United States Department of Education

NFES 2009–804


National Cooperative Education Statistics System

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) established the National Cooperative Education Statistics System

(Cooperative System) to assist in producing and maintaining comparable and uniform information and data on early

childhood education and on elementary and secondary education. These data are intended to be useful for policymaking

at the federal, state, and local levels.

The National Forum on Education Statistics (the Forum) is an entity of the Cooperative System that, among its other

activities, proposes principles of good practice to assist state and local education agencies in meeting this purpose. The

Cooperative System and the Forum are supported in these endeavors by resources from NCES.

Publications of the Forum do not undergo the same formal review required for products of NCES. The information and

opinions published here are those of the National Forum on Education Statistics and do not necessarily represent the

policy or views of the U.S. Department of Education or the National Center for Education Statistics.

February 2009

This publication and other publications of the National Forum on Education Statistics may be found at the websites

listed below.

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is http://nces.ed.gov 

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

The Forum World Wide Web Home Page is http://nces.ed.gov/forum 

Suggested Citation:

National Forum on Education Statistics. (2009). Every School Day Counts: The Forum Guide to Collecting and Using

Attendance Data (NFES 2009–804). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics.

For ordering information on this report, write:

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794–1398

Or call toll free 1–877–4ED–PUBS or order online at http://www.edpubs.org

Technical Contact:

Lee Hoffman

202–502–7356

Lee.Hoffman@ed.gov
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Task Force Members

A volunteer task force of the National Forum on Education Statistics produced this document. It was developed

through the National Cooperative Education Statistics System and funded by the National Center for Education

Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. 

Task Force Members iii

CHAIR

William Smith

Sioux Falls School District

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

MEMBERS

Janet Emerick

Lake Central School Corporation

St. John, Indiana

M. Francie Gilmore-Dunn

Mississippi Department of Education

Jackson, Mississippi

Patricia High

Oklahoma State Department of Education

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Kristina Martin

Macomb Intermediate School District

Clinton Township, Michigan

Janice Petro

Colorado Department of Education

Denver, Colorado

Linda Rocks

Bossier Parish Schools

Bossier City, Louisiana

CONSULTING AUTHOR

Alyssa Alston

Council of Chief State School Officers

Washington, DC

PROJECT OFFICERS

Ghedam Bairu

Lee Hoffman

National Center for Education Statistics

Washington, DC

CONSULTANTS

Anthony Garofano

Tom Szuba

Quality Information Partners

Fairfax, Virginia
iv EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Acknowledgments

The Attendance Task Force thanks the members of the Forum who contributed 

suggestions and resource materials that were necessary for the accuracy and usefulness 

of this Guide.

The Task Force also thanks the following people for valuable suggestions on improving

the publication:

Carolyn Claerhout

Joyce Sackleh

Oakland Schools

Waterford, Michigan

Raymond Martin

Connecticut State Department of Education

Hartford, Connecticut

Stephen Metcalf

Montpelier School District

Montpelier, Vermont

Allen Miedema

Northshore School District 

Bothell, Washington

In addition, the Task Force thanks Frances Erlebacher for overall editing and the

Creative Shop for designing this publication.
Foreword

The National Forum on Education Statistics (the Forum) is pleased to present Every

School Day Counts: The Forum Guide to Collecting and Using Attendance Data. One goal of the

Forum is to improve the quality of education data gathered for use by policymakers and

program decisionmakers. An approach to furthering this goal has been to pool the collective experiences of Forum members to produce “best practice” guides in areas of

high interest to those who collect, maintain, and use data about elementary and secondary education. Standardizing the way data systems record student attendance—that is,

developing a taxonomy of common attendance codes—is one of those high interest areas.

Every school day counts in a student’s life. While research substantiates the importance

of teacher effectiveness on student academic success, even the best teacher cannot be effective unless students are present in class. Regular attendance is essential to providing students

with opportunities to learn, and these opportunities are limited when students do not attend

school.

Moreover, access to accurate, timely data about whether individual students and

groups of students regularly attend school is critical to making instructional and programmatic choices targeting student attendance behaviors. High-quality data enable educators

to identify which students are absent; as well as the frequency of, and reasons for, their

absences. By arming schools with actionable information, these data can guide the design

of interventions intended to improve attendance and student achievement.

In this guide

✓ Chapter 1 discusses the objectives of the publication, and explains how the 

attendance taxonomy was developed.

✓ Chapter 2 provides a detailed description of each code in the attendance 

taxonomy.

✓ Chapter 3 discusses common challenges and effective practices related to attendance

data, including developing an effective taxonomy; and ensuring needed data accuracy,

communication, collaboration, planning, and automation. 

✓ Chapter 4 shares examples of how states, school districts, and schools are using

detailed attendance data to improve student attendance behaviors.

✓ Appendix A includes a crosswalk between the attendance codes taxonomy and

reasons for student absences identified in available state and school district

resources. 

✓ Appendix B identifies differences among state statutes currently used to categorize

educational activities that take place outside of school. 

✓ Appendix C lists additional Forum resources for schools and districts.

The National Cooperative Education Statistics System 

The work of the Forum is a key aspect of the National Cooperative Education Statistics

System (Cooperative System). The Cooperative System was established to produce and

maintain, with the cooperation of the states, comparable and uniform educational information

and data that are useful for policymaking at the federal, state, and local levels. To assist in

Foreword v

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
vi EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

meeting this goal, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the Institute

of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education, established the National Forum

on Education Statistics (the Forum) to improve the collection, reporting, and use of elementary and secondary education statistics. The Forum deals with issues in education data policy,

sponsors innovations in data collection and reporting, and provides technical assistance to

improve state and local data systems.

Development of Forum Products

Members of the Forum establish task forces to develop best-practice guides in data-related

areas of interest to federal, state, and local education agencies. They are assisted in this

work by NCES, but the content comes from the collective experience of the state and

school district task force members who review all products iteratively throughout the

development process. Documents prepared, reviewed, and approved by task force members

undergo a formal public review. This public review consists of focus groups with representatives of the product’s intended audience, review sessions at relevant regional or

national conferences, or technical reviews by acknowledged experts in the field. In

addition, all draft documents are posted on the Forum website prior to publication so

that any interested individuals or organizations can provide feedback. After the task

force oversees the integration of public review comments and reviews the document 

a final time, publications are subject to examination by members of the Forum 

standing committee sponsoring the project. Finally, the entire Forum (approximately

120 members) reviews and formally votes to approve all documents prior to publication.

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Table of Contents

Task Force Members ........................................................................................................................ iii

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................. iv

Foreword .................................................................................................................................................. v

Chapter 1: Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1

Why Does Attendance Matter?........................................................................................................1

Background ..............................................................................................................................................1

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................2

Why does data quality matter? ........................................................................................3

What does the attendance taxonomy do? ......................................................................3

What are common challenges to and practical solutions for improving 

attendance data? ..............................................................................................................3

How can schools and districts act on the data to improve student attendance? ............4

Using the Attendance Codes Taxonomy ....................................................................................4

Chapter 2: Attendance Codes Taxonomy Category Descriptions ..................................7

Category 1: Attending/Present........................................................................................................8

Category 1A: Present–In school, regular instructional program ..................................8

Category 1B: Present–Nontraditional school setting, regular instructional 

program ......................................................................................................8 

Category 1C: Present–Disciplinary action, receiving instruction ................................8

Category 1D: Present–Out of school, regular instructional program activity ............8

Category 1E: Present–Out of school, school-approved extracurricular or 

cocurricular activity ..................................................................................8

Category 2: Not Attending/Absent................................................................................................9

Category 2A: Absent–Noninstructional activity recognized by state or school ..........9

Category 2B: Absent–Religious observation ................................................................9

Category 2C: Absent–Illness, injury, health treatment, or examination......................9

Category 2D: Absent–Family emergency or bereavement ........................................9

Category 2E: Absent–Disciplinary action, not receiving instruction ..........................9

Category 2F: Absent–Legal or judicial requirement ....................................................9

Category 2G: Absent–Family activity ..........................................................................10

Category 2H: Absent–Student employment................................................................10

Category 2 I : Absent–Transportation not available ....................................................10

Category 2 J : Absent–Student is skipping school ......................................................10

Category 2K: Absent–Situation unknown ..................................................................10

Table of Contents vii

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
viii EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Chapter 3: Common Challenges to Collecting Attendance Code Data and 

Effective Practices for Addressing These Challenges ........................................................11

Challenge: Overlapping and/or Nonexhaustive Taxonomies ........................................11

Challenge: Data Management and Communication............................................................12

Challenge: Standard Data Under Nonstandard Conditions..............................................13

Challenge: System Automation ....................................................................................................14

Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................................................15

Chapter 4: Acting on the Data ......................................................................................................17

Attendance Data in Action ..............................................................................................................17

Improving attendance and achievement: Sioux Falls School District, 

South Dakota ............................................................................................................................17 

Intervening with the individual: Aurora Public Schools, Colorado ..........................19 

Partnering with the community: Alamosa School District, Colorado ........................20 

Partnering with parents: Montezuma-Cortez School District RE-1, Colorado ............21 

Digging up the roots of truancy: Cherry Creek District, Colorado ..........................21 

Putting the details to work: Michigan ..........................................................................21 

Appendix A: Attendance Codes by Reasons for Student Absences............................23 

Appendix B: Differences in State Statutes Regarding Reasons for Student 

Absences ..................................................................................................................................................27 

Appendix C: Recent Publications from the National Forum on Education 

Statistics....................................................................................................................................................29
Introduction

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Every school day counts in a child’s academic life...

Why Does Attendance Matter?

A missed school day is a lost opportunity for students to learn. In this era of increased

accountability for states, districts, and schools, the connection between student attendance

and learning is being studied more than ever before. As a result, education agencies are

asked with increasing frequency to report attendance data in a standard manner to allow

comparisons across organizations and jurisdictions.

The primary rationale for high-quality attendance data is the relationship between

student attendance and student achievement. Teacher effectiveness is the strongest

school-related determinant of student success,1 but chronic student absence reduces

even the best teacher’s ability to provide learning opportunities. Students who attend

school regularly have been shown to achieve at higher levels than students who do not

have regular attendance. This relationship between attendance and achievement may

appear early in a child’s school career. A recent study looking at young children found

that absenteeism in kindergarten was associated with negative first grade outcomes such

as greater absenteeism in subsequent years and lower achievement in reading, math, and

general knowledge.2

Poor attendance has serious implications for later outcomes as well. High school

dropouts have been found to exhibit a history of negative behaviors, including high levels

of absenteeism throughout their childhood, at higher rates than high school graduates.3

These differences in absentee rates were observed as early as kindergarten, and students

who eventually dropped out of high school missed significantly more days of school in

first grade than their peers who graduated from high school. In eighth grade, this pattern

was even more apparent and, by ninth grade, attendance was shown to be a key indicator significantly correlated with high school graduation.4

The effects of lost school days build up one absence at a time on individual students.

Penalties for students who miss school may unintentionally worsen the situation. The

disciplinary response to absenteeism too often includes loss of course credits, detention,

and suspension. Any absence, whether excused or not, denies students the opportunity

to learn in accordance with the school’s instructional program, but students who miss

school are sometimes further excluded from learning opportunities as a consequence

of chronic absenteeism. 

Background

The National Forum on Education Statistics (the Forum) Attendance Task Force that

developed this document began its work as the Truancy Working Group in 2006, which

Research shows 

that attendance 

is an important 

factor in 

student 

achievement.
2 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

was focused on defining “truancy” under the reporting requirements of Title IV of the federal Safe and Drug Free Schools program. This group determined that truancy was actually an

extreme case within the broader issue of student attendance, warranting guidance from the

Forum. And, the Task Force was convinced that high-quality attendance data can help educators understand where students are during the school day and can be used to help staff

intervene in a manner that improves student attendance and achievement.

The Truancy Working Group became the Attendance Task Force in July 2007. Task

Force members used their experience and a wide range of resources to generate a list of

common attendance codes and develop the attendance code taxonomy presented in chapter

2. State attendance statutes were aggregated for all 50 states, the District of Columbia,

American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Task Force

reviewed this list of reasons for student absences to determine how each state’s policies

could be reflected in this taxonomy. Reasons that applied to students who were no longer

enrolled were excluded from this document, which addresses only the attendance status of

enrolled students. Students who have withdrawn from a school are not subject to attendance

codes because they are no longer enrolled in the school.

For a taxonomy of student exit codes, see the Forum document, Accounting for Every Student: 

A Taxonomy for Standard Student Exit Codes, available at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2006804.asp.

State attendance policies are the basis of attendance codes used by states and school districts.

Therefore, attendance categories in this guide were derived from the attendance codes used

by states and school districts. To ensure that the taxonomy was based on real-world practice,

Forum members from several state education agencies and school districts submitted their

attendance codes for a comparative review. These existing attendance codes were collapsed

into the smallest number of categories that covered every reported code while maintaining

states’ or districts’ differences. For example, a number of state or district policies identified

“absences for bereavement” as a separate category while other states categorized

bereavement under the more general “absences for family reasons.” The Forum attendance

taxonomy includes both categories. However, some attendance codes were combined; the

taxonomy includes a single category for “legal or judicial requirement” that includes

absence for judicial proceedings, trial dates, or time in court custody. See appendix A for

a crosswalk between the taxonomy and reported state and district reasons for student

absences.

Objectives

In alignment with the Forum’s mission to support the development of comprehensive

data systems, improve data coordination, and lead discussions on key data issues, this

publication has the following four objectives:

✓ explaining why high-quality attendance data matter;

✓ creating a standard attendance taxonomy that defines “attending/present” and

“not attending/absent,” categorizes attendance codes in an exhaustive and mutually

exclusive way, and supports improved attendance data quality and comparability

between states and districts;

✓ identifying common challenges to collecting accurate and comparable attendance

data and providing practical suggestions for addressing these obstacles; and

✓ demonstrating how detailed, accurate attendance data can supply actionable

information to guide policy and procedural changes in schools, districts, and states

with a goal of improving student attendance. 

Student attendance

matters, and 

the quality of 

attendance data 

matters as well.
Chapter 1: Introduction 3

Why does data quality matter?

High-quality attendance data serve as the foundation for understanding where students

are during the school day. These data provide the information needed for schools to

formulate practices, programs, and policies to improve attendance rates. Comparable

data also allow comparisons between schools, districts, and states—which is necessary for

educators to identify relationships between student attendance and student achievement,

promotion from grade to grade, and high school graduation. Districts and schools depend

on accurate attendance data for a number of other reasons as well. For example, staff need

to know which students are under the schools’ supervision each day as a part of the district’s general building, staff, instructional, and fiscal management responsibilities. This

information is also necessary on testing days for determining whether schools and districts

are meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets under the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001 (NCLB). Moreover, these data become critical in the case of national, local, or

family crises. 

What does the attendance taxonomy do?

This attendance code taxonomy is an exhaustive, mutually exclusive set of codes that document 

a student’s attendance status at any given time. 

The taxonomy presented in chapter 2 contributes a basis for standardizing student attendance

data, which are currently documented and coded in a number of different ways across the

nation. Because of these differences, there is a common need for the means to translate

state or local definitions into a universal accounting of attendance data. The need for this

coordination is compounded by the growing variety of educational settings in which students

spend their time, including virtual schools, institutions of higher learning, and work–study

settings. In the absence of such a national standard, attendance data cannot be compared

across schools, districts, or states, making the comparison of different attendance interventions

and programs difficult, if not impossible.

The taxonomy also allows users to compare absenteeism, average daily attendance

(ADA), and other high-interest statistics because it facilitates the exchange of transcripts

across districts that may have different attendance policies. Finally, the taxonomy increases

the trustworthiness of data reported to community and policy groups because of its foundation

of standard terms, categories, and definitions. 

What are common challenges to and practical solutions for improving

attendance data?

Improving the quality of attendance data involves many functions within districts and

schools. These include local technology capabilities and procedures, as well as services

targeted at student populations that may otherwise be difficult to track. Procedural concerns

highlighted in chapter 3 include administrative guidance such as clarifying how attendance

data are coded in the school and district. Other concerns are related to organizational challenges

like establishing a culture of data quality for all staff. Management issues are also of concern

including dealing with students who are regularly scheduled to be off site or participating

in virtual education. Technological challenges include automating data systems, upgrading

technology resources, training staff to use technology to manage data, and integrating data

and systems that are otherwise not interoperable because of hardware or software limitations.

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
4 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

How can schools and districts act on the data to improve student 

attendance?

The taxonomy presents a detailed way to collect attendance data but, for the information

to be useful, schools and districts need to be able to act on the data. Many schools and

districts use detailed data on attendance to guide policies or practices that improve student

attendance. The examples presented in chapter 4 may inspire other education organizations

to examine their local attendance policies, analyze student data, and identify new strategies

for improving student attendance rates.

Using the Attendance Codes Taxonomy

There are considerable variations in coding systems among states and often among school

districts within a single state, and this taxonomy is designed to accommodate these variations.

Users can “crosswalk” their existing attendance codes to the taxonomy. For example, in one

district a student might be considered “absent–excused” if he is serving as a poll watcher

at an election; in another district he might not be considered absent at all. Both districts

could use the same category in the taxonomy to describe the student’s activity that day,

while interpreting the category in line with their own policies.

This taxonomy was designed for use as part of an overall student information system,

and potential users should keep several factors in mind when they consider how they will

use the attendance taxonomy. 

ATTENDANCE CODES ARE NOT ENOUGH. The categories themselves do not

include all of the information that a school district would probably want to maintain about

a student’s attendance. The taxonomy does not address the time period for which attendance

is recorded; that is, whether an entry reflects attendance status at one time during the day,

attendance during each class period, or attendance for some portion of the school day (for

example, absent for doctor’s appointment in the morning but present in the afternoon).

Also, states and districts will vary in how they convert attendance data into decisions

about what constitutes tardiness, what comprises chronic absenteeism, etc. Users will

have to make judgment calls about how to classify unusual attendance situations. Finally,

the definitions cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information. A school or district

adopting this coding system will still need to determine procedures for confirming and

documenting students’ attendance status in order to ensure acceptable data quality. 

THIS GUIDE WORKS BEST WITH AN AUTOMATED STUDENT INFORMATION

SYSTEM. The taxonomy includes 15 attendance codes plus a temporary “place holder”

condition of “absent–situation unknown.” While it is possible to record and maintain this

information on paper forms, an automated system would be far more efficient. For

example, an automated information system could conceivably enter “out of school–regular

instructional program activity” for every student when the roster of parental permissions

is received, while a paper system would require entering the information for each student

by hand, one record at a time. 

THIS GUIDE IS NOT INTENDED TO CHANGE STATE AND LOCAL ATTENDANCE

POLICIES. State laws, regulations, and policies determine what constitutes an absence,

the definition of tardiness, the time unit for counting attendance (e.g., minutes, hours,

periods, days), whether an absence is excused, and the definition of truancy. This taxonomy

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
does not address these important issues. The guide is not intended to change state and

local policies related to these choices, but it may be a useful tool for state boards and

legislatures when considering future action related to attendance decisionmaking. 

THIS GUIDE DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EXCUSED AND UNEXCUSED

ABSENCES. All absences reduce a student’s opportunity to learn. Thus, this guide

focuses on where students are during the day and does not distinguish between excused

and unexcused absences.5 The distinction between “excused” and “unexcused” is made

by state and district policymakers, who also determine the consequences associated with

unexcused absences. Users will need to supplement this taxonomy of attendance codes

with an indicator of whether a type of absence is excused or unexcused.

1 Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School through College.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

2 Romero, M., and Lee, Y. (2007). A National Portrait of Chronic Absenteeism in the Early Grades. New York,

NY: The National Center for Children in Poverty.

3 Hickman, G.P., Bartholomew, M., and Mathwig, J. (2007). The Differential Development Trajectories of

Rural High School Dropouts and Graduates: Executive Summary. Phoenix, AZ: The College of Teacher

Education and Leadership at the Arizona State University at the West Campus.

4 Allensworth, E., and Easton, J.Q. (2005). The On-Track Indicator as a Predictor of High School Graduation.

Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

5 The National Center for Education Statistics Handbooks Online provides the following definitions: 

Excused absence: “A student is not present at school or at a school-endorsed or sponsored activity,

but is temporarily excused from attendance because he or she: 1) is ill and attendance in school

would endanger his or her health or the health of others; 2) has an immediate family member

who is seriously ill or has died; 3) is observing a recognized religious holiday of his or her faith; 

or 4) is otherwise excused from school in accordance with board policies.” 

Unexcused absence: “A student is not present at school or at a school-endorsed or sponsored

activity without acceptable cause, parental knowledge, or authorization from the school administrator or his or her agent.”

Chapter 1: Introduction 5

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Attendance Codes Taxonomy

Category Descriptions

Chapter 2: Attendance Codes Taxonomy Category Descriptions 7

This taxonomy includes two major categories: Attending/Present and Not Attending/Absent.

The terms “attending” and “present” are used interchangeably in this publication, as are the

terms “not attending” and “absent.” Each category is further broken out into codes that

describe how the student spends his or her time, whether present or absent. These codes

were developed to help schools collect and analyze data on student absences and design

interventions that will improve attendance and achievement. There is one code in the

taxonomy to describe each instance of student attendance. The codes are intended to

address the following information needs:

✓ Where is the student? 

✓ Is the student participating in regular curricular instruction or instruction related

to the regular curriculum?

✓ Under whose authority is the student? 

It is important to remember that statutes and practices differ from state to state and

across localities concerning recognized reasons for student absences. The subcategories in

this taxonomy do not address whether or not an absence is excused. States and districts

are responsible for making these determinations. Appendix A presents a crosswalk

between the taxonomy and a sample of reasons for student absences from states and

districts. Examples of how state statutes differ in defining attendance are highlighted in

appendix B. 

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

For the purposes of this document, attendance is defined as follows:

A student is “present” or “attending” if attending an instructional program that has been

approved by the state and/or school. Three assumptions apply:

ASSUMPTION 1: Each site in which a student is enrolled (whether singly- or dually-enrolled) 

is responsible for taking attendance for the day or portion of the day.

ASSUMPTION 2: School is in session for the day or part of the day. Students are not counted

as present or absent if school is closed. 

ASSUMPTION 3: Students who have transferred out of the school, dropped out, completed school,

or are otherwise not enrolled are not counted as present or absent.

A student is considered “present” if he or she attends 

an instructional program that has been approved 

by the state and/or school...
8 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

Category 1: Attending/Present 

Definition of Attending/Present:

A student is “present” if attending an instructional program approved 

by the state and/or school.

Category 1 includes students who are “attending” or “present.” A student is present if

attending an instructional program that has been approved by the school and/or state.

This definition means that school, district, or state personnel have deemed the activity to

be part of the student’s educational program. It encompasses learning that takes place in a

variety of settings outside of the classroom, if such placement has been recognized as part

of the student’s approved educational program. 

CATEGORY 1A: Present–In school, regular instructional program

The student is in class. This includes attendance at sites other than the

school of record if the site is part of the student’s regular instructional

program approved by the school and/or state. Examples of other sites are

institutions of higher education, vocational/technical centers, and special

education centers.

CATEGORY 1B: Present–Nontraditional school setting, regular instructional program

The student is engaged in his or her regular instructional program in a

nontraditional school setting. Examples include hospital- or homebound

instruction, as well as off-campus distance education.

CATEGORY 1C: Present–Disciplinary action, receiving instruction

The student has been removed from the regular instructional setting for

disciplinary reasons and is receiving instruction. In-school suspension

typically falls within this category, but it also includes out-of-school

suspension if instructional services are provided.

CATEGORY 1D: Present–Out of school, regular instructional program activity

The student is involved in an activity outside of school that is part of his

or her regular instructional program, such as a field trip or work–study.

The student is under the direct supervision of school personnel or someone

who has been designated to act in place of school personnel.

CATEGORY 1E: Present–Out of school, school-approved extracurricular or cocurricular

activity

The student is outside of school, participating in instruction that is related to,

but not part of, the regular curriculum. Examples include school-approved

extracurricular or cocurricular activities, such as a debate, an athletic

competition, or a conference that has educational value.

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Category 2: Not Attending/Absent

Definition of Not Attending/Absent:

A student is “absent” if he or she is not physically present on school 

grounds and is not participating in instruction or instruction-related 

activities at an approved off-grounds location.

Category 2 includes students who are “not attending” or “absent.” A student is absent if

he or she is not physically present on school grounds and is not participating in instruction

or instruction-related activities at an approved off-grounds location. This taxonomy does

not determine whether or not these absences are “excused.” States and districts are

responsible for making these determinations.

CATEGORY 2A: Absent–Noninstructional activity recognized by state or school

The student is out of school and involved in a noninstructional activity

recognized by the school or state. Examples include such civic activities

as involvement with the National Guard, service as a legislative page, jury

duty, or participation on an election board. Note that “recognized activities”

are not necessarily considered “excused” absences.

CATEGORY 2B: Absent–Religious observation 

The student is out of school observing a religious holiday or participating

in religious instruction.

CATEGORY 2C: Absent–Illness, injury, health treatment, or examination

The student is out of school because of personal physical or mental illness

or injury, including health-related appointments. 

CATEGORY 2D: Absent–Family emergency or bereavement

The student is out of school for unexpected family reasons. Examples

include lack of child care for a parenting student, care for a sick relative,

and bereavement for a family member.

CATEGORY 2E: Absent–Disciplinary action, not receiving instruction

The student has been removed from his or her regular instructional setting

for disciplinary reasons and is not receiving instruction. This may include

either in-school or out-of-school suspension if instructional services are

not provided. It does not include expulsion since expelled students are

not enrolled in school.

CATEGORY 2F: Absent–Legal or judicial requirement

The student is out of school due to a legal obligation to attend judicial

proceedings, required appointments, or trial or hearing dates. Or, the

student is serving time in jail or is in the custody of the court and is not

receiving instruction. 

Chapter 2: Attendance Codes Taxonomy Category Descriptions 9

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
10 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

CATEGORY 2G: Absent–Family activity

The student is out of school because of a family vacation or other activity. This also includes family time related to a parent being deployed to,

or returning from, military duty.

CATEGORY 2H: Absent–Student employment

The student is out of school for employment purposes. This does not

include work–study or school-related employment.

CATEGORY 2I: Absent–Transportation not available

The student is not in school because transportation is not available. 

For example, roads have been closed due to flooding. 

CATEGORY 2J: Absent–Student is skipping school

The student is willfully not attending school without parent or school

approval.

CATEGORY 2K: Absent–Situation unknown

The student is not present and the reason for the absence is not known. 

“Situation unknown” is a default category to be used only until the correct 

attendance category is determined.

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Common Challenges to

Collecting Attendance Code Data

and Effective Practices for

Addressing These Challenges

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Chapter 3: Common Challenges to Collecting Attendance Code Data and Effective Practices... 11

Districts will face challenges in achieving high-quality 

attendance data...

The taxonomy presented in chapter 2 demonstrates how student attendance data can be

categorized and standardized to improve data quality, interventions and policies, and

nationwide comparability. Yet, several procedural and technological challenges still jeopardize the accuracy, utility, and comparability of attendance data. This chapter will

explore these challenges and suggest practices for addressing them based on state and

district experience.

Challenge: Overlapping and/or Nonexhaustive Taxonomies

Every school or school district maintains student attendance records. However, not all

record systems distinguish attendance conditions clearly. Categories can be so broad that

the information is of limited usefulness: “present” and “absent” cover most situations but

do not tell a teacher or administrator whether a student is ill or simply “cutting class.” On

the other hand, if lists of reasons for absenteeism are too long, record keepers are likely to

use only a few of the codes. The codes must be easily understood. If it is difficult for the

person filling out the attendance form to judge what category an incident of absenteeism

falls into, the information provided will be unreliable. All of these data quality problems

make the information less useful. And, the less data are used, the less likely it is that

attention will be paid to data quality.

An exhaustive taxonomy accounts for all attendance scenarios without using an “other” code. 

A mutually exclusive taxonomy provides only one possible code for each attendance scenario.

A set of attendance code choices—a taxonomy—that cannot account for all attendance scenarios without use of an “other” code invariably results in a loss of information

about the absence. A taxonomy that does not adequately distinguish its terms permits

overlap in attendance scenarios; in other words, more than one code may be appropriate

for a single situation. If the school’s taxonomy is not exhaustive and mutually exclusive,

data will not be accurately categorized and data quality will suffer. Schools, districts, and

states also need a taxonomy of attendance codes that are feasible to collect accurately and

on a regular basis. The number of codes should be adequate to categorize every student

attendance scenario, yet not so granular to be unmanageable. 
12 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

RECOMMENDATION: ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIVE, YET MANAGEABLE

TAXONOMY. A key to improving the quality of attendance data is establishing a taxonomy

that covers all situations with minimal chance of confusion. This publication presents a

taxonomy that is an exhaustive, mutually exclusive set of codes that document a student’s

attendance status at any given time. By its “exhaustive” nature, the taxonomy accounts for the

full range of possible attendance scenarios that may arise in a K–12 education setting. “Mutually

exclusive” means that each situation can be categorized by only one code. In the context of

attendance codes, this means that one and only one code is necessary and sufficient to categorize

any student’s attendance status. Such a taxonomy is presented in chapter 2 of this document.

Challenge: Data Management and Communication

Data quality is dependent upon the quality of the system that collects, edits, and maintains

the information. Quality suffers when education organizations lack clear policies and

procedures for entering, verifying, and validating attendance data. Often, attendance

clerks or other data entry staff do not have the time (and freedom from distractions) needed

to ensure accuracy. They may not always understand their data quality responsibilities and

the school’s or district’s procedures. 

Clear communication is required among school personnel and between the state,

school, and community. Data quality suffers when school staff members are not aware of

attendance policies or lack consistent terms, definitions, rules, and procedures when dealing

with attendance issues. Problems also arise when staff members fail to communicate

effectively with parents and guardians to track students, identify a student’s enrollment

status, and gather the information needed to apply attendance codes correctly.

RECOMMENDATION: BUILD A CULTURE OF QUALITY DATA. A strong, commonly

shared commitment to high-quality information resources can do a lot to ensure good data

management and open communication. Developing a systematic process for encouraging

and supporting data quality is the subject of two publications developed by the National

Forum on Education Statistics. The Forum Guide to Building a Culture of Quality Data: A

School and District Resource describes how to establish or improve a culture of data quality,

including specific roles and responsibilities for principals, teachers, office staff, school

board members, superintendents, data stewards/coordinators, and technology support

personnel. A more recent publication, the Forum Curriculum for Improving Education

Data: A Resource for Local Education Agencies, builds on the Forum Guide by providing lesson

plans, instructional handouts, and resource materials for training K–12 school and district staff

in developing this culture.

A culture of data quality encompasses both effective data collection and verification

procedures. In other words, any effort to build a culture of quality data should include a

standard process for communication between the front office, teachers, families, and staff at

any learning site attended by the student. Training on the process and any changes to the

process can help maintain agreement about standard operations across all stakeholder groups. 

For more information about building a culture of data quality, see the following free resources 

from the Forum:

✓ Forum Guide to Building a Culture of Quality Data: A School and District Resource,

available at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2005801.asp; and

✓ Forum Curriculum for Improving Education Data: A Resource for Local Education 

Agencies, available at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2007808.asp and 

http://www.academypa.org/sifa/splashDQ.html.

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Chapter 3: Common Challenges to Collecting Attendance Code Data and Effective Practices... 13

State and Local Efforts to Improve Data Quality

In Kentucky, a state-level audit of the attendance data collection process at selected schools has emerged

as a helpful practice. In advance of the audit, the Kentucky Department of Education supplies each of the

selected schools with a checklist of 32 attendance-related documents that will be requested during the audit.

These documents include attendance records in addition to school schedules, teacher information, transportation information, and materials regarding specific groups of students (e.g., dropouts, hospitalized or homebound

students, suspended students, seniors, students in the early grades, and program-based groups).

The checklist also includes the state’s Attendance Audit Questionnaire. This survey gathers information about

a school’s attendance system, master schedule, data entry and verification procedures, monthly teacher

reports on attendance, and the number of students involved with virtual high school, performance-based

courses, and placement other than at school sites. Completed questionnaires must be signed by the principal

or his/her designee before being submitted to the state education agency.

Additionally, attendance clerks in the Jefferson County Public Schools monitor school data with oversight and

guidance from internal auditors who rotate between schools for on-site support. Moreover, personnel at the district

office are assigned to specific schools for extra assistance including monitoring and problem solving.

Finally, school and district staff members use a handbook to guide truancy reduction efforts. This handbook

provides detailed instructions about accessing the district’s computer system and logging interventions with

the families of absent students. In order to improve the accuracy of the attendance data, the county advises

that attendance clerks be housed in a quiet setting. Another best practice is to alert attendance clerks through

the computer system when a student acquires three unexcused absences.

RECOMMENDATION: COMMUNICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF BETTER

ATTENDANCE DATA. A commitment to data use actually leads to better data. One key

to improving attendance data may be highlighting for educators the benefits of better

attendance data and the potential these data have for improving student achievement.

Low quality, vague attendance data cannot be trusted to guide schools and districts

toward policies and practices that improve student attendance. High-quality, detailed

attendance data can provide schools and districts with information that can be confidently

used to guide improvements in polices and practices that impact student attendance.

Leaders at the state, district, and local levels can build a demand for better attendance

data—from those who collect the data to those who use the data—by reinforcing this opportunity to improve student attendance, which is linked to more positive student outcomes.

Challenge: Standard Data Under Nonstandard Conditions

First, the collection of attendance data is complicated by the unit of time used to track

attendance—whether by the minute, hour, class period, half-day, or full-day. For example,

consider the contrast between elementary schools, where students are typically with the

same teacher all day, and middle and high schools where students may change teachers

each period throughout the day. While it can be efficient to mark elementary students

absent or present for the whole day, it may be more suitable to capture older students’

attendance for each class period. Furthermore, daily attendance counts will not be correct

if staff do not understand how to aggregate data from separate classrooms, buildings, or

school periods. 

For more information about data from nontraditional education settings, see the Forum Guide 

to Elementary/Secondary Virtual Education at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2006803.asp.
14 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

Second, certain students may be difficult to track for attendance purposes because, for

example, they spend a portion of the day or week at a special education center, take a

class at a postsecondary institution or private school, participate in a vocational class, or

temporarily attend a juvenile correctional facility. Care must be taken not to duplicate

attendance data when students are counted in more than one setting at the same time.

Another category of students who can be difficult to track are those taking virtual courses.

Attendance in an online setting may be defined differently than attendance in a physical

classroom due to the focus on student-paced course completion instead of seat time.

Finally, conflicts between software programs provided by vendors and a school’s data

collection system can present substantial challenges. When, for example, attendance software collects data based on a half-day unit of time, but state or local policy requires full-day

measures, the school faces a conflict. Even when data are transformed to bridge these

differences, data quality often suffers as a result of the added manipulation of data.

RECOMMENDATION: PLAN CAREFULLY WITH INPUT FROM ATTENDANCE

DATA COLLECTORS, REPORTERS, AND USERS. By involving a broad base of representatives of the potential users of attendance data, those who will report or record attendance, and the many settings in which students receive instruction, schools can develop a

reliable data collection system. The units of time represented in attendance reporting must

be as clearly defined as the attendance categories are. Measuring attendance in non-traditional/multiple site settings requires clearly defined and commonly applied attendance codes, as

well as effective communication among staff at each site.

Technology can also help track student “attendance” in online schools. Participation

can be verified in such ways as documenting when students log on and off of their computers, the number of keystrokes, and logging when students call their teachers. See the

Forum Guide to Elementary/Secondary Virtual Education for guidance on data collection,

reporting, and policymaking for virtual education.

Careful planning at the district level, coordinated with state and federal reporting

needs, will produce clear specifications for the attendance data system. These specifications

are the foundation for conversations with in-house programmers or information software

vendors. The Forum has a suite of products that can help decisionmaking about many

aspects of hardware and software systems. 

For more information about data system technology initiatives, see the Forum Unified Education

Technology Suite at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_tech_suite.asp.

Challenge: System Automation

Why does technology matter? In organizations that lack automated data systems, school

staff members are more likely to fall behind when trying to track student attendance on

a daily or more frequent basis. Although technology has improved greatly over the years,

attendance continues to be recorded by hand in some organizations, which invariably

leads to entry errors and data quality concerns. Finally, a school without an automated

data system may fail to contact parents in a timely manner when students don’t come to

school. This may not be, strictly speaking, a data quality issue, but the timeliness of those

calls to parents is often a key factor in attendance intervention efforts. 

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
RECOMMENDATION: UPGRADE INFORMATION SYSTEMS. Organizations with

inadequate technology may need to consider the feasibility of upgrading existing data 

systems or purchasing/building a new system. In addition to hardware and software costs,

any changes to the data system must be accompanied by training if staff members are to

be expected to have the expertise needed to collect and report high-quality attendance data. 

RECOMMENDATION: AUTOMATE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY. Many

technological options are available for improving communications related to student

attendance issues. For example, some school districts use an automated system to notify

parents each time a student is absent. These notification systems can generate letters, email,

or phone messages designed by policymakers. Another communications strategy is to provide

daily correspondence through one of these media to notify parents of a student’s attendance

status (either present or absent). Other intervals may be appropriate for automated communications, such as when consequences are triggered by a certain number of absences.

No matter the specific communication medium, district upon district has shown that

proactive communication with parents is an effective tool for remedying student attendance

concerns.

Summary of Recommendations

✓ Establish a mutually exclusive and exhaustive, yet manageable taxonomy.

✓ Build a culture of quality data.

✓ Plan carefully with input from attendance data collectors, reporters, and users.

✓ Upgrade information systems.

✓ Automate communication technology.

Chapter 3: Common Challenges to Collecting Attendance Code Data and Effective Practices... 15

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Acting on the Data

Chapter 4: Acting on the Data 17

Collecting detailed attendance data as suggested by the taxonomy in chapter 2 can help

states, districts, and schools identify patterns in the frequency of student absences and

reasons why students are missing school. Once education leaders understand how student

absences are affecting their community, they are in a position to make the case for changes

that will improve student attendance. This chapter presents examples of state, district,

and school actions that can serve as models for education organizations across the country

hoping to improve attendance data and solve attendance problems. 

A variety of approaches can be used to help educators understand the scope of a

school’s or district’s attendance problems. Qualitative analyses include taking a closer look

at local attendance policies to determine whether they support optimal student attendance.

Quantitative analyses include investigating whether student attendance data correlate with

student demographic groups, academic performance, grade levels, retention patterns,

school completion, and graduation.

Attendance Data in Action

The states, districts, and schools profiled in this chapter transformed attendance data into

actionable information to improve attendance rates. Real students improved their attendance

behaviors and educational opportunities as a result of educators acting on attendance data,

working with families, and improving the effectiveness of attendance intervention efforts. 

Improving attendance and achievement: Sioux Falls School District, 

South Dakota

As school leaders in Sioux Falls, South Dakota reviewed the challenges of meeting adequate

yearly progress (AYP), a common theme surfaced—student absenteeism. With access to

detailed attendance records, the district took a long, focused look at the probable causes

of their absenteeism and implemented a plan to educate the public about policy changes

intended to boost attendance and achievement.

After analyzing two years of detailed student attendance data, district leaders identified

which grades had the highest absence rates and at what grade intervals the greatest hikes

in absenteeism occurred. Figure 1 shows the overall percentage of students with more

than 10 absences at each grade level for school years 2005–06 and 2006–07. School

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Real students improved their attendance behaviors 

and educational opportunities as a result of educators acting on

attendance data, working with families, and increasing the

effectiveness of attendance intervention efforts...

Better student

attendance starts

with interventions

that are based on

detailed attendance

data. 

Around the country,

states, districts, and

schools are acting on

attendance data to

improve student

attendance.
18 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

Source: Sioux Falls School District, South Dakota, May 2008

leaders were concerned about absentee rates associated with the transition between schools.

They saw that, during both school years, the greatest increases in the percentage of students

with more than 10 absences were between the fifth and sixth grades, between the eighth and

ninth grades, and between the eleventh and twelfth grades. Twelfth graders exhibited the

highest rates of overall chronic absence with more than 40 percent of students missing more

than 10 school days during each school year.

Moreover, figure 2 shows that district analysts found a statistically significant negative

correlation between grade point average (GPA) and number of days absent from school.6

Put simply, it shows that the more absences students had, the more likely they were to

have a GPA below 3.0 and, conversely, the fewer the absences, the more likely students

were to have a 3.0 GPA or higher. This relationship was consistent for students at every

performance level, regardless of whether or not the absence was excused. 

Source: Sioux Falls School District, South Dakota, May 2008

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

0%

5 %

10%

15%

20 %

25 %

30%

35%

40 %

45%

50%

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

G rade

Percent

2005–06

2006–07

0%

0%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

00%

0–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31+

A b s e n c e r a n g e (# of d a y s )

Percentage of students

G P A >= 3.0

G P A < 3.0

Figure 2

0 %

5 %

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

G rade

Percent

2005–06

2006–07

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31+

A b s e n c e r a n g e (# of d a y s )

Percentage of students

G P A >= 3.0

G P A < 3.0

Figure 2

0 %

5 %

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45 %

0 %

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

G rade

Percent

2005–06

2006–07

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

00%

0–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31+

A b s e n c e r a n g e (# of d a y s )

Percentage of students

G P A >= 3.0

G P A < 3.0

Figure 2

0 %

5 %

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Grade

Percent

2005–06

2006–07

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 31+

A b s e n c e r a n g e (# of d a y s )

Percentage of students

G P A >= 3.0

G P A < 3.0

Figure 2

Figure 1. Percentage of students with 10+ absences by grade level, Sioux Falls School District,

South Dakota: School Years 2005–06 and 2006–07

Figure 2. Percentage of students with grade point averages (GPAs) above and below 3.0 by absence

range, Sioux Falls School District, South Dakota: School Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 combined
These data had implications for each school’s ability to meet adequate yearly progress

(AYP) targets for grades 3 through 8, because part of the state’s AYP determination is based

on either achieving an average daily attendance (ADA) rate at or above 94 percent, or showing progress in the ADA from the previous year. To achieve a 94 percent attendance

rate, students could not be absent more than 10.56 days during a school year of 176 days.

Using attendance data as a means to investigate reasons for absences, the district discovered that two of the most common reasons for student absences were parent request or

undocumented illness. Additionally, two-thirds of out-of-school suspensions at the high

school level were for excessive absences, meaning that local policy was exacerbating the attendance problem by removing students who were already missing school from the classroom. 

The district facilitated seven community meetings to share these analyses and the

effects of missing 10 school days on a school’s ability to meet AYP. Leaders changed the

district’s attendance policies to reflect the serious nature of the 10-absence threshold. In

addition, rather than suspending students out-of-school for unexcused absences, the

district made students responsible for spending extra time before or after school to

make up missed assignments—all because policymakers had access to detailed, highquality student attendance data.

Intervening with the individual: Aurora Public Schools, Colorado 

In Colorado, leaders in the Aurora Public Schools were concerned about the increasing

number of truant students. The school district took a proactive stance on truancy reduction

by developing and implementing a districtwide program. The district superintendent

personally visited the homes of students not in school. Schools increased their focus on

accurate daily attendance accounting. The attendance policy and corresponding regulations were revised to clarify expectations. Protocols were developed. Seven district-level

truancy specialists collaborated with the schools, families, and the courts to assist in remedying

truancy issues. Each secondary school hired four or five of their teachers to work additional

hours to case-manage 15 truant students each. The district implemented a range of

interventions such as tutoring, counseling, Saturday school, parent support groups, and

substance abuse treatment. Over 800 staff volunteered to mentor at-risk students.

Chapter 4: Acting on the Data 19

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Number

habitual

truants

Percent

of total

membership

Number

habitual

truants

Percent

of total

membership

Change in

number of

habitual truants

Percent

change

School Level 2006–07 2007–08 Difference 2006-07 to 2007-08

Total district 4,567 15.2 4,306 14.7 -0.4 -261

Elementary 1,010 6.4 390 2.6 -3.9 -620

Middle 967 14.8 1,032 16.5 1.8 +65

High 2,590 33.0 2,884 37.2 4.2 +294

Habitual truancy is defined as 10 or more days of unexcused absences in a school year.

Source: Aurora Public Schools, Colorado, May 2008

Table 1. Change in number and percent of habitual truants by school level, Aurora Public Schools, 

Colorado: School years 2006-07 to 2007-08
20 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

Although this truancy reduction program is in its infancy, positive results have already

been noted at the elementary level and across the district as a whole. 

Data at the end of the 2007–08 school year indicated that 78 percent of Aurora schools

decreased the number of students with 10 or more unexcused absences (defined as

habitual truants). Overall, the district reduced its number of habitually truant students

from 15.2 to 14.7 percent, or by more than 250 fewer students who were habitually truant

in the second year. Fully 51 chronically absent students were brought back to school by

the October 2007 count date, increasing district funds by $350,000. As shown in table 1

above, there was success in truancy reduction at the elementary level, with chronic

truants reduced from 6.4 percent to 2.6 percent. Middle schools and high schools

began to standardize truancy tracking and set a baseline for comparisons. Although the 

percentage of truant dropouts at these grades increased from their 2006–07 levels, more than

half of the district’s secondary schools reduced their numbers of habitually truant students. 

Determined to implement additional best practices for reducing truancy at all

grade levels, Aurora established the Early Intervention Program in two schools during

the second semester of 2007–08. Based on Project Respect in Pueblo, Colorado, this

strengths-based program uses truancy specialists to provide intensive case management

to students and their families, and collaborate with the families and the courts, as needed,

to overcome barriers to school engagement and success. Attendance data enabled the

district to measure the success of its efforts. Of the 41 students who participated in

this program, 35 improved their attendance—a remarkable 82 percent. Among these 35

students, 18 improved by case management alone, without going to truancy court. The

17 students who appeared in truancy court all improved by the end of the year. Aurora

Public Schools intends to expand this program for the 2008–09 year. 

Partnering with the community: Alamosa School District, Colorado 

Colorado’s Alamosa School District demonstrated how a plan to address school attendance

problems can extend beyond the walls of educational institutions. Some of the district’s

schools include only two or three grade levels, and function as feeder schools for the next

grade level. As shown in table 2, a troubling trend emerged from the district’s feeder

schools. In the 2006–07 school year, almost one third of the district’s kindergarten and

first-grade students were truant, missing at least two weeks of school per year. Although

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Grade School Truancy Rate (percent truant)

K–1 Polston Primary 32 

2–3 Boyd Elementary 10 

4–5 Evans Elementary 20

6–8 Ortega Middle 50

9–12 Alamosa High 42

Table 2. Truancy rate by school, Alamosa School District, Colorado: School Year 2006-07 

Truancy is defined as missing 10 or more days of school. 

Source: Valley Courier, Alamosa, Colorado, May 2, 2008
second and third-grade students had the least truancy at 10 percent, that rate doubled at

the fourth and fifth-grade levels. Then, alarmingly, the rate increased to fully one half of

the middle school students and 42 percent at the high school. While the rates were highest

in middle school, the high truancy rate at the primary level was a concern, as it was thought

to be the foundation for students’ later attendance problems. The data provided a clear,

unambiguous message that something needed to be done.

Instead of tackling the attendance problems in isolation, the district created a community

partnership with joint responsibility among Social Services; the Center for Restorative

Programs; and the offices of the District Attorney, Probation, and Mental Health. Prior to

this collaboration, intervention did not begin until students had missed 30 days of school

and the court system became involved—far too late for meaningful educational correction.

By focusing on the earliest grades and promoting the importance of school, the collaboration

created a role for each partner. Social Services added the statement “children will attend

school regularly” to its personal responsibility contracts for Temporary Assistance to

Needy Families (TANF) clients. Principals referred families to the Center for Restorative

Programs to help overcome barriers to attendance that ranged from parents’ late work

hours to lack of an alarm clock to the lack of clean clothes for the student. Probation officers

became involved if the family was part of the court system. Poor student attendance

soon had legal consequences for a family as it was interpreted as a sign of parental

negligence. 

Partnering with parents: Montezuma-Cortez School District RE-1, Colorado 

School administrators in Colorado’s Montezuma-Cortez School District RE-1 recently found

that their building’s attendance rates had fallen below the state average. Furthermore, the

rates for American Indian and Hispanic students were disproportionately lower than other

racial and ethnic groups. 

In an effort to boost attendance rates, these schools are focusing on parent involvement.

At the middle school level, administrators are proposing to include school attendance in the

annual family contract, with a parent meeting scheduled once students miss more than 10

days of school, whether or not the absences are excused. At the high school level, administrators would like to limit excused absences to 10 per semester. In the early grades, the

school board is now focusing outreach efforts on positive parent partnerships in order to

prevent later attendance problems.

Digging up the roots of truancy: Cherry Creek District, Colorado 

Colorado’s Cherry Creek District has used its attendance data to unearth possible causes

of student truancy. Teachers are now tracking attendance by period and determining

whether or not absences are excused. The district begins its interventions with family

notification and problem solving. If student attendance does not improve, data on classroom hours missed due to tardies and absences, both excused and unexcused, are used as

part of the student profile for the Student Attendance Review Board. This group includes

representatives from the school district, human services, and the juvenile assessment

center; as well as a social worker, school deans, counselors, and mental health staff

working to adjust the student’s schedule or engagements. Student profiles have since

indicated that students with chronic absences frequently have personal or family mental

health concerns, substance abuse problems, significant family changes, and/or long-standing

academic struggles.

Chapter 4: Acting on the Data 21

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
22 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Putting the details to work: Michigan 

Other examples of the productive use of robust attendance data come from districts and

schools in Michigan, where the development of detailed attendance codes has helped

staff decrease student absences and respond to state and federal accountability requirements.

Most districts use multiple attendance codes to track daily attendance, highlight why students are not in school or in class periods, and identify students needing extra support

due to family issues.

In addition to tracking where students are during the day as suggested by the taxonomy,

some Michigan districts add codes to track students who arrive late and/or leave early. In

Michigan’s Center Line Public Schools, for example, counting early leavers as “absences”

demonstrated to parents the importance of the full school day. If the student is not in school,

valuable class time is missed resulting in lower performance levels. Since this change, the

number of students leaving early for jobs or families leaving early for vacations has decreased. 

One principal of an alternative high school in Michigan relies heavily on the computerized student management system’s tardy and discipline referral codes. The school’s mission

is focused on developing struggling students into successful citizens, and the school now

uses behavioral choices related to attendance as an example of good citizenship. Both the

tardy and the discipline referral codes help staff identify the need for intervention strategies

to help get students on track with attendance goals. Moreover, with recent staff reductions,

using data technology has become even more important in targeting needed interventions

and supporting staff

To support improving student attendance efforts, Michigan established the Michigan

Pupil Accounting and Attendance Association (MPAAA) over 70 years ago. MPAAA is

comprised of an elected board, an appointed board, and over 500 members represented

from local districts, public school academies, and regional pupil-count auditors from

throughout the state. The group coordinates efforts with the Michigan Department of

Education (MDE), and the state’s Center for Educational Performance & Information

(CEPI) to ensure state and federal requirements are being effectively communicated and

executed for enrollment, attendance, and pupil membership through training sessions,

newsletters, and conferences. MPAAA and MDE provide guidance to districts in completing

critical documentation affecting school funding and improving student attendance. 

6 Correlations and their significance tests, calculated with the student’s unweighted grade point average

(GPA) and number of days absent, show that the negative correlation is substantial (.379 for 2006 and

.388 for 2007) and statistically significant (less than .000). As the unweighted GPA increased, the

number of days absent decreased.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Appendix A 23

Appendix A: Attendance Codes by Reasons for Student Absences 

The chart on the following pages presents a crosswalk of the taxonomy and reasons for

student absences provided by state statutes and Forum members. The information is not

exhaustive, and there may be additional examples not presented in the chart.
24 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

PRESENT S: State statute or report D: District report

1A 1B 1C 1D 1E

In school, regular Nontraditional school Disciplinary action, Out of school, Out of school, schoolinstructional setting, regular receiving instruction regular instructional approved extracurricular 

program instructional program program activity or cocurricular activity

STATES 

Alabama S

Alaska S S

American Samoa

Arizona S S, D S D

Arkansas S S

California

Colorado S S S

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia 

Florida S

Georgia

Guam

Hawaii S

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana S

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky S S

Louisiana

Maine S

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan S, D D D D

Minnesota D D

Mississippi S SS

Missouri

Montana S

Nebraska

Nevada S

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma S S

Oregon

Pennsylvania S S S

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee S

Texas

Utah S

Vermont

Virgin Islands

Virginia S S

Washington D D

West Virginia S S S S

Wisconsin S S S S

Wyoming
Appendix A 25

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

ABSENT S: State statute or report D: District report

2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F

Noninstructional Religious Illness, injury, Family Disciplinary action, Legal or

activity recognized observation health treatment, emergency not receiving judicial

by state or school or examination or bereavement instruction requirement

STATES

Alabama S

Alaska S S S S

American Samoa

Arizona S S S S

Arkansas

California S S S S S

Colorado S S S

Connecticut

Delaware S

District of Columbia 

Florida S S S S

Georgia S S S

Guam S

Hawaii S S

Idaho S

Illinois S S S

Indiana S S S S

Iowa S S

Kansas S

Kentucky S S

Louisiana S S S

Maine S S S S

Maryland S

Massachusetts S S D

Michigan D S, D D D D D∂

Minnesota S S, D S, D D

Mississippi S S S S S S

Missouri

Montana S S S

Nebraska S S

Nevada S S

New Hampshire S

New Jersey S S

New Mexico S

New York S S S

North Carolina S S

North Dakota

Ohio S

Oklahoma S S S

Oregon S S

Pennsylvania S S S S

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island S

South Carolina S S

South Dakota S D S

Tennessee S S S

Texas S S S S

Utah S S

Vermont D S S D

Virgin Islands

Virginia

Washington S D D

West Virginia S S S S S S

Wisconsin S S

Wyoming
26 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

ABSENT (continued) S: State statute or report D: District report

2G 2H 2I 2J 2K

Family activity Student employment Transportation Student is skipping Situation unknown

not available school

STATES

Alabama S

Alaska D

American Samoa

Arizona S

Arkansas

California

Colorado S

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia S

Florida S

Georgia S

Guam

Hawaii S

Idaho

Illinois S

Indiana S

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky S

Louisiana S

Maine S S

Maryland

Massachusetts S D

Michigan D D D D

Minnesota D S

Mississippi S

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada S

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York S S

North Carolina S

North Dakota S

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon S

Pennsylvania S

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina S

South Dakota D

Tennessee S

Texas S

Utah S

Vermont S S

Virgin Islands

Virginia S

Washington D D

West Virginia S S S

Wisconsin S

Wyoming S
Appendix B 27

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Appendix B: Differences in State Statutes Regarding Reasons for

Student Absences 

This chart highlights instances where state statutes differ in categorizing students as

“present” and “absent.” The information is not exhaustive, and there may be additional

examples not presented in the chart.

Reason Considered present Considered absent

in state statute in state statute

Religious instruction Indiana Arizona, California, Florida, 

Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, 

West Virginia, Wisconsin

Service on precinct election board Indiana, South Dakota New Jersey

or as a helper to a political candidate or party

Work training, career education, career and technical Arizona Arkansas

education, vocational education, manual training 

program meeting the Department of Education’s

educational standards

4-H club educational activities Kentucky Arkansas

Parent/custodian is deployed to the armed forces Kentucky Georgia, Tennessee

or is returning from deployment

Religious holiday New Jersey, Texas Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, 

Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Appendix C 29

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Appendix C: Recent Publications from the National Forum on

Education Statistics

The publications listed on the following pages can be accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/

publications.asp.

Forum Guide to Core Finance Data Elements (2007)

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007801 

This publication establishes current and consistent terms and definitions

for maintaining, collecting, reporting, and exchanging comparable information

related to education finances. It is designed to accompany Financial Accounting

for Local and State School Systems: 2003 Edition by identifying common reporting requirements and defining frequently used indicators and calculations

that use data elements from accounting and other data systems.

Forum Curriculum for Improving Education Data: A Resource for Local 

Education Agencies (2007)

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2007808.asp 

This resource supports efforts to improve the quality of education data by

serving as training materials for K–12 school and district staff. It provides

lesson plans, instructional handouts, and related resources, and presents

concepts necessary to help schools develop a culture for improving data

quality.

Forum Guide to Decision Support Systems: A Resource for Educators (2006)

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2006807.asp 

This NCES/Forum guide was developed to help the education community

better understand what decision support systems are, how they are

configured, how they operate, and how they might be developed and

implemented in an education setting.

Forum Guide to Elementary/Secondary Virtual Education (2006)

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2006803.asp 

This publication offers recommendations for collecting accurate, comparable,

and useful data about virtual education in the elementary/secondary

education setting. It highlights policy questions and data elements 

that are critical to meeting the information needs of policymakers,

administrators, instructors, and parents involved in virtual education.
30 EVERY SCHOOL DAY COUNTS

Forum Guide to the Privacy of Student Information: A Resource for Schools (2006)

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2006805.asp

This publication was written to help school and local education agency

staff better understand and apply the Family Educational Rights and

Privacy Act, a federal law that protects the privacy interests of parents

and students with respect to information maintained in student education

records. It defines terms such as “education records” and “directory

information”; and offers guidance for developing appropriate privacy policies and information

disclosure procedures related to military recruiting, parental rights and annual notification,

videotaping, online information, media releases, surveillance cameras, and health-related

information.

Accounting for Every Student: A Taxonomy for Standard Student Exit Codes (2006)

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2006804.asp 

This publication was developed to help education agencies develop

effective information systems for tracking the enrollment status of students.

It presents a student-level exit code taxonomy for states and districts that

accounts for 100 percent (and not 90 percent or 110 percent) of all students.

It also offers “best practice” advice regarding effective practices for tracking

students, collecting exit codes data, and distinguishing among high school completion

credentials.

Forum Guide to Education Indicators (2005)

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2005802.asp

This publication provides encyclopedia-type entries for 44 commonly

used education indicators. Each indicator entry includes a definition,

recommended uses, usage caveats and cautions, related policy questions,

data element components, a formula, commonly reported subgroups, and

display suggestions. The Guide will help readers better understand how

to appropriately develop, apply, and interpret commonly used education indicators.

Forum Guide to Building a Culture of Quality Data: A School and District Resource (2005)

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2005801.asp 

This publication focuses on data entry—getting things right at the source.

As such, it recommends a practical process for developing a culture of quality data based around individual “Tip Sheets” for the many people involved

in providing quality data, including principals, teachers, office staff, school

board members, superintendents, data stewards, and technology staff.

Forum Unified Education Technology Suite (2005)

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_tech_suite.asp

This publication presents a practical, comprehensive, and tested

approach to assessing, acquiring, instituting, managing, securing, and

using technology in education settings. It is written for individuals who lack extensive

experience with technology, but are tasked with leading technology initiatives in a school

or district setting.

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Forum Guide to Protecting the Privacy of Student Information: State and Local

Education Agencies (2004)

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2004330.asp 

This publication presents a general overview of privacy laws and professional practices that apply to information collected for, and maintained in,

student records. The Guide provides an overview of key principles and

concepts governing student privacy; summarizes federal privacy laws;

identifies issues concerning the release of information to both parents

and external organizations; and suggests good data management practices for schools,

districts, and state education agencies.

Facilities Information Management: A Guide for State and Local Education 

Agencies (2003)

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2003400.asp 

This publication provides a framework for identifying a basic set of

school facilities data elements and definitions that will meet the information needs of school and community decisionmakers, school facility

managers, and the general public. It presents recommendations for

designing and maintaining an information system that addresses the

condition, design, use, management, and financing of elementary/secondary education

facilities. It also includes commonly used measures, data elements, and a list of additional

resources for the practitioner.

Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities (2003)

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2003347.asp 

This publication is intended to help school facilities managers plan for

efficient and effective operations. It provides practical advice on a range

of topics, including how to conduct a facilities audit, planning for maintenance to ensure smooth operations and avoid costly surprises, managing

staff and contractors, and evaluating maintenance efforts.

Appendix C 31

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■