Subtract dropout
rate, add chronic absence rate to School Performance Framework
A proposal to replace the
dropout rate on the School Performance Framework with the rate of chronic
absences. A way to bring more focus, at our schools, on student
engagement. This is not measured by the dropout rate, which tells a school
nothing it can use. It comes to a school AFTER THE FACT. It merely reflects the
students who became disengaged – and are gone.
Instead, let’s measure
how well a school is connecting to the students it still has, before they
step away for good. A higher priority, I think most school people would agree,
than tallying (too late!) how many students they did not reach.
To address the rate of chronic absences is not
an add-on. This work is central to a school’s mission: to make a strong
connection with all their students; to know them well; to foster a meaningful
relationship with them; to assure them that their presence matters.
Chronically absent
rate exceeds 40% in over 250 Colorado schools
The 2024-25 report by the Colorado Department of Education shows that 250
or so schools had a chronically absent rate of over 40%. A large percentage,
about 110, are in Denver Public Schools. In Colorado Springs, we see over 35
schools with such a high rate. In Aurora Public Schools and Pueblo 60, close to
20 schools.
Although chronic absenteeism is a state issue,
it is not a central concern in most schools. And yet for these 250 schools, it
ought to be. How can we encourage schools like these to tackle the issue head
on?
STATE: “In 2022-23, Colorado had the fifth-highest
chronic absence rate in the nation.” (CDE)
The Colorado Department of Education has joined 13 other states in taking the 50% Challenge, a commitment to cut our chronic absences in half over five years.[i] Three cheers. Since then, two steps forward, one step back. Chalkbeat Colorado: “‘Moving in the wrong direction’: Colorado’s chronic absenteeism rate went up last year” (Aug. 27, 2025). [ii]
Percent of Colorado students chronically absent - 2019 - 2025
|
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
2020-21 |
2021-22 |
2022-23 |
2023-24 |
2024-25 |
|
22.5% |
22.6% |
26.0% |
35.5% |
31.1% |
27.7% |
28.4% |
DISTRICTS: Many districts have shown progress. Addendum
A examines the trend in 13 urban districts, before and after 2022. Since then,
a significant decline in five districts. Good news. However, in eight of these
13 districts, rates rose in 2025. (Up to 45.8% in Colorado Springs!)
Chronic absences
are not, ultimately, a state or district issue. It is one the school alone
must address. Students are not absent from a district; they are absent from
their school. They are absent from classrooms, from the teachers,
advisors, and staff, the men and women who do or (sadly, too often) do not know
them well.
SCHOOLS: Another View has highlighted concerns about our lowest-performing high schools. At several over 60% of their students were chronically absent last year. At Aurora Central High, 69.2%; at Abraham Lincoln High, 61.4%. They are among the 22 high schools I report on below. Last year, in all of these schools, their rates of chronically absent students exceeded the state average by 20 percentage points or more.
“What gets measured gets managed” - Peter Drucker
Beginning in 2023, CDE began to report the number and percentage of
chronic absences for each Colorado school. But at the school level, do such
reports matter? Because CDE has set a state-wide goal? Not likely. So why
manage it? I imagine many of the 250 or more schools struggling with high chronic
absences are apt to say:
We have plenty to manage as it is. So go ahead, talk about
it, hold conferences, find “bright spots” where the rate of chronic absences
has plummeted. But until we see a consequence for our 40%, 50%, 60%, and, incredibly,
nearly 70%, chronically absence rate, this will not be a priority for us.
Except, of course, it should be.
Here is where we can leverage the School Performance Framework (SPF). Colorado
should follow 13 other states—see Addendum B—that include chronic absences
as a measure in their state accountability framework. If we change one category
in our SPF, simply substitute Chronic absences for Dropout rate, we
will create a useful incentive. It will become a priority.
The dropout rate is the only measure in our SPF slightly connected to student
engagement. And yet, as I will show, the dropout rate tells us little about those
who miss school far too often.
|
Chronic absences and Dropout rate Cause and effect? Correlation? Comments from several sources. Addendum C. |
Below you see, first, nine schools where there seems to be some consistency between the rate of chronic absences and of dropouts. Both are high, well above the state average.
Then a second group – thirteen schools where the chronic absence rate, as with the first group, is 20-35 percentage points above the state average. But their dropout rate is surprisingly low, little different from the state average. Two examples make my point:
|
|
% Chronic Absences |
% Dropout |
|
Gateway High |
61.4 |
5.3 |
|
Abraham Lincoln High |
64.9 |
1.6 |
The discrepancy here comes from within a district:
|
IN COLORADO
SPRINGS |
% Chronic Absences |
% Dropout |
|
Mitchell
High |
67.9 |
4.7 |
|
Palmer High |
65.4 |
1.5 |
22 high schools – Attendance, truancy, chronic absences, dropout rates
A - TRUANT – MEANS - Missed 4 or more days in a month or 10
days in a year
B - NOT TRUANT
|
|
|
% Attendance
|
% Truant |
# Truant –A |
# Not Truant B |
% CHRON ABS |
% DROPOUT |
|
|
|
|
|
Bold – schools with more truant than not truant |
|
|
|
|
STATE
OF COLORADO |
|
91.4% |
3.6% |
|
|
28.4% |
1.6% |
|
Schools
where the high dropout rate seems to match the high rate of chronic absences.
In
all cases below the dropout rate is at least two times the state
average (1.6%), and
the chronic absence rate is 25-41 % points above the state
average (28.4%).
|
|||||||
|
APS- Aurora
Central High School** |
|
77.0% |
19.9% |
607 |
1,317 |
69.4% |
9.2% |
|
Colorado
Springs – Mitchell H.S. |
|
80.3 |
13.6 |
360 |
471 |
67.9 |
4.7 |
|
APS - Gateway High |
|
78.7 |
16.8 |
592 |
1,253 |
64.9 |
5.3 |
|
DPS - John Kennedy |
|
80.5 |
14.3 |
373* |
342 |
61.0 |
3.5 |
|
Jeffco - Arvada High |
|
80.0 |
15.4 |
282 |
542 |
59.6 |
3.5 |
|
DPS – West High |
|
83.2 |
11.6 |
296 |
399 |
58.7 |
3.6 |
|
APS - Hinkley High |
|
84.8 |
10.7 |
415 |
1,261 |
53.9 |
4.8 |
|
DPS - Northeast Early College |
|
84.8 |
9.4 |
260 |
273 |
53.5 |
3.9 |
|
DPS - KPP Denver Collegiate |
|
83.6 |
11.6 |
259* |
237 |
52.8 |
3.4 |
|
But then we see 13 schools with a high rate of chronic absences – 20 to 35% points above the state average – and yet their dropout rate looks little different from (sometimes even better than) the state average. How can that be? |
|||||||
|
Co Springs – Palmer High |
|
81.5% |
11.8% |
540 |
799 |
65.4% |
1.5% |
|
Jeffco - Alameda Int’l Jr./Sr. High |
|
80.7 |
13.4 |
454 |
609 |
64.1 |
1.8 |
|
DPS - Abraham Lincoln |
|
83.8 |
10.7 |
513* |
493 |
61.4 |
1.6 |
|
Jeffco – Jefferson Jr./Sr. High |
|
83.2 |
11.6 |
296 |
399 |
58.7 |
1.7 |
|
Harrison 2 - Sierra High |
|
81.3 |
15.5 |
293 |
648 |
58.1 |
0.7 |
|
DPS – Denver Montessori Jr/Sr High |
|
84.3 |
8.8 |
67 |
102 |
55.6 |
1.2 |
|
Adams 14 - Adams City High |
|
84.4 |
12.7 |
519 |
1,145 |
54.6 |
1.9 |
|
Pueblo 60 - Central High |
|
87.5 |
8.7 |
152 |
659 |
51.2 |
<= 0.5 |
|
APS - Aurora West College Prep Acd. |
|
85.8 |
11.2 |
386 |
578 |
50.4 |
1.1 |
|
Harrison 2 - Harrison High |
|
84.1 |
12.5 |
259 |
953 |
50.3 |
1.6 |
|
District 27J- Prairie View High |
|
87.2 |
5.9 |
265 |
1,661 |
49.3 |
1.3 |
|
DPS - Montbello H.S. |
|
88.1 |
8.1 |
542 |
620 |
49.1 |
1.3 |
|
St. Vrain – Skyline High |
|
86.6 |
8.3 |
135 |
974 |
48.4 |
1.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attendance & Chronic Absences - https://ed.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/attendancestatistics Dropout - https://ed.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/dropoutstatistics |
|||||||
|
*In BOLD - Schools where the number of students truant
exceeds the number not truant. |
|||||||
|
**Data from CDE’s 2024-25 reports on Attendance/Chronic Absenteeism and Dropout Data. I asked CDE for clarity on Aurora Central High School, but did not hear back. CDE’s reports list AURORA CENTRAL CAMPUS, not the high school, but the data and numbers (1,924 – attendance) reflects Aurora Central High School’s enrollment last year. The data reported for the CAMPUS does not appear to include Charles Burrell K-8, also located on the Campus. |
|||||||
|
On the SPF for our
high schools, CDE explains the points earned for each “indicator.” The
Dropout Rate counts for 14% of the total points earned. See Addendum D. |
There is little reason to keep the Dropout Rate as a key
indicator on the SPF, counting for—I was surprised to learn—14% of the total
points. As the above shows, a number of Colorado schools report what we might
call acceptable or nothing-to-worry-about dropout rates. And yet
these same schools have an alarmingly high percentage of chronically absent students.
Dropout rates hide what we
now recognize to be a more pressing concern.
Good schools will
see the point. They will say: Chronic absences are about our current
students, not those we have already lost. Yes, it is frustrating to see so many not in school on a regular basis. But they are still our students.
We still have a chance to reach these guys and girls. We still hope we can make
a difference in their lives.
Prioritizing chronic absences is not
about adding something new. It speaks to the fundamentals of any good
school: to ensure students feel known, to establish good relationships with them,
to create a healthy school climate where students can thrive.
The human issues that state and district
policy cannot touch.
The state’s 50% challenge will only succeed if such schools can
find ways to significantly improve student engagement.
Let’s update our SPF—given what we now know about the importance of
chronic absence—to reflect Colorado’s current goals.
Addendum A
13 districts - Chronic absences - rate before and after 2022
2020 – 2022 to 2023-2025
|
|
2019-20 |
2020-21 |
2021-22 |
|
2022-23 |
2023-24 |
2024-25 |
% change from ’21-’22 |
|
State |
22.6% |
26.0% |
35.5% |
|
31.1% |
27.7% |
28.4% |
|
|
Pueblo 60 |
38.9 |
39.8 |
56.7 |
|
45.9 |
43.0 |
41.6 |
-15.1 |
|
Adams 14 |
43.0 |
55.9 |
51.9 |
|
46.8 |
48.9 |
43.9 |
-8 |
|
Westminster |
38.3 |
54.7 |
48.0 |
|
37.9 |
36.0 |
38.9 |
-9.1 |
|
Col. Springs
|
32.3 |
34.6 |
45.5 |
|
40.4 |
29.2 |
45.8 |
+0.3 |
|
Englewood |
37.9 |
35.9 |
45.2 |
|
42.7 |
35.9 |
40.4 |
-4.8 |
|
Greeley 6 |
34.5 |
39.6 |
45.1 |
|
37.8 |
34.4 |
34.6 |
-10.5 |
|
Aurora |
24.8 |
34.0 |
43.5 |
|
43.3 |
40.1 |
38.9 |
-4.6 |
|
DPS |
29.0 |
29.8 |
43.2 |
|
41.1 |
37.1 |
38.1 |
-5.1 |
|
Sheridan |
23.5 |
29.6 |
40.7 |
|
32.8 |
35.9 |
34.6 |
-6.1 |
|
Harrison |
32.2 |
39.7 |
40.0 |
|
32.6 |
30.9 |
33.1 |
-6.9 |
|
District 27J |
28.2 |
18.7 |
39.5 |
|
30.7 |
26.8 |
29.7 |
-9.8 |
|
Mapleton |
20.8 |
34.7 |
39.1 |
|
42.7 |
36.9 |
35.6 |
-3.5 |
|
Jeffco |
24.1 |
30.4 |
38.0 |
|
28.3 |
25.3 |
26.6 |
-11.4 |
Bold – 8 districts
where, unfortunately, the rate of chronic absences went back up from 2024 to 2025.
Since 2021-22, Pueblo
60, Jeffco, and Greeley show a decline of 10 or more percentage points. since 2022.
District 27 J and
Westminster were almost there, too. (Decline of over 9 percentage points.)
Ony Colorado Springs
saw an increase since 2022. (Its 2023-24 data is hard to understand.)
Addendum B
13
states where the chronic absence metric is part of the state’s accountability
framework
STATE SCAN TABLE 2025
Category – Does your state include a chronic absence metric in any of your accountability systems? (Check all that apply.)
2) For 13 other states, the chronic absence metric is – Included in ESSA accountability
(AND IT IS ALSO) - Included in state accountability framework.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Missouri
Nebraska
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
West Virginia
Wisconsin
No response from Florida.
WORTH
NOTING: For the 50% Challenge
Of the 13 states that, like Colorado, have joined the 50% Challenge, six DO INCLUDE CHRONIC ABSENCES in their state accountability framework.
Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Nebraska, Ohio, and West Virginia
https://www.attendanceworks.org/states-participating-in-the-50-challenge/
Connecticut – “November chronic absentee data shows continued decline,” Dec. 23, 2025 (https://insideinvestigator.org/november-chronic-absenteeism-data-shows-continued-decline/#:~:text=)
Nebraska – “The Nebraska Department of Education (NDE) released new data showing significant progress across the state in reducing chronic absenteeism. … These early successes demonstrate that achieving the State Board of Education’s goal to cut chronic absenteeism in half over the next five years is possible.” (https://www.education.ne.gov/press_release/nebraska-department-of-education-highlights-communities-improving-attendance/#:~:text)
Addendum C
Chronic absences
and dropout rate – Cause and effect? Correlation? Or not?
Comments from
several sources.
Rhode Island Department of Education – “Chronic
Absenteeism in Rhode Island: What We Know.”
“85% of students who drop out of
high school were chronically absent. This can be predicted as early as third
grade, based on their early elementary school attendance.” https://ride.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur806/files/2024-08/ATTENDANCE%20TOOLKIT%20%285%29.pdf
Steve Dobo
Owner &
Founder, Zero Dropouts (Denver, CO)
·
“I wouldn’t want to get rid of the
dropout rate on the SPF, but I’m fine adding chronic absenteeism.
·
“Dropout and attendance are our best
measures of student engagement, but don’t really get at true student
engagement- it just tells us if they are present, not what the student is
doing.
·
“Absenteeism and dropout are on a
continuum of disengagement- dropping out is a process, not an act- students
just slowly attend less and less until they attend so infrequently that they
are labeled a dropout with a 40 code.
·
“If info is gathered from those who
drop out, to determine what it would take for them to come back, then this is
the info schools could use to design schools and programs that could re-engage
those who dropped out and retain those in the schools.
·
“Ultimately, neither of these measures
shows how well students are engaged and how much they are learning.”
[from email to me, April
22, 2026]
Attendance Works
50% Challenge
“Students who are chronically absent
are at greater risk of dropping out. Regular attendance monitoring can serve as
an early warning sign that support may be needed. Both chronic absence and
dropout can reflect student disconnection and/or unmet barriers to success. At the same time, they are measured differently: attendance is
tracked as an ongoing daily metric, while dropout reflects whether a student
leaves school prior to completion. Because of these differences, it is possible
for schools to have disproportionately high chronic absence while dropout rates
remain closer to average.” [from email to me, April 20, 2026}
Utah Department of Education
“Being chronically absent in one
grade increases the odds of being chronically absent in the next grade by 13
times. Further, a student who is chronically absent in any year,
starting with their 8th grade year, is 7 times more likely to drop out
than a student who is not chronically absent. Being a racial minority, student
with a disability, English learner, and/or low income student increases the
odds of being chronically absent (UEPC, 2012). Reducing chronic absenteeism is
key to reducing inequities in student achievement and dropout rates.”
(“Chronic Absenteeism and Achievement, Fact Sheet,” March
2024) https://schools.utah.gov/ulead/uleadfiles/reports/factsheet/Fact%20Sheet_Attendance_Mar24.pdf
Johann Lijengren
Director, Dropout Prevention & Student Re-engagement, CDE
“… it is possible to have high chronic absenteeism and low dropout
rates. At a student level, research has shown that attendance is often a
predictor of future dropout but often years in the future.” [from email to me,
April 20, 2026]
Heidi Beauregard
Managing Director, Learning, Development and Evaluation at Zero Dropouts
· “Don't replace dropout rates — put them side by side. One pattern
I've noticed is that schools reduce their chronic absenteeism rates by dropping
the students who aren't attending. So if C.A. goes down and dropout rate goes
up, we haven't actually solved anything... we've just moved the problem around.
I think both metrics together will tell a more honest and complete story.
· “Adding chronic absenteeism to the SPF without Tier
1 supports might not move the needle as much as we'd hope.... I think
schools either don't see [chronic absenteeism] as their problem to solve (‘If
only the parents cared or understood more...’), or genuinely don't know how. A
new metric without supports to go with it might not direct energy or
resources where they really need to go... into relationships, relevance, etc.” [from email to me, April 23, 2026]
Ryan Marks
Chief of Authorizing and
Accountability, Colorado Charter School Institute
“I can see how a
student who is chronically absent is more likely to drop out, but we wouldn’t
want to say a person who is chronically absent is going to drop out.” [Phone
call, April 17, 2026]
Virginia Department of Education
“According to research, regular attendance is a significant factor in a
student’s success:
· Chronic absenteeism correlates to low academic achievement.
· Absenteeism is a powerful predictor of dropout rates.”
(Attendance Information and Resources for Parents) https://www.doe.virginia.gov/parents-students/parent-resources/attendance#:~:text=
Addendum D
The Dropout Rate as a measure in Colorado’s
School Performance Framework of high schools
Dropout Rate = 14%
of the total points earned
On the School
Performance Framework, the Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness page provides
scores, results, and ratings on five categories:
1.
SAT - Reading & Writing
2.
‘SAT – Math
3.
Dropout Rate
4.
Matriculation Rate
5.
Graduation rate
The SPF’s Scoring
Guide for 2025 District/School Performance Frameworks
CDE’s Scoring Guide
presents the Performance Indicator, the Measure/Metric, the Rating, and the
Point Value for each of the 5 categories.
For the Dropout Rate, it states:
The district or school dropout rate was …
|
Dropout Rate |
All Students |
Each Disaggregated Group |
|
|
at or below 0.5% |
Exceeds |
8 |
2.0 |
|
at or below 2.0% but above 0.5% |
Meets |
6 |
1.5 |
|
at or below 5.0% but above 2.0% |
Approaching |
4 |
1.0 |
|
above 5.0% |
Does Not Meet |
2 |
0.5 |
|
Indicator |
Total Possible Points |
High Schools |
|
Achievement |
36 total points |
30% |
|
Growth |
28 total points |
40% |
|
Postsecondary
Readiness |
52 total points (16 for graduation, 4 for matriculation, 16 for dropout, 8 per CO SAT subject) |
30% |
Endnotes
[i] “Colorado Doubles Down on Reducing Chronic Absence with Statewide Support and Local Innovation,” By Attendance Works, in partnership with the Colorado Department of Education, https://www.attendanceworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/CO_AW_Narrative_Success_Story_052925.pd
[ii] “‘Moving in the wrong direction’: Colorado’s chronic absenteeism rate went up last year,” Chalkbeat Colorado, by Melanie Answer, Aug. 27, 2025. https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2025/08/27/chronic-absenteeism-increased-in-2024-25-school-year/
[iii] “Attendance.”
Colorado Department of Education, https://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/explore/attendance/1580/8906
