SB 991, At Risk Students, and Attendance in Texas

SB 991 expands how Texas defines a student at risk of dropping out by adding two attendance driven paths: chronic absenteeism and truancy. That shift is operational. It changes who must be flagged, how early teams need visibility, and how clearly intervention history must be documented when questions come later.

If you want the official guidance, start with the Texas Education Agency correspondence and the bill text: TEA SB 991 letter and LegiScan SB 991 supplement.

Quick scan. SB 991 adds two distinct at risk indicators.

• Indicator P is chronic absenteeism (the 10 percent rule, with a minimum enrollment window).
• Indicator Q is truancy (typically tied to unexcused absence patterns and required prevention steps).

These paths can overlap, but they are not the same, and they should not be managed as one bucket.

1. Two separate at risk paths created by SB 991

SB 991 adds two new qualifiers to the Texas at risk definition. On paper, that is simple. In practice, it forces districts to separate two workflows that many teams previously blended.

Indicator P: chronic absenteeism. Count absences as a percentage of enrolled instructional time, and only evaluate students after they have been enrolled for at least 30 instructional days.

Indicator Q: truancy. Truancy is usually tied to unexcused absence patterns and compliance timelines. Documentation is not optional; prevention measures, contacts, and outcomes need to be easy to retrieve later.

2. Indicator P: chronic absenteeism is a percentage calculation

The chronic absenteeism definition is percentage based, and it includes a minimum enrollment period requirement. This is where many systems and spreadsheets break down, because the question is no longer: How many days has this student missed? It becomes: What percentage of the enrolled instructional time did this student miss?

Operationally, two details matter most:

• You do not evaluate chronic absenteeism until the student has been enrolled for more than 30 instructional days.
• After that point, percentage matters more than raw day counts.

This is why districts benefit from cleaner enrollment aware logic and daily visibility. If you cannot trust the calculation, teams will revert to manual checks, and those checks do not scale.

3. Indicator Q: truancy remains a separate compliance path

Truancy is related to chronic absenteeism, but it is not interchangeable. A student can be chronically absent without meeting truancy thresholds yet, and a student can trigger truancy patterns without exceeding the chronic absenteeism percentage.

SB 991 does not replace existing truancy prevention obligations. It adds an expectation: once a student meets the truancy pattern, they should also be treated as part of the at risk population.

Common pitfall: fragmented tracking

Districts often track truancy in one place, PEIMS at risk coding in another, and intervention notes in a third. SB 991 makes that fragmentation expensive.

Your fastest win is alignment: one set of definitions, one shared list, and one place to see what has already been done for a student before the next step is taken.

4. Why day total attendance alone is no longer enough

Many SIS workflows still emphasize day total attendance. But campuses operate period by period. Schedules vary. Students move. Attendance changes by class block. If your visibility is only day level, you will miss patterns that matter.

District teams need the ability to see attendance as it is lived on a campus: period level, with thresholds that can reflect district policy and real schedules.

5. A practical SB 991 operations framework

SB 991 does not require a perfect system on day one. It does require structure that holds up when the questions come later. This six part framework is a practical starting point.

• Early visibility. See P and Q patterns early enough to act before they become end of term surprises.
• Configurable rules. Apply district defined thresholds while respecting the 30 instructional day requirement for P.
• One actionable list. Maintain a current list of SB 991 students so teams are not chasing reports and exports.
• Shared accountability. Automation supports staff time, but accountability stays with the humans doing the work.
• Centralized documentation. Log calls, letters, meetings, plans, and outcomes in one place with clear ownership.
• Fast retrieval. When asked about a student, produce a clean history quickly, without manual reconstruction.

6. Where iSwiit Truancy Monitor fits

iSwiit Truancy Monitor was built for real campus operations. It analyzes each class block daily, supports district configurable thresholds, and helps teams keep documentation and intervention history centralized.

• Period level attendance analysis, not only day totals
• Early flags based on district rules
• Centralized intervention logging and documentation
• One click history when preparing for meetings or compliance reviews
• Overnight checks that refresh the actionable list for staff

No spreadsheets. No manual reviews. No guesswork.

Sources

• Texas Education Agency: SB 991 letter
• LegiScan: SB 991 supplement
• Texas Statutes: Education Code 48.009

If your district is preparing for SB 991 implementation and wants a quick walkthrough, we can help. Contact us and we will schedule time with your team.