California’s public schools have a numbers problem—and it’s not just that their students don’t score very highly in national tests of mathematics ability. Their other numbers problem is the financial squeeze posed by declining enrollment, especially in large urban districts, compounded by apparently growing levels of chronic absenteeism, or truancy. California is one of just seven states that base state financial support of local school systems on attendance, rather than enrollment, so the declines in enrollment and attendance comprise a double financial whammy, one of the reasons many school districts are facing budget deficits.Enrollment is an immutable effect of demographic change, both the out-migration of young families to other states and lower birth rates. Chronic truancy, on the other hand, first became notable during the COVID-19 pandemic, when schools were closed for months and many students were unable to keep up with studies via the internet.Policy Analysis for California Education, a think tank maintained by the state’s major universities, chimed in with its own take on the issue, to wit: “We find that about 90 percent of districts would receive more funding under an enrollment-based formula than they would under the current ADA-based system, with the biggest boost going to high school districts and districts with more low-income, English learner, and foster youth students.” The analysis estimated that switching to enrollment would cost about $3.4 billion a year, since truant students would still qualify their schools for aid. It cautioned, however, that while “switching from attendance to enrollment may help districts gain greater fiscal stability and may shift more resources to school districts with greater student needs,” on the other hand, “the current system includes a fiscal incentive that, most agree, encourages higher attendance, even if that attendance definition is relatively weak.” In other words, switching to enrollment would take schools off the hook in battling truancy.