attendance outcomes 2016-2017content.nps.k12.nj.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/... · 28.01% 16.95%...
Post on 19-Aug-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
ATTENDANCE OUTCOMES2016-2017
Prepared by Brad Haggerty, Chief Academic Officer& Data Assessment & ED Tech Team
August 9, 2017
OVERALL ATTENDANCE OUTCOMES
2
17126, 43%
10507, 26%
7744, 20%
4341, 11%
Number & Percentage of Students by Attendance Category16‐17
Good Attendance(Absent days<=9)
Frequently Absent(Absent days10‐18)
Chronically Absent(Absent days19‐36)
Severely ChronicallyAbsent(Absent days >=37)
3 YEAR COMPARISON DISTRICT OVERALL
Note: For the district calculation, students with less than 20 total days enrolled in NPS were excluded, and students with more than 185 days enrolled.
Chronic and Severely Chronic Absenteeism went up at 31.6% in 16-17, compared to 29.3% in 15-16 and 30% in 14-15.
Note: All historical data pulled from Data Archive and Pre-K data was not included due to limited data.
3
43.8% 45.0% 41.0%
26.1% 25.7% 27.4%
18.6% 18.4% 20.0%
11.4% 10.9% 11.6%
14‐15 15‐16 16‐17
Good Attendance Frequently Absent
Chronically Absent Severely Chronically Absent
Limited value in any further analysis if we don’t feel confident the attendance is more accurate. Reminder: students are counted as present if attendance isn’t taken (which inflates the
statistics). In Nov 2016, Academics Team started gathering, analyzing, and responding to
data on how many teachers in each school did not have attendance taken by 12:00pm each day. This was an indicator of the strength of each school’s attendance taking systems.
Conclusions: K-8 attendance taking systems are strong HS systems need improvement
CONSISTENCY AND ACCURACY OF DAILY ATTENDANCE DATA IS STRONG IN K-8 & NEEDS
IMPROVEMENT IN 9-12
4
5
AVERAGE DAILY NUMBER OF TEACHERS WHO DID NOT TAKE ATTENDANCE BY
12:00PM
November December January February March AprilMendez 4 3 2 2 3 4Duke‐Jackson 2 2 2 2 2 4Glover 6 7 3 4 5 8K‐8 Total 12 12 7 9 10 16Gregory 23 34 7 23 32 55District Total 35 46 14 32 42 71
Average Daily Number of Teachers Missing Taking AttendanceMendez Duke‐Jackson Glover K‐8 Total Gregory District Total
K-8Provide the data; A-Sup and Spec Asst follow-up with any lagging schools
HSTraining on importance of daily attendance and the role of point person/advisor/HR teacher in that capacity (some mind-set change required here)Provide the data; focus of Sept for Spec Asst; daily reports with follow-up with school-based attendance sub-committees.
PLAN FOR 17-18
6
7
BAR GRAPH WITH 3 GRADE BANDS: K-8, 9-12
50.09% 49.81% 45.68%
27.36% 32.23% 28.74%
27.92% 27.45%29.15%
21.47%21.18%
22.78%
16.70% 17.21% 18.92%
23.61%21.69% 22.91%
5.30% 5.53% 6.24%
27.56% 24.89% 25.57%
14‐15 15‐16 16‐17 14‐15 15‐16 16‐17
K‐8th 9th‐12th
Good Attendance Frequently Absent Chronically Absent Severely Chronically Absent
8
BAR GRAPH WITH ALL 4 CATEGORIES FOR GRADES K-3
40.27%
41.16%
36.80%
46.64%
46.16%
41.92%
49.01%
49.18%
45.36%
53.81%
53.27%
47.57%
31.04%
30.19%
31.56%
28.89%
29.26%
30.60%
28.79%
27.30%
28.90%
26.33%
26.93%
28.97%
21.26%
19.58%
23.70%
18.47%
18.76%
19.68%
17.09%
17.91%
19.58%
15.65%
15.51%
17.75%
7.43%
9.07%
7.94%
5.99%
5.83%
7.79%
5.11%
5.61%
6.16%
4.21%
4.29%
5.71%
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
K1st G
rade
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
Good Attendance Frequently Absent Chronically Absent Severely Chronically Absent
9
BAR GRAPH WITH ALL 4 CATEGORIES FOR GRADES 4-8
52.89%
54.01%
47.37%
51.79%
53.98%
50.71%
53.36%
50.49%
47.15%
53.27%
50.79%
48.09%
49.69%
49.24%
46.06%
28.56%
26.16%
29.32%
27.51%
26.06%
28.09%
27.97%
27.13%
28.66%
25.96%
28.25%
27.77%
26.19%
25.68%
28.38%
14.38%
15.58%
18.28%
16.13%
15.97%
16.83%
14.69%
17.73%
18.87%
15.63%
15.57%
17.76%
16.96%
18.29%
17.97%
4.16%
4.25%
5.03%
4.57%
3.98%
4.36%
3.98%
4.64%
5.32%
5.15%
5.39%
6.38%
7.15%
6.79%
7.59%
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
4th Grade
5th Grade
6th Grade
7th Grade
8th Grade
Good Attendance Frequently Absent Chronically Absent Severely Chronically Absent
10
BAR GRAPH WITH ALL 4 CATEGORIES FOR GRADES 9-12
36.84%
40.98%
36.21%
28.69%
32.80%
32.64%
27.00%
30.92%
28.01%
16.95%
23.24%
17.53%
22.13%
21.29%
22.58%
20.91%
21.22%
24.47%
21.72%
22.63%
22.49%
21.18%
19.60%
21.51%
21.27%
18.23%
21.84%
22.14%
20.90%
19.58%
23.52%
21.32%
21.99%
27.54%
26.72%
28.39%
19.76%
19.50%
19.36%
28.26%
25.09%
23.31%
27.75%
25.13%
27.51%
34.34%
30.44%
32.57%
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
14‐15
15‐16
16‐17
9th Grade
10th Grade
11th Grade
12th Grade
Good Attendance Frequently Absent Chronically Absent Severely Chronically Absent
11
GRADE BANDS: K-8, 9-12CHRONICALLY ABSENT
3 Year Attendance by Grade Bands: Chronically Absent
16.70%
17.21%
18.92%
23.61%
21.69%
22.91%
5.30%
5.53%
6.24%
27.56%
24.89%
25.57%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
14-15
15-16
16-17
14-15
15-16
16-17
K-8
th9t
h-12
th
12
CHRONICALLY ABSENT FOR GRADES 9-12
21.27%
18.23%
21.84%
22.14%
20.90%
19.58%
23.52%
21.32%
21.99%
27.54%
26.72%
28.39%
19.76%
19.50%
19.36%
28.26%
25.09%
23.31%
27.75%
25.13%
27.51%
34.34%
30.44%
32.57%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
14-15
15-16
16-17
14-15
15-16
16-17
14-15
15-16
16-17
14-15
15-16
16-17
9th
Gra
de10
th G
rade
11th
Gra
de12
th G
rade
13
CHRONICALLY ABSENT FOR GRADES K-8
21.26%19.58%
23.70%18.47%18.76%
19.68%17.09%
17.91%19.58%
15.65%15.51%
17.75%14.38%
15.58%18.28%
16.13%15.97%
16.83%14.69%
17.73%18.87%
15.63%15.57%
17.76%16.96%
18.29%17.97%
7.43%9.07%
7.94%5.99%5.83%
7.79%5.11%
5.61%6.16%
4.21%4.29%
5.71%4.16%
4.25%5.03%
4.57%3.98%
4.36%3.98%
4.64%5.32%
5.15%5.39%
6.38%7.15%
6.79%7.59%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%
14-1515-1616-1714-1515-1616-1714-1515-1616-1714-1515-1616-1714-1515-1616-1714-1515-1616-1714-1515-1616-1714-1515-1616-1714-1515-1616-17
K1s
tG
rade
2nd
Gra
de3r
dG
rade
4th
Gra
de5t
hG
rade
6th
Gra
de7t
hG
rade
8th
Gra
de
Chronic and severely chronic absenteeism increased over-al l in grades 9-12 from 15-16 to 16-17. Grade 9: 37.73% to 41.20% went up Grade 10: 45.99% to 42.89% went down Grade 11: 46.45% to 49.49% went up Grade 12: 57.15% to 60.96% went up
Chronic and severely chronic absenteeism increased in grades K-8 Kindergarten: 28.65% to 31.63% went up Grade 1: 24.58% to 27.48% went up Grade 2: 23.52% to 25.74% went up Grade 3: 19.80% to 23.46% went up Grade 4: 19.83% to 23.31% went up Grade 5: 19.95% to 21.20% went up Grade 6: 22.38% to 24.19% went up Grade 7: 20.96% to 24.14% went up Grade 8: 25.08% to 25.56% went up
Note: data are comparable i f attendance taking is consistent; since we can’t confirm for past years, we are making the assumption that attendance taking was better in 16-17 than prior years (hence increases in K-8 chronic absences could be due to better attendance-taking systems).
CLAIMS BASED ON GRADE LEVEL DATA
14
PRE-K ANALYSIS – GOOD OR FREQUENT ATTENDANCE
15
48.22%
31.52%
16.51%
3.75%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Students Entering PK4 with Good or Frequent Attendance Previous Year
Good Attendance Frequently Absent
Chronically Absent Severely Chronically Absent
55.72%
31.10%
11.30%
1.88%0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Students Entering Kindergarten with Good or Frequent Attendance Previous Year
Good Attendance Frequently Absent
Chronically Absent Severely Chronically Absent
PRE-K ANALYSIS – CHRONICALLY OR SEVERELY CHRONICALLY
ABSENT
16
8.42%
20.54%
40.84%
30.20%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
Students Entering PK4 Chronically or Severely Chronically Absent Previous Year
Good Attendance Frequently Absent
Chronically Absent Severely Chronically Absent
17.76%
31.36%
37.78%
13.10%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Students Entering Kindergarten Chronically or Severely Chronically Absent Previous Year
Good Attendance Frequently Absent
Chronically Absent Severely Chronically Absent
K-8 ANALYSIS - GOOD OR FREQUENTLY ABSENT
17
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Students Entering 16-17 with Good or Frequently Absent Attendance Previous Year
Good Attendance Frequently Absent Chronically Absent Severely Chronically Absent
K-8 ANALYSIS - CHRONICALLY OR SEVERELY CHRONICALLY
ABSENT
18
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Students Entering 16-17 Chronically or Severely Chronically Absent Previous Year
Good Attendance Frequently Absent Chronically Absent Severely Chronically Absent
Conclusions on improvements and regressionChronic absenteeism increases once students start high school. Gap between grades 8/9. Same students become more chronically absent once they start HS.Chronic absenteeism gets worse every year of HS.12th grade levels of chronic absenteeism are shocking. (How to make 12th grade meaningful – to students on path to graduation & college? To students not on path to 4-year graduation?)
DEEP DIVE INTO HIGH SCHOOL
19
8TH TO 9TH GRADE ATTENDANCE –PRECISE COHORT
20
50.00%
22.87%18.28%
8.86%
41.10%
21.88% 20.24%16.78%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Good Attendance Frequently Absent Chronically Absent Severely ChronicallyAbsent
8th Grade 15-16 9th Grade 16-17
9TH TO 10TH GRADE ATTENDANCE – PRECISE COHORT
21
46.68%
21.73%
16.98%14.61%
34.76%
24.64%
20.15% 20.46%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Good Attendance Frequently Absent Chronically Absent Severely ChronicallyAbsent
9th Grade 15-16 10th Grade 16-17
10TH TO 11TH GRADE ATTENDANCE – PRECISE COHORT
22
35.89%
23.22%21.36%
19.53%
31.45%
22.24% 22.34%23.97%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Good Attendance Frequently Absent Chronically Absent Severely ChronicallyAbsent
10th Grade 15-16 11th Grade 16-17
11TH TO 12TH GRADE ATTENDANCE – PRECISE COHORT
23
30.96%
23.41% 23.37% 22.27%
17.92%
21.54%
29.17%31.37%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Good Attendance Frequently Absent Chronically Absent Severely ChronicallyAbsent
11th Grade 15-16 12th Grade 16-17
For the past 3 years transition to 9th
grade has resulted in >12% jump in students either Chronically or Severely Chronically Absent.
24
8TH AND 9TH GRADE CHRONICALLY AND SEVERELY CHRONICALLY ABSENT
STUDENTS
24.11% 25.08% 25.56%
41.04%
37.73%
41.20%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
14-15 15-16 16-17
25
MONTH BY MONTH VIEW
92.8% 92.7%
90.8%90.2% 90.0% 89.5%
90.2%91.0%
90.4%
84.5%
90.2%
Average Attendance Rate ‐ 2016‐17
There is a 9% gap between our best month and worse month!
September: start of school (first few days) Sep starts with 90% daily attendance for first few days and then increased to 92-94%
for the rest of the month 22.1% were chronically absent by end of Sept
October: best month for many reasons 16.1% were chronically absent Oct 31 had the lowest attendance rate of 84% of all month (Halloween).
November: irregular calendar (Elections Day/NJEA week-87%, Thanksgiving-78%) Daily attendance decreased from 93% in Oct to 91% in Nov 31.2% were chronically absent
December: impact of winter break Daily attendance decreased from 91% in Nov to 90% in Dec 32.2% were chronically absent
24.9% were chronically absent by end of Dec (for 69 days of school, about 1/3 of the year)
Conclusions: September & October were the best months; due irregularities in calendar and holidays, the attendance rate declined while Chronic Absenteeism rate jumped.
26
MONTH BY MONTH ANALYSIS - FALL
27
AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE RATE-FALL
87%
94%
78%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%2016‐17 Daily Attendance Rate‐November(91%)
90%
94%
91%
94%
92%92%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%2016‐17 Daily Attendance Rate‐September(93%)
95% 95%
84%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%2016‐17 Daily Attendance Rate‐October(93%)
93%
87%
79%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%2016‐17 Daily Attendance Rate‐December(90%)
10/06/2016: Columbus day; 10/26/2016: PD Day; 11/08/2016: Election Day; 11/10/2016: PD Day; 11/11/2016: Veteran's Day; 11/18/2016: Puerto Rican Observance;11/23/2016: Early Dismissal 1PM; 11/24/2016-11/25/2016: Thanks Giving; 12/22/2016: Early Dismissal 1PM; 12/23/2016-01/02/2017: Christmas + Winter Recess
28
CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM-FALL
58.272.1
46.0 43.756.2
19.7
11.9
22.8 24.1
18.9
13.39.5
20.012.9
16.6
8.8 6.6 11.219.3
8.3
SEP(19 days) OCT(19 days) NOV(16 days) DEC(15 days) YTD(69 days)
% o
f Stu
dent
s
Chronic Absenteeism-FallGood Attendance(<5%) Frequently Absent(5-10%) Chronically Absent(10-20%) Severely Chronically Absent(>=20%)
January: worst attendance so far, but lowest number of teachers not taking attendance 5 days in Jan, NPS had daily attendance rates lower than the January average of 90%. 41% were chronically absent
February: snow days led to lower attendance 3 days in February, NPS had daily attendance rates lower than the February average of
90%. Feb 10 had the lowest attendance rate ever(69%) due to the severe weather (after 1st snow
day) 39.6% were chronically absent
March: as weather improves so does attendance 5 days in March, NPS had daily attendance rates lower than the March average of 90%. March 14 had the lowest attendance rate for the month (80%) due to the severe
weather(after the 2nd snow day and a PD day) 27.8% were chronically absent
Show 26.9% chronically absent by end of March; 127 days so about 2/3 of school year
Conclusions: Winter weather impacts attendance. Attendance is worse on bad weather days.
MONTH BY MONTH ANALYSIS -WINTER
29
30
AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE RATE-WINTER
85%86% 87%
70%
80%
90%
100%2016‐17 Daily Attendance Rate‐January(90%)
69%
85%
60%70%80%90%100%
2016‐17 Daily Attendance Rate‐February(90%)
81% 80%
70%
80%
90%
100%2016‐17 Daily Attendance Rate‐March(90%)
01/16/2017: Martin Luther King's Day; 02/09/2017: First Snow Day; 02/17/2017: Lincoln's Birthday; 02/20/2017: President's Day; 03/14/2017: Second Snow Day03/15/2017: PD Day; 03/16/2017: two hours delay
31
CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM-WINTER
36.2 33.3
57.3 52.8
22.8 27.0
14.9 20.3
23.3 24.714.6 18.0
17.7 15.0 13.2 8.9
JAN(20 days) FEB(17 days) MAR(17 days) YTD(127 days)
% o
f Stu
dent
s
Chronic Absenteeism-WinterGood Attendance(<5%) Frequently Absent(5-10%) Chronically Absent(10-20%) Severely Chronically Absent(>=20%)
April: spring break 5 days in April, NPS had daily attendance rates lower than the April average of 91% April 17 had the lowest rate(86%), which was the first day of school after the break 40% were chronically absent
May: impact of PARCC testing 7 days in May, NPS had daily attendance rates lower than the May average of 90% 27.1% were chronically absent
June: impact of end of year 14/18 days in June, NPS had <90% attendance rate Starting from the end of final exams in HS as 6/13, it starts to decline 56.7% were chronically absent
Chronically absent by May (27.3%) compared to end of June (30.4%) Conclusions: June has significant negative effect on annual statistics. Steps to address this in upcoming
slides. PARCC testing doesn’t impact attendance.
MONTH BY MONTH ANALYSIS -SPRING
32
33
AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE RATE-SPRING
89% 86%
70%
80%
90%
100%2016‐17 Daily Attendance Rate‐April(91%)
89%
93%
88% 87% 89%
70%
80%
90%
100%2016‐17 Daily Attendance Rate‐May(90%)
94%
80% 78%
66%60%70%80%90%
100%2016‐17 Daily Attendance Rate‐June(84%)
04/10/2017-04/14/2017: Spring Break
34
CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM-SPRING
46.659.2
23.7
43.1
23.4
13.7
19.6
26.5
12.413.6
26.9
19.5
17.6 13.5
29.8
10.9
APR(15 days) MAY(22 days) JUN(18 days) YTD(182 days)
% o
f Stu
dent
s
Chronic Absenteeism-SpringGood Attendance(<5%) Frequently Absent(5-10%) Chronically Absent(10-20%) Severely Chronically Absent(>=20%)
OVERALL ATTENDANCE BY MONTH
35
This data comes from Monthly Attendance dataset.
YTD as of May YTD as of June
Good Attendance
18552 17126
Frequently Absent
7316 10507
Chronically Absent
6459 7744
SeverelyChronically Absent
3217 4341
36
MAY AND JUNE ATTENDANCE COMPARISON
52.2
43.1
20.6
26.5
18.219.5
9.110.9
As of May As of June
YTD Attendance Categories 16‐17
GoodAttendance(<5%)
FrequentlyAbsent(5‐10%)
ChronicallyAbsent(10‐20%)
SeverelyChronicallyAbsent(>=20%)
Number of Students by Attendance Category
Student attendance frequently dips when there are irregular school day and week schedules.
Show using specific dates from monthly data set Start of school NJEA week Early dismissal date June
CLAIM: THE SCHOOL CALENDAR IMPACTS STUDENT ATTENDANCE
37
Structural changes planned and integrated into new NTU contract and 2017-18 school calendar More instructional days in high achieving months (Sept 5 start date) and fewer in low
attendance month of June (12 days in 17-18 compared to 18 in 16-17). Provision to monitor early dismissal dates for PD
Other structural changes Marking period dates High school final exam schedule
Strategies to make low attendance days more meaningful and engaging for students Days before vacations Early dismissal dates (PD, parent-teacher conferences, etc.) High interest June programming (academic competitions, student productions, STEM week,
etc.)
OUR PLAN
38
Cohort Attendance: Data only includes students who stayed year-to-year
2 CASE STUDY SCHOOLS
39
GoodAttendance
FrequentlyAbsent
ChronicallyAbsent
SeverelyChronically
AbsentGood
AttendanceFrequently
AbsentChronically
Absent
SeverelyChronically
AbsentSussex Avenue 2014-15 38.78% 14.76% 8.86% 2.56% 50.77% 27.41% 19.31% 2.51%
2015-16 43.96% 32.13% 19.79% 4.11% 40.84% 32.07% 21.91% 5.18%2016-17 38.39% 32.68% 24.41% 4.53% 38.48% 31.86% 25.65% 4.01%
GoodAttendance
FrequentlyAbsent
ChronicallyAbsent
SeverelyChronically
AbsentGood
AttendanceFrequently
AbsentChronically
Absent
SeverelyChronically
AbsentBarringer S.T.E.A.M. 2014-15 18.05% 10.15% 13.27% 12.68% 15.37% 16.25% 25.44% 42.95%
2015-16 21.57% 21.29% 30.53% 26.61% 14.35% 17.82% 27.03% 40.79%2016-17 27.90% 21.07% 24.00% 27.02% 22.22% 21.90% 26.00% 29.88%
Overall Attendance: Data includes all students
Students with Good or Frequent Attendance 2015-2016
Students with Chronic or Severely Chronic Attendance 2015-2016
40
SUSSEX AVENUE CASE STUDY
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
GoodAttendance
FrequentlyAbsent
ChronicallyAbsent
SeverelyChronically
Absent
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
GoodAttendance
FrequentlyAbsent
ChronicallyAbsent
SeverelyChronically
Absent
Sussex
NPS Overall
Students with Good or Frequent Attendance 2015-2016
Students with Chronic or Severely Chronic Attendance 2015-2016
41
BARRINGER STEAM CASE STUDY
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
GoodAttendance
FrequentlyAbsent
ChronicallyAbsent
SeverelyChronically
Absent
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
GoodAttendance
FrequentlyAbsent
ChronicallyAbsent
SeverelyChronically
Absent
Barringer STEAM
NPS Overall
CASE STUDY- BARRINGER STEAMWHAT WE LEARNED
Communication/Know your Attendance
Established clear systems for taking attendance
Parents received monthly letter re: their child’s attendance and weekly calls from teacher
Students received monthly report on their attendance and convocation for those w/4-6 absences
Monthly Staff PD on attendance; data was shared and discussed
Incentives (Proactive)
Students sat on the SST team and were given the opportunity to select their homeroom/advisory teacher
Age appropriate incentives that were developed by the students gave students ownership of the process
Supports (Reactive/
Responsive)
Students who fell in the “red” or “yellow” engaged in need-based discussions about their attendance
Student Support Specialist and Deans conducted home visits
42
A person who has the primary responsibil ity of managing attendance and tracking data
School calendar- student attendance trails off after final exams Incentives for parents with students who have perfect attendance
CASE STUDY- BARRINGER STEAMPRINCIPAL MINCY’S RECOMMENDATIONS
43
CASE STUDY- SUSSEX AVENUEWHAT WE LEARNED
Communication/Know your Attendance
Established clear systems for taking attendance
Parents received phone calls form Principal Gearhart
Students received monthly report on their attendance and convocation for those w/4-6 absences
Teachers received attendance data for their class AND teacher attendance
Incentives (Proactive)
Monthly school-wide eventsSome activities held on the last day before 3-day weekendPerfect attendance for students and staff posted in the cafeteria
Age appropriate incentives
Supports (Reactive/
Responsive)
Focused on the “yellow” group
Principal Gearhart conducted home visits
44
Designated individuals to conduct home visits Be strategic about monthly incentives Attendance counselors knew the community and had valuable relationships with
the courts- consider bringing them back
CASE STUDY- SUSSEX AVENUEPRINCIPAL GEARHART’S RECOMMENDATIONS
45
•Schools need help to support students who fall into the “red” and “yellow” category; need immediate and individualized support
•Principal must be invested in planning
•There are some basic strategies that are transferable and adaptable
•Attendance interventions are not one size fits all
High School vs K-8Incentives, home visits, intentional
systems, everyone must be involved
Home visits, convocations,
parent education/meetings
Sharing data with all major
stakeholders and using data to plan
interventions
REFLECTIONS & CONCLUSIONS ON SCHOOLS
46
Challenges
• Attendance data has stayed level• June attendance decreases significantly• Need additional Support at the Central Office level to manage, monitor and support district goals
Inputs Inputs (Assets)
• Support from Superintendent• Emphasis on data collection and analysis• Data sharing with schools; accountability measures
Outputs
• Training and programming that promotes a positive school climate and encourages students to attend school• Engage the city in partnering with the district on attendance initiatives• Additional central office staff designated to support schools on attendance management and interventions for
students who fall in the “yellow” and “red” categories (conduct home visits, support SST in case managing severe cases, work with court reps).
Outcomes
47
1. Continue to share monthly attendance data (district and school) with major stakeholders- Asst. Superintendents, Principals, Student Support Services Team
2. Create a Student Support Attendance Team (District Attendance Coordinator, Attendance Interventionist, and Court reps) that will be responsible for developing and supporting each school in an attendance improvement plan
3. Use a vendor to provide home visit services to schools with greatest attendance needs- students in the “yellow” and “red” category.
SUMMARY OF PLAN
48
Next steps Questions
NEXT STEPS/QUESTIONS
49
Deeper cohort analysis How many students went up, down, stayed same in their attendance category Schools where cohort data shows impact (good or bad)
Impact of attendance on academic achievement Does improved attendance lead to better outcomes and vice versa I’d like to look at changes in PARCC for students who changes attendance categories (both
up and down)
FUTURE ADDITIONAL DATA CUTS
50
top related