Technolandy

Day 100 (of 2025/26) Seeing “Absences” as a growing area of focus – but maybe we’re focusing on the wrong thing…

I’ve seen articles such as this: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-progress-on-absenteeism-is-stalling-what-can-we-do-about-it/2026/02  pop up a bit more and more. It has made me ponder, as we hit the ‘magical’ Day 100-ish mark (my blog includes pro-d days… some jurisdictions start in August… there is no ‘one day’ that works as a day 100 marker…) I’m wondering if the absenteeism isn’t about the learners so much as it is about the system…

Maybe… as we see absenteeism soar to almost 25% that we turn our attention to reasons other than student/family… maybe this is a symptom of something else that needs to be focused on – less distracted by their being absent, more attention paid to why they are absent <— and not focusing only on ‘more of the same’ that is not working to hook & engage them as intrinsic learners…

Unsurprisingly (admittedly my notes on combating absences isn’t as up to date as my noticing the increase in fining absences) – school conditions: do students feel valued, engaged, safe, connected? Do families feel support; Family engagement – check-ins for absence that are two-way dialogue rather than focused on the absence(s) 

ps BC overall still considers 40 days ‘habitually absent’; 

barriers such as health (consider lice and how that can keep people from school and from other health appointment) , food security, anxieties – general & specific, relevance – school has to matter to them and engage them and connect to their out-of-school experiences    

One notion that came out of my look at this has led me to wonder if the hours of school are also an issue for some… especially as we have added Child Care to our ministry name – how are we supporting families who are more accustomed to a part time/evening/weekend schedule of life and family vs the 9-5 middle class model that we tend to cater to so much more that the families that have less supports and means… sorry, inspired by the New York mayoral race!

Sure, it makes sense to put the focus on chronic absenteeism on the family when it was 15% or less… but once it passes 20% or 1 in 5… I thinks its more than just ‘buying the family an alarm clock’…  And the article at the start even states that “consequences for students and families are essential, rather than optional, for any serious attempt to dramatically improve attendance.  Because forced measures have always been so successful 🙄 

I’m also a bad role model, because being a Provincial Online Learning School… our kids are always on time and present as home facilitated learners… there is no absences that we track other than withdrawing from a course… and of course when students aren’t attending a traditional school (for a variety of reasons… … …) of course our school becomes enticing – https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/rate-of-school-absenteeism-skyrocketed-in-some-quebec-districts-9.7045969 with students finding the system too overwhelming – skipping classes.. being mindfully late… missing out on days… years of schooling and then trying to get back into a good habit – this is hard for anyone!

And worst of all, ‘it’ impacts one of our most tracked data fields for schools: graduation ‘on time’ (5 years entering grade 8). 

The joys when considering absences:

We separate excused vs unexcused absences (but know that many of the reasons are the same)

We don’t always consider ‘forced absences’ such as arise from things like suspensions but, an absence is an absence n’est pas?

And how do we address some absences due to lack of supports (absent adult workers) ~ hard look at what is happening in th UK… https://apple.news/Ay75iWp7DRxW8OJihh1wvWQ … with 1 in 6 students with autism having not been to school at all…

And I’m glad districts are looking at it.. Even our district has been looking at it more closely: https://sd47.bc.ca/_ci/p/8125 but maybe we (as a system) need to adjust our lenses: if first efforts don’t work, don’t do more of the same – when things got fuzzy in my world, I got ‘progressive lenses’ aka bifocals!

So… 

Three strategies that sound sensible… but reliably don’t work

1. Consequences, fines, and suspensions

Because nothing builds belonging like exclusion.

Fining families or suspending students for not attending school assumes absence is a willful act rather than a signal. And there are many examples where families have weighed the cost, and still found it more economical to pay the fine to take advantage of a vacation sale… so it isn’t much of a barrier for the more privileged… plus, suspension removes students from learning in order to teach them the importance of learning, a bit like banning someone from the gym to improve their fitness. The research is consistent here: punitive approaches may produce short-term compliance for a few, but they worsen disengagement and inequity for many, especially once absenteeism is widespread rather than isolated.

System translation:

If one in five students is chronically absent, the issue isn’t discipline. It’s design.

2. Attendance tracking without action

Also known as “admiring the data.”

Early Warning Systems are valuable, but only if they trigger support. Too often, attendance data becomes a dashboard of despair: beautifully colour-coded risk flags, followed by… nothing different. Counting absences without changing conditions is like weighing yourself daily while continuing the same habits and hoping the scale will blink first.

System translation:

Data doesn’t intervene. People do.

3. Doubling down on the same school model

Or: forcing students harder into a structure that already isn’t working for them.

When engagement drops, the reflex is often to reinforce the existing model: same schedule, same seat time, same pacing, same curriculum… just louder reminders to attend. This assumes the problem is student motivation rather than institutional mismatch. If school feels irrelevant, overwhelming, or unsafe, mandatory attendance policies won’t fix that. They just make avoidance more logical.

System translation:

You can’t coerce curiosity.

⸻

Three strategies that actually centre learners and motivation

1. Make school worth attending in the first place

Start with the unglamorous basics: relationships, safety, relevance, and belonging.

The strongest predictor of attendance isn’t fear of consequences, it’s whether students feel known, valued, and engaged. Universal supports matter. High-quality instruction, meaningful student-teacher relationships, culturally responsive practice, and welcoming families aren’t “extras”. They are Tier 1 attendance strategies.

Design implication:

If the foundation is weak, no amount of Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention will hold.

2. Respond early and relationally, not punitively

Use data as a conversation starter, not a compliance hammer.

Early Warning Systems work when they prompt mentoring, check-ins, barrier removal, and family dialogue. A missed week should trigger curiosity, not consequences. When schools treat absence as information rather than defiance, they’re more likely to uncover the real reasons: anxiety, health, transportation, caregiving, work, or simple disengagement.

Design implication:

Attendance teams need time, training, and authority to respond with support, not scripts.

3. Design flexibility into time, space, and pathways

Attendance improves when learning adapts to life, not the other way around.

Rigid schedules reflect a middle-class, 9–5 assumption that no longer matches many families’ realities. Flexible calendars, personalized pathways, project-based learning, blended or hybrid options, and smaller learning communities reduce absence by increasing relevance and reducing overwhelm. Students attend what works for them.

And yes, this raises uncomfortable questions about why brick-and-mortar is treated as the default “real school” even when it’s the least accessible option for some learners. Maybe we start with one of the key triggers for many – the bell.

Design implication:

If students are voting with their feet, maybe we should study the ballot.

The quiet through-line

Once absenteeism crosses a certain threshold, it stops being a student problem and becomes a system diagnostic. The research doesn’t point us toward stricter enforcement. It points us toward better design: human-centred, flexible, relational, and responsive.

The real question isn’t “How do we make them come back?”

It’s “What would make them want to?”

Why yes, this thinking has been heavily influenced by Will Richardson and his Confronting Education Series. If you are thinking the box needs more outside thinkers… check out his 4th cohort (already experiencing FOMO after being with him for the 3rd cohort and a BCPVPA series) https://futureserious.school

Let’s make the next 100 days (okay, 80-ish) more engaging and help students want to be part of the formal learning! As I like to say with our POLS: the advantage is nobody ‘has’ to be here, everyone ‘gets’ to learn here!