South Tama County school board members spent a lengthy portion of their Aug. 17 meeting discussing chronic absenteeism, including whether the district should seek greater involvement from the Tama County Attorney’s Office when students repeatedly fail to attend school.

The conversation came as the board considered changes to the district’s 2026-27 student handbook, one of several action items on the meeting agenda.

Superintendent John Cain explained that administrators had updated sections of the handbook dealing with student behavior and attendance following changes in state law and a review of the district’s own absenteeism data.

Under the district’s attendance procedures, the school contacts a parent or guardian following an absence if the district has not already been notified. At five absences, a letter is sent home and a member of the school attendance team contacts the family.

At 10 absences, the student, parent or guardian and a school administrator participate in a school engagement meeting and create an absenteeism prevention plan. Refusal to participate can result in an immediate referral to the county attorney and Iowa Health and Human Services.

A similar engagement process occurs at 15 absences.

Cain said the district previously had few additional steps once a student reached that point.

“Once they got beyond 15, there was no additional intervention,” Cain said.

After reviewing attendance data from the previous school year, Cain said administrators found some students reached 15 absences and continued missing school despite the intervention plans already in place.

“We’ve got people that get to 15 and just keep going,” Cain said. “So what are we doing about those individuals that get to 15 and they just keep going?”

The district’s revised procedure adds two additional benchmarks.

At 20 absences, prior to returning to school, the student, parent or guardian, building administration and superintendent would meet to discuss the previous prevention plan and expectations moving forward.

At 25 absences, the student would be brought before the Board of Education for the possibility of an expulsion hearing. Plans for recovering credits or lost learning would also be discussed.

Cain emphasized that reaching 25 absences would not automatically result in expulsion. Instead, the board would be able to consider the circumstances surrounding the student, previous interventions and the student’s attendance history before making a decision.

Cain said the added steps are intended for a relatively small number of students for whom repeated interventions have not worked.

He recalled visiting with one middle school student during the spring who had accumulated well over 25 absences and, when asked why he was not attending school, said he simply did not feel like going.

Board President Elizabeth Dolezal focused part of the conversation on what happens once attendance cases are referred to the county attorney.

District officials said referrals have been made under the attendance process, but Cain said involvement from county attorneys in school attendance matters has historically been limited.

Dolezal suggested the board could benefit from hearing directly from the Tama County Attorney’s Office.

“My brain is going in a direction where I see what this progression is intended to do,” Dolezal said. “I certainly never want to get to the end of that progression with any students.”

She suggested inviting the county attorney to a future board meeting to discuss the office’s role in chronic absenteeism and what happens after cases are referred.

“They are an integral part of the process,” Dolezal said, adding that as the board considers ways to better support students and educators, it would be helpful to understand the county attorney’s role.

Board member Rick Hopper also supported additional communication with the county attorney, saying he had previously raised the possibility of board members and Cain meeting with the office.

“I think that’s something we should look at,” Hopper said. “Having him invited here, I think would also be a great idea. See if we could find out why it’s not being pursued. Maybe there’s more to it than we know.”

Hopper also questioned whether the district’s new thresholds should be stronger.

He suggested moving the superintendent-level meeting currently proposed at 20 absences to the 15-absence mark. Hopper also suggested bringing students before the board after 20 absences rather than waiting until 25.

Cain encouraged the board to first allow the district’s attendance team to put its proposed system into practice.

“This is the work that was done at the dance floor, and we need to keep up in the balcony,” Cain said, arguing that administrators and staff who regularly work with attendance issues should first be allowed to implement the process they developed.

Cain suggested the district attendance team could first have additional conversations with the county attorney and, if concerns remained, the issue could then return to the board.

Dolezal indicated she was comfortable with that approach.

The board also discussed the difference between chronic absenteeism and absences that qualify for exemptions under state law. Officials said certain medical circumstances, family events and other qualifying absences may still be recorded as absences but do not necessarily count toward the chronic absenteeism thresholds.

Cain also emphasized that 25 absences during a grading period can represent a substantial amount of lost instructional time.

The district will also have to account for a change in Iowa’s enrollment-count process. Cain said an additional certified enrollment count in January could create financial consequences when students leave the district for extended periods.

The district has generally unenrolled students following 10 consecutive days of absence when administrators do not have a definite return date. Cain said officials expect to continue that practice.

“If we know the date they’re going to be back and it’s in the short term, we would not have to unenroll them,” Cain said. “But many times we don’t quite know when they’re going to be back.”

Because state funding is tied in part to enrollment, students who are not enrolled during the additional count could affect the district financially.

Following the discussion, the board approved the 2026-27 student handbook changes. Board member Joe Hanus cast the lone dissenting vote.

Later in the meeting, the board considered retaining Ahlers & Cooney as the district’s legal counsel for the 2026-27 school year.

Cain recommended continuing with the firm, saying the district had received good service and that its attorneys had been “fairly responsive” despite busy schedules.

The board approved retaining Ahlers & Cooney, with Hanus again casting the lone vote against the measure. During the debate over selling the old middle school in late 2025, retired attorney and community member Jim Roan had criticized Ahlers & Cooney directly. Hanus did not offer an explanation during the meeting for his opposition to retaining the firm.

With the 2026-2027 school year starting, students are set to return on Monday Aug. 24. The board’s next scheduled meeting is for Sept. 7.