attendance outcomes 2016-2017content.nps.k12.nj.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/... · 28.01% 16.95%...

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


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


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


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



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



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



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



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


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


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%




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%




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%



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

attendance outcomes 2016-2017content.nps.k12.nj.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/... · 28.01% 16.95%...

Documents