Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attendance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Philomath SD 17J board reviews attendance data, targets interventions for students at 80–90% attendance
Summary
District staff presented year‑to‑date and month‑by‑month attendance percentages, differentiated 'attendance percentage' from 'regular attenders' (90%+), and recommended targeting interventions at students with 80–90% attendance as the highest‑leverage group; board asked staff to return with concrete programs and staffing proposals.
District staff presented a detailed analysis of attendance trends and recommended targeted interventions aimed at students who attend between 80% and 90% of school days.
The presenter explained that the commonly reported attendance percentage shows daily presence by grade and school, while a separate metric—‘regular attenders’—counts students who attend 90% or more of the time. Staff showed year‑to‑date figures and a February snapshot that identified seniors and specific academy/King Valley grade levels as low outliers. “When we look at regular attenders…those ranges go from 100% down to students who are at 45%,” the presenter said, noting small cohort sizes can skew percentages at some sites.
Staff emphasized data‑slicing (in‑person vs. hybrid vs. academy enrollment), the need to distinguish transient causes (broken leg, family vacations) from chronic absence, and research resources (Attendance Works, Measure 98 references, a national superintendent association attendance group). The presentation recommended prioritizing students in the 80–90% range as the most effective target for interventions and using tiered strategies (universal prevention, early intervention, intensive supports) to move students into the regular‑attender category.
Board requests and next steps: a board member asked staff to return at the next meeting with specific programs or staffing proposals already in use at schools and with targets set from the data. Staff said they will identify the data elements needed to set a goal and will avoid collecting extraneous data that does not inform decisions.
Why it matters: research cited at the meeting links chronic absence to downstream learning challenges and graduation risk; the board’s decision on how to direct resources and whether to add targeted staff will affect students’ instructional time and long‑term outcomes.
