41 Percent of Chicago Teachers Were Chronically Absent Last Year, Report Finds
The problem is likely widespread across the country.

More than four in 10 public school teachers in Chicago were chronically absent last year, according to a new report released by the Illinois State Board of Education. Chronically absent teachers missed 10 or more days of school, including sick days and other personal leave, but not including most long-term leave, such as parental or medical leave, according to the report.
The problem isn't confined to Chicago. While 41 percent of Chicago teachers were chronically absent, 34 percent of teachers statewide were also chronically absent. According to a recent article in The 74, an education-focused news outlet, the problem is likely persistent across the country, though only a few states track this data. A 2022 survey by the National Center for Education Statistics found that 72 percent of public schools reported that teacher absences increased "a lot" or "a little" when compared to before the pandemic.
The consequences of teacher absenteeism are significant. "When the kids are there, the school needs someone to cover the classroom. In education, an absence means someone has to pick up the slack, so when a teacher is out, it has real, immediate costs," writes Chad Aldeman, a reporter for The 74. "As might be expected, research has found that one-off substitute teachers are not nearly as effective as regular full-time teachers. Lower-achieving students are both more likely to be assigned to subs and more negatively harmed when their regular teacher is absent."
Why is this happening at all? Aldeman isn't sure. After analyzing the data, he says he found "only very small correlations between teacher attendance and the rate at which they stayed with their district employer, the evaluations they received or the district's overall staffing levels." He also noted he didn't find evidence suggesting that higher teacher absenteeism was driven by an increase in sick days.
No matter the cause, when teachers are absent from the classroom, their students end up learning less. Adding insult to injury, Chicago spent over 22 percent of its local funds on public pensions in 2024—up from 6.8 percent in 2014. Meanwhile, the state government is projected to spend $11.2 billion dollars on pensions in 2025, with one of the largest single state pension funds being the one developed for public school teachers.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why is this happening at all?
Just a wild guess - unions?
My first thought. with unions, there are no consequences for pretty much anything.
Which basically mean democrats.
If there were no consequences would you show up in any public big city schools much less Chicago? I know I wouldn't.
"The problem is likely widespread across the country."
So what's the problem? If 99% of the public school teachers in America were chronically absent America would be a LOT better off!
True. And if they cut the property tax by 99% I'm totally cool with that.
And their vote totals.
The ones that aren't absent all the time save up all their sick days and personal leave and, because unlike the private sector that limits how much time you can carry over to the next year, cash in thousands of hour during their last year. Because their pension is based upon their earnings during their last year, they can retire with a full paycheck for the rest of their life.
Cashing in saved annual leave does not add to the pension. It does give you a final check covering the annual leave (taxable). I had 2050 hours of unused sick leave (33 years Fed civil service) that added 2% to my pension.
Actually, that depends on the jurisdiction and the contract. Some teachers (and firefighters, police, etc) do indeed get to game the pension calculation by cashing in unused leave as sarc described. Other jurisdictions have other rules - which is sounds like yours did.
It’d be interesting to see the percentage of absences in private and charter schools.
Meanwhile the teachers union is demanding 9% yearly raises.
https://wirepoints.org/chicago-public-schools-should-reject-union-demands-for-9-yearly-raises-and-implement-a-salary-freeze-instead-wirepoints/
And they're likely to get it. Remember that mayor "pinhead" Brandon worked for the union, was financed by the union, and hand picked a pro union school board. Los Angeles has finally met it's day of reckoning after decades of graft and mismanagement and Chicago is not far behind. But Chicago can't blame climate change.
But inflation went away according the the old guy who sleeps in the White House (for another week), so there is no need for a raise. In NJ, where the babysitters are not even required to read or write, they should be cut to the minimum wage.
It’s not likely nationwide- it’s likely in states where the Teachers Union runs things
To true; there are only 50 of them.
Not every state has public unions. In Virginia we do not have teachers' unions. However, we do have teacher associations, but they are not powerful like the unions.
That's interesting. And no, teachers unions don't run every state. Just one-party states where the union trades block votes for endless raises and job guarantees.
I don't feel tardy...
but then my homework was never quite like this! well played sir!
Why is this happening at all? Aldeman isn't sure.
I can tell you why. It's because they know they'll get away with it. Evidence suggests they are entirely correct, too.
Remind me, why don't we have a condition on Federal education funding that prohibits collective bargaining with public teachers' unions?
Oh, right, the Democrats.
We should have a condition on all federal funding that prohibits democrats.
Yeah. But boff parties are equally bad. Reason told me so.
Just a guess, but probably because about 28% of federal government employees are represented by unions (per the BLS).
A better approach would be to eliminate federal funding of public education altogether, it's not a federal responsibility.
The Gov-'Guns' that STEAL their wages weren't chronically absent.
There-in which lies the Injustice.
This wouldn't be happening in a just and free-market that required *EARNING* to get paid.
The article is a lie, there is not a single teacher employed by the cps
The consequences of teacher absenteeism are significant.
Not in Chicago.
We already know you’re a god damn racist AT
Why do you use the term "god damn" (Language!) when you don't even believe in what it means?
I’ve told you I will stop if you cease your bigotry. Until then I will say whatever the fuck I feel like you goddamn inbred hick.
Jesus fucking Christ you are dumb.
Cite? I don't remember any racist comment from AT.
I think this article suffers from a definitional problem. They defined "chronically absent" as 10 or more missed days including sick days or other leave. Most jurisdictions require employers (including schools) to provide a minimum of 40 hours (that is, 5 days) of paid sick leave per year and many jurisdictions set higher requirements. Add in few discretionary vacation days and ... I have trouble calling it "chronic absence" when you're taking days you're legally entitled to.
Note: I could understand and maybe even agree with an argument that teachers (and employees generally) should not be automatically entitled to those benefits - that they should be left to individual negotiations with the employer - but that is not the thesis of this article.
They don't work three months out of the year.
They also aren't paid for that time. Not relevant to the discussion.
They shouldn't be paid any time off. Frankly, we shouldn't be paying them at all. At least, not in Chicago, where they're failing to provide any value for their service.
I really like this article bcz the "reading between the lines" highlights the need for charter schools. A question I have is, on what page in the Report Card does it state the rate of teacher absenteeism? I couldnt find it and I want to use this as back up during my next public schl vs charter schl debate!
SURPRISE...CHICAGO! until the unions are jettisoned and we start demanding results no change will occur. when have working conditions for teachers EVER been so bad they needed unions? bullshit.