Washington has apparently accomplished something teachers, parents, and mathematicians never thought possible: it found schools with more chronically absent students than students.
ICYMI: It found schools with MORE chronically absent students THAN students.
The Government Accountability Office reviewed federal chronic absenteeism data and found schools with implied absenteeism rates above 100%, not close to 100%: above it.
In other words, the federal numbers could tell you a school had more children habitually missing class than it had children enrolled.
From the GAO:
While Education requires states to report data on chronically absent students using a standard method, the way Education uses those data to calculate chronic absenteeism rates can be unreliable. For example, Education directs states to report the number of chronically absent students over a school year, but to report total enrollment based on a single date. Calculating rates using mismatched timeframes has resulted in unreliable and implausible chronic absenteeism rates (e.g., rates over 100 percent), according to GAO’s analysis. GAO calculated rates at the school level and found this was especially true in low-performing schools where enrollment fluctuates more often, and shared-time schools which students attend for partial days, such as those housing career and technical education programs. Specifically, over 30 percent of these schools had implausible rates compared to under 2 percent for other schools.
No, schools haven't discovered negative attendance.
The problem comes from how the Department of Education combines two numbers that don't measure the same thing. States report the number of chronically absent students across an entire school year.
Enrollment, however, can be measured at a single point in time. Divide the first number by the second (or the numerator by the denominator for those geeks who know), in schools where enrollment changes significantly, Washington can produce arithmetic that would get a fifth-grader sent back to his desk.
The GAO defined an implausible result as a school showing more chronically absent students than enrolled students. The auditors found the issue was especially pronounced in schools with greater student turnover and in shared-time schools, such as career and technical education programs, where students may attend only part of the day.
Over 30% of shared-time schools had implied absenteeism rates above 100%, compared with fewer than 2% of other schools. The GAO also warned that the impossible rates are only the most obvious of problems. Rates below 100% can still be wrong because the underlying numerator and denominator come from mismatched time periods.
So 99% may look reassuring only because it had the good manners not to become 108%.
The mistake would be funny if chronic absenteeism weren't a serious problem. Education defines a chronically absent student as one who misses 10% or more of the school days.
The GAO said estimates suggest that roughly one-quarter to one-third of K-12 students have been chronically absent in recent years. Students who routinely miss school are less likely to read at grade level and more likely to drop out.
From the GAO:
Chronic absenteeism, which the DOE defines as missing 10 percent or more school days, is associated with decreased academic performance. As recently as February 2026, Education cited chronic absenteeism as a key challenge. Education has also noted that chronic absenteeism remains elevated following the COVID-19 pandemic. At least one-quarter of K-12 students were estimated to be chronically absent in recent years.
GAO was asked to examine federal oversight related to chronic absenteeism. This report examines (1) how states have incorporated chronic absenteeism into their statewide accountability systems and the extent to which Education’s monitoring addresses relevant federal requirements and (2) the extent to which Education has leveraged its data to help address chronic absenteeism.
Reliable numbers would seem useful when confronting a problem affecting millions of children.
Instead, the GAO found another concern. The Department of Education stopped its most comprehensive monitoring of Elementary and Secondary Education Act requirements in 2026. The GAO says the reduced oversight leaves more than $18 billion in Title I funding at a heightened risk of undetected waste, fraud, or abuse.
Education pushed back on parts of the report. The department said its discontinued consolidated monitoring wasn't its only form of oversight and noted that it continues other reviews. The GAO acknowledged those efforts but said they are narrower and don't replace systematic monitoring of major fiscal and program requirements.
The GAO made three recommendations. Education agreed with one and rejected two, including the recommendation that it change the enrollment reporting so the number of students enrolled actually corresponds to the timeframe used to count absent students.
That seems like a modest request.
If we're going to divide one number by another, perhaps the two numbers should describe roughly the same universe.
Education officials said they're developing a 2027 monitoring plan, which is encouraging. The GAO still wants the department to resume broader oversight and repair the absenteeism data so policymakers can determine whether programs are working.
Nobody expects a federal database containing tens of thousands of schools to be flawless.
Expecting attendance rates to stop at 100%, however, feels like a reasonable place to begin.
Washington spends enormous amounts of money collecting data, writing regulations, and measuring whether government programs work. Sometimes, the most revealing stories begin when somebody checks the math. PJ Media VIP helps us keep digging into the reports and documents that rarely make the evening news. Save 60% with promo code FIGHT.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.