THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

 

TO:

Full Board

FROM:

Jean C. Stevens

 

SUBJECT:

Closing the Achievement Gap:  Setting Targets for High School Attendance

DATE:

October 11, 2006

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goals 1 and 2

AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

 

SUMMARY

 

Issue for Discussion

 

Should Department staff develop in more detail a proposal for setting targets for attendance as part of the Regents strategy for improving high schools?

 

Reason(s) for Consideration

 

Review of policy.

 

Proposed Handling

 

This question will come before the Board in October.

 

Procedural History

 

The Regents have received and discussed proposed strategies to close the gap in high schools and improve graduation rates.  Those discussions have identified potential actions to implement the strategies.

 

Background Information

 

          Among the potential strategies to close the gap in high schools is to set targets for attendance for all students. Currently, New York is scheduled to begin using elementary and middle level attendance as its third academic indicator under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) beginning with the 2007-08 school year.  In conjunction with the implementation of elementary and middle level attendance standards, the Regents could choose to use the Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) process to establish consequences for high schools that have unacceptably low attendance rates.  The attached report provides background information and recommends options for the Board’s consideration for setting targets for attendance.  It also identifies issues that the Regents would need to consider in deciding policy.

 

Recommendation

 

Staff recommend that the Regents review the conceptual proposal on setting targets for attendance and determine whether staff should more fully develop the proposal.

 

Timetable for Implementation

 

Based on the direction of the Regents, actions/discussions would be scheduled on the 24-month Regents calendar.

 


 

 

Setting Targets for Attendance

 

Background Information

 

Among the potential strategies to close the gap in high schools is setting targets for attendance for all students.  The Regents could use the accountability provisions under the Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) process to establish consequences for districts and schools that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in reaching these targets.

 

This is an ideal time for the Board of Regents to consider setting targets for high school attendance rates because New York is scheduled to begin using attendance rate as the third academic indicator for elementary/middle level in the 2007-2008 school year. Under New York’s approved NCLB accountability plan, attendance will replace the grade 4 and 8 science examinations that New York has used as its third academic indicator at the elementary/middle level since the inception of No Child Left Behind.

 

Department staff believe that attendance is an important measure of school performance, first, because it is a measure of time-on-task. Students who are not in attendance are missing valuable opportunities to learn.  Second, low attendance may indicate that students believe that school is irrelevant, unsafe, or unwelcoming.  To improve attendance, schools must provide a safe, welcoming environment where students are actively engaged in learning and understand the importance of school achievement in ensuring their future success.  Finally, low attendance may indicate a high incidence of family and personal problems that require outreach to the students and families by school nurses, counselors, psychologists, and social workers, and cooperation with other social agencies.  Attendance can serve as a proxy measure of the success of schools in addressing these issues.

 

To establish attendance rate standards, the Board must make three critical decisions:

·                 What should the State standards or goals for elementary/middle level and high school attendance rate be?

·                 How much improvement should schools below that standard be required to make each year?

·                 Should the high school goal be used as part of the Schools under Registration Review (SURR) process, the NCLB accountability system or both?


 

Attendance Rates: Background Data

 

Table I shows the distribution of attendance rates for elementary and middle level schools.  The data show that in 2004-05 nearly half of the schools in the State had attendance rates below 95%. 

 

Table 1

Distribution of Attendance Rates for Elementary/Middle Level Schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attendance Rate Interval

Number of Schools

Percent of Schools

below 85

8

0.3%

85.0 to 89.9%

245

7.7%

90.0 to 92.4%

458

14.5%

92.5 to 94.9%

806

25.4%

95.0% and above

1,652

52.1%

Total

3,169

100.0%

 

 

A smaller percentage of high schools than elementary or middle level schools have attendance rates at or above 95 percent. Less than 40 percent of high schools had attendance rates of 95 percent or higher in 2003-04.

 

Table 2

Distribution of Attendance Rates for High Schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attendance Rate Interval

Number of Schools

Percent of Schools

Below 75%

21

2.2%

75.0 to 79.9%

33

3.5%

80.0 to 84.9%

67

7.0%

85.0 to 89.9%

87

9.1%

90.0 to 92.4%

110

11.5%

92.5 to 94.9%

287

30.0%

95.0% and above

351

36.7%

Total

956

100.0%

 

 

As Figure 1 shows, high need districts have relatively low attendance rates, contributing to their low performance.

 

 

 

 

Similarly high schools in all High Need Categories—New York City, Large City Districts, Urban-Suburban Districts, and Rural Districts—have lower attendance rates than high schools in Average and Low Need Districts (Figure 2). However, it should be noted that the gaps between attendance rates in high and low need districts at the high school level are significantly greater than they are at the elementary/middle school level.

 

 

 

Since its inception, the Chapter 655 Report has documented the correlation between student attendance and achievement.  As a general rule, the higher the average daily attendance in a school, the higher the percentage of students demonstrating proficiency on State assessments and the higher the graduation rate. For example, Department data for the 2001 cohort (Figure 3) shows a strong relationship between high school average daily attendance and graduation rate.


Proposed Standard for Elementary/Middle and High School Attendance:

 

Staff proposes to set the standard for attendance at 94 percent. Schools below that standard would be required to decrease the gap between their annual attendance rate and the State standard by 10 percent each year to make adequate yearly progress.  The formula would be:

 

2005-06 Attendance Rate + (94% minus 2005-06 Attendance Rate) X 10% = 2007-08 Attendance Rate Target

 

The application of this formula in 10 sample schools is shown in Attachment A.

 

Under this proposal, a school’s target for a given year would never be lower than its target for the previous year, regardless of performance. The minimum target increase for a school below the State standard would be one percentage point. Schools with attendance rates between 84 and 94 percent would be required to improve their attendance by one percentage point per year.  Schools below 84 percent would be required to improve by an additional 0.1 percentage point for each percentage point that their attendance rate fell below 84 percent. Thus a school with an attendance rate of 80 percent would be required to improve by 1.4 percentage points.  For a school to improve its attendance rate by one percentage point, the average student would need to attend school for 1.85 additional days each year.

 

At the elementary/middle level, schools that did not make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years would be identified as schools in need of improvement under Title I or schools requiring academic progress under the State accountability system. At the high school level, schools that did not make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years would risk identification as a SURR schools.

 

 

 

Consequences for Schools That Fail To Meet High School Attendance Targets

 

High School Attendance Rate is proposed to be used to identify Schools Under Registration Review (SURR). The Commissioner would identify those schools with graduation rates farthest from State standards.  SURRs are given performance targets by the Commissioner that they must meet or risk having their registration revoked. Upon identification, SURR schools are subject to a registration review visit conducted by an external team led by a District Superintendent.  Upon completion of the visit by the team, the school is required to develop a school improvement plan and the district to develop a corrective action plan.  Each SURR is assigned an SED liaison who is on-site from one day per week to one day per month, depending on which part of the process the school is implementing. SURRs are eligible to receive a State funded SURR grant and receive the highest priority for support from the Regional School Support Centers and affiliated SED networks. 

 

In addition to the resources identified above, the budget request currently under discussion calls for the governor and legislature to provide $13 million in the first year and $39 million upon full implementation to fund a program of academic intervention teams and distinguished educators.

 

Under the proposal, the Commissioner would assign an academic intervention team to each school and district in the State that is identified for corrective action.  The purpose of the intervention teams is to build the capacity of local educational agencies to successfully undertake corrective actions that result in improved student achievement consistent with State standards.  Teams made up of administrators and content experts would provide targeted technical assistance in at-risk schools.  A substantial portion of this proposed funding would support schools identified for graduation results.

 

 

 


Attachment A

 

Attendance Rate Option:  each school below 94 percent is required to close the gap between its 2004-05 attendance rate (used as a proxy for 2005-06 attendance, which is not yet available) and 94 percent by 10 percent in each successive year.  *

District

School

Atten-dance in 2004-05

Attendance Target for

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

Greenburgh-Graham

Martin Luther King,Jr

75.9%

77.7%

79.3%

80.8%

82.1%

83.3%

84.4%

85.4%

86.4%

New York City CSD # 3

Louis D. Brandeis

73.1%

75.2%

77.1%

78.8%

80.3%

81.7%

82.9%

83.9%

84.9%

Buffalo City

Bennett

84.0%

85.0%

85.9%

86.7%

87.4%

88.1%

89.1%

90.1%

91.1%

New York City CSD #10

University Heights

83.7%

84.7%

85.7%

86.5%

87.2%

87.9%

88.9%

89.9%

90.9%

Oneonta City

Oneonta Senior

94.3%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

New York City CSD #2

Manhattan Village Academy

93.3%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

Broadalbin-Perth

Broadalbin-Perth

92.5%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

Perry Central

Perry HS

95.3%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

Cazenovia Central

Cazenovia HS

93.7%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

Levittown

Division Avenue Senior HS

94.6%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

Blind Brook-Rye

Blind Brook HS

96.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

94.0%

 

 

*Example:     For Martin Luther King, Jr. High School, the gap between its 2004-05 attendance rate (75.9 percent) and the State standard at 94 percent is 18.1 percentage points.  It must close this gap by 10 percent or 1.8 points.  Therefore, its first attendance rate target is 75.9 + 1.8 = 77.7 percent.