Skip to main content
Michigan voters are choosing their next governor, and education has featured heavily in the campaign. Candidates have argued about test scores, school funding, and what should be taught in classrooms. Yet one of the largest problems facing Michigan schools has barely featured in the debate at all: the share of students who simply are not in school often enough to learn.
A report published on October 30, 2026, by the Detroit Free Press in collaboration with Chalkbeat Detroit put the issue in stark terms. About 27 per cent of Michigan’s kindergarten through Year 12 students were chronically absent during the previous school year. That means more than one in four students missed at least a tenth of the school year. The report argues that this crisis is hiding in plain sight, sitting behind the state’s low test scores while receiving far less attention on the campaign trail than other education topics.
The timing matters. Whoever wins the governor’s race will inherit a problem that has proved stubbornly resistant to improvement, and the two leading candidates have offered notably different answers to it. This article looks at the numbers behind the story, how Michigan reached this point, what the candidates propose, and what research suggests actually helps students return to class.
The number at the centre of the argument
Chronic absence is defined in Michigan, as in most of the United States, as missing 10 per cent or more of the school year, for any reason. That threshold works out at roughly 18 days in a typical school year, and it captures excused and unexcused absences alike. The reason the definition is broad is that lost learning does not distinguish between reasons: a student who misses three weeks of lessons faces the same catching-up task whether the absences were caused by illness, transport problems, or disengagement.
Statewide, about 27 per cent of students crossed that line last school year. The statewide average, however, hides enormous variation. In the Detroit Public Schools Community District, the figure was around 60 per cent, meaning three in five students missed at least a tenth of the year. In Alpena Public Schools, in the north-east of the Lower Peninsula, it was about 44 per cent. These are not marginal differences. They describe school systems where missing school has become a normal experience for a large share of pupils.
Measured against the rest of the country, Michigan’s position is poor. According to FutureEd, a research centre at Georgetown University cited in the report, Michigan’s rate is among the highest in the nation and consistently the worst in the Midwest. That regional comparison stings because it rules out the simplest explanations: neighbouring states faced the same pandemic and the same economic pressures, yet their students are in class more often.
The consequences are well established. Students who miss large amounts of school fall behind in sequence-based subjects such as reading and mathematics, where each week’s lessons build on the last, and they are less likely to graduate on time. The effect compounds with every year the pattern continues, which is why educators increasingly treat attendance as a precondition for every other school improvement, rather than a separate issue alongside test scores.
The pattern is not uniform within Michigan either. One district that has confronted its own numbers publicly is Kalamazoo, where leaders have set a goal of matching the state average by 2030 after cutting chronic absence from more than half of students a few years ago. The story of Kalamazoo’s attendance plan shows how far a single district can move, and how far it still has to go.
A timeline: how Michigan got here
2018-19: the pre-pandemic baseline. Before COVID-19 disrupted schooling, Michigan’s chronic absence rate stood at about 20 per cent. That figure was already high by national standards, but it represented the normal against which everything since has been measured.
2020-22: the pandemic break. Remote learning, illness, quarantine rules, and family disruption shattered attendance routines. Across the country, chronic absence surged, and Michigan was no exception. Habits formed during this period, including looser morning routines and weaker connections between families and schools, proved hard to reverse once classrooms reopened.
2023-26: a slow, uneven recovery. Michigan’s rate has improved from its pandemic peak, but the recovery has been gradual. The most recent figure of about 27 per cent remains well above the pre-pandemic level of about 20 per cent. In other words, years after schools returned to normal operation, more than a quarter of students are still missing a tenth of the year or more.
2031-32: the state’s own target. The Michigan Department of Education has set a target of bringing chronic absence down to about 26 per cent by the 2031-32 school year. That target has itself become part of the campaign debate, with critics arguing that it aims too low: it would leave Michigan only slightly better than today after several more years of effort.
The timeline explains why the campaign silence matters. This is not a problem that appeared overnight or one that will resolve itself as pandemic effects fade. The gap between the current rate and the pre-pandemic baseline has persisted for years, and closing it will require deliberate policy from the next administration.
Two candidates, two playbooks
The Detroit Free Press report sets out how the two leading candidates for governor approach the issue. Their proposals differ in emphasis, and the contrast illustrates a broader debate about whether chronic absence is best tackled through support, standards, or a combination of both.
| Democrat Jocelyn Benson | Republican John James | |
|---|---|---|
| Core approach | A statewide absenteeism strategy built around support for students and families | A statewide standard with earlier intervention and stronger accountability |
| Key tools | Wraparound services that address barriers outside the classroom | Earlier identification of students at risk, with a clearer statewide expectation |
| Model cited | Coordinated, service-led responses | Indiana’s approach to attendance, held up as a model |
| View of the state target | Not the focus of her criticism | The Department of Education’s 26 per cent target for 2031-32 is too modest |
Benson’s pitch rests on the idea that absence is usually a symptom of something else: a transport problem, a health issue, a housing disruption, or a family crisis. On that view, the state’s job is to connect families with services that remove the obstacle, and to give schools the staff and partnerships to do that work. Wraparound services is the umbrella term for this approach, covering everything from health support to help with transport and family liaison.
James’s pitch rests on the idea that expectations and early action matter just as much. His argument is that a clear statewide standard, applied consistently, combined with intervention before absence becomes a pattern, would stop cases from drifting. He has pointed to Indiana’s attendance framework as an example of a state that paired standards with action and saw results.
Neither candidate has made chronic absence a signature campaign theme, which is precisely the report’s point. The issue sits behind the headline education arguments, even though it shapes them: a state cannot lift test scores while more than a quarter of its students miss a tenth of school. Voters who care about education outcomes may therefore find that the most consequential education policy of the next governorship is the one that has received the least airtime.
Why students miss school: the barriers behind the numbers
One reason chronic absence resists simple solutions is that it has no single cause. The report lists several barriers that researchers and educators cite repeatedly: transport difficulties, mental health challenges, housing instability, and unpredictable work schedules for parents and guardians. Each of these can turn an ordinary school week into a logistical problem.
Transport is often the most immediate barrier. A student who relies on a bus route that is cut, a family car that breaks down, or a long walk in harsh weather can miss days through no lack of willingness. In rural districts distances are long and alternatives few; in large urban districts complex journeys, safety concerns, and unreliable services add friction to the school run.
Mental health has become a larger part of the picture since the pandemic. Anxiety, low mood, and school avoidance affect a growing share of young people, and schools that have made progress often pair attendance work with counselling and support.
Housing instability is another powerful driver. Families who move frequently or live in temporary accommodation often change schools or lose contact with them altogether, breaking routines, relationships with teachers, and transport arrangements.
Unpredictable work schedules complete the picture for many families. Parents working shift patterns that change week to week may struggle to supervise morning routines or arrange transport, and older students may pick up work or caring responsibilities that clash with the school day. None of these barriers means a family does not value education; they are practical obstacles, and that distinction shapes which policies can work.
What the evidence says actually moves attendance
If the causes are varied, the responses that show results tend to share a few features. Research on schools that have improved attendance points repeatedly to family engagement, coordinated attendance systems, and active leadership involvement. The pattern across the country is consistent: schools that treat attendance as a relationship task, not a compliance task, do better.
Home visits and personalised communication with families stand out in that research. A visit or a direct conversation can uncover the specific barrier keeping a student away, whether it is transport, health, or a misunderstanding about the school’s expectations. Generic letters and automated messages rarely change behaviour on their own. The human contact is the intervention, not merely the delivery mechanism for it.
Coordinated systems matter too. Schools that track attendance data closely can spot a pattern early, after two or three absences rather than after a student has already missed a month. Early identification allows a conversation while the problem is still small and the student is still connected to classmates and coursework. Waiting until absence is entrenched makes every subsequent step harder.
Wraparound services fit into the same picture. When a school can connect a family with health support, transport help, or housing advice, it removes the obstacle rather than asking the family to overcome it alone. That is the logic behind Benson’s statewide strategy proposal, and it is also the approach many districts have adopted independently of state politics.
Michigan’s own recent experience supports this reading. Across the country, chronic absence has eased from its pandemic peak, and the districts that improved fastest combined early data, family contact, and practical support. Our earlier look at how chronic absenteeism improved across 21 states in 2026 found the same threads in Michigan’s improving schools: deep family engagement, coordinated systems, and leadership that treated attendance as a daily priority.
What happens if the next governor ignores it
The stakes of inaction are cumulative. Every school year in which more than a quarter of students miss a tenth of classes adds another cohort of young people who enter adulthood with gaps in their education. Those gaps show up in graduation rates, in readiness for further study or work, and eventually in the state’s workforce. Attendance is not the only factor in any of those outcomes, but it is one of the few that a governor can influence directly through state policy, funding, and expectations.
The debate over the Department of Education’s target illustrates the choice facing the next administration. A target of about 26 per cent by 2031-32 would represent only a small improvement on today’s figure, and critics argue it signals acceptance of a level of absence that would have been considered a crisis a decade ago. Either way, the target will shape how districts set their own goals and how the state judges their progress.
There is also a fairness dimension. Chronic absence does not fall evenly: districts serving poorer communities, and students facing the barriers described above, carry a disproportionate share of it. A state that tolerates a high overall rate is tolerating a system in which opportunity depends heavily on circumstances outside a child’s control, which is why Massachusetts is now examining how chronic absence tracks with student demographics, as covered in our report on Massachusetts chronic absence among Hispanic students.
The campaign may not be discussing chronic absence much, but the next governor will have to govern it. The choice between a support-led strategy, a standards-led strategy, or a blend of both will affect hundreds of thousands of students, and voters have a window before polling day to ask which approach their preferred candidate would pursue.
Frequently asked questions
What counts as chronic absence in Michigan?
A student is considered chronically absent when they miss 10 per cent or more of the school year, for any reason. In a typical school year that works out at roughly 18 days. The definition covers excused and unexcused absences alike, because the learning lost is the same either way.
How bad is Michigan’s chronic absence rate compared with other states?
Michigan’s rate of about 27 per cent is among the highest in the United States and is consistently the worst in the Midwest, according to FutureEd at Georgetown University. Neighbouring states faced the same pandemic disruption, yet their students attend more regularly.
What are the two governor candidates proposing on attendance?
Democrat Jocelyn Benson proposes a statewide absenteeism strategy centred on wraparound services that address barriers such as transport and health. Republican John James proposes a statewide standard with earlier intervention and stronger accountability, citing Indiana’s approach as a model. He has also criticised the state’s target of about 26 per cent by 2031-32 as too modest.
Why is Detroit’s chronic absence rate so much higher than the state average?
Detroit’s rate of about 60 per cent reflects the concentration of the barriers that drive absence: transport difficulties, housing instability, health challenges, and unpredictable work schedules. Large urban districts face these pressures at greater scale, and the same pattern appears in other Michigan districts such as Alpena, where the rate is about 44 per cent.
How can families check a student’s attendance percentage?
Families can work it out from two numbers: days attended and total days held so far. Dividing days attended by total days and multiplying by 100 gives the attendance percentage. A free attendance percentage calculator makes that check quick, and it is worth doing regularly rather than waiting for a school report to reveal a pattern.
Families who want to keep an eye on the numbers can use the free attendance percentage calculator to track a student’s attendance through the year. Checking early, after a few absences rather than after a month of them, gives families and schools the best chance of fixing a small problem before it becomes a large one.
