Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Attendance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Clackamas board reviews multi‑tiered strategy to address chronic absenteeism
Summary
District staff presented data showing chronic absenteeism thresholds, attendance‑tracking improvements and targeted tiers of intervention; board members asked for more disaggregated and building‑level data and for clear success metrics.
The North Clackamas School District Board of Directors on Feb. 27 heard a presentation from the district’s student‑services team outlining current attendance data, how the district defines chronic absenteeism and the tiered interventions schools use to improve student attendance.
District staff said chronic absenteeism is defined as attendance below 90 percent and described new real‑time dashboards and verification processes intended to let school teams target support earlier.
Why it matters: Regular attendance is used by the district as a predictor of student success. Board members pressed staff for building‑level and demographic breakdowns to ensure interventions reach groups with the lowest attendance and to establish measurable targets for improvement.
District presentation and metrics Dr. Kalia Williams Rodriguez, the district’s chief of student family services, led the presentation with staff members who described three attendance categories used locally: “no absence issue” (95% attendance or higher), “trending chronic” (about 94.9%–92.5%) and “nearly chronic” (92%–90%). Staff noted the state’s chronic absenteeism metric is below 90 percent. The team said the district has improved attendance compared with 2022–23 and held steady versus 2023–24, and that local dashboards now permit earlier, more granular detection of patterns such as missed particular class periods versus whole‑day absences.
Staff explained verified versus unverified absence tracking. “Verified” means the school has been told by a caregiver or via the district’s ParentVUE reporting tools that a student will not attend; “unverified” triggers automated outreach. The district also retains categories for illness and out‑of‑school suspension for internal monitoring.
Tiered interventions and examples Staff described a multi‑tiered system of support: - Tier 1 (universal): school‑wide climate work (for example, warm welcomes at arrival), data dashboards and school teams that monitor attendance trends. - Tier 2 (targeted): outreach from school staff, individualized family communication, alternatives to exclusionary discipline and use of attendance teams to design interventions. - Tier 3 (intensive): case management, social‑work and mental‑health partnerships for students with chronic barriers to attendance.
Presenters cited examples by grade band: elementary schools emphasize warm welcomes and family partnerships; middle schools use team scheduling and an app button in ParentVUE to verify absences; high schools coordinate a High School Success Network with county partners to share best practices.
Board discussion and requests Board members asked for additional disaggregated data. Director Wachter asked for proportional breakdowns (for example, the number of students in Tier 3 supports) and building goals so best practices can be scaled. Director Benaloga requested clarification on verified versus excused status; staff clarified the district uses “verified” to indicate the school knows the reason for an absence and that “excused/unexcused” distinctions are not part of the state reporting binary. Director McVeigh asked about make‑up opportunities for missed instruction; staff said options include summer school, tutoring services such as tutor.com and teacher outreach but emphasized that in‑person instruction remains the most effective remedy.
Staff emphasized they have additional demographic and location data available and that principals include attendance targets in school improvement plans. The district also said it will continue to use the YouthTruth student survey and other feedback to measure student sense of belonging, which staff said correlates with attendance.
Next steps Staff said the district will continue to refine dashboards and report more disaggregated metrics to the board and that school teams will keep using tiered strategies. Board members asked staff to return with clearer success metrics and building‑level goals.
Ending The board did not take formal action on the presentation. Staff said they will provide additional demographic and building‑level attendance data and suggested schools will continue to use tiered interventions to support students’ return to regular attendance.
