Promising
efforts captured in The Make-or-Break Year show schools can make a
difference
The Make-or-Break Year, the terrific new book about Chicago
Public Schools’ effort to support ninth graders during the difficult transition
into high school, provides lessons–and above all, hope—for Colorado’s
struggling high schools. What follows in Part I are quotes from
Emily Krone Phillips’ narrative, with a focus on one key issue for high school
freshmen: attendance.
In Part II, we can see that our low-performing high schools recognize that better attendance is critical. No
need to read any further if such schools do not identify attendance as a
priority. Most all do, as you will see from their Unified Improvement Plans.
All of us eager to see such schools improve can learn from Chicago’s story. And
I am confident you will be struck, even inspired, by the remarkable commitment
of principals, teachers, and staff—three cheers to them!—to get their 9th
graders to show up and make it to class–the first step to success.
I. The
Make-or-Break Year: What schools do matters.
Poor attendance is not “out of our hands.”
At an Aurora Public School board meeting last October, Superintendent
Rico Munn reported on Aurora Central High School’s progress—prior to the
district and school’s November meeting before the State Board of Education. His
64-page report made frequent reference to attendance; see Addendum A for
excerpts. Discussion that followed included this comment from APS Board President
Marques Ivey:
“There’s a
couple of things that are really not within the control of the school, which is
attendance and tardiness, to an extent. You have high school students … [when
dealing with issues of truancy] and you talk to those students, some would
rather play video games.”[v]
The Make-or-Break Year offers Ivey and school boards
a more hopeful take on what high schools can control. This book asks us
to avoid the all-too-common excuses for woeful attendance rates in these low-performing
schools: “It’s just the kids. And their families. They won’t come. They
don’t care.”
Emily Krone Phillips relates Chicago
Public Schools’ initiative, Freshman OnTrack (FOT), over a ten
year-period, from 2007 to 2016. A University of Chicago study[vi]
had revealed that “students who passed their courses in ninth grade almost
always went on to graduate.” The narrative takes us inside schools acting on
that finding, striving to get their freshman to show up and make it through the
year. We follow several students, their ups and downs. Some make it through,
but not all. It is one reason the book feels so real.
My two takeaways from Phillips' account are simple. 1) It is our
job to know our students, to keep track of their progress, to connect to
their family, and to help our 14-year old boys and girls succeed in their
all-important ninth grade year. 2) This cannot happen without their showing up.
To that end, if necessary, we must take extraordinary steps to reach out to
these kids and their families. But it can be done.
The Introduction immediately addresses the issue of what
schools can or cannot control. Chicago’s effort began in large part due to
research disproving the “conventional wisdom” about dropouts. They leave school,
the study found, “because, for a constellation of reasons, they struggle at age
fourteen and don’t receive enough support to bounce back. High school educators
have no control over the background characteristic of the students who arrive
at their doorstep, but they can influence how students perform once they get
there. The research suggested that freshman year offered a crucial intervention
point for those working to reduce the number of dropouts” (p. 5).
Chapter One underlines this point. Studies showed “students …
chugging along nicely before high school, and then, then seemingly without
warning, they dropped off an academic cliff.” It is not true, the data revealed,
“that dropouts were fundamentally and academically different from graduates”
(p. 26). Leading to this insight. “… If most dropouts were virtually
indistinguishable from graduates until they entered high school, then perhaps
it wasn’t the actual high school dropout themselves who were the problem but
rather the actual high schools, or something about the transition to them”
(p. 27).
Highlights,
especially on attendance
Excerpts from THE MAKE-OR-BREAK YEAR - Copyright © 2019 by EMILY KRONE PHILLIPS. Reprinted by permission of The New Press. www.thenewpress.com (All emphasis mine)
Excerpts from THE MAKE-OR-BREAK YEAR - Copyright © 2019 by EMILY KRONE PHILLIPS. Reprinted by permission of The New Press. www.thenewpress.com (All emphasis mine)
p. 15 – Captures the enormous commitment required by
adults. “Through it all, a dedicated group of teachers, staff, and
administrators fight to keep all of (the ninth graders) on-track. They meet
regularly to problem solve around individual kids, stage interventions, call
home, and give second, third, and fourth chances—all based on the philosophy
that just because some freshmen arrived at school not knowing how to be a good
student, that does not mean that they never get the chance to become one.”
p. 33 – How grim the numbers can be. (Freshmen
teachers in our struggling high schools will recognize this reality.) “… one of
the biggest problems in high school was just how easy it was for Malik and
other students to skip class, itself an indication of larger pattern of benign
neglect, if not outright negligence… Omar
[had] a 95 percent attendance rate in elementary school but missed 27 of 90
days in the first semester in of ninth grade… Oscar tested two grade levels
ahead in math and had perfect attendance in elementary school, but failed freshman-year
algebra after missing 39 days of class second semester.”
Sharon Holmes – one of many
exceptional teachers we follow throughout the book
She was “a teacher who conceptualized her
role broadly. Her job wasn’t simply about teaching students how to write a
five-paragraph essay, it was also about convincing students that they
belonged in school. To that end she tried to make every interaction with
students a positive one…’’
No wonder the principal asked her to lead
the school’s “Freshmen Success Team, a group of teachers responsible for
ensuring that every ninth grade earned enough credits to advance to sophomore
year” (p. 59). We see her guiding her Team “to parse the data on freshman
grades and absences. The goal was to use the data to pinpoint how best to get
it to them. An English teacher, Holmes knew her Salinger. She thought the job
of a freshman teacher should be to serve as their ‘catcher in the rye.’…
Holmes believed that many of the students who arrived at Tilden had simply
never learned how to be students, and it was her job to help them get there,
rather than bemoan the fact they weren’t there yet” (pp. 145-146).
|
Again,
the larger theme: Before blaming the student, first ask: what can the school
do?
“David was a kid who had missed more days
than he had attended, with a mom who to date had been more of an adversary than
a partner in the education process.
“To be sure, aspects of David’s home life
presented him with extra challenges. And yet this habit of pathologizing
struggling students takes the onus off of educators and policymakers to
examine how their own practice and systems might be contributing to that
failure. It also ignores the fact that transitions generally, whether from
middle school to high school or high school to college, represent challenges to
students from many different backgrounds and in many different settings. [The
research] had found that ninth grade in particular posed a stumbling block for
teenagers … across the United States” (p. 139).
Too often
students see their schools this way:
1) “Most of
his teachers didn’t care whether he showed up or not, Malik insisted. He was
particularly negative about his English teacher. ‘He’s a white teacher. … He’s
not too much worried about whether we get ahead in life or not. Every day no
more than ten people come. He doesn’t seem to care’” (p. 33).
2) “Though it wasn’t a large school – (230
freshmen) – it was easy to pass through Hancock anonymously. When students were
absent, students received a ‘robocall.’ If they were absent 10 days, they
received a certified letter at home. Nothing felt personalized. Most of the
students did not know most of the staff. ‘I never met my counselor,’ one
student recalled” (p. 115).
This
changed with the Freshman OnTrack (FOT) initiative and the leadership of Principal
Pam Glynn.
Gayle Neely, the FOT coordinator, “began
working with those students who were flagged as orange, blue, or yellow on the
student Success Reports from Central Office. Blue meant they had a D or lower
during the first quarter, orange meant they had missed three or more days of
school during the first quarter; yellow meant they had done both. She would try
to identify the sources of their struggle. ‘I would ask them a series of
questions to get to the root of the problem,’ Neely said. ‘Was it home related?
A learning disability? An issue with a teacher?’” (p. 117).
Excerpts from THE MAKE-OR-BREAK YEAR - Copyright © 2019 by EMILY KRONE PHILLIPS. Reprinted by permission of The New Press. www.thenewpress.com
PHONE HOME, or text, or call the
student directly, or … do whatever we need to do!
At Tilden High - Ms. Dominguez is an
attendance coordinator, “responsible for monitoring and preventing
absenteeism. Students who were chronically absent were usually most in danger
of becoming a ‘street kid’ if no one from school intervened. By monitoring
attendance, she was the de facto monitor of students’ attachment to school,
which made her a key line of defense against students’ dis-identification
with school.”
“…By 9:00 a.m. she would
have an electronic attendance record for the day. Then she and other staff
members would divvy up names of absent students—often as many as 80 or 90 in
total—and start making phone calls to the parent or guardian of each and
every one….”
“… When she couldn’t reach a
parent of a chronically absent student, she’d track down a friend and ask him
to send an inquiring text. She offered bribes and prizes for students who
pulled their attendance up. She grabbed students in the lunchroom and probed
for the reason behind the absence: Trouble at home? Lack of bus money?
Childcare duties?” (pp. 67-68).
What motivated the
39-year-old Dominguez? It was personal, given her own experience attending
high school in Chicago—two decades earlier. “Like them she had felt entirely
invisible in high school. And when she had made bad choices, no one had
bothered to put up a fight.” She recalls dropping out of high school; she
merely had to fill out a form. “No one even blinked,” she remembered.
“Now, when students told her
they were dropping out, she refused to let them. ‘No. Nope. That’s not a
choice,’ she would say. ‘If we aren’t the right fit for you, find somewhere
else. Go to an alternative setting. Somewhere’” (pp. 68-69).
At North Grand High -
Principal Asuncion Ayala explained … that if a student was late or didn’t
show up during first period, someone from her staff made a call home. To
every missing kid. Every single day.
“Who makes those calls? What
budget line do you pay for that out of?” [she was asked].
“This is a family. We make
those calls,” insisted Ayala. “My clerks make the calls, my counselors make
the calls, my teachers make the calls, I make the calls.
“That was a moment,” [a
co-director observed]. “… the group realized she doesn’t have any extra
resources, but she has just organized the building to get this result, and
when kids show up, they do a lot better” (p. 175).
Getting in your face – GOTCHA!
“Sometimes parents are a
good thing,” one FOT team member commented at a meeting, “but I know we call
these parents every day and no one picks up. We call Jakiyah’s mom every
single day,’
“Also, I’m thinking we need
to start calling kids directly,” Holmes suggested. “For example, Alyssa has
not been here in two weeks. We called her mom. No answer. But then Jordan
told me Alyssa was on Snapchat eating an Italian beef! So I got her number
from Jordan and just called her directly. I think we may need to start
harassing them ourselves” (p. 247).
Excerpts from THE MAKE-OR-BREAK YEAR - Copyright © 2019 by EMILY KRONE PHILLIPS. Reprinted by permission of The New Press. www.thenewpress.com |
FOT’s
work is a rebuke to the defeatist notion that schools cannot make a difference.
Its success actually reassures schools and teachers of their influence.
“At a time when teachers were struggling to
meet the nation’s growing expectations for what schools and teachers could
accomplish—particularly schools and teachers working with children living
in poverty—Freshman OnTrack made teachers feel empowered and successful” (p.
189).
Janice K. Jackson, now the CEO of Chicago
Public Schools, was then a principal at one of the high schools in the Network
for College Success, all committed to FOT.
“As a principal,” she said, “I was always trying to put in front of my
teachers things that were within our sphere of influence, because
working in … a tough community there are so many things that are outside of
our control. When you find something you really can control and impact,
as a principal, you have to really double down on that” (p. 189).
**
II. From each school’s most recent Unified Improvement Plan.
Abraham Lincoln High School (2019 UIP)[i]
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT TO INCREASE DAILY ATTENDANCE RATES
“Retention of students at ALHS is decreasing year over year at each grade level. Student attendance rate has remained consistently low, between 84% and 86% over the last five years. Opportunity for all students to feel like they belong within the classroom and outside of the classroom. High quality student engagement must be implemented and provided for all students.
“Summary of Attendance: Attendance at ALHS dropped overall by 1.3% last year. As highlighted in the attached plan, school leadership has prioritized building attendance support systems as well as focusing on the use of engaging classroom instruction, adult presence throughout the building, and building strong relationships with students as key strategies to support increasing student attendance and engagement in school.”
Adams City High School (2018 UIP)[ii]
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: “Inconsistent culturally responsive practices to engage students in the classroom, maintain positive attendance trends and respond to student lack of attendance.
“The target of achieving 95% attendance in 2017-2018 was not met. The average attendance was 85.2 (2017) and 86.9 (2018). Although we did not achieve our goal in increasing the attendance rate to 95%, we had a slight increase. The attendance team conducted home visits, parent meetings and monitored the attendance at each grade level. Persistent barriers to achieving our attendance goals include the need to create a school culture in which urgency, attendance, student engagement and timeliness are communicated and enforced priority.”
“The biggest concern is that the school's 9th grade attendance is at only 83 percent.”[iii] Aurora Central SBE Progress Monitoring Summary
|
Aurora Central High School (2018 UIP)[iv]
SCHOOL CLIMATE DATA TRENDS:
“The Average Daily Attendance rate at Aurora Central High School is higher than what has been seen in recent years; it is currently at 85.99% for the year-to-date. Additionally, chronic absenteeism has been a persistent challenge for many years. This rate is down to 19.6% (to 418 students) from 43.4% (1,119 students) from the 2016-17 school year. Although
attendance rates are increasing, they remain well below the desired rate.
“Student Engagement: Over the past few years, the average attendance rate at Aurora Central High School has remained as a Priority Performance Challenge…. “The 2016- 2017 YTD attendance rate was 77.4% and 85.1% in 2017-18.
“Additionally, severe absenteeism rates have decreased from 43.4% in 2016-17 to 31.6% in 2017-18. [See box for its more recent report.] This is a notable trend because schools that consistently average 92% or higher attendance rates have higher achievement rates and significantly lower disciplinary issues.”
Chronic Absenteeism at Aurora Central High
Aurora’s presentation to the APS school
board on Sept. 3, 2019, had more disturbing numbers on chronic absenteeism at
ACHS; “the positive improvements have fallen off in the past year.” The graph
(p. 15) showed the rate of students who were chronically absent (missing 10%
or more) to be over 60% in 2016 and 2017. While dropping to about 54% in
2018, it climbed again in 2019. [vii]
|
Central
High School (UIP 2018-19)[viii]
[COMMENT: Of the six high schools in
this review, Central High’s 21-page UIP was the only one that failed to mention
attendance rates or chronic absenteeism as a concern. As Central and its
district moved to a 4-day week in 2018-19—reducing the school year from 166
days the previous year to 148—it would be valuable to see if attendance
improved. Obviously, with a shorter school year, the percentage of days present
matters even more.
Central did report improved dropout rates
for 2018, but not for 2019.]
“Postsecondary
& Workforce Readiness: The dropout
rate decreased from 7.9% in 2016 to 5.3% in 2017, then decreased to 3.6% in 2018.
but remains below the state expectation of 2%.” [It climbed to 4.2% in 2019.]
Gateway
High School (UIP 2018)[ix]
“Post-Secondary
& Workforce Readiness: Dropout
Rate Trends: The dropout rate has been decreasing in the last three years. In
2016, the dropout rate was 6.2%; in 2017, it was 6.5%; and in 2018, it was
3.9%. There are three other data points that help to understand the dropout
rate and one action step: ADA [Average Daily Attendance], Chronic
Absenteeism, the number of students that are on track to graduate, and a
system for proper coding.
“Average Daily
Attendance has decreased and then
increased. In 2016-17 ADA was 87.5%; in 2017-18, ADA was 85.3%; and then in the
current year, 2018-2019, it is at 87.3%, which is comparable to where we were
in 2016-2017. “Chronic Absenteeism: The number of students that are
severely and moderately chronically absent has increased and then
decreased in the last three years. In 2016, there were 486 severe chronically
absent students; in 2017, there were 570; and in 2018, there were 380.
There has been a steady decrease in the number of students that are Moderately
Chronic absentees: There were 393 in 2016, 388 in 2017, and 305 in 2018.”
Manual
High School (UIP 2018)[x]
“Student Engagement: The percent of students meeting the DPS
attendance threshold of 93% was 24.35% in 2018. Currently, 36.6% of
students are meeting the threshold. This does not yet meet the DPS standard of
45%. Current year data indicates no significant difference between grade levels
(9th: 41%, 10th: 36%, 11th: 34%, 12th: 35%).
“INCREASE CAPACITY OF LIGHT TEAM TO
SUPPORT STUDENT SEL AND ACADEMIC NEEDS:
Although the LIGHT Team is already working to support students SEL and
academic needs, we must continue to refine this existing system in order to
ensure that the team is adequately addressing the significant barriers to students
[sic] attendance, academics and engagement.
“ANNUAL PERFORMANCE TARGETS: 2018-2019:
Percent Meeting DPS Attendance Target: 45%
2019-2020: Percent Meeting DPS
Attendance Target: 50%”
**
See Addendum
B for attendance and truancy data on these schools over the past two years,
evidence that the problem only grew worse last year. All the more reason
to make improved attendance a priority.
ADDENDA
Addendum A - Attendance as a central
issue for struggling high schools
One Example:
Aurora Central High School
All taken from “Aurora Central Pathways Recommendation,”[xi]
presented by Superintendent Rico Munn, Oct. 1, 2019, to the Board of Education
of Aurora Public Schools.
*Accurate?
CDE attendance data for ACHS reported the attendance rate was only 79.2% for
2018-19, a decline from 80.6% in 2017-18.
|
“Average daily attendance rates increased from 79% in
the 2016-17 school year to 83%* in the 2018-19 school year, yet staff are aware
that attendance can improve and believe more frequent house meetings and
monitoring structures this year will help” (p. 29).
Leading Indicators ●
Average Daily Attendance: + 3.2 ppts. since 14-15 (p. 43).
Innovation
Plan: Culture of Performance
Challenges
and opportunities
Continue to
enhance attendance work with proactive approach beyond just
re-engagement (p. 44).
Overall
analysis (p. 52 of presentation)
Continue
|
Opportunities
|
Continue leveraging Innovation Plan and existing work to:
Support improved culture through sustained implementation of House
Model, Attendance Strategy, and work around Family & Community
Engagement.
|
Continue to monitor on-track and college and career-readiness
indicators.
|
Common
Themes from Parents (p. 56)
Strengths
|
Weaknesses
|
Parents are being notified about student attendance
|
Lack of parent understanding of attendance policies and
procedures
|
Common
Themes from Staff (p. 57)
Strengths
|
Weaknesses
|
Improved attendance
|
Attendance and tardiness still an issue
|
Common
Themes from Students (p. 58)
Opportunities
|
Weaknesses
|
Threats
|
-Use class as an opportunity to improve attendance
-Explain or clarify expectations of Central’s norms and culture,
especially for 9th grade students
|
-Attendance/Skipping classes is an issue
-Class sizes are too big
|
-Student absenteeism
|
Summary of Conclusions & Recommendations (p. 61)
From CDE
Monitoring Report:
“Student
attendance continues to be a significant struggle for the school and the
school must continue to focus on increasing student attendance.”
Addendum
B – FROM AV #200 – FACTS FOR THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
on
six urban high schools, all on the clock for (too many) years
Attendance and Truancy – (Hard to
learn when you are not in class) - 2017-18 and 2018-19
The attendance rate was down at 4
schools and remained below 80% at Manual. The truancy rate increased at 5
schools. It is hard to analyze the change at Central High in Pueblo 60 as its
school year was shortened by 18 days.* (The new 4-day week - 148 school
days – began in the fall of 2018.)
District
|
School
|
Attendance Rate[xii]
|
Truancy Rate[xiii]
|
Truancy rate increased from 2018 to
2019
|
||
2017-18
|
2018-19
|
2017-18
|
2018-19
|
|||
STATE AVERAGE
|
92.53%
|
92.30%
|
2.82%
|
2.98%
|
||
Adams 14
|
Adams City High**
|
86.56
|
82.47
|
8.63
|
13.37
|
Up 4.74
|
APS
|
Aurora Central**
|
80.57
|
79.22
|
15.65
|
17.08
|
Up 1.43
|
Gateway**
|
81.78
|
78.18
|
13.10
|
16.73
|
Up 3.63
|
|
DPS
|
Abraham Lincoln
|
86.87
|
85.69
|
10
|
10.81
|
Up 0.81
|
Manual
|
79.34
|
79.34
|
15.5
|
16.21
|
Up 0.71
|
|
Pueblo 60
|
Central
|
84.32
|
10.27
|
|||
*2017-18:
5-day week - 166 school days, and thus difficult to compare to
2018-19: 4-day week - 148 school days.
**Total
Student Days Unexcused Absent for all Students: ACHS–52,636 days; Adams
High–39,177 days; Gateway–38,915 days.
Addendum C — Chronically Absent Rates
In
these four districts, the deeply troubling story of chronic absences is bigger
than these 6 schools.
The grim news about the high
percentage of students with an “extreme chronic absent” rate goes well beyond
these six schools inside these four districts. The pattern over three years in Adams
14, APS, DPS, and Pueblo 60 indicates how wide-spread the problem
is. Over 30% of the students in grades 7-12. Two other good-sized districts, Harrison
– 34.7% and Westminster - 31.4%, would belong in this group as well.
from the Colorado Department of Education[xiv]
- Chronically Absent - past 3 years
District
|
2016-17
|
2017-18
|
2018-19
|
STATE
|
18.6%
|
24.26%
|
22.50%
|
Adams
14
|
36.87%
|
38.18%
|
45.66%
|
DPS
|
35.39%
|
36.23%
|
39.82%
|
Pueblo
60
|
34.83%
|
38.17%
|
31.99%
|
*Am not including APS data as it looks
unreliable. (2.99% in 2016-17?) When I query CDE, I am told these are the numbers the district
provides. [xv]
A more complete breakdown on 2018-19 data
-
Students with Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy Rate
Students with Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy Rate
#
students with chronic absenteeism
|
Students
Fall K-12 Enrollment[xvi]
|
Chronically
Absent Rate[xvii]
|
Truancy
rate
|
Students Habitually Truant (4 Unexcused Absences in 1
month)
|
Students Habitually Truant (10 Unexcused Absences in
the School Year)
|
|
STATE
|
197,392
|
877,308
|
22.50
|
2.98
|
35,512
|
42,379
|
Adams
14
|
2,971
|
6,507
|
45.66%
|
7.33%
|
249
|
456
|
APS
|
9,362
|
38,010
|
24.63%
|
5.70%
|
1,212
|
4,483
|
DPS
|
34,596
|
86,887
|
39.82%
|
5.75%
|
3,224
|
5,206
|
Pueblo
60
|
4,997
|
15,621
|
31.99%
|
5.52%
|
498
|
1,862
|
**
Additional
recommended reading on student attendance, absenteeism, and what schools can
do.
1. “What are the factors that affect learning
at your school?” by Lauren Bauer, Up Front, The Brookings Institute,
Sept. 10, 2019.
Begins: “Reducing chronic absence and
developing conditions for learning are instrumental to improving outcomes for
students and can be improved through policy reform and leadership. Schools and
educators have the power to improve both student attendance and conditions for
learning.” https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/09/10/what-are-the-factors-that-affect-learning-at-your-school/
2. “Millions
of Students Are Chronically Absent Each Year. Improve School Conditions and
More Kids Will Show Up, Report Argues,” by Mark Keierleber, The 74, Sept. 10, 2019
3. From “Raising the Bar for Evidence in
Education,” by Carly Robinson and Todd Rogers, Education Week, Oct.
30, 2019.
“In our own work, we have spent the last six
years studying how to reduce student absenteeism. Through two large-scale,
preregistered RCTs (one with
more than 28,000 K-12 students and another with
almost 11,000 K-5 students), our research team found that sending mailings to
parents several times over the course of the school year with personalized
attendance information that dynamically targets key parental misbeliefs
consistently reduces chronic absenteeism 10 percent to 15 percent. This
research led to the creation of InClassToday, a
program that partners with districts around the country to help them reduce
student absenteeism by implementing this research-backed intervention.” https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/10/30/we-must-raise-the-bar-for-evidence.html
Endnotes
[iii]
Aurora Central SBE Progress
Monitoring Summary.pdf, https://go.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/BHMSS5738577/$file/Aurora%20Central%20SBE%20Progress%20Monitoring%20Summary.pdf
[vi] The University of Chicago’s Consortium on School
Research. For more on this research, see pages 4-5, 27-28. 30-31, and 42-43.
[xv] Chronically absent - from CDE -
2016-17
|
2017-18
|
2018-19
|
|
APS
|
2.99
|
37.01
|
24.63
|
