversity day to day. Data tools will not capture their stories. But educators and advocates can listen, and shape solutions to meet them where they are.
Another factor I’ve seen
The article overlooks another key driver of absenteeism in lower-income schools – the relentless prioritisation of college prep course pathways. In financially strained districts, budget decisions, state mandates, and accountability metrics strongly favour academic classes aimed at college admission and create skewed incentives against vocational programs. At my school, I’ve seen capable, career-oriented students gradually check out and chronically skip school when course schedules cater only to higher education.
Many students from working-class families seek “purpose” over “prestige.” They hope to graduate ready to work, not just headed to campus for abstract learning. However, as schools cut costs, shop classes, technical training, and career prep electives are first on the chopping block whilst advanced academics remain protected. Students interested in trades from welding to cosmetology find less and less relevant options, whilst “Minimum College Admissions” course sequences swell. Counselors actively nudge or redirect non-college-bound youth away from vocational studies framed as lesser. Ultimately, the singular vision of students in caps and gowns leaves many questioning why they should keep showing up.
These students don’t need warning systems flagging their disengagement – they need engagement tailored to their goals. Many have tremendous practical ability and clear career ambitions in fields needing skilled workers. But rigid academic structures demoralise them for being reluctant scholars unenthused about theoretical lessons. Schools could better support motivated career-focused students and likely improve attendance by offering alternative paths integrating real-world technical skills. Then students would have opportunities aligned to their interests and see school as vital preparation for meaningful vocations, not just a requirement pushing them towards colleges they can’t afford. Systems claiming to serve “all students” need flexibility to actually meet them where their hopes take shape.
A bias against the trades
This singular academic focus reflects longstanding biases that degrade honourable technical vocations as lesser pursuits reserved for those deemed ill-suited for “higher” intellectual learning. These prejudices against trades took root in elitist notions that physical crafts were lower-class manual labour, whilst prestigious white-collar careers required mental rigor attained only through college degrees. This cultural attitude persists within systems claiming to provide egalitarian public education to all.
However, the stereotype that trades workers lack aptitude is not only classist but fundamentally flawed. Mastering construction, mechanics, healthcare support, and other hands-on fields demonstrates as much complexity of skill and knowledge as business or STEM careers. Yet our college-for-all model judges a student seeking training to work skillfully with their hands as lacking ambition compared to one aiming for an entry-level desk job handling spreadsheets.
The implications of these doubled standards are profound when reliable trades labour shortages already strain local economies. Employers struggle to fill jobs as electricians, machinists, technicians, carpenters, and pipe fitters - good, stable careers supporting families and communities. Meanwhile, we invest heavily to push students into crowded fields with high underemployment of graduates. Channeling public resources primarily to funnel students towards degrees and debt does not serve needs. Academic priorities rooted in outdated notions of white-collar work as superior shortchange both individual students steered away from viable technical careers and the real-world infrastructure relying on essential skilled trades. We must reimagine our systems to affirm the dignity and necessity of practical occupations that literally build, service, and sustain our shared world.