• Daily Attendance
• |
• Class Period Absence Rate
• |
• Tardy Rate
• |
• Discipline
• |
• Mobility
• |
• Dropout Rate
• |
• Student and Parent Participation
• |
• Sources

School engagement and participation have become the focus of educators over the past decade as they are linked to achievement and dropout rates. In order to learn, a student has to be both physically and mentally present in the classroom, on a consistent basis, ready to receive instruction. Students who are in class, on time, and behaving well are more likely to be actively and productively engaged in their own education. Conversely, students who are moving frequently between schools may be less likely to be engaged in their learning, much like a student who is frequently absent. Additionally, a high rate of mobility at a particular school can adversely affect every student at that school. Measures of engagement and participation vary; however, research has proven that high rates of absenteeism, tardiness, disciplinary incidents, or mobility signal disruptions in the continuity and quality of a student’s learning. Moreover, high rates of absenteeism can lead to course failure and, eventually, dropping out of school. The good news for educators is that all of this student information is accessible early and often in the school year, before course performance data is available. As a result, these data are powerful and useful early indicators for identifying students in need of immediate intervention. In the case of a student who is receiving interventions engagement and participation measures can also provide educators with an important measure of the “dosage” of the intervention.   When viewed together, attendance, tardiness, discipline, mobility, dropout rate and participation metrics help educators understand the true story of how actively and productively individual students, groups of students, and their parents are engaged in school.

Introduction

Educators understand that in order to learn, one has to be physically present in the classroom.  Monitoring daily attendance gives educators a picture of which students may need interventions to avoid the following research-based outcomes:

• High rates of absence are likely to lead to course failure and, over the long term, greater likelihood of dropping out of school. 
• A few absences matter greatly: nearly 90% of freshmen in Chicago Public Schools who miss less than a week of school per semester graduate in four years, compared to just over 60% of students who missed about one week (equal to five to nine days) (Allensworth & Easton, 2007).
• Attendance, not prior test scores, is the single largest variable in course failures among Chicago freshmen.  In fact, course at­tendance has been shown to be eight times more predictive of course failure in ninth grade than eighth grade test scores.  Practically speaking, Chicago ninth graders who miss more than two weeks of school fail, on average, at least two classes.  Moreover, ninth graders who enter with high eighth grade test scores, but miss two weeks of school per semester, are more likely to fail a course than ninth graders with low test scores who miss just one week (Allensworth & Easton, 2007).
• Chicago ninth graders demonstrating high levels of absenteeism (missing one month or more of school) have less than a 10% chance of graduating (Allensworth & Easton, 2007).
• Among Philadelphia high school students, the number of absences during the first 30 days of ninth grade was found to be the most powerful predictor of later academic failure among all risk factors (Neild & Balfanz, 2006).
• Among Philadelphia middle schoolers, sixth and eighth graders with less than 80% attendance for the year had a 75% chance or greater of dropping out of school (Neild & Balfanz, 2006).

Related Metrics

• Class Period Absence Rate: frequency of class periods missed during specified time periods as well as trends over time.
• Tardy Rate: frequency of late arrivals during specified time periods as well as trends over time.

How to Use the Metric

With the detailed daily attendance detail, educators can view attendance patterns, including both excused and unexcused absences, throughout the school year.  If a student’s overall attendance falls below the defined campus attendance goal, the student is easily identified for immediate attention and intervention by the teacher.  Aggregated at the campus level, educators can identify problem days of the week as well as other patterns in the student body as a whole.  Ideally, teachers would review attendance daily, but at a minimum on a weekly basis, to address issues before attendance declines to a critical level. 

Detailed attendance data allows educators to implement consistent and timely responses to attendance (e.g., adult contact after second absence) and develop individual student intervention plans aimed at furthering student-teacher trust and student ownership of and engagement in academics, two conditions which research suggests are influential in improving attendance.

Metric Specifications

• Student: Daily Attendance Rate

Introduction

Class period absence rate lets educators know, often before daily attendance rate, that a student is having an issue with a specific class subject or time period.  It is therefore important to monitor class period attendance rate in order to intervene with students as early as possible.  Reasons for monitoring include:

• Class period (partial day) absences are likely to lead to a greater number of days absent. 
• Where daily attendance is only taken during the morning, class period absences, typically recorded for all classes at the secondary level, provide a more accurate picture of how often students are actually receiving classroom instruction.
• A few absences matter greatly: nearly 90% of ninth graders in Chicago Public Schools who miss less than a week of school per semester graduate in four years, compared to just over 60% of students who missed about one week (equal to five to nine days) (Allensworth & Easton, 2007).
• Attendance, not prior test scores, is the single largest variable in course failures among Chicago ninth graders.  In fact, course at­tendance has been shown to be eight times more predictive of course failure in the ninth grade than eighth grade test scores.  Practically speaking, Chicago ninth graders who miss more than two weeks of school fail, on average, at least two classes.  Moreover, ninth graders who enter with high eighth grade test scores, but miss two weeks of school per semester, are more likely to fail a course than ninth graders with low test scores who miss just one week (Allensworth & Easton, 2007).
• Chicago ninth graders demonstrating high levels of absenteeism (missing one month or more of school) have less than a 10% chance of graduating (Allensworth & Easton, 2007).
• Among Philadelphia high school students, the number of absences during the first 30 days of ninth grade was found to be the most powerful predictor of later academic failure among all risk factors (Neild & Balfanz, 2006).
• Among Philadelphia middle schoolers, sixth and eighth graders with less than 80% attendance for the year had a 75% chance or greater of dropping out of school (Neild & Balfanz, 2006).

Related Metric

• Daily Attendance Rate: frequency of days present and trends over time.

 How to Use the Metric

The class period absence rate enables educators to easily identify students who have missed an excessive amount of classes, allowing for immediate attention and intervention. Although daily attendance is a vitally important first screen, the class period absence rate provides secondary educators additional insight into when (what period and/or day) and where (what subject) a student’s absences are occurring, so that they can target their interventions accordingly. In addition, educators can review aggregated information on class absences by student and for the class as a whole (“classroom” view) in order to identify and address patterns among groups of students. 

Ideally, teachers should review attendance daily, but at a minimum on a weekly basis, to address issues before attendance declines to a critical level. Coupled with other indicators of performance, closely monitoring attendance can identify several early intervention opportunities:

• When detailed period-level attendance information is available, the needs of students struggling within a particular class (e.g., English language arts) can be addressed with a specific academic intervention before course failure occurs. 
• Student intervention plans may be devised with the goal of furthering student-teacher trust and student ownership of and engagement in academics, two conditions which research suggests are critical to improving attendance.
• School-wide efforts to increase attendance and develop consistent responses to attendance gaps (e.g., adult contact after second absence) can strengthen efforts with individual students.

Metric Specifications

• Student: Class Period Absence Rate

Introduction

Closely watching tardy rate is just as important as watching the daily or class period attendance rate, particularly in elementary school where a tardy may be the equivalent of missing an entire subject’s worth of instruction. Additional reasons to closely monitor tardiness include:

• Whereas class period absence rate gives educators an idea of what content is being missed in middle and high school, tardy rate gives educators an idea of what content is being missed at the elementary level where there may only be one ‘class period’ to report. 
• Educators feel strongly that tardiness and absenteeism interfere with classroom learning (Light, 2006).
• Increased tardy rates may lead to more days absent.
• Tardiness and truancy are linked to increases in discipline incidents (Dinks & Baum, 2009).

Related Metric

• Daily Attendance Rate: frequency of days present and trends over time.

How to Use the Metric

The Tardy Rate metric enables educators to easily identify students who have missed an excessive amount of instructional time, allowing for immediate attention and intervention. Although daily attendance is a vitally important first screen, tardy rate provides elementary educators additional insight into when (what morning and/or day) and where (what subject area) a student’s absences are occurring, so that they can target their interventions accordingly.  In addition, educators can review aggregated information on tardies by student and for the class as a whole (“classroom” view) in order to identify and address patterns among groups of students. 

Ideally, teachers should review attendance and tardies daily, but at a minimum on a weekly basis, to address issues before attendance declines or tardies increase to a critical level.  Coupled with other indicators of performance, closely monitoring tardies can identify several early intervention opportunities:

• When detailed tardy information is available, the needs of students struggling within a particular subject area (e.g., english language arts) can be addressed with a specific academic intervention before course failure occurs. 
• Student and parent intervention plans may be devised with the goal of furthering student-teacher trust and student ownership of and engagement in academics, two conditions which research suggests are critical to improving attendance.
• School-wide efforts to increase attendance and develop consistent responses to tardy issues (e.g., adult contact after second tardy) can strengthen efforts with individual students.

Metric Specifications

• Student: Tardy Rate

Introduction

Students who misbehave are often calling out for help. Educators must monitor discipline in order to track these warning signs early and intervene. 

• Misbehavior often leads to removal from the classroom or, in more serious cases, the school, further disrupting instruction. 
• Disruptive behavior affects not only the learning of the perpetrator (student misbehaving) but also every student in the classroom.
• Among students receiving one or more out of school suspensions in sixth grade, only 20% graduated within one year of on-time. The likelihood of graduation was further decreased for students with two or more suspensions (Balfanz, Herzog, & MacIver, 2007).
• Sixth grade students in Philadelphia receive a behavior grade based on their conduct. Among the 38% of sixth graders receiving a final unsatisfactory behavior grade, only 24% graduated on time (Balfanz, Herzog, & MacIver, 2007).
• Unsatisfactory behavior is strongly linked to course failure: 77% of the students failing math, and 80% of the students failing English in the sixth grade also had unsatisfactory behavior grades (Balfanz, Herzog, & MacIver, 2007).

How to Use the Metric

The Discipline Incidents metric enables educators to easily identify students with problem behavior that has led to high levels of discipline incidents, allowing for immediate attention and intervention.   Having readily identified these students, educators can review the date, reason, description and action taken for each reported discipline incident in order to introduce interventions and responses that are both appropriate and timely.  In addition, educators can view aggregated information on discipline referrals by student and for the class as a whole (“classroom” view) in order to identify and address patterns of misbehavior among groups of students. 

Because of the timeliness of discipline data, problem behavior that may lead to academic difficulties can often be detected before course performance data are available.  Ideally, teachers would review discipline data weekly, but at a minimum on a monthly basis, to ensure behavior issues are addressed. 

Research suggests three strategies that are effective at addressing student misbehavior (Balfanz, Herzog, & MacIver, 2007):

• Constantly recognize and model positive behavior.
• Follow the first incident of misbehavior with a consistent, timely response.
• Work collaboratively among teachers, administrators and counselors to examine data on when, where and which students misbehave to devise individual and school wide solutions.

Metric Specifications

• Student: Discipline Incidents

Introduction

Students who move often do not have the benefit of developing a close relationship with teachers and often experience gaps in their knowledge due to differences in the curriculum scope and sequence.  These students often experience emotional challenges during these transitions as well.  Identifying these students and working closely to ensure they are on track is critical for maximizing student performance.

• High mobility puts students at greater risk for academic and behavioral problems (Hartman & Leff, 2002).
• Mobility can have a cumulative effect on students' achievement that can place them as much as a year behind their peers (Kerbow, 1996).
• Students who change schools often are at greater risk for dropping out altogether (Rumberger & Larson, 1998).
• Non-mobile students in school with a highly mobile student body (>30%), are affected by the mobility.  In California schools with high mobility rates, non-mobile students scored considerably lower on standardized tests than schools with lower mobility rates (Rumberger R. W., Larson, Ream, & Palardy, 1999).

Introduction

Young people who drop out of high school are unlikely to have the minimum skills and credentials necessary to function in today’s increasingly complex society and technological workplace. Dropout rates inform educators about the numbers and rates of students leaving the school system and measure a school’s success in ensuring the student population completes high school with the skills necessary to succeed.   

• Students who drop out of high school make on average 65% less than those who graduate.
• In July 2009, dropouts had a 15.4% unemployment rate compared to the national unemployment rate of 9.4%  (US Bureau of Labor and Statistics).
• School dropouts have significantly fewer job prospects, make lower salaries, and are more often unemployed than youth who stay in school (US Department of Education, 1993).
• Fourteen percent of dropouts live in poverty, considerably higher than the 6% of graduates that live in poverty (Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 2001).
• Dropouts are also more likely to depend on welfare, experience unstable marriages, and serve time in prison than those who complete high school (Snyder & Sickmund, 1995; US Department of Education, 1993).

Introduction

Academically engaged students are invested in their learning, thoughtful and purposeful when approaching school tasks and will to try hard in order to master complex tasks and skills. This type of participation is reinforced through parental involvement. The level of student and parent engagement in their school and learning community has been directly linked to achievement (Fredricks, McColskey, Meli, Mordica, Montrosse, & Mooney, 2011 & Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Studies have shown that student engagement begins to decline in the later elementary grades and middle school and reaches its lowest levels in high school (Marks, 2000). It is therefore imperative that educators monitor parent and student involvement and identify ways in which they can stay actively involved.

Extracurricular Activities

Students who participate in extracurricular activities are more likely to achieve success in school in a variety of ways.  Students who participate in extracurricular activities:

• Are less likely to drop out of school (Mahoney & Cairns, 1997).
• Are more likely to matriculate to four year colleges (Kaufman & Gabler, 2004).
• Have higher achievement (Camp, 1990).
• Have better grades (Marsh, 1992).
• Have higher standardized test scores (Gerber, 1996).
• Attend school more regularly (Mahoney & Cairns, 1997).
• Have higher self-concepts (Marsh, 1992).

Home School Connection

Parents who actively participate in their child’s education increase the likelihood of academic success.  Having an open line of communication between the home and school is a key part of student success.  Students whose parents participate in school activities such as parent-teacher conferences:

• Have higher school achievement (Jeynes, 2003).
• Have higher academic self-esteem (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2005).
• Earn higher grades (National PTA).
• Attend school more regularly (National PTA).

Climate

The ability for campuses and districts to serve the needs of students, parents and the broader community is critical especially in areas where there are choice programs.  In researching best practices of leading districts (e.g., Oakland, Chicago, Charlotte), surveys are regularly used by the administration to assess school climate measures such as quality, satisfaction and safety of students and parents.  This data is used to identify areas of improvement and track effectiveness of campus and district initiatives over time.  Schools that score well on stakeholder climate surveys (students, educators and staff and parents) report:

• Increasing perceive safety on a campus as judged by climate surveys can raise students achievement 16-22% (Milam, Furr-Holden, & Leaf, 2010).
• Positive school climate increases teacher retention (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009).

Allensworth, E., & Easton, J. (2007). What Matters for Staying on Track and Graduating in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.

Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & MacIver, D. (2007). Preventing Student Disengagement and Keeping Students on the Graduation Path In Urban Middle-Grades Schools: Early Identification and Effective Interventions. Educational Psychology, 223-235.

Bureau of Labor and Statistics. (2001). A Profile of the Working Poor, 1999. Washington DC: US Department of Labor.

Camp, W. G. (1990). Participation in Student Activities and Achievement: A Covariance Structural Analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 272-278.

Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School Climate: Research, Policy, Practice, and Teacher Education. Teachers College Record, 180-213.

Dinks, K. R., & Baum, K. (2009). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. (2004). School Engagement: potential of the concept: state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 59-119.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. (2004). School Engagement: potential of the concept: state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 59-119.

Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: a description of 21 instruments. Washington DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and regional Assistance.

Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement un upper elementary through high school: a description of 21 instruments. Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance .

Gerber, S. (1996). Extracurricular activities and academic achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 42-50.

Hartman, C., & Leff, A. (2002). High Classroom Turnover: How Children Get Left Behind. Poverty & Race.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2005, March 22). Final Report. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from The Family-School Partnership Lab: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/family-school/Reports.html

Jeynes, W. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 202-218.

Kaufman, J., & Gabler, J. (2004). Cultural capital and the extracurricular activities of boys and girls on the college attainment process. Cambridge: Elsevier B.V.

Kerbow, D. (1996). Patterns of Urban Students Mobility and Local School Reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 2.

Light, M. (2006, January 10). School Tardiness a Growing Problem. Buffalo News.

Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do Extracurricular Activities Protect Against Early School Dropout? Developmental Psychology, 241-253.

Mahoney, J., & Cairns, R. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 241-253.

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 514-523.

Marsh, H. (1992). Extracurricular activities: Beneficial extension of the traditional curriculum or subversion of academic goals? Journal of Educational Psychology, 553-562.

Milam, A., Furr-Holden, C., & Leaf, P. (2010). Perceived School and Neighborhood Safety, neighborhood Violence and Academic Achievement in Urban School Children . The Urban Review, 458-467.

National PTA. (n.d.). Family-School Partnerships. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from National PTA: http://www.pta.org/family_school_partnerships.asp

Neild, R. C., & Balfanz, R. (2006). Unfulfilled Promise: The Dimensions and Characteristics of Philadelphia's Dropout Crisis. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Youth Network, Johns Hopkins University, & The University of Pennsylvania.

Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K. A. (1998). Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout. American Journal of Education, 1-35.

Rumberger, R. W., Larson, K., Ream, R. K., & Palardy, G. J. (1999). The Educational Consequences of Mobility for California Students and Schools. Berkley: PACE.

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington DC: US Department of Justice.

US Bureau of Labor and Statistics. (n.d.). Employment Status of the Civilian Populations 25 Years and Over by Educational Attainment. Retrieved October 28, 2010, from US Department of Labor: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

US Department of Education. (1993). Conditions of Education: 1993. Washington DC: US Department of Education.