Skip to content

Chronic Absenteeism: Are We Turning a Corner?

Back to K-12 Lens

Student Support and Its Impact on Key Outcomes

Schools were built to educate, not operate as medical facilities, yet the demand for mental and behavioral health (MBH), speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and other specialized student health services continues to grow. Unlike hospitals or clinics, schools lack the infrastructure, staffing models, and scale often needed to provide extensive medical and therapeutic support. This makes it increasingly difficult to hire and retain the specialists needed to meet students’ needs.

In-house service providers and medical professionals require ongoing training, certifications, and compliance with numerous state and federal regulations, which is a level of oversight that some school districts aren’t equipped to manage. Small and rural districts face an additional challenge: they may not have enough students needing specialized support to justify full-time staff. For example, a speech therapist might only be needed once a week for a handful of students, making it inefficient to keep one on payroll. Similarly, in districts with high mobility, it may be difficult to hire and onboard staff fast enough to meet the fluctuating service needs of the student population.

This is why many districts are shifting toward external providers, contracting with specialized organizations that train, certify, and manage these professionals. The benefits?

  • Better access to care: Students receive support from trained specialists in a timely manner, without having to wait for the hiring and onboarding of additional providers.
  • More cost-effective solutions: Districts avoid hiring full-time staff when needs fluctuate.
  • More flexible scheduling: Some external providers can offer services at more convenient times or in ways that reduce classroom disruptions. It can also limit travel for an in-house provider who may otherwise have to travel great distances to cover many school sites.

The data suggests that nursing services and mental and behavioral health support are making a measurable impact on student attendance, but how districts structure these services, whether in-house or outsourced, matters. In some cases, the school nurse may be the only healthcare provider a student sees, especially in districts with school-based health centers. Are these centers filling the gap? Are these new models leading to better student outcomes? And most importantly, how can districts ensure every student has access to the right support at the right time?

Kim Healy
Group Product Manager, Frontline Education

This section explores Kim’s questions, shedding light on the real impact of student support services on engagement, absenteeism, and long-term outcomes.

Key Questions This Section Explores

  • What percentage of students were chronically absent last year? 
  • How are districts supporting students to boost engagement and attendance? 
  • What impact do these services have on attendance and other key outcomes? 

Chronic Absenteeism: Are We Turning a Corner?

“Chronic absenteeism is the most concerning barrier that I address on a daily basis. When students miss school, they’re missing out on learning, and sadly many students don’t have access to reliable transportation. They don’t have an adult to get them to school safely.”

Chronic absenteeism hit a crisis point in the 2021-22 school year, doubling from 15% to nearly 30%. Since then, districts have been working hard to get students back in class, launching new policies, outreach programs, and support systems.

So, is it working?

The data presents a mixed picture. On average, 17% of students were chronically absent last year. Suburban districts hovered around that mark, and rural districts fared slightly better. However, in large urban districts, absenteeism remains stubbornly high at near 30%.

Rate of Chronically Absent Students by District Size and Location

The good news? Some strategies are starting to show promise. Schools are taking new approaches to build stronger connections with students and families, and early signs of progress are emerging. The key question now is: Which strategies are making the biggest impact and how can districts expand what’s working?

How are districts supporting students to boost engagement and attendance?

Ensuring all students have access to the support they need is one key to boosting engagement and attendance. Districts are continuously refining their approach to student services, with some expanding and others scaling back in-house offerings in favor of external partnerships.

  • In-house services have declined in most areas, with one major exception: mental and behavioral health.
  • Despite the growing emphasis on student mental health, the data doesn’t show a significant increase in in-house support. Instead, more districts are seeking external resources.
  • Outsourced services are on the rise, particularly in speech-language therapy and mental-behavioral health.

On providing services in-house:

“Every site has a Wellness Center students can access that includes counseling services. Counseling is also a part of IEP service offerings for many students. Regular staff and student surveys are collected, and data is analyzed as a staff, to try to understand current trends and needs.”

On providing services through external partnerships:

“We have a contract with an outside agency to have two mental health therapists in our building full time to meet with students.”

Medicaid-Eligible Services Provided In-House and Via External Resources

A Shift in Who’s Providing Mental Health Support

Last year, suburban districts led the way in providing in-house mental and behavioral health services, with 78% offering support internally, far outpacing urban and rural districts. But this year, the landscape has shifted.

  • Urban districts now lead, with 78% reporting that they provide these services in-house.
  • Rural districts have also made gains, expanding in-house mental health services.
  • Suburban districts saw a slight decline, dropping by one percentage point.

 As districts adapt, understanding these trends will be key to ensuring students have access to the support they need-no matter where they live.

Mental and Behavioral Health Services Provided In-House by District Location

What impact do services and supports have on attendance and other key outcomes?

The Link Between Student Services and Attendance

One thing is clear: nursing services and mental and behavioral health support impact attendance. Districts that do not offer these services, see higher than average absenteeism rates:

  • 24%: Rate of chronically absent students in districts that do not provide nursing services in-house.
  • 34%: Rate of chronically absent students in districts that do not provide mental and behavioral health services at all.
  • 17%: Rate of chronically absent students across the entire sample.

Beyond access, how districts structure their support services also plays a role. Some strategies are more effective than others:

  • 19%: Chronic absenteeism rate in districts that provide some mental and behavioral health (MBH) support.
  • 17.6%: Chronic absenteeism rate in districts that take a proactive approach to MBH.
  • 14.5%: Chronic absenteeism rate in districts that regularly screen students for MBH needs.
  • 14.5%: Chronic absenteeism rate in districts that use a software tool to manage and support MBH services.

These findings reinforce what many educators already know: addressing mental and behavioral health isn’t just about well-being; it’s a key factor in student engagement and attendance. As more districts refine their strategies, understanding which interventions drive the biggest impact will be essential for improving student outcomes.

Early Intervention: A Key to Both Student and Teacher Retention

One of the most striking findings in this year’s data is the relationship between early warning systems in grades 1-5 and both chronic absenteeism and teacher retention.

Districts that use early warning indicators in the early grades see:

This signals that catching signs of disengagement early benefits both students and educators. The exception? Rural districts, which already report an above-average teacher retention rate.

This suggests that early intervention efforts don’t just help students, they also create a more stable, supported teaching workforce. As districts refine their approach to student success, leveraging early warning indicators could be a game-changer for both student engagement and teacher retention.

Retention Rates at Districts that Do and Do Not Track Easily Warning Indicators in Grades 1-5

Chronic Absenteeism Rates at Districts that Do and Do Not Track Early Warning Indicators in Grades 1-5

A Concerning Trend: Declining Use of Early Warning Indicators

Despite the clear benefits of early intervention, the data suggests a decline in districts’ use of early warning indicators across the board, except in grades 6-8.

  • Grades 1-5: Last year, more than 50% of districts used early warning indicators. This year, that number dropped to just 44%. 
  • Grades 9-12: Usage also declined, from 41% last year to 34% this year.

This downward trend raises concerns about whether districts are moving away from a critical tool that can help districts predict and address issues before they escalate. As districts continue to focus on student success and teacher retention, reinforcing early intervention strategies could be key to long-term improvement.

Tracking Early Warning Indicators by Grade Level

From Data to Action: What District Leaders Can Do to Drive Change

The data is clear; investing in student support, early intervention, and attendance strategies leads to better outcomes for both students and educators. Here’s how district leaders can put these insights into action:

  1. Strengthen Student-Family Connections to Improve Attendance: Urban districts still face nearly 30% chronic absenteeism. Expanding outreach programs and building stronger relationships with families can help bring students back to the classroom.
  2. Expand Mental and Behavioral Health (MBH) Services: Districts that provide in-house MBH support see absenteeism rates nearly cut in half (18% vs. 34%). Investing in internal MBH services or strategic external partnerships can improve attendance.
  3. Leverage Early Warning Indicators to Support Students and Retain Teachers: Join attendance, behavior, and academic data to establish an early warning system. Monitor risk indicators to identify disengagement early, reduce chronic absenteeism, and provide teachers with the resources they need to feel supported and empowered. Districts that use early warning indicators in grades 1-5 see better student outcomes and higher teacher retention.
  4. Invest in Proactive MBH Approaches for Stronger Attendance Outcomes: Districts that regularly screen students for MBH needs or use software tools to manage support see the lowest absenteeism rates (14.5%). Embedding MBH into attendance strategies can drive measurable improvements.
  5. Reverse the Decline in Early Warning Indicator Usage: Despite proven benefits, fewer districts are using early warning indicators, especially in grades 1-5 (down from 50% to 44%). Districts should reinforce and expand these tools to address issues before the escalate.
  6. Adapt Student Support Strategies to Meet Evolving Needs: More districts are shifting from in-house to outsourced services, especially in speech therapy and MBH. Understanding these trends can help districts ensure students have the right level of support.
  7. Ensure Equitable Access to Student Support Services: Urban districts have now overtaken suburban districts in offering in-house MBH services (78%). Districts should analyze their support structures to ensure all students, regardless of location, have access to the resources they need.

Learn how Frontline helps with student support and attendance.

Frontline Student Management