How Changes in Foster Youth Classification Status Relate to Student Absenteeism and Discipline - Policy Analysis for California Education

Oct 15, 2026

Boosting school attendance for youth in foster care requires understanding how foster-youth classification transitions affect both attendance and disciplinary outcomes. This brief analyzes new evidence from four California CORE districts, linking entry into classification with fewer days absent and chronic absence but higher exclusionary discipline, while exiting classification aligns with increased absenteeism and no meaningful change in disciplinary risk. Findings inform efforts to enhance educational stability and guide state support.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages16

Reading Time40 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Foster youth chronic absence and suspension rates

Educational instability and transitions in classification status

Why youth in foster care experience elevated absenteeism and discipline

Individual-level challenges

Structural and institutional conditions

How Changes in Foster Youth Classification Status Relate to Student Absenteeism and Discipline Kevin A. Gee S. Colby Woods Michael A. Gottfried In California, youth in foster care experience some of the highest rates of chronic absence, with more than one in three missing 10 percent or more of the 2024–25 school year. Boosting the school attendance of youth in foster care requires pinpointing and addressing the factors that influence their attendance—including entry into and exit from classification status as foster youth while still in school. This brief presents new evidence of how such status relates to attendance and discipline in four of California’s CORE school districts. Entry into classification as a foster youth is associated with decreases in days absent and chronic absence alongside increases in exclusionary discipline, while exiting classification is associated with increases in absenteeism and no significant change in disciplinary risk. These findings have implications for strengthening educational stability and for state policies aimed at supporting the educational well-being of youth in foster care. March 2026 Policy Analysis for California Education [edpolicyinca.org](edpolicyinca.org) Introduction California is home to about 30,000 school-aged youth in foster care,1 a vulnerable group of students who have experienced abuse or neglect by a parent or guardian and consequently have been removed from their homes and placed into the care of temporary foster families.2 Youth in foster care tend to have persistently high rates of chronic absence (missing 10 percent or more of the school year), with rates reaching a postpandemic peak of 46.5 percent in the 2021–22 school year. Although these rates have declined slightly, they remain about 10 percentage points above prepandemic levels (Figure 1) . Figure 1. Foster Youth Chronic Absence Rates by School Year Chronic absence rate (percentage) 50 40 30 20 10 0 | | | | | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | 46.5 | | | 34.5
25.7 26.2 27.7 | | 39.2 37.0 37.3 | | N/A | | | 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 2021–22 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 Year Source. California Department of Education Dataquest ([dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest](dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest)) . Note. Absenteeism data for 2019–20 are not available due to issues with data validity and reliability. Additionally, the California Department of Education encourages caution when looking at data from both 2019–20 and 2020–21. Similarly, youth in foster care are frequently subjected to exclusionary discipline (removal from the regular learning environment due to misbehavior), with suspension rates hovering between 13 and 15 percent since 2016–17 (Figure 2) . Addressing chronic absence and exclusionary discipline is critical because missed instructional time and disciplinary removals limit students’opportunities to both learn and succeed in school. 2 How Changes in Foster Youth Classification Status Relate to Student Absenteeism and Discipline Policy Analysis for California Education [edpolicyinca.org](edpolicyinca.org) Figure 2. Foster Youth Suspension Rates by School Year 50 ~~ ~~ 40 ~~ ~~ 30 ~~ ~~ 20 ~~ ~~ 10 ~~ ~~ 15.1 15.2 15.1 11.9 12.6 13.9 13.6 13.4 1.2 0 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 2021–22 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 Year Suspension rate (percentage) Source. California Department of Education Dataquest ([dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest](dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest)) . Note. The California Department of Education encourages caution when looking at data from both 2019-20 and 2020-21. Instability in the educational experiences of youth in foster care, often driven by frequent changes in foster care placement, contributes to a range of negative outcomes, including high rates of chronic absence and elevated exposure to exclusionary discipline. A less well-understood dynamic within this broader pattern of instability is how these

FAQs

What does the brief examine about foster youth classification status?

It examines how annual entry into and exit from foster youth classification status relates to student absenteeism and exclusionary discipline outcomes in four California CORE districts.

How is entry into foster youth classification associated with attendance and discipline?

Entry is associated with decreases in days absent and chronic absence, along with increases in exclusionary discipline.

What happens to absenteeism and disciplinary risk when students exit foster youth classification?

Exiting classification is associated with increases in absenteeism and no significant change in disciplinary risk.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by วิน