Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attendance Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School administrators show board midyear data linking absenteeism bands to literacy assessment outcomes
Summary
District administrators presented two midyear assessments (M‑class for K–3 decoding skills and MAP growth measures) paired with absenteeism bands and asked board members to review patterns; discussion focused on sample size limits, differences between achievement and growth metrics, and using the combined data to target interventions for students with high absence rates.
District administrators presented two midyear assessment datasets and preliminary analysis linking student absenteeism to assessment outcomes, then asked the school board to review and discuss patterns.
"We're gonna look at student achievement data based on two different midyear assessments," the presenter said, offering two printouts that pair percent‑absent bands with achievement categories and growth measures. The first report used the M‑class assessment (K–3 foundational literacy) to show achievement bands; the second used MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) to show growth from fall to winter.
Board members and staff cautioned against overinterpreting early patterns. Several members noted small sample sizes in higher‑absence bands and suggested socioeconomic factors, excluded excused absences (for sports, appointments) and differing assessment content could explain some discrepancies. "M class focuses on decoding and phonological skills," a presenter said. "MAP includes comprehension; that may explain why students who test high on one measure appear less proficient on the other."
Discussion turned to practical use of the data. Administrators said combining attendance and assessment flags students for earlier diagnostic follow‑up (special education evaluation, vision or processing screening) and questioned whether improving attendance should sometimes be the first priority for students with more than 20% absenteeism. Staff said intervention plans require both reliable assessment data and consistent attendance to be effective.
Board members asked the administration to refine visuals (graphs and legends), break data into clearer grade bands and report back with more robust samples and fall/spring comparisons. The superintendent said the data pull was contemporaneous with winter assessments and that missing fall assessments mean some students lack growth measures; staff will continue individual case reviews and consider whether universal messages or targeted interventions are being implemented as intended.
The discussion was a non‑action workshop item; board members were asked to keep the data in mind as the district refines interventions and messaging around attendance.
