If you pay attention, you’ll notice the empty seats when you walk into practically any urban middle school on a Tuesday morning. Not just one or two. It may occupy a quarter of the space in certain classrooms, depending on the year and the neighborhood. There is an abundance of intervention programs, including real-time attendance tracking apps, truancy officers, automated phone calls to parents, and incentive programs, due to the chronic absenteeism crisis that intensified during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Clear research on the systemic reasons behind the historically high number of students staying at home has been lacking. Researchers at Michigan State University are beginning to close that gap with two new studies, at least one of which directly addresses an issue that most school budgets overlook.
The numbers that frame this research are striking enough on their own. Compared to 2018–19, the percentage of students classified as chronically absent was more than doubled in the 2021–2022 school year. Missing 10% or more of the academic year, or about eighteen days, is considered chronic absenteeism. Currently, about 30% of students in urban schools fit that description. Although the rates have decreased since the worst post-pandemic spike, they are still far higher than what the educational system was intended to manage. Leading both of the new studies was Jerome Graham, an assistant professor in MSU’s K–12 Educational Administration program, who collaborated with 2025 alum Yi-Chih Chiang and doctoral students Su Yon Choi and Yashi Ye. They used ten years’ worth of statewide data from Georgia, which was selected in part because it was the first state in the nation to incorporate school climate into its official accountability system.
| Topic | MSU Research on Chronic Absenteeism, School Climate, and Student Mental Health (2026) |
|---|---|
| Lead Institution | Michigan State University (MSU) — College of Education |
| Key Researchers | Assistant Professor Jerome Graham; Doctoral Students Su Yon Choi, Yashi Ye; 2025 Alum Yi-Chih Chiang |
| Study 1 Published In | Urban Education |
| Study 2 Published In | American Educational Research Journal |
| Data Source | 10 years of statewide data from Georgia (first state to include school climate in its accountability system) |
| Key Statistic — Absenteeism | Chronic absenteeism more than doubled in 2021-22 vs. 2018-19; ~30% of urban students chronically absent |
| Key Statistic — Mental Health | Pre-pandemic: 50-60% of students reported mental health difficulties; post-pandemic: over 70% |
| Surprising Post-COVID Finding | In urban settings, higher mental health challenges now correlated with lower chronic absenteeism — driven by Black and Hispanic students |
| School Climate Finding | Student sense of connection strongly correlated with attendance; improvements in climate factors produced significant reductions in chronic absence |
| Policy Context | Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) mandated school quality measures; 35+ states now include school climate in accountability systems |
| Reference Links | MSU Today – MSU Research Links Mental Health, School Climate to Attendance / NIH PMC – The Relationship Between School Climate and Mental and Emotional Wellbeing |
The first study’s findings on mental health, which were published in Urban Education, are the ones that should be carefully examined. Prior to the pandemic, there was a fairly predictable correlation between student mental health and attendance: schools with a higher percentage of students reporting mental health issues also tended to have more students who were absent on a regular basis. That made sense intuitively. The pattern changed when COVID struck. The researchers discovered that lower chronic absenteeism is now associated with a higher percentage of students experiencing mental health issues in urban settings. Black and Hispanic students are the main forces behind this change.
The researchers are appropriately cautious about the implications of this counterintuitive result. There are a number of explanations. It’s possible that schools have evolved into safe havens where students who are struggling with mental health issues go because of the connection they provide, following the isolation of distance learning. Alternatively, the researchers hypothesize that going to school could serve as a help-seeking behavior, with struggling students attending because they can get support or just because they can socialize. Another unsettling interpretation is that well-functioning students experience stress from school itself, and that the link between high attendance and reported mental health issues indicates a different type of pressure on high-achievers. Which explanation is correct is not determined by the data. The point is that the relationship is no longer straightforward, and interventions based on pre-pandemic presumptions might be failing to capture the true nature of the situation.
The second study, which was published in the American Educational Research Journal, tackles a topic that has been discussed anecdotally for a long time but has seldom been tested at scale using rigorous data. Is there a significant difference in chronic absenteeism rates between schools that can be explained by school climate, which is the quality of relationships, safety, and connection that students experience? According to Graham and his associates, the answer is in the affirmative, and in quantifiable and practical ways. Chronic absenteeism is lower in schools where students feel more connected. Adjustments to climate factors, such as a sense of safety, peer support networks, and overall connectedness, have been shown to significantly lower chronic absence rates for all students. not slight advancements. important ones.
Together, these findings give the impression that American education policy has been using logistical fixes to address the symptoms of a disconnection issue. Students who use attendance apps don’t feel like they belong. Whether a child feels safe in the hallways or is observed by the building’s adults is not addressed in phone calls to parents. At least 35 states included school climate in their accountability frameworks in response to the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was passed in 2015 and required states to include at least one measure of school quality or student success beyond test scores. In hindsight, that policy choice was more significant than it initially appeared to be. Georgia’s data is comprehensive enough for this type of research, in part because of its early adoption of climate measures.
All of this is directly related to the funding question. Stronger counselor-to-student ratios, restorative justice initiatives, mental health personnel, and teacher professional development on fostering relationships with students are all examples of school climate improvements that cost money. They need employees. They need patience and perseverance. These products don’t usually withstand financial constraints. Increasing funding for mental health personnel could significantly lower the student-to-professional ratios that currently prevent many schools from providing adequate support for students in distress, according to the Learning Policy Institute. The MSU study provides empirical support for that claim, demonstrating through statewide longitudinal data that students’ attitudes toward school influence whether or not they attend at all.
The speed at which these findings will be communicated to the legislators in charge of education appropriations is still unknown. There has always been a significant discrepancy between what budgets actually fund and what research indicates. However, the evidence is mounting in one direction, and the consequences of ignoring it are becoming more apparent in the form of empty seats, increased absenteeism, and a generation of students who were isolated during the pandemic and are now debating whether or not to return to school each morning.
