Report on Lawrence County School System’s New Attendance Policy and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Policy Shift to Address Educational Outcomes

The Lawrence County School System in Middle Tennessee has implemented a new attendance policy for its approximately 7,000 students, ceasing the acceptance of doctor’s notes for most student absences. This report analyzes the policy’s framework, its stated objectives, and its direct and indirect connections to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Policy Rationale: Combating Absenteeism to Advance SDG 4

The Challenge of Chronic Absenteeism

The primary driver for this policy change is the high rate of chronic absenteeism within the district. According to Director of Schools Michael Adkins, the previous system allowed for excessive excused absences, undermining the core mission of education. In the 2024-2025 academic year, over 1,100 students were identified as chronically absent, defined as missing at least 18 days of school. This situation presents a significant barrier to achieving SDG 4: Quality Education, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. The district contends that consistent attendance is a prerequisite for educational attainment.

Fostering Skills for Decent Work (SDG 8)

Director Adkins has explicitly linked the policy to preparing students for future employment, stating, “We’ve all gone to work sick, hurt, and tired. As a society, we’re losing that sense of reliability and opportunity begins at the schoolhouse.” This perspective aligns the policy with the objectives of SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, which includes targets for achieving full and productive employment. The policy is framed as a tool to instill the discipline and reliability required by the workforce. This is further reinforced by references to Tennessee’s “Success Sequence Act,” which mandates instruction on a life path that begins with high school graduation and entry into the workforce.

Policy Framework and Intervention Mechanisms

Redefined Criteria for Waived Absences

While standard doctor’s notes are no longer accepted, the policy allows for principal discretion to waive absences under specific, pre-defined circumstances. This structured approach is intended to provide clarity and consistency. Approved exceptions include:

• A death in the family
• Religious holidays or observances
• Chronic illness verified by a Tennessee-licensed medical provider
• Legal obligations (e.g., court summons)
• Emergencies beyond the student’s control
• School-approved activities
• Military-related family events

A Tiered Intervention System for Truancy

To proactively manage absenteeism, the district has established a tiered intervention framework. This system is designed to support students and families at the earliest signs of a problem, reflecting a commitment to the inclusive principles of SDG 4.

1. Tier 1: Triggered at three absences, this tier involves universal, prevention-oriented strategies to promote attendance for all students.
2. Tier 2: Triggered after five absences, this tier involves a formal meeting with the student and guardians, an attendance contract, and referrals to support services such as counseling, which can help address underlying issues related to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
3. Tier 3: Triggered after eight absences, this tier involves more intensive interventions, including potential referral to juvenile court. Continued absences can lead to loss of privileges and failure of the grade.

Community Response and Broader SDG Considerations

Concerns for Student Health and Well-being (SDG 3)

The policy has drawn significant public backlash, with community members expressing concern that it may compel students to attend school while ill. This raises critical questions regarding its impact on SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being. Forcing sick children into classrooms could compromise not only their own health but also the health of their peers and educators, running counter to the goal of ensuring healthy lives for all.

Institutional Accountability and Equity (SDG 16 & SDG 10)

In response to the public outcry, the school system issued a letter to clarify the policy’s intent, demonstrating a degree of institutional accountability as called for in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). However, concerns remain about the policy’s potential to exacerbate existing disparities, a challenge to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Families with limited access to healthcare, transportation, or the resources to navigate the chronic illness verification process may be disproportionately affected. The success of the tiered intervention system in providing equitable support will be crucial in mitigating these potential negative impacts and ensuring the policy advances its educational goals without compromising student welfare and equity.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is the most central SDG in the article. The entire discussion revolves around a new school attendance policy designed to combat “chronic absenteeism.” The school district’s rationale is that regular attendance is fundamental for students to receive a quality education, learn effectively, and ultimately graduate. The Director of Schools, Michael Adkins, directly links attendance to educational outcomes by stating that high absenteeism can lead to “failing a grade” or being “barred from graduation.” The policy’s goal is to ensure students are present in school to access learning opportunities, which is the core of SDG 4.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article connects to SDG 3 through its discussion of health-related absences. The new policy’s most controversial point is that it “will no longer accept doctor’s notes to excuse student absences.” This directly intersects with how student health is managed and validated by the school system. However, the policy does make exceptions for “chronic illness verified by a Tennessee-licensed medical provider” and “pregnancy-related issues,” acknowledging the importance of well-being in specific, severe cases. The debate reflects the tension between maintaining student health and enforcing attendance policies.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This SDG is relevant as the article details the actions of a public institution—the Lawrence County School System. The school board is creating and enforcing a new policy to address a public challenge (absenteeism). The article describes the institution’s tiered intervention plan, which is a formal, structured process involving meetings, contracts, and potential referrals to juvenile court. This relates to building effective and accountable institutions. Furthermore, the public backlash on Facebook and the school’s subsequent clarification letter highlight the dynamic of institutional accountability and responsiveness to the community it serves.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

  The article directly supports this target. The school’s policy is explicitly aimed at reducing absenteeism to prevent students from “failing a grade” or being unable to graduate. The Director of Schools also references the “Tennessee’s Success Sequence Act,” which begins with graduating high school, reinforcing the focus on educational completion.

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

  The Lawrence County School System is attempting to create what it deems a more “effective” policy to “take control” of student attendance. The public outcry and the administration’s follow-up letter, which aimed to “provide clarity, correct misinformation, and reemphasize our purpose,” is a direct example of an institution engaging in acts of accountability and transparency in response to public feedback.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Rate of Chronic Absenteeism: The article is centered on this indicator. It states that the policy was created due to “high rates of ‘chronic’ absenteeism.” Progress would be measured by a reduction in this rate.
• Number of Chronically Absent Students: The article provides a specific baseline figure: “more than 1,100 students were identified as chronically absent, missing at least 18 days of school.” This number serves as a direct indicator to track the policy’s impact.
• Threshold for Chronic Absenteeism: The article defines the indicator clearly as “missing at least 18 days of school” or “Missing 10% of the school year.” This provides a precise measurement standard.
• Number of Students in Tiered Interventions: The policy outlines specific triggers for intervention: Tier 1 (3 absences), Tier 2 (5 absences), and Tier 3 (8 absences). The number of students who fall into each tier can be tracked as an indicator of both the scale of the problem and the implementation of the institutional process.
• Number of Referrals to Juvenile Court: The article states that at eight absences, “students may be referred to juvenile court.” This is a measurable outcome of the policy’s enforcement mechanism and an indicator of its most severe interventions.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: tennessean.com