Every educator knows the same truth: students learn more when they are in school.
Yet our attendance policies often don’t reflect that reality. Too frequently, schools are forced to wait until attendance problems become chronic before meaningful intervention begins. By then, students have fallen behind academically, families are frustrated, teachers are overwhelmed and the options available to schools have become far more limited.
We can do better.
Over the past several months, I have been working with educators, administrators and fellow school board members to rethink how Manchester approaches attendance. The goal is not to punish students more severely. The goal is to build a system that identifies problems earlier, supports families sooner and creates accountability throughout the district.
The research is remarkably consistent. Students who begin missing school regularly, particularly during the transition into ninth grade, are significantly more likely to struggle academically and less likely to graduate on time. Early intervention consistently outperforms waiting until students meet the legal definition of habitual truancy.
That insight changes how we should think about attendance.
Instead of asking, “What punishment should occur after 10 absences?” we should ask, “How do we prevent students from reaching 10 absences in the first place?”
The framework we have been developing rests on four principles.
First, schools should intervene earlier. Attendance concerns should trigger conversations with families before they become crises, with particular attention given to ninth-grade students during their first semester of high school. Early warning systems work only if schools act while intervention can still make a difference.
Second, attendance should matter because learning matters, not because of arbitrary seat-time rules. There are educational experiences that simply cannot be replicated by completing another worksheet at home. Science labs, collaborative projects, presentations, performances, discussions and competency demonstrations often require meaningful participation. At the same time, schools must preserve reasonable alternatives whenever the same learning objective can be demonstrated and continue providing every accommodation required by law.
Third, we need better data. Today, we often know that a student failed a course, but we cannot easily determine whether that outcome resulted from missing assignments, insufficient evidence of learning or repeated unexcused absences. Better information allows educators, and the school board, to identify patterns and improve practice rather than relying on anecdotes.
Finally, accountability cannot stop with students.
Teachers should implement attendance expectations consistently. Principals should review significant attendance-related academic decisions. District administrators should monitor implementation across schools. And the School Board should receive regular reports so we can evaluate whether our policies are actually improving attendance rather than simply existing on paper.
None of these ideas are about making school more punitive.
They are about recognizing that attendance is a shared responsibility. Students need support. Families need communication. Teachers need clear expectations. Administrators need reliable data. The school board needs measurable outcomes.
Most importantly, students deserve a system that responds before they have already fallen through the cracks.
Good policy should solve problems, not merely document them. If we want better attendance, we need an attendance system that intervenes early, measures what matters and holds itself accountable for results.
Nicholas St. John is a member of the Manchester School Board.