2012-13 attendance data
TRANSCRIPT
DC Public Charter School Board SY 2012-‐2013 A:endance Data
July 31, 2013
PCSB Goal: Reduce rate of unexcused and excused absences In-‐Seat A:endance
PK—12th 2012-‐2013 Charter Sector Average : 91% (up from 89% in SY 2011-‐2012)
In-‐Seat A:endance: Days Present/ Days Enrolled
Top Schools—Highest In-‐Seat A:endance Rate for 2012-‐2013:
07/31/13 2
Washington Yu Ying PCS 96% Hope Community PCS -‐ Tolson 96% Center City PCS -‐ Petworth 96% BASIS DC PCS 95% KIPP DC PCS -‐ WILL 95% D.C. Prep PCS -‐ Edgewood Middle 95% Center City PCS -‐ Brightwood 95% Washington LaVn PCS -‐ Upper 95% KIPP DC: KEY Academy PCS 95%
At a glance: most improved, least improved, lowest rate
In-‐Seat A:endance
07/31/13 3
Most Improved (% change of rate SY12 to SY13) Ideal Academy PCS 34% Howard University Middle School of MathemaVcs and Science PCS 27%
Paul PCS 11% Hope Community PCS -‐ Tolson 11%
Least Improved (% change of rate SY12 to SY13) NaVonal Collegiate Prep PCS -‐11% Maya Angelou PCS -‐ Evans High -‐10% SepVma Clark PCS -‐7%
Lowest In-‐Seat Rate Maya Angelou PCS -‐ Evans High School 75%
NaVonal Collegiate Prep PCS 80%
SepVma Clark PCS 83%
Maya Angelou PCS -‐ Evans Middle School 83%
Eagle Academy PCS-‐ McGogney 83%
Perry Street Prep PCS 85%
Hospitality PCS 86%
Why focus on In-‐Seat A:endance? DC-‐CAS results ARE correlated with In-‐Seat A:endance Rate
(Campus analysis)
07/31/13 4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
2013 DC-‐CA
S Co
mpo
site (cam
pus level)
2012-‐13 In-‐Seat A:endance
R2 = 0.38
9/13/13 5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2013 DC-‐CA
S Co
mpo
site Proficiency Ra
te (b
y campu
s)
Truancy Rate
Why focus on In-‐Seat A:endance? DC-‐CAS results are NOT correlated with Truancy Rate
(Campus analysis)
R2 = 0.18
Why focus on In-‐Seat A:endance? Student Learning is Compromised When Student Misses More than 10 Days of
School, unexcused and excused
07/31/13 6
56%
48%
39% 32%
54%
40% 33% 29%
50% 51%
44%
35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 to 9 Absent Types 10 to 15 Absent Types 16 to 25 Absent Types 26+ Absent Types
Percen
t Scorin
g Profi
cien
t or A
dvan
ced
Percent of Students scoring Proficient or Advanced in Reading DC
CAS by Number of Absences (SY 2012 data)
Reading All
Reading Unexcused
Reading Excused
Student Absences by Days
(The remaining slides will focus on unexcused absences. PCSB is dedicated to supporVng the city in its efforts at reducing truancy.)
Number and Percent of K-‐12 Students by Days of Unexcused Absences
Charter Sector Average
# with 0 days
% with 0 days
# with 1-‐5 days
% with 1-‐5 days
# with 6-‐10 days
% with 6-‐10 days
# with 11-‐20 days
% with 11-‐20 days
# with 21+ days
% with 21+ days
3433 13% 10814 42% 6470 25% 4131 16% 1933 8%
07/31/13 7
A:endance Policies LEAs set their own a:endance policies. PCSB conducts periodic
audits to ensure LEAs are abiding by these policies.
• 86% of LEAs require at least a parent note (or doctor note) to be excused • 59% of LEAs require a doctor note either from the start or aSer X number of days • 7% of LEAs remove students from class for tardies (tardy hall, sent home) • 70% of LEAs have consequences for tardies (in-‐school disciplinary acVon,
detenVon, loss of privileges, exclusion from acVviVes, parental contact, conferences, X tardies equal 1 absence, other school-‐based consequences or intervenVons)
• 16% of LEAs suspend or expel for tardies • 77% of LEAs have disciplinary consequences for unexcused absences (in-‐school
disciplinary acVon, detenVon, loss of privileges, exclusion from acVviVes, parental contact, conferences, other school-‐based consequences or intervenVons)
7/31/13 8
PCSB Goal: Improve data processes and transparency to assist schools in reducing truancy
Truancy: students ages 5-‐13 with 10+ days of unexcused absences; ages 14-‐17 with 25+ days 2012-‐2013 Charter Sector Average : 19% (up from 18% in SY 2011-‐2012) • LEAs have been working to improve their excused and unexcused absence tracking systems
and create more standardized excused absence policies
Lowest Rates
*These schools were audited by PCSB to ensure data quality
07/31/13 9
CreaVve Minds InternaVonal PCS 0% Washington LaVn PCS-‐ Middle School* 0% Washington Yu Ying PCS 0% Tree of Life PCS 0% Washington LaVn PCS -‐ Upper School* 1% Paul PCS 1% Center City PCS-‐ Brightwood 1% Thurgood Marshall Academy PCS 2% Washington MathemaVcs Science Technology PCS* 2% KIPP DC PCS -‐ College Prep 2% Roots PCS 2%
Highest Truancy rates (and their corresponding In-‐Seat A[endance rates)
07/31/13 10
Highest Truancy Rate In-‐Seat Rate DC Scholars PCS 65% 90% William E. Doar, Jr. PCS 64% 88% Community Academy PCS -‐ Amos III 59% 89% Maya Angelou PCS -‐ Evans Middle School 59% 83% Hope Community PCS -‐ Lamond 54% 90% Community Academy PCS -‐ Amos II 53% 88% SepVma Clark PCS 50% 83% Imagine Southeast PCS 49% 90% Howard Road Academy PCS -‐ Howard Road 48% 91% Perry Street Prep PCS* 42% 85%
• PCSB believes increased city-‐wide a[enVon given to truancy has improved data quality • PCSB audited schools with unusual data trends to ensure accuracy of data submission • Some schools with tough excused absence policies in turn have high truancy rates
*These schools were audited by PCSB to ensure data quality
PCSB’s role in addressing chronic absenteeism: -‐Policies that focus on improvement of a:endance
-‐Citywide CollaboraVon
PCSB Truancy Policy • Reduce absenteeism by helping schools focus resources on families who need the
most help while allowing schools to show improvements within the school year. • PCSB idenVfies cohorts of students by quarter that have exceeded 10 unexcused
absences (in future, may change this to “absent”) • School must reduce the number of addiVonal absences for the cohort while
prevenVng new students from being idenVfied
Citywide CollaboraVon • Data sharing with other agencies in DC to assist them in implemenVng their
truancy policies (CFSA)
7/31/13 11
PCSB’s role in addressing chronic absenteeism : A:endance Dashboards
7/31/13 12