Re-thinking Attendance: Why SB 123 Is an Opportunity, Not a Burden

At first glance, Georgia Senate Bill 123 (SB 123) might look like just another tweak to the attendance rules in Georgia schools. But it’s far more than that. Effective July 1, 2025, SB 123 does two critical things: it ends the practice of expelling students solely for absenteeism, and it forces school systems to take a deeper, more structured look at why students are missing school.1GA SB123

In other words: This isn’t a burden imposed on schools—it’s an opportunity. A chance to move away from decades of “just get them in the door or punish them for not showing up” toward a more thoughtful, responsive, humane system that understands the root causes of absence. And for schools already doing attendance committees, climate teams, and intervention work, SB 123 offers a chance to ask: What’s working? What’s not? What are we still missing?

One thing many schools will realize is that what’s missing in the puzzle is professional development around school avoidance (also known as school refusal or emotionally-based absenteeism). Without that, efforts to improve attendance may miss an entire and growing set of students—those who aren’t skipping for convenience, but because of complex emotional, psychological, or systemic issues.

Let’s unpack how SB 123 opens the door for a genuine shift—and how school avoidance training fits into that change.

What SB 123 Really Changes

1. No longer expelling students solely for absenteeism
Under the new law, a student may not be expelled by a public school “solely due to absenteeism. 25 LC 49 2214 This is a significant philosophical and practical shift. Historically, attendance enforcement in many places defaulted to punitive responses: suspension, expulsion, court referrals. SB 123 flips that lens somewhat—it signals that simply punishing absence is neither effective nor sufficient.

2. New requirements around committees, protocols, and review
SB 123 revamps the state’s compulsory attendance statute (Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia) by adding or updating numerous obligations:

• Each county must have a Student Attendance and School Climate Committee. GA SB 123
  
• Schools and systems with chronic absenteeism (often defined by 10 % or more of students missing 10% or more of days) must engage in deeper review and intervention. Capitol Beat
  
• The Georgia Department of Education must collect and report data and systems must adopt protocols that go beyond “you missed too many days, now we punish.” Capitol Beat
  

3. A focus on root causes, not just the symptoms
Rather than treating absenteeism as a purely behavioral offense, SB 123 encourages systems to ask why a student is missing—and to respond accordingly. For example, the bill’s sponsor described how the root causes of chronic absence might include mental-health issues, unstable housing, unreliable transportation, or simply lack of connection to the school community. Georgia Public Broadcasting

4. Timing and implementation
The law took effect July 1, 2025. GA SB123 Schools should be preparing to meet the milestones: committees convening, protocols adopted, data collected. (Note: if deadlines like November 1 or June 1 were mentioned in certain draft summaries, it’s wise to verify local district guidelines for exact implementation timelines.)

In short: SB 123 is not about school systems doing extra work for the sake of compliance—it’s about redirecting the work they already do (attendance monitoring, climate work, intervention teams) to be smarter, more empathetic, more effective.

Why School Avoidance PD Is Vital to SB 123’s Success

Here’s the core truth: If you treat all attendance issues as “truancy” or “skipping class,” you will miss a large and vulnerable population of students. Those whose absences are driven by fear, anxiety, social challenges, trauma, or mental-health concerns require a different approach—and that’s where school avoidance professional development (PD) becomes indispensable.

What is school avoidance / school refusal?

School avoidance refers to when a student does not attend school (or parts of the school day) due to emotional distress, anxiety, fear of school environment, separation anxiety, social phobia, bullying, or other psychological and relational factors—not simply because they prefer to stay home or skip.

Unlike classic truancy (which might involve willful skipping, sometimes hiding absences), school avoidance often shows up as:

• Early-morning pain complaints, refusals to get out of bed
  
• Frequent calls from home saying “won’t go to school today”
  
• Partial attendance (e.g., arrives late, leaves early)
  
• Increased avoidance following events (tests, presentations, transitions)
  
• A pattern of prior success but growing resistance
  
• Anxious phone calls home, communications from medical or mental-health providers
  Without training, school personnel can easily mis-label these students as simply “unmotivated” or “uncooperative,” thereby applying generic truancy strategies that do not address the real issue.
  

Why schools still group all attendance under “truancy”

For many schools, the attendance system was built around counting absences, sending warning letters, using escalated disciplinary action, and monitoring through the lens of “did you show up or not?” The default is reactive—“you missed XX days, you’ll get a discipline referral” rather than proactive and individualized. Existing PD often covers truancy, dropout prevention, attendance incentives. Very little covers the more subtle, emotionally-based patterns of school avoidance.

Why SB 123 demands a deeper look

SB 123 explicitly asks systems to do more than just count days missed. It requires review teams, root-cause analysis, and strategies beyond expulsion or suspension. That means schools must be able to ask:

• What is keeping this student from attending?
  
• Are there emotional, social, health or family barriers that need different supports?
  
• What accommodations, modifications, or targeted interventions might help this student return?
  

Without school-avoidance training, a review team might still default to “5 unexcused absences → court referral” or “10 absences → warning letter” even though SB 123 is pushing for the next level of thinking.

What school avoidance PD provides

When well-designed, PD on school avoidance equips school teams to:

• Recognize the early warning signs of emotionally-driven absenteeism (versus pure non-compliance)
  
• Differentiate between chronic absence due to “just skipping” and absence due to fear/anxiety
  
• Develop individualized, non-punitive intervention plans: e.g., gradual return plans, home visits, mental-health referrals, peer connection strategies, check-ins
  
• Engage families with empathy: building trust, exploring what the student is reaching for or resisting, avoiding blaming or legalistic framing
  
• Monitor progress, adapt interventions, and collaborate with mental-health professionals, attendance officers, counselors, and community partners
  
• Shift school culture toward attendance as a support issue (not just a punishment issue) and toward re-engagement of students rather than their exclusion
  

In short: If you treat school avoidance the same way you treat classic truancy, you will likely fail those students—and in doing so undermine the broader goals of SB 123.

The Cost of Ignoring School Avoidance

If school systems proceed with business-as-usual attendance strategies but neglect the school-avoidance dimension, serious costs arise—for students, for schools, and for communities.

On the student side

• Emotional toll: Students may feel blamed, ashamed, disconnected, or over-disciplined rather than supported.
  
• Academic damage: Missing school due to avoidance leads to learning gaps, social / emotional setbacks, withdrawal from peers and activities.
  
• Escalation: Without early intervention, avoidance can become more entrenched—leading to full disengagement, dropout, or even longer-term mental-health issues.
  
• Equity concerns: Many students with school avoidance are from underserved populations—trauma-exposed, medically-fragile, or in families with other risk factors—so ignoring this dynamic deepens disparities.
  

On the school side

• Mis-allocation of resources: Applying generic truancy responses to school-avoidance students wastes time and energy, and doesn’t yield meaningful progress.
  
• Lower attendance rates = consequences: SB 123 is pushing for review teams and accountability for attendance systems; persistent high absenteeism will draw continued scrutiny. See, for example, the rate of chronic absenteeism in GA was around 21.3 % in 2024. Georgia Bill
  
• Culture implications: If staff feel attendance enforcement is just extra work or “punish them” mindset persists, morale suffers, and trust with families erodes.
  
• Legal / reporting burdens: Failure to properly analyze root causes may open the door to legal or oversight issues, especially if the law evolves further.
  

On the broader community side

• Lost potential: Students missing large amounts of school are less prepared for college, careers, and civic engagement.
  
• Financial cost: Chronic absenteeism has cost implications for districts (funding tied to attendance, remediation costs, etc.).
  
• Social strain: A large cohort of disengaged youth raises longer-term risks (dropout, unemployment, community disengagement).
  

SB 123 provides a mandate to reduce these costs—but only if the move is strategic. Recognizing school avoidance as a distinct and treatable phenomenon is key.

What School Teams Need Now: A Practical Roadmap

With SB 123 on the books, schools and districts have a clear path—but success requires intentional planning. Here’s a roadmap for how to operationalize this shift, with school avoidance training as a core pillar.

Step 1: Inventory and Audit

• Review current attendance committee / school climate team structure. Many schools already have:
  
  • An attendance committee or task force
    
  • A school culture or climate team
    
  • Staff dedicated to improving attendance
    SB 123 is your chance to ask: Are these teams equipped to handle emotionally-based absenteeism—or are they mostly focused on punitive responses?
    
• Audit your data: Identify how many students are missing 10 % or more of days, what patterns exist (e.g., grade level, times of day, courses, demographics). Georgia’s DOE suggests counting chronic absence using 10 % of days missed as the threshold. Capitol Beat
  
• Review your existing interventions: Are there individualized plans? Are they addressing emotional/cultural barriers or simply enforcing truancy rules?
  

Step 2: Build Capacity via School Avoidance Training

• Source or design PD that helps staff (attendance officers, counselors, social workers, administrators, teachers) to:
  
  • Recognize school avoidance signs (vs. truancy)
    
  • Understand the emotional, psychological, social, family, and systemic drivers of avoidance
    
  • Learn evidence-based responses: gradual return, check-ins, home engagement, peer mentoring, collaboration with mental-health providers
    
  • Develop protocols for early intervention (before 10 % of days are missed, ideally)
    
• Ensure training includes family engagement strategies: How to partner with parents/guardians, how to frame attendance challenges not as blame but as support.
  
• Align this training with your district’s SB 123 implementation deadlines—so staff feel prepared rather than reactive.
  

Step 3: Create or Revise Protocols & Review Teams

• Under SB 123 your district should have (or develop) a written protocol: how students are flagged, how review teams are convened, how root-cause analysis occurs, how interventions are designed, monitored, and adjusted. These protocols should include how school avoidance will be handled.
  
• Establish Review Teams: Schools where chronic absence is especially high should have Attendance Review Teams or similar groups charged with intensive review and intervention. Tackling absentees rate.
  
• Ensure the committees and teams are cross-disciplinary: administrators, teachers, counselors, social workers, perhaps community-partners, transportation or health staff, family liaisons.
  
• Define metrics and monitoring: What will success look like? Fewer students exceeding 10 % absence? Faster re-engagement? Fewer expulsions for absence? Better climate/connectedness?
  

Step 4: Implement Early Intervention & Tiered Supports

• Shift strategy: Instead of only intervening when a student hits a threshold (e.g., 10 % of days missed), integrate early warning systems (e.g., 5 absences, tardiness, frequent early departures) with screening for emotional/social risk factors.
  
• Tiered approach:
  
  • Universal supports: positive school climate, attendance incentives, regular communication with families, welcoming culture.
    
  • Targeted supports: for students who begin to show signs of avoidance—check-in meetings, mentor/peer support, gradual return plan, flexibility (e.g., modified schedule).
    
  • Intensive support: for students with high absence and clear emotional/behavioral drivers—collaboration with mental-health providers, individualized contracts, home-school liaison, transition plans.
    
• Use data to monitor progress and refine interventions. Did the student return? Are absences decreasing? Are patterns shifting?
  

Step 5: Family and Community Partnership

• Engage families early—not as adversaries but as partners in solving the attendance challenge. Offer supports (transportation, mental-health referrals, schedule adjustments) rather than simply warnings.
  
• Build community partnerships: mental-health agencies, social services, transportation providers, community organizations. Many drivers of avoidance or absenteeism originate outside the school building.
  
• Communicate clearly: What does the new law mean? How will the school support rather than punish? Transparency builds trust and encourages cooperation.
  

Step 6: Monitor, Report, and Adjust

• Under SB 123, schools will face greater emphasis on data, reporting, and accountability.
  
• Use this as a strength: track not just absence counts, but underlying causes, interventions used, outcomes achieved (e.g., days returned, re-engagement, improved grades).
  
• Use school avoidance PD to interpret data meaningfully—looking beyond “x% of days missed” to “why” and “what works.”
  
• Adjust protocols annually (or more frequently) based on data and team review. This is consistent with SB 123’s emphasis on program review rather than static policy.
  

Why This Moment Matters

SB 123 arrives at an inflection point. The data from Georgia show that chronic absenteeism is not just a temporary spike—it’s a systemic challenge. For instance:

• Georgia’s chronic absenteeism rate reached roughly 21.3 % in 2024 (meaning more than one in five students missed 10 % or more of school days) according to multiple sources.
  
• The law was introduced and passed with bipartisan support, and Governor Brian Kemp signed it on April 28, 2025
  
• The intention is clearly stated: “absenteeism has been a growing crisis” and “we must take action to give our kids a chance at a brighter future.” senatepress.net
  

This is not just about pushing students into seats—it’s about keeping students in seats through meaningful connection, support, and relevance. And for many students who are avoidance-driven, the traditional attendance strategies have failed. The promise of SB 123 is only realized when the attendance system expands its toolkit—and that’s where school avoidance training becomes indispensable.

Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers)

Q: Does SB 123 mean schools cannot discipline students for absences at all?
A: No—schools still have responsibility around attendance, but SB 123 prohibits expulsion solely due to absenteeism. Schools are required to use review processes and root-cause analysis rather than defaulting to punitive removal.

Q: What counts as “chronically absent” under this law?
A: While the statute itself may not embed a specific threshold in every case, many of the summaries define “chronically absent” as missing 10% or more of school days.Each district may track that metric for internal monitoring.

Q: Is this just for high schools or all grades?
A: The law covers compulsory attendance for children from ages 6 through 16 (that’s the existing code) and the revised statutes apply to public schools in that span. So interventions—and training—should span elementary through high school.

Q: What if a student is missing because of mental-health concerns or anxiety?
A: This is exactly the area where school avoidance training is critical. If a student is missing because of emotional barriers, anxiety about school, trauma responses, etc., then the review team must recognize that and craft supports—rather than treat them as purely disciplinary cases. SB 123’s logic supports this deeper approach.

Q: My school already has an attendance committee and climate team—do we really need to change?
A: Yes, in most cases. While your infrastructure may be solid, the lens may need shifting. The question isn’t just “Do we have a committee?” but “Does the committee understand the full range of absenteeism drivers (including avoidance) and do we have procedures and training focused on that?” SB 123 gives you the mandate—and the moment—to deepen your practice.

The Bottom Line

If your school isn’t educating staff on school avoidance, you’re missing an entire population of chronically absent students. SB 123 gives you the mandate—and the moment—to change that.

The message of SB 123 is clear: punitive strategies alone have not, and will not, solve the absenteeism problem. It is time to direct the wheel differently. Push back against the “just show up or else” mindset and instead steer toward a supportive, data-informed, root-cause approach. Attendance isn’t just about seats—it’s about belonging, connection, engagement, emotional safety, and relevance.

Let’s make sure your team is ready:

• Recognize the signs of school avoidance.
  
• Build individualised, non-punitive plans.
  
• Engage families as partners.
  
• Develop a culture of re-engagement rather than exclusion.
  
• Monitor, adjust, repeat.
  

Georgia schools have been given a clear directive. The law isn’t asking you to reinvent the wheel. It’s asking you to finally steer it in the right direction. And school avoidance training is the missing link to make that happen.

References

1. GA SB 123 | 2025-2026 | Regular Session | LegiScan. LegiScan
   

GA SB 123 | BillTrack50. billtrack50.com