Posted on February 10, 2025
What’s New?
ACNJ’s Testimony to Senate Education Committee on Chronic Absenteeism
Posted on February 6, 2025
On January 30th, Isaiah Fudge, Director of Positive Youth Development Policy and Advocacy and Nina Peckman, Staff Attorney, testified before the Senate Education Committee regarding on chronic absenteeism in New Jersey and ways to improve student attendance.
When juxtaposing 52 school districts in the state–the 26 wealthiest and 26 of the poorest–we see that the wealthiest districts often have a chronic absenteeism rate significantly lower than the state average, and the 26 poor districts usually have a rate that’s higher. For example, Haddonfield school district, one of the wealthiest districts in the state, has a 4.7% chronic absenteeism rate, while Camden schools, one of the poorest districts, has a rate of 40.7%. The poverty surrounding the schools in the poorest districts creates barriers to youth attendance.
One thing is clear, the time to address attendance issues effectively is as soon as they become an issue... We must start with a focus on the individual needs and circumstances of the child who is missing school to understand why that child is not attending school and to engage the child’s parents in a meaningful way to ensure the child receives an appropriate education.
New Jersey Legislative Fact Sheet 2025 – Early Learning
Posted on February 6, 2025
Note: We are updating these fact sheets as more recent data becomes available.
Testimony from Isaiah Fudge recommends “whole-child” best practices and resource hubs to tackle chronic absenteeism
Posted on February 5, 2025

One solution to address chronic absenteeism lies in increasing districts' capacity to address the whole-child and turn their schools into resource hubs.
TO: Members of the Senate Education Committee
FROM: Isaiah Fudge, Director of Positive Youth Development Policy and Advocacy, Advocates for Children of New Jersey
DATE: January 30, 2025
RE: Chronic Absenteeism
Good morning, members of the Senate Education Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony on chronic absenteeism.
I am Isaiah Fudge, Director of Positive Youth Development Policy and Advocacy with Advocates for
Children of New Jersey. I am a former High School English Teacher; and a former Resource Specialist for people returning from incarceration. Before graduating from a poverty stricken public school system in NJ, I dropped out of one. And, I am now a father to a middle school student attending a New Jersey public school in a more affluent community than I grew up in. I understand, first hand, the complexities surrounding chronic absenteeism.
In 2014, the Department of Education suggested ACNJ review the chronic absenteeism numbers throughout the state and bring some attention to the issue. In the 2013-14 school year, there were 125,000 K-12 students or 10% of the state’s total student population, who were identified as chronically absent using the definition of missing 10% or more of excused or unexcused school days. Twenty-three percent of kindergarteners and 27% of 12th graders were missing 10% or more days of school. There were 177 districts in NJ having 10% or more of their students chronically absent. Their average was 16%, or 76,000 students. Many of these districts measured the issue by looking at their daily attendance numbers which they reported to the state Department of Education. The report got a lot of attention and really brought the issue to the forefront at the state and local levels. ACNJ published three state reports, as well as two Newark chronic absenteeism reports: one focused on the early learning years and one on the high school years. By the third statewide report, we saw 8000 fewer NJ students who were chronically absent, with fewer districts making the list.
At the same time, ACNJ pushed for legislation to define chronic absenteeism, require districts to publish their chronic absenteeism numbers in their school report cards and require some kind of corrective action plan involving feedback from parents for districts with 10% or more chronic absenteeism rates. Governor Murphy signed the bill into law in 2018.
Chronic absenteeism has surged since the pandemic. As we wrestle with this issue nationally, New Jersey’s current 16.6% chronic absenteeism rate ranks better than other states. But, as of 2022-23, there were 1,371,921 students enrolled in our schools. That means 219,507 students missed 18 or more days of school that year. I haven’t done the math yet, but this equates to a lot of missed time for education, for our youth, for various reasons.
Causes
One of the biggest causes of chronic absenteeism relates to poverty, or socioeconomic factors. Lack of child care, transportation, food, and other essentials often disrupt daily life for families who don’t consistently have access to the resources they need. When juxtaposing 52 school districts in the state–the 26 wealthiest and 26 of the poorest–we see that the wealthiest districts have a chronic absenteeism rate lower than the state average (often much lower), and the 26 poor districts usually have a rate that’s higher. For example, Haddonfield schools, one of the wealthiest districts in the state, has a 4.7% chronic absenteeism rate, while Camden schools, one of the poorest districts, has a rate of 40.7%. The poverty surrounding the schools in the poorest districts creates barriers to youth attendance.
And, once students get to school they are often met with a climate that pushes them out. For youth in poverty, those that don’t have clean clothes, or food, or soap and water, avoiding school becomes a real option, especially when harassment or bullying might await them. According to 2022-23 NJ Department of Education data, there were over 9,000 reported incidents of harassment, bullying, or intimidation.
This often leads to violence, and other issues. There were over 14,000 reports of violence, and 61,000 total suspensions, with over 44,000 of those being out of school suspensions. School personnel also reported incidents to police over 10,000 times. For perspective, pre-pandemic, in 2019-20, we were at just under 5,000 times where incidents were reported to police, and just under 40,000 total suspensions.
We also know that teachers are leaving the profession at higher rates for several reasons, but especially because of the climate within many of our schools. When we look at the role of socio economics in the lives of our students and combine that with the impact COVID has had on everyone’s mental health, we see that our schools have become environments that many people are avoiding.
Another cause for the high rate is lack of awareness about chronic absenteeism. Many students and families just don’t know enough about this issue to even recognize it as an issue. I have not examined the policies of all 593 school districts, but I would venture to say that many, if not all of them have information available to students and families on chronic absenteeism. However, we have to ask ourselves how is that information being made available to them? When is it made available to them? If it’s online, how do we know that families without internet are able to access it? Basically, we have to question whether or not we are doing enough to ensure students and families are well-informed about this issue.
Solutions
One solution lies in increasing districts' capacity to address the whole-child and turn their schools into resource hubs. The families in the schools in the wealthiest districts tend to consistently be able to meet the foundational needs of their kids. Meeting those needs consistently creates conditions for them to attend school regularly. S2243 and S2528 would create similar opportunities for families of lower socio-economic statuses. The full-service community school model presents a way for poorer districts to meet their students’ needs. The model involves integrating student supports and engaging students and families, among other best practices. What is great about this approach is that, when implemented appropriately, students and families become involved in their own advocacy, and essentially help select the resources needed for their particular circumstances.
Unfortunately, to this point, only 4 districts have formal full-service community school arrangements. But, there are schools and districts incorporating components of the model and they are making progress around chronic absenteeism. In Orange Public Schools, Rosa Parks Community Schools reported a 7.4% chronic absenteeism rate. The district itself is at 13.8%. Dover Public Schools is at 13.2% district-wide. Bringing resources into schools brings kids back to school. You can’t control the poverty around the schools, but you can control the poverty within them. We must invest in schools’ capacity to address the needs of their students.
We must also commit to bringing more socio-emotional character development resources into our schools. This can occur through training staff to incorporate best practices, through building schools’ capacity to address safety issues by leveraging the community; through situating more mental health resources in schools; or through a combination of all 3. Clayton Public Schools is a district that isn’t part of the poorest group of districts, but sits close to that group. Yet, they have been intentional about incorporating socio-emotional development work and report an 8.9% rate as a result. In Elizabeth Public Schools, where the rate has gone from 19.4% to 16.9% in the past two years, there is focus on creating and sustaining mental health partnerships with the community. And, In Newark, the district has leveraged Violence Intervention professionals to ensure students are able to get to school safely. I have not seen any proposed Senate legislation that unites all three 3, but on the Assembly side, there’s A622, which establishes the Safe Schools and Communities Violence Prevention and Response Act. A Senate version of this legislation would set the foundation for ultimately enabling districts to onboard staff that can holistically address school culture and climate for students, and everyone else in the buildings.
Or, we can repurpose Attendance Counselors across districts. I saw a job description that required the Counselor “Serve on [a] Truancy Task Force. . . patrolling neighborhoods. . . with the . . .Police Department in order to transport truant students to the Task Force location; transport students from Truancy Task Force location to the school where the student is registered” This approach only entrenches the work done in schools to create poor climates. Instead, Attendance Counselors should be taking a proactive, upstream approach to preventing chronic absenteeism. Newark Public Schools recognizes this. In several of their schools, Attendance Counselors facilitate wrap-around support to ensure students and families’ needs are met, rather than acting as an extension of law enforcement. As a result, Newark reported a reduction in district-wide chronic absenteeism last year, and is at 12.7%, below the state average.
If there were more information about chronic absenteeism, students and families would be able to make better decisions about attending school. A simple solution to this would be to monitor how and when schools are sharing this information. We must outline to schools the need for students and families to receive this information upfront and ongoingly, and in a variety of ways. And, we must require schools update all electronic and print policies, rulebooks and guidelines to obviously reflect 1. the definition of chronic absenteeism; 2. the pathway for potential chronic absenteeism remediation; 3. the consequences of chronic absenteeism, both personally and related to school.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony here, today. I am looking forward to working with everyone to continue to combat this issue. Should you have any questions feel free to contact me at ifudge@acnj.org.

Testimony from Nina Peckman urges “out-of-the-box” thinking, collaboration to address chronic absenteeism
Posted on February 5, 2025

Chronic absenteeism is a complex problem. We must start with a focus on the individual needs and circumstances of the student to understand why the child is not attending school and to engage the parents in a meaningful way.
TO: Members of the Senate Education Committee
FROM: Nina C. Peckman, Staff Attorney, Advocates for Children of New Jersey
DATE: January 30, 2025
RE: Chronic Absenteeism
Advocates for Children of New Jersey (ACNJ) appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the issue of chronic absenteeism in New Jersey schools.
ACNJ is a nonpartisan child advocacy organization that engages members of the public, policy makers, and other stakeholders to advance policies and programs that benefit children. I am the education attorney at Advocates for Children of New Jersey. ACNJ’s Kid Law Center has been in existence since 1996 and has secured the education rights of over 10,000 children. On an annual basis, I provide education advocacy assistance to about 350 poor and low-income parents and their children residing throughout the State of New Jersey as well as to professionals who work with children and families.
Although attendance barriers and chronic absenteeism has always been an issue, since the pandemic, the percentage of my cases with these issues have greatly increased. According to my cases, the common reasons for absences are due to unaddressed chronic health issues including mental health issues such as anxiety or depression, fear of bullying or violence in the school, inability to get to school because of transportation issues and loss of interest due in part to unaddressed academic problems or when the student's social emotional and/or behavioral issues aren't being addressed effectively.
Other factors also seem to be driving the chronic absenteeism problem. First, some districts don’t have enough school staff to support the education and behavioral health needs of students or may not have the requisite experience to identify the reasons for the absences and how best to help the student. Second, many students remain home because parents are not getting the information they need to support their child’s attendance through basic information about attendance laws and what are the school based services available to help their child. Even when parents do know the laws, they don't know how to advocate or appeal school actions or inactions when their child is not going to school because of one of the issues mentioned above. Third, too often, some districts use truancy charges or simply blame parents for the problem and don’t acknowledge the parents’ efforts to help their child, while ignoring all the steps that school staff should have taken as soon as the child first started to miss too many school days.
One thing is clear, the time to address attendance issues effectively is as soon as they become an issue. Both the attendance and intervention and referral regulations require the school to directly engage the parent and child when there are too many unexcused absences which the attendance regulations deem to be up to four unexcused absences. Schools must also have a process to identify and address the attendance issues of students with excessive excused absences for chronic health issues as schools have a responsibility to ensure that those children are receiving an appropriate education. Once a child is chronically absent, it is much more difficult to address the underlying reasons in a way that will help the child stay in school and thrive academically. In my experience of advocating for children who have serious attendance issues, the best approach and the one that leads to the best outcome is when school staff, parents and relevant community providers collaborate in creating a plan to help the student. Schools who simply try to address the issues with a cookie cutter, fill in the box approach are going to have a very difficult time trying to fulfill their responsibilities to educate children in these circumstances. Chronic absenteeism is a complex problem and is very difficult to address. To try to solve this issue, we must start with a focus on the individual needs and circumstances of the child who is missing school to understand why that child is not attending school and to engage the child’s parents in a meaningful way to ensure the child receives an appropriate education.
Here are descriptions of two recent cases involving parents who sought advocacy assistance from ACNJ regarding attendance issues. They illustrate both the impact of school absences and how the relevant laws and policies can be implemented to reduce the chronic absenteeism numbers. A parent contacted us regarding a classified student with severe depression and school phobia due to a history of bullying. The student had been absent for more than 50 school days for each of three consecutive years. The parent sought a therapeutic school placement with home instruction pending placement based upon the medical opinions of the student’s treating physicians. The school district insisted that the student should be able to attend the public school. After ACNJ became involved, we facilitated communications between school staff and several community providers working with the student. We also advocated for additional mental health evaluations. Through several collaborative meetings, the district agreed to place this student in a therapeutic school and make up instructional hours for the student through tutoring.
Another example is a case involving a classified child with cognitive delays and complex health issues including being medically fragile. Because of these disabilities, the student’s only placement option is in the home setting with an in person instructor. The school had been providing home instruction up until a year ago when the parent started to refuse the home instruction because the parent was not seeing any progress. The district responding by filing truancy charges. Prior to contacting ACNJ, the parent did not understand the compulsory education laws and rather than refusing home instruction, that parent could have challenged the education program that the district was providing through special education laws. Once we explained the laws and the parent’s rights, the parent agreed to the home instruction services and we put in motion a process to secure additional services for the student while in the home setting. This resolved the attendance issue.
Thank you for your consideration of this testimony. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to: npeckman@acnj.org.