What Happens After Absenteeism Classification? Comparing Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy in South Carolina

• In Event: Understanding Absenteeism Across the South: Patterns, Policies, and Practice

Abstract

Background: Chronic absenteeism is a widely used school accountability measure, while truancy is rooted in state compulsory education laws. Despite their overlap, little is known about how these classifications intersect and how attendance patterns evolve after students cross their respective thresholds.

Research Questions: (1) What characteristics distinguish students classified as chronically absent versus truant? (2) How do absence patterns change after classification? (3) Do patterns differ across student subgroups?

Data and Methods: This study uses longitudinal administrative data from one large South Carolina district, encompassing approximately 23.5 million student-day observations for 136,000 K–12 students from 2022–23 through 2025–26. Daily records distinguish excused and unexcused absences. Chronic absenteeism is defined as missing at least 10% of instructional days; truancy thresholds include three consecutive or five total unexcused absences. Descriptive analyses examine subsequent absences and subgroup differences, supplemented by event-study models assessing attendance patterns around initial classification.

Preliminary Results: Approximately 39% of students experienced each classification, with substantial overlap: 65.1% of students ever classified as truant were also chronically absent. Following chronic absenteeism classification, students experienced their next absence after an average of 13.7 school days, compared with 10.5 days following either truancy threshold. Students experiencing poverty or disabilities generally experienced subsequent absences sooner than their peers. These descriptive findings do not establish causal effects of classification.

Implications: Chronic absenteeism and truancy capture overlapping but distinct attendance patterns. Understanding what follows classification can inform timely, proportionate interventions that address students’ circumstances while distinguishing school-based support from potentially consequential legal responses.

Author

• Colby Woods, University of Pennsylvania
  Presenting Author