A special grand jury convened by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is examining the District’s oversight of young people, with school personnel being questioned about absences and graduation practices. The investigation does not establish that anyone committed a crime but places the paperwork behind diplomas under fresh scrutiny.
Recent data shows preliminary 2025-26 figures indicating 50.4% of D.C. high school students classified as chronically truant, including both traditional public schools and public charter schools. At Ballou High School, the rate was 84.4%; at Anacostia, it was 84.1%. These percentages describe students crossing an absence threshold, not the share of school days missed.
Prosecutors contacted teachers and other school employees about truancy, graduation rates, and attendance records, with some connections to Ballou High School. This raises a critical question for those managing the system: when students repeatedly miss class, who follows up, and what happens before a student’s high-school diploma is awarded?
The District has already investigated improper graduation practices in 2018, finding serious issues. In that review, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education summarized four key findings from an earlier Alvarez & Marsal investigation: credit recovery had been misused at most DCPS high schools, attendance-related grading rules were rarely followed, central-office support and oversight were inadequate, and most high schools developed a culture of passing students who failed to meet requirements.
The follow-up review requested supporting documents for 218 students certified as 2018 graduates—a sample representing 10% of that graduating list—and deliberately included more students with unexcused absences and those from comprehensive high schools. This history explains why attendance records and graduation certifications must be examined together: a graduation rate measures one outcome but cannot show whether the rules behind each diploma were followed.
These findings pertain to earlier school years and do not establish that misconduct occurred in 2025-26 or that any current employee is at fault. The Office of the State Superintendent of Education defines chronic truancy as at least 10 full-day, unexcused absences in a school year, while chronic absenteeism refers to missing at least 10% of enrolled days (whether excused or not). These thresholds differ significantly, particularly for students enrolled part-time. The agency also requires three certifications by local education agencies before attendance data is finalized.
By contrast, the preliminary 2025-26 truancy figures use a 10% unexcused-absence threshold, based on information attributed to OSSE. This definition needs clarification before drawing firm year-to-year conclusions. High absence rates also do not indicate that graduates were ineligible; student-level records, course requirements, and decision-making evidence are necessary for such determinations.
Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office stated its immediate focus is the new school year and that school data remains public. Publishing these numbers serves families by revealing what schools do when a child stops showing up, what support reaches that child, and whether graduation requirements are enforced consistently.
The federal inquiry has not answered those questions yet. The records should.