DCPS 2021-22 Attendance Report (Nov 28 2022)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ATTENDANCE REPORT
School Year 2021-22
November 30, 2022
Page 1 of 68
Att en d an c e Re p ort 2 02 1 -2 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Legal Landscape ..............................................................................................................................................5

Every Day Counts! Taskforce ..........................................................................................................................6
Data Quality and Accountability .....................................................................................................................7
Background and Definitions ...........................................................................................................................8
Attendance Collection in the 2021-22 School Year ......................................................................................10
Findings ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
2021-22 in Focus...........................................................................................................................................11
Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy Rates by Month ....................................................................................12
In-Person Learning Rates by Month…………………………………………………………………………………………………………16
2021-22 Populations in Focus.......................................................................................................................17
Grade Level ..................................................................................................................................................17
Student Groups ............................................................................................................................................18
Relationship Between Attendance and PARCC Scores ................................................................................19
Relationship Between School-Level Percent At-Risk and Attendance ........................................................21
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................23
Appendix A: School-Level Rates of Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy ........................................................... 24
Appendix B: Data Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 31
Business Rules..............................................................................................................................................31
Appendix C: Additional Figures ........................................................................................................................ 39
Appendix D: Data Tables................................................................................................................................... 47
Appendix E: Regression Output Tables ............................................................................................................ 49
Page 2 of 68
Executive Summary
The Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) collects attendance for all students in public
schools, regardless of age, for required reporting and accountability. OSSE is required to publicly report on
the state of attendance annually, and this report satisfies that statutory obligation. In school year 2021-22,
chronic absenteeism reached a new high of 48 percent and truancy rose to nearly 42 percent.
Students returned to mainly in-person instruction in school year 2021-22 after almost entirely remote
instruction in the 2020-21 school year. More than 90 percent of school days were held in person in all months
of the school year except December and January, when in-person rates declined to 89 and 83 percent,
respectively, due to the surge of the omicron variant of coronavirus (COVID-19). As experienced in
jurisdictions across the United States, the return to in-person learning was accompanied by an increase
chronic absenteeism and truancy. Chronic absenteeism reached a high of 48 percent in June 2022. The rise
in chronic absenteeism was driven primarily by increases in excused absences, while unexcused absences
increased only modestly.
Standardized assessments using the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
in English language arts (ELA) and math also resumed in school year 2021-22. This report analyzes the
relationship between attendance and PARCC scores, finding that, after adjusting for other student
characteristics, every 10-percentage-point increase in a student’s attendance rate is associated with a 6-
point increase in the PARCC ELA scale score and a 4-point increase in the PARCC math scale score, on
average. It is clear that regular attendance positively impacts learning outcomes for students.
While PARCC scores represent one measurable outcome of attendance rates, it is equally important to
understand the predictors of student attendance. OSSE’s attendance reports routinely highlight student-level
characteristics that predict chronic absenteeism and truancy. High school students, at-risk students, Black or
African American students, and Hispanic or Latino students have consistently had significantly higher rates
of chronic absenteeism.
However, these individual-level characteristics tell only part of the story; patterns of student absenteeism
reflect not only individual student attributes, but also larger structures of advantage and disadvantage that
impact the public education system. One such structural component is the unequal concentration of students
designated as at-risk across DC schools. Many schools serve high numbers of at-risk students and many
schools that serve low numbers of at-risk students, but relatively few schools serve representative
populations of both at-risk and not-at-risk students. This report examines the relationship between students’
in-seat-attendance and the percent of at-risk students in the school they attend, adjusting for individual-level
characteristics. The results show that a 10-percentage-point increase in the percent of at-risk students in a
school is associated with a reduction of 1.3 percentage points in attendance rates on average, or about
two days out of a 180-day school year. This means that a student who attends a school where 50 percent of
the students are at-risk is present about two fewer days, on average, than a similar student at a school where
40 percent of students are at-risk. The difference in attendance widens as the difference between schools’
proportion of at-risk students expands, so a student who attends a school where 90 percent of the students
are at-risk is present for about 16 fewer days, on average, than a similar student at a school where 10 percent
of students are at-risk. This analysis demonstrates that structural conditions of socioeconomic segregation
between schools create environments under which some schools are more able to meet the needs of their
Page 3 of 68
student bodies than others. Further, it may suggest that additional supports and resources are needed for
schools that serve large populations of at-risk students to address student attendance issues.
Page 4 of 68
Introduction
Legal Landscape
D.C. Official Code §§ 38-201—213 and Chapter 21, Subtitle A, of Title 5, of the District of Columbia Municipal
Regulations (DCMR) outline student, parent, school, local education agency (LEA) and OSSE obligations
related to attendance. This section is not intended to be a comprehensive review of attendance laws and
regulations in the District. Rather, it provides greater context for understanding the contents of this report.
Schools are required to maintain an accurate daily record of attendance for all minors of compulsory age.1
School attendance is mandatory for all children ages 5-18, and parents and guardians are responsible for
ensuring that students attend school every day unless they have a valid excuse.2 OSSE collects daily
attendance for all students in a school, regardless of age.3 In the 2021-22 school year, schools were required
to certify attendance to OSSE within 60 days after the end of a school year.4 OSSE is required to publicly
report on the state of attendance annually, and this report satisfies that statutory obligation.5
In the 2021-22 school year, a student was considered present for the purpose of daily attendance if the
student was present for at least 80 percent of the instructional day (colloquially known as the “80/20 rule”).6
This is the definition of “present” that is used throughout this report.
However, OSSE adopted an emergency rulemaking on Aug. 24, 2022, to shift the definition of present from
80 percent to 60 percent of the instructional day for the 2022-23 school year (a “60/40 rule”).7 OSSE is
currently moving towards a final rulemaking.8 Partially present and partially absent codes, combined, made
up less than 3 percent of the attendance codes used in school year 2021-22, so OSSE does not anticipate that
the change in definition will have a large impact on overall attendance rates.
In addition, the regulatory change for the 2022-23 school year establishes guardrails for attendance for
routine and situational distance learning, as distance learning was not contemplated in the previously
adopted attendance regulations.9 The rulemaking requires that students in routine distance learning
programs take at least one synchronous or in-person class per day, turn on their camera for taking attendance
during synchronous instruction, and that schools communicate attendance expectations to parents and
1
D.C. Official Code § 38-203(a).
2
D.C. Official Code § 38-202(a).
3
OSSE only receives daily attendance from public schools and does not receive course, or class period, level attendance.
4
D.C. Official Code § 38-203(i).
5
D.C. Official Code § 38-203(k).
6
D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5-A § 2199.
7 69 D.C. Reg. 11289-11305 (Sept. 16, 2022); see also St. Bd. of Educ. Resolution to Approve the Dist. of Columbia’s
Amendments to Compulsory Educ. & Sch. Attendance Reguls, SR22-3,

https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=9000&AID=267693&MID=9330 (last visited Nov. 8,
2022).
8 The emergency rulemaking stays in effect until Dec. 27, 2022, or until a final, superseding rulemaking is
promulgated.
9
D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5-A § 2101.11—2101.18.
Page 5 of 68
preserve attendance records.10 In addition, the rule requires students to complete an instructional activity to
be marked present in asynchronous classes.11 Students in routine distance learning will also have to abide by
the 60/40 rule to qualify as present.12 For situational distance learning, students will be required to complete
at least one instructional activity to be present for the day.13
Schools are required to publish the list the categories of absences that they will accept as excused, and these
policies must be made available to students and families – for example in the parent or student handbook
distributed at the beginning of every school year.14 A parent or guardian must submit a valid excuse for
absences within five school days of the absence, and schools are required to mark all absences as unexcused
unless a valid excuse is provided.15
Schools are required to take the following steps when students accumulate a specified number of unexcused
absences. After the first unexcused absence, schools must contact the parent the same day and request
documentation.16 If a child is between ages 5 and 13 and accumulates 10 full-day unexcused absences, the
school must submit a referral to the DC Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) for suspected educational
neglect.17 If a child is between ages 14 and 17, and accumulates 15 full-day unexcused absences, the school
must refer the child to the Court Social Services Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and
to the Office of the Attorney General.18
Every Day Counts! Taskforce

The Every Day Counts! Task Force is a partnership of education, health, and justice agencies and external
stakeholders that collaboratively advances and coordinates strategies to reduce chronic absenteeism and
truancy. The Task Force looks to ignite conversations that move to a solutions-based approach of impacting
student attendance in Washington, DC by utilizing a cross-sector approach to support the development and
implementation of a comprehensive attendance plan.
Student attendance is a priority for Washington, DC. In school year 2021-22, Mayor Muriel Bowser launched
the Every Day Counts! public education campaign following the year of disrupted in-person learning due to
the coronavirus pandemic to emphasize the importance of attending school every day, on time. The
campaign built upon the work already underway to ensure that attendance is a priority across public
agencies, communities, and schools. The campaign engages targeted messaging using social, digital, and print
media and provides informational materials to stakeholders at engagement events across the District.
10
D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5-A § 2101.11—2101.12.
11
D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5-A § 2101.13.
12
D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5-A § 2101.14—2101.17.
13
D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5-A § 2101.18.
14
D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5-A § 2102.
15
D.C. Official Code § 38-203(c)(2).
16
D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5-A § 2103.2(c)(1).
17
D.C. Official Code § 38-208(c)(1)(A).
18
D.C. Official Code § 38-208(c)(1)(B).
Page 6 of 68
The Every Day Counts! initiative, guided by the Task Force and supported by the campaign, has convened
students and community stakeholders, offered attendance trainings, launched a cross-sector community of
practice for school-based staff, and shaped Districtwide investments in preventing chronic absenteeism,
among other activities. More information about Every Day Counts! - including campaign related resources
and Task Force participation, strategic plans, data analyses, and meeting materials - can be found at
attendance.dc.gov.
Data Quality and Accountability

OSSE has built data infrastructure and systems to support collecting accurate attendance data, provide
attendance data to school leaders to assist them in taking data-driven approaches to improving student
attendance, and highlight the importance of attendance to the public through the DC School Report Card and
this attendance report.
Since the 2015-16 school year, teachers and other school personnel submit student attendance records to
OSSE daily via their LEAs' student information systems. In pursuit of accurate and reliable data, OSSE offers
LEAs a suite of tools and resources throughout the year to monitor attendance data, including:
• Data Dashboards: OSSE deploys analytic tools through Qlik applications that help users efficiently
monitor attendance data and correct errors from the start of school. Through reports in Qlik, LEAs
can view their own monthly, weekly, and daily attendance at the grade level, school level, and
student level, as well as a report dedicated to monitoring chronic absenteeism and attendance
anomalies.
• Monthly Attendance Letter: OSSE provides LEA leaders with an attendance letter that summarizes
monthly attendance key performance indicators to better support LEAs in monitoring attendance
data.
• Support from a Data Liaison: OSSE flags attendance data errors in the data validation Qlik report and
provides each LEA with a liaison to assist in resolving data issues.
• Validation from the Head of School: OSSE requires LEAs to correct any outstanding errors and certify
their end-of-year attendance as authoritative at the end of the school year. Beginning in school year
2022-23, LEAs will certify their data at three points during the school year. Prior to the release of the
DC School Report Card, all heads of schools must validate the accuracy of their students’ attendance
data as well as three attendance metric calculations: In-Seat Attendance, Chronic Absenteeism, and
Attendance Growth.19
o In-Seat Attendance (ISA) captures the daily average percentage of enrolled students who
were present in school.
19
For more information on how attendance metrics contribute to the STAR framework, please consult the DC School
Report Card and STAR Framework Technical Guide at https://osse.dc.gov/publication/dc-school-report-card-and-star-
framework-technical-guide.
Page 7 of 68
o Chronic Absenteeism measures the percentage of students who were absent for at least 10
percent of instructional days during the school year, regardless of whether the absence was
excused or unexcused.
o Attendance Growth measures the average improvement in attendance, calculated by
comparing students’ individual change in attendance year-over-year to students of the same
age, and taking the average of that difference.
OSSE provides multiple avenues to support schools and LEAs in improving data quality. By including
attendance measures in the accountability system, the District of Columbia formally recognizes attendance
as an important measure of school quality and environment, signaling its importance for schools and families
to focus efforts on improving school attendance.
Background and Definitions

Definitions
• Chronically Absent – Having been absent, including both excused and unexcused partial and full-day
absences, for at least 10 percent of enrolled instructional days.
• Truant – Having accrued at least 10 full-day unexcused absences during the school year.
• In-Seat Attendance – measures the percentage of the cumulative sum of instructional days on which
enrolled students are present (partially or fully) during a given school year. Throughout this report,
“in-seat attendance” and “attendance rate” are used interchangeably.
• In-Person Learning Time – measures the percentage of instructional days (present or absent) that are
reported as in-person.
• Remote Learning Time or Distance Learning – measures the percentage of instructional days (present
or absent) that are reported as virtual (not in the school building).
• At-risk – A DCPS or public charter school student who is identified as one or more of the following:
o Experiencing homelessness;
o Under the care of CFSA (in the District’s foster care system);
o Qualifies for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program or the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); or
o A high school student who is “overage,” or one or more years older than the expected age
for the grade in which the student is enrolled.
Student Universe
All measures of chronic absenteeism included in this report reflect the percentage of students in grades K-12
with absences on 10 percent or more of instructional days, inclusive of both excused and unexcused
absences. Students enrolled in pre-K or adult grades are not included in any aggregate measures of chronic
absenteeism unless explicitly stated.
Measures of truancy remain limited to students of compulsory age (at least age 5 as of Sept. 30 of the
reporting school year and age 17 or younger as of the date of absence) to align with the statutory definition
Page 8 of 68
of truancy rate20 and represent the percentage of all compulsory-aged students who accrue 10 or more full-
day unexcused absences across all schools during the school year.
Though nearly all compulsory-aged students are enrolled in grades K-12, not all K-12 students are of
compulsory age, particularly in high school. Students who are older than compulsory age may accrue many
unexcused absences which could result in a chronic absenteeism designation but would not be reflected in
the truancy rate.
Cumulative vs. Absolute Identifications
The rates of chronic absenteeism presented in this report reflect the end-of-year cumulative sum of absences
and instructional days. Though OSSE reports on chronic absenteeism based on the final end-of-year status, it
is important to note that chronic absenteeism, as a percentage, represents a dynamic measure throughout
the school year. Students can enter in and out of chronic absenteeism during the middle of the school year
depending on the changing proportion of absences relative to instructional days.
For example, if a student misses three days in the first month of school, the student would be classified as
chronically absent at the end of that month. However, if the student accumulates no additional absences,
the student would no longer be considered chronically absent by the end of the school year. In contrast,
truancy is a fixed status once a student accumulates 10 unexcused absences in a given school year.
Attendance Risk Tiers
In calculating rates of chronic absenteeism, students who miss 10 percent or more of school are considered
chronically absent. To provide a more detailed look at the underlying attendance patterns of the District of
Columbia’s K-12 students, this report also classifies students into five risk tiers:21
1) Satisfactory Attendance: Students who missed 0%-4.99% of school days;

2) At-Risk Attendance: Students who missed 5%-9.99% of school days;
3) Moderate Chronic Absence: Students who missed 10%-19.99% of school days;
4) Severe Chronic Absence: Student who missed 20%-29.99% of school days; and
5) Profound Chronic Absence: Student who missed 30% or more of school days.22
20
D.C. Official Code § 38-202(a) defines truancy rate as the share of students who have accumulated 10 or more
unexcused absences during the school year. This differs from absences for the purpose of child welfare and court
referrals (10 unexcused full-day absences from ages 5-13; 15 unexcused full-day absences from ages 14-17).
21
Risk Tiers 1- 4 specified by Attendance Works, a national initiative to promote awareness of the importance of
attendance to students’ success; Profound Chronic Absence is an additional category used for the purposes of this
report.
22
Students in tiers 3-5 are deemed “chronically absent” for accountability purposes.
Page 9 of 68
Attendance Collection in the 2021-22 School Year

After nearly a year-and-a-half of largely distance learning, public schools in the District of Columbia returned
to mostly in-person learning in the 2021-22 school year, with distance learning occurring in situations
requiring quarantine or classroom closure.
The District experienced a significant spike in positive COVID-19 cases in late December 2021 through mid-
February 2022. For instance, on January 4, 2022, the District experienced a weekly case rate of 1,506.4 per
100,000 persons, compared to a weekly case rate 198.0 per 100,000 persons on August 31, 2021. DC
Health’s isolation and quarantine guidance during this spike in cases prohibited any individual with COVID-
19 from attending schools for at least 10 days and any unvaccinated or partially vaccinated close contact
from attending school for at least 10 days or for seven days if they were asymptomatic and received a
negative nucleic acid amplification (e.g., PCR) test result on day five or later. As a result, schools
implemented robust testing, contact tracing, and quarantining processes that led to students transitioning
from in-person to distance learning throughout the school year.
Attendance collection procedures were updated to accommodate both in-person and distance learning,
including the addition of distance learning attendance codes indicating whether the distance learning was
routine, situational, or due to a medical certification.
OSSE published guidance at the beginning of the 2021-22 school year on how attendance would be collected
for both in-person and distance learning.23 Local statutes governing attendance did not change, so students
of compulsory age were still required to attend school; collection, reporting, and intervention requirements
remained in place for schools, LEAs, and OSSE.24
Schools reported daily attendance, specifying in-person and distance learning postures. Schools were
required to monitor students’ attendance in distance learning throughout the entire instructional day. For
instruction offered synchronously, instructors verified the students’ presence in real time. For instruction
offered asynchronously, instructors confirmed the students’ presence and active engagement for the
established period in asynchronous instruction.
23
Guidance: Collecting Attendance for the 2021-22 School Year, OFF. OF THE ST. SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUC. (July 29, 2022),
https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/page_content/attachments/Attendance_Guidance_SY2021-
22_FINAL.pdf.
24
See D.C. Official Code §§ 38-201—251.11.
Page 10 of 68
Findings
2021-22 in Focus
Figure 1 shows year-over-year chronic absenteeism and truancy since OSSE began collecting attendance data
in the 2015-16 school year. For the 2019-20 school year, the cumulative end-of-year rates of chronic
absenteeism and truancy do not include any data after March 13, and therefore the 2019-20 school year
should not be compared to end-of-year rates in prior and subsequent years.
As in many jurisdictions across the United States, the return to in-person instruction was accompanied by
increased rates of chronic absenteeism and truancy.25 In the 2021-22 school year, chronic absenteeism
increased dramatically to 48 percent, 17 percentage points higher than 2020-21. While the truancy rate was
also higher, it increased more modestly – a 3.2 percentage point uptick. Historically, chronic absenteeism and
truancy rates tracked closely together. The divergence between chronic absenteeism and truancy rates is
new and is driven by a significant increase in excused absences – more than 80 percent of the increase in
absences were excused (see Figure 4). This shows that parents held their students out of school substantially
more often in 2021-22.
Figure 1: State-level rates of Truancy and Chronic Absenteeism
25
Press Release, Nat’l Ctr. for Educ. Statistics, More than 80 Percent of U.S. Schools Report Pandemic Has Negatively
Impacted Student Behavior and Socio-Emotional Development (July 6, 2022),
https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/07_06_2022.asp.
Page 11 of 68
Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy Rates by Month

During the 2021-22 school year, most District students returned to school in-person for the first time since
the COVID-19 public health emergency began, and schools adopted and executed mitigation strategies (such
as regular COVID-19 testing, masking, physical distancing, cleaning and disinfection, and quarantine and
isolation) to ensure classrooms were safe and parents felt comfortable sending their children back to school.
District schools managed many aspects of safety as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, including immediately
responding to remove a student from school when they presented symptoms of COVID-19, were identified
as a close contact of an individual with COVID-19, and/or tested positive for COVID-19. Throughout the 2021-
22 school year, schools navigated individual cases and outbreaks of COVID-19 within the school setting,
including a significant surge in COVID-19 cases as a result of the Omicron variant of COVID-19, which spread
more easily than earlier variants and had the ability to cause reinfection among individuals who had already
been infected and/or vaccinated.26 The Food and Drug Administration approved a COVID-19 vaccination
under Emergency Use Authorization for a majority of school-aged individuals during the 2021-22 school year,
but availability and uptake were not instantaneous.27
26
Key Metrics, GOV’T OF DC, https://coronavirus.dc.gov/key-metrics (last visited Nov. 8, 2022); COVID-19: Variants,
CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/index.html (last updated
Aug. 11, 2021).
27
COVID-19: Vaccines for COVID-19, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/vaccines/index.html?s_cid=11759:cdc%20covid%20vaccine%20guidelines:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY22 (last
visited Nov. 8, 2022).
Page 12 of 68
Figure 2 shows the cumulative rate of chronic absenteeism for the past four school years.28 This means that
the rates shown in each month are inclusive of all instructional days from the start of school through the end
of that month. In the 2021-22 school year, chronic absenteeism started out higher than previous years and
remained elevated, though comparatively flat, throughout the school year, with rates ranging between 17
and 22 percentage points higher than the equivalent monthly rates in the 2020-21 school year. This is likely
due to the impact of COVID-19, including the need to quarantine students who tested positive for COVID-19.
Figure 2: State-level rates of Cumulative Chronic Absenteeism, by Month
28
The cut-off date for attendance in the 2019-20 school year was March 13.
Page 13 of 68
Figure 3 shows the cumulative rates of truancy by month for the past four school years. Truancy rates in
2021-22, though slightly higher, were similar to the truancy rates in 2020-21, with incremental increases
observed each month. By June 2022, the truancy rate reached nearly 42 percent.
Figure 3: State-level rates of Cumulative Truancy, by Month
Page 14 of 68
While both chronic absenteeism and truancy increased in school year 2021-22, the jump in chronic
absenteeism rates are notably larger than the increase in truancy rates. Figure 4 provides additional context
for these changes, examining the breakdown of excused and unexcused absences for the average
compulsory-age student. As figure 4 illustrates, unexcused absences only slightly increased in 2021-22 (one
day on average); however, excused absences increased markedly (an increase of over six days on average).
Consequently, while 12 percent of absences in the 2020-21 school year were excused, 34 percent of absences
in the 2021-22 school year were excused.29 Because “chronic absenteeism” does not distinguish between
excused and unexcused absences, Figure 4 demonstrates that the large increase in chronic absenteeism
shown in Figures 1-3 for school year 2021-22 was driven by increases in excused absences.
Figure 4: Average Days Absent per Compulsory Age Student, by Absence Type
29
Among an average of 17.4 days missed per compulsory age student in 2020-21, 15.3 days were unexcused. In the
2021-22 school year, 16.3 out of 24.6 missed days were unexcused.
Page 15 of 68
In-Person Learning Rates by Month

In the 2021-22 school year, schools returned to mostly in-person instruction, but due to the continued risk
and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, schools also made use of distance learning when necessary (e.g., high
numbers of teachers in quarantine made in-person instruction impracticable). OSSE created new attendance
codes to track whether students were learning in-person or through distance instruction. Schools input these
codes in their daily attendance tracking system and transmitted this information to OSSE. Figure 5 shows the
percent of instructional days each month that had in-person attendance codes (including both present and
absent codes). In August through November, more than 90 percent of school days were open for in-person
learning. December and January saw a dip in in-person learning rates, coinciding with the peak of surge in
the omicron COVID-19 variant. From February 2022 through the end of the school year, in-person learning
rates recovered to rates of 95 percent and above. On average, students in the District experienced seven
days of distance learning in the 2021-22 school year due to situational need.
Figure 5: School Year 2021-22 State-Level Rates of In-Person Learning Days, by Month
Page 16 of 68
2021-22 Populations in Focus

Grade Level
Consistent with prior analyses of attendance, absenteeism in the 2021-22 school year is lower during
elementary school, and then rises in middle and high school. Between kindergarten and fifth grade,
satisfactory attendance ranged from 31 percent to 38 percent. In middle school, satisfactory attendance
dropped to 25 percent by eighth grade. By ninth grade, satisfactory attendance fell to 14 percent. Chronic
absenteeism ranged from 36 percent to 43 percent between kindergarten and fifth grade. In middle school,
chronic absenteeism rose to 49 percent by 8th grade. Among all grade levels, ninth grade students report the
highest levels of chronic absenteeism in the District; in the 2021-22 school year, about 69 percent of ninth
grade students were chronically absent.
High school students have higher levels of chronic absenteeism than other students, and in the 2021-22
school year, the difference between grade bands increased. For reference, in the 2020-21 school year, high
school students were 60 percent more likely to be chronically absent than younger students after accounting
for other demographics, but in the 2021-22 school year, high school students were 150 percent more likely
to be chronically absent (see Appendix E, Table E.1).
Figure 6: Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by Grade
Page 17 of 68
Student Groups
Average chronic absenteeism and truancy rates vary between student demographic groups, including
race/ethnicity groups, at-risk status, and gender identity. The likelihood of being chronically absent was three
times as high for at-risk students than not-at-risk students in school year 2021-22 (see Table E.1 in Appendix
E for all indicators included in this logistic regression model). If a student attended multiple schools in the
school year, the likelihood of being chronically absent was 79 percent higher than those who only attended
one school. High school students who were at least a year older than the expected age for their grade had
nearly 2.3 times the likelihood of being chronically absent than high school students who were not overage
when adjusting for other characteristics.
Consistent with prior years, Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino students were more likely to be
truant than White students after adjusting for students’ gender and other characteristics (see Table E.2 in
Appendix E for all indicators included in this logistic regression model). Black or African American students
were 8.9 times as likely to be truant as White students. Hispanic or Latino students were 5.8 times as likely
to be truant as White students.
Page 18 of 68
Relationship Between Attendance and PARCC Scores

After a two-year hiatus due to the COVID-19 pandemic, statewide assessments, including the Partnership for
the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) assessment, resumed in DC in the 2021-22
school year. Figures 7 and 8 display the distribution of students in all grade bands at each PARCC performance
level in ELA and math. Level 1 indicates the lowest level of performance and level 5 indicates the highest
level; levels 4 and 5 are considered proficient. Within each performance level, the stacked bars indicate the
percentage of students who are chronically absent. In both figures, there is a clear relationship between
chronic absenteeism and PARCC performance level. Chronically absent students make up the largest share
of students scoring at performance levels 1 and 2, whereas not-chronically-absent students make up the
largest share of students scoring at performance levels 3, 4, and 5. See Appendix C, figures C.14 and C.15 for
further breakdowns by student at-risk status.
OSSE further investigated these relationships using linear regression to estimate the strength of the
association between attendance and PARCC scale scores, adjusting for other student characteristics (see
Appendix E, Tables E.3-E.6 for results and detailed discussion). The main findings include:
• For every 10-percentage-point increase in a student’s in-seat attendance rate, the ELA PARCC scale
score increased by 6 points and math PARCC scale score increased by 4 points, on average.30
• Students designated as at risk saw smaller gains in PARCC scores for each additional day of
attendance.
• Students who scored highly on PARCC in 2018-19 also tended to have higher scores in the 2021-22
school year and saw greater gains in their 2021-22 PARCC score for each additional day of attendance
than students who had low PARCC scores in 2018-19.
30
For scale score to performance level conversion, see:
https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/service_content/attachments/ELA%20PARCC%20Cut%20Scores.p
df (ELA) and
https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/service_content/attachments/Math%20PARCC%20Cut%20Scores
.pdf (Math)
Page 19 of 68
Figure 7. PARCC ELA Performance Level, by Chronically Absent Status (All Grade Bands)
Figure 8. PARCC Math Performance Level, by Chronically Absent Status (All Grade Bands)
Page 20 of 68
Relationship Between School-Level Percent At-Risk and

Attendance
While PARCC scores represent one measurable outcome of attendance rates, it is equally important to
understand factors that correlate with student attendance. In addition to the student-level factors that have
been shown to predict absenteeism in DC schools year after year (such as at-risk status, grade level, and
school transfer), school-level factors may also contribute to student attendance patterns. In DC, many
students attend schools serving high numbers of at-risk students and many students attend schools serving
low numbers of at-risk students, but fewer students attend schools that serve integrated populations of both
at-risk and not-at-risk students. This is illustrated in Figure 9, which shows the distribution of students across
schools serving different proportions of at-risk students.
Figure 9. Distribution of Students by School-Level Percent of Students At-Risk
Absenteeism is higher at schools with higher concentrations of at-risk students. Figure 10 shows the average
rate of chronic absenteeism for all students in schools serving progressively higher percentages of at-risk
students. While at-risk students have higher rates of chronic absenteeism than not-at-risk students, on
average, their rates of absenteeism are lower in schools that serve fewer at-risk students than in schools
serving high percentages of at-risk students. OSSE used linear regression to estimate the strength of the
association between a student’s in-seat attendance rate and the percent of students who are at-risk at their
school, adjusting for the student’s own at-risk status and other characteristics (see Appendix E, Tables E.7
and E.8 for detailed results).
Page 21 of 68
Every 10-percentage-point increase in the percent of at-risk students in a school is associated with an average
decrease of 1.3 percentage points in an individual student’s in-seat attendance rate, or about two fewer days
present at school in a typical 180-day school year. For example, a student who attends a school where 50
percent of students are at-risk is present two fewer days than a similar student who attends a school where
40 percent of students are at-risk, on average.31 A student who attends a school where 80 percent of students
are at-risk is present for 12 fewer days than a similar student who attends a school where only 20 percent of
students are at-risk, on average.
Students with lower academic achievement, at-risk students, and high school students have the greatest
reductions in attendance at schools with high concentrations of students who are at-risk. This may be due to
their need for additional supports and services that may be unmet due to high demands made on the school
for such services. These results illustrate that schools serve different student populations and that inequality
in the level of need between schools is associated with poorer attendance outcomes in schools that serve
more disadvantaged populations. Thus, to address student absenteeism, schools serving higher
concentrations of at-risk students need disproportionately higher attendance intervention resources and/or
student populations need to be more evenly distributed across District schools.
Figure 10. Average Rates of Chronic Absenteeism by School-Level Percent of At-Risk Students
31
“Similar students” are students who share all observable characteristics (race, at-risk status, gender, disability
status, English learner status, grade level, and PARCC performance level).
Page 22 of 68
Conclusion
While truancy rates increased modestly in the 2021-22 school year (from 39 percent to 42 percent), chronic
absenteeism increased substantially in the 2021-22 school year (from 31 percent to 48 percent). This
difference between chronic absenteeism and truancy rates was driven by a pronounced increase in excused
absences, likely due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as students resumed in-person learning.
PARCC assessment also resumed in the 2021-22 school year, allowing analysis of the relationship between
attendance and PARCC scores. Higher rates of attendance were significantly related to higher PARCC scores,
even when adjusting for other student characteristics. These results demonstrate the importance of school
attendance for student learning and achievement.
Finally, this report examined the relationship between a student’s in-seat attendance rate and the percent
of students who are at-risk at their school. Increased concentrations of at-risk students increased chronic
absenteeism, with significantly greater impacts identified for the already vulnerable at-risk student
populations. This demonstrates that socioeconomic segregation is associated with lower student attendance
for students designated as at-risk, which in turn is associated with lower achievement on PARCC assessments.
Page 23 of 68
Appendix A: School-Level Rates of Chronic

Absenteeism and Truancy
% %
Chronically Chronically % Truant, % Truant,
Absent, Absent, 2020-21 2021-22
2020-21 (K- 2021-22 (K- (Compulsory (Compulsory
School 12) 12) Age) Age)
Achievement Preparatory Academy PCS -
Wahler Place Elementary School 58.3% 65.4% 75.9% 75.2%
Aiton Elementary School 51.2% 52.0% 73.8% 58.9%
Amidon-Bowen Elementary School 19.6% 38.4% 32.3% 22.2%
Anacostia High School 76.3% 94.9% 84.6% 89.3%
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS -
Columbia Heights N/A N/A N/A N/A
Douglas Knoll N/A N/A N/A N/A
Lincoln Park N/A N/A N/A N/A
Oklahoma Avenue N/A N/A N/A N/A
Parklands at THEARC N/A N/A N/A N/A
Southwest N/A N/A N/A N/A
BASIS DC PCS 4.0% 19.1% 6.3% 8.7%
Ballou High School 66.9% 96.9% 75.2% 96.4%
Ballou STAY High School 98.9% >=99% 76.5% 75.3%
Bancroft Elementary School 8.5% 8.2% 14.4% 6.5%
Bard High School Early College DC (Bard DC) 8.6% 67.1% 20.0% 72.4%
Barnard Elementary School 18.0% 35.3% 26.1% 13.6%
Beers Elementary School 34.0% 37.7% 48.3% 40.2%
Benjamin Banneker High School 1.4% 16.7% 3.5% 9.9%
Breakthrough Montessori PCS 42.1% 37.1% 45.3% 21.5%
Brent Elementary School 3.8% 8.4% 5.3% 6.8%
Bridges PCS 44.7% 60.8% 54.6% 42.6%
Brightwood Elementary School 13.5% 33.5% 21.9% 31.8%
Brookland Middle School 10.9% 32.8% 17.3% 11.0%
Browne Education Campus 20.8% 57.1% 36.3% 34.4%
Bruce-Monroe Elementary School @ Park
View 16.9% 21.0% 29.0% 16.6%
Bunker Hill Elementary School 26.4% 37.0% 25.0% 34.9%
Burroughs Elementary School 23.8% 30.4% 33.7% 35.1%
Page 24 of 68
% %
Absent, Absent, 2020-21 2021-22
Burrville Elementary School 63.3% 44.7% 79.5% 34.4%
C.W. Harris Elementary School 34.0% 46.2% 48.8% 45.0%
Capital City PCS - High School 23.9% 39.8% 34.2% 31.1%
Capital City PCS - Lower School 16.4% 42.7% 15.6% 42.2%
Capital City PCS - Middle School 17.2% 31.5% 26.5% 32.1%
Capital Village PCS 30.8% 68.5% 25.0% 50.6%
Capitol Hill Montessori School @ Logan 17.1% 21.9% 36.5% 19.1%
Cardozo Education Campus 52.3% 75.6% 66.4% 77.4%
Cedar Tree Academy PCS 36.3% 46.3% 53.7% 62.9%
Center City PCS - Brightwood 1.8% 5.4% 7.3% 2.3%
Center City PCS - Capitol Hill 39.0% 71.6% 54.0% 77.9%
Center City PCS - Congress Heights 19.3% 36.7% 27.8% 63.3%
Center City PCS - Petworth 18.9% 33.0% 33.0% 32.1%
Center City PCS - Shaw 34.2% 66.5% 50.8% 54.9%
Center City PCS - Trinidad 26.0% 72.2% 49.5% 81.8%
Cesar Chavez Public Charter Schools for
Public Policy 28.5% 68.6% 30.0% 50.0%
Cleveland Elementary School 23.9% 24.3% 44.4% 10.5%
Columbia Heights Education Campus 40.8% 73.1% 51.0% 73.1%
Coolidge High School 61.3% 79.9% 71.1% 80.5%
Creative Minds International PCS 14.3% 38.5% 23.1% 44.8%
DC Bilingual PCS 38.6% 32.0% 57.5% 21.6%
DC Prep PCS - Anacostia Elementary School 52.5% 34.5% 63.1% 30.1%
DC Prep PCS - Anacostia Middle School 21.8% 43.4% 35.9% 61.4%
DC Prep PCS - Benning Elementary School 52.2% 46.0% 62.8% 64.2%
DC Prep PCS - Benning Middle School 25.0% 46.9% 42.0% 61.4%
DC Prep PCS - Edgewood Elementary School 28.1% 41.8% 43.0% 55.2%
DC Prep PCS - Edgewood Middle School 19.3% 35.2% 36.5% 54.2%
DC Scholars PCS 34.3% 73.8% 50.7% 83.6%
Deal Middle School 4.4% 17.8% 9.8% 11.6%
Digital Pioneers Academy PCS - Capitol Hill N/A 98.3% N/A 95.8%
Digital Pioneers Academy PCS - Johenning 15.4% 96.2% 27.0% 98.0%
District of Columbia International School 3.2% 28.0% 2.0% 19.5%
Dorothy I. Height Elementary School 20.4% 32.0% 32.2% 23.0%
Drew Elementary School 63.0% 52.4% 73.5% 44.1%
Duke Ellington School of the Arts 27.7% 59.0% 43.6% 52.3%
Dunbar High School 69.6% 94.3% 77.8% 88.3%
E.L. Haynes PCS - Elementary School 18.1% 44.4% 32.7% 36.0%
Page 25 of 68
% %
Absent, Absent, 2020-21 2021-22
E.L. Haynes PCS - High School 43.6% 68.9% 59.7% 53.7%
E.L. Haynes PCS - Middle School 28.9% 53.3% 47.9% 39.4%
Eagle Academy PCS - Capitol Riverfront 50.9% 54.9% 43.0% 50.0%
Eagle Academy PCS - Congress Heights 66.5% 59.0% 38.0% 33.6%
Early Childhood Academy PCS 43.5% 63.8% 49.7% 54.6%
Eastern High School 56.1% 85.9% 68.2% 83.8%
Eaton Elementary School 5.3% 13.1% 7.0% 6.5%
Eliot-Hine Middle School 29.7% 49.4% 53.8% 55.6%
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom
PCS - Brookland 12.5% 16.1% 18.3% 15.7%
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom
PCS - East End 12.9% 36.7% 22.6% 41.1%
Excel Academy 25.9% 61.3% 31.1% 44.0%
Friendship PCS - Armstrong Elementary 32.6% 48.2% 37.2% 62.0%
Friendship PCS - Armstrong Middle 32.7% 52.1% 34.1% 70.8%
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Elementary 42.6% 60.1% 61.8% 76.5%
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Middle 36.1% 61.4% 44.9% 70.4%
Friendship PCS - Chamberlain Elementary 31.5% 60.3% 28.7% 50.8%
Friendship PCS - Chamberlain Middle 29.7% 59.2% 28.1% 59.8%
Friendship PCS - Collegiate Academy 27.9% 45.4% 41.1% 31.8%
Friendship PCS - Ideal Elementary 50.0% 49.4% 26.7% 52.9%
Friendship PCS - Ideal Middle 37.1% 55.0% 22.6% 66.3%
Friendship PCS - Online Academy 2.3% 1.9% 3.0% 2.0%
Friendship PCS - Southeast Elementary 43.3% 70.6% 54.2% 80.6%
Friendship PCS - Southeast Middle 40.4% 50.7% 60.2% 69.5%
Friendship PCS - Technology Preparatory
High School 19.4% 46.9% 23.8% 40.1%
Friendship PCS - Woodridge International
Elementary 19.1% 41.1% 30.8% 56.9%
Friendship PCS - Woodridge International
Middle 30.3% 34.6% 41.0% 43.8%
Garfield Elementary School 52.6% 63.4% 69.5% 51.6%
Garrison Elementary School 39.0% 18.3% 55.1% 12.5%
Girls Global Academy PCS 22.9% 63.6% 28.6% 55.6%
Global Citizens PCS N/A N/A N/A n<10
Goodwill Excel Center PCS 83.3% 90.1% 35.7% 40.4%
H.D. Cooke Elementary School 22.7% 27.0% 44.5% 21.6%
H.D. Woodson High School 72.2% 91.3% 81.0% 89.7%
Hardy Middle School 11.4% 26.9% 24.9% 19.9%
Page 26 of 68
% %
Absent, Absent, 2020-21 2021-22
Harmony DC PCS - School of Excellence 41.2% 81.6% 48.7% 37.2%
Hart Middle School 35.5% 41.6% 54.6% 39.5%
Hearst Elementary School 5.4% 6.3% 6.8% <=1%
Hendley Elementary School 65.8% 62.5% 82.0% 65.9%
Hope Community PCS – Tolson 52.9% 78.1% 65.3% 32.8%
Houston Elementary School 49.0% 43.8% 62.6% 42.0%
Howard University Middle School of
Mathematics and Science PCS 27.8% 28.5% 59.1% 39.9%
Hyde-Addison Elementary School 11.7% 17.3% 19.9% 15.1%
I Dream PCS 80.8% 87.2% 82.1% 59.6%
IDEA PCS 38.4% 59.6% 48.5% 53.3%
Ida B. Wells Middle School 17.1% 46.3% 24.7% 47.8%
Ingenuity Prep PCS 38.9% 60.1% 58.4% 66.8%
Inspired Teaching Demonstration PCS 18.2% 30.2% 22.9% 11.4%
J.O. Wilson Elementary School 30.9% 31.4% 49.9% 11.1%
Janney Elementary School 3.0% 3.2% 3.1% <=1%
Jefferson Middle School Academy 25.7% 58.8% 48.6% 62.8%
John Lewis Elementary School 18.0% 30.2% 24.4% 31.8%
Johnson Middle School 44.5% 57.9% 65.7% 66.6%
KIPP DC - AIM Academy PCS 28.8% 81.6% 41.6% 51.8%
KIPP DC - Arts and Technology Academy PCS 46.1% 76.5% 51.0% 65.3%
KIPP DC - College Preparatory PCS 44.8% 80.8% 29.9% 61.6%
KIPP DC - Connect Academy PCS 30.5% 93.1% 37.1% 48.5%
KIPP DC - Discover Academy PCS 41.4% 83.6% 46.2% 50.8%
KIPP DC - Grow Academy PCS 30.1% 87.3% 43.7% 56.9%
KIPP DC - Heights Academy PCS 45.5% 89.9% 54.3% 57.4%
KIPP DC - Honor Academy PCS 22.0% 79.4% 32.5% 47.0%
KIPP DC - Inspire Academy PCS N/A 67.9% N/A 30.9%
KIPP DC - KEY Academy PCS 36.3% 85.4% 53.3% 49.2%
KIPP DC - LEAP Academy PCS N/A N/A N/A N/A
KIPP DC - Lead Academy PCS 29.7% 74.2% 40.0% 45.7%
KIPP DC - Legacy College Preparatory PCS 63.6% 85.4% 28.3% 27.1%
KIPP DC - Northeast Academy PCS 63.3% 85.9% 24.1% 65.4%
KIPP DC - Pride Academy PCS N/A 72.3% N/A 28.3%
KIPP DC - Promise Academy PCS 37.2% 70.6% 47.7% 35.0%
KIPP DC - Quest Academy PCS 33.1% 86.8% 43.8% 64.8%
KIPP DC - Spring Academy PCS 21.3% 78.5% 26.6% 34.8%
KIPP DC - Valor Academy PCS 25.0% 90.8% 28.0% 76.0%
Page 27 of 68
% %
Absent, Absent, 2020-21 2021-22
KIPP DC - WILL Academy PCS 25.5% 80.8% 43.8% 50.2%
Kelly Miller Middle School 57.9% 81.9% 78.2% 90.4%
Ketcham Elementary School 53.0% 54.3% 70.4% 57.9%
Key Elementary School 9.4% 6.2% 13.0% 2.7%
Kimball Elementary School 62.2% 59.1% 79.7% 73.7%
King Elementary School 45.7% 69.4% 59.7% 76.0%
Kingsman Academy PCS 73.4% 66.7% 22.6% 22.0%
Kramer Middle School 71.3% 87.7% 89.0% 93.2%
LEARN DC PCS N/A 26.4% N/A 9.0%
LaSalle-Backus Elementary School 28.6% 32.3% 36.5% 29.7%
Lafayette Elementary School 6.7% 5.0% 15.2% <=1%
Langdon Elementary School 29.5% 48.9% 48.8% 44.7%
Langley Elementary School 45.1% 41.9% 64.7% 52.5%
Latin American Montessori Bilingual PCS 9.3% 18.2% 20.2% 40.6%
Lawrence E. Boone Elementary School 50.1% 47.2% 67.4% 36.8%
Leckie Education Campus 46.4% 49.4% 64.6% 58.5%
Lee Montessori PCS - Brookland 15.9% 20.8% 26.1% 18.0%
Lee Montessori PCS - East End 70.8% 58.2% 66.7% 59.7%
Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School 29.0% 15.1% 45.4% 15.9%
Luke C. Moore High School 98.4% 94.0% 76.4% 75.2%
MacFarland Middle School 33.0% 47.4% 48.0% 47.8%
Malcolm X Elementary School @ Green 71.9% 60.8% 87.0% 51.0%
Mann Elementary School 6.6% 5.4% 12.5% 1.5%
Marie Reed Elementary School 15.4% 20.7% 25.3% 14.6%
Mary McLeod Bethune Day Academy PCS 38.3% 60.4% 23.2% 32.1%
Maury Elementary School 6.0% 9.0% 10.3% 8.5%
Maya Angelou PCS - Academy at DC Jail N/A 53.6% N/A n<10
Maya Angelou PCS - High School 72.0% 68.6% 51.8% 41.3%
McKinley Middle School 22.3% 65.7% 41.8% 64.4%
McKinley Technology High School 7.4% 49.0% 17.2% 46.5%
Meridian PCS 28.8% 62.1% 19.7% 25.2%
Military Road Early Learning Center N/A N/A N/A N/A
Miner Elementary School 40.8% 47.3% 56.2% 40.6%
Monument Academy PCS 48.5% 48.3% 67.3% 47.5%
Moten Elementary School 47.1% 54.1% 63.8% 50.8%
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS - Calle Ocho 13.2% 21.9% 27.6% 14.1%
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS - J.F. Cook 20.8% 34.4% 27.4% 22.9%
Page 28 of 68
% %
Absent, Absent, 2020-21 2021-22
Murch Elementary School 3.5% 9.1% 5.3% 4.2%
Nalle Elementary School 54.8% 49.0% 73.9% 51.1%
Noyes Elementary School 45.6% 46.2% 50.0% 36.9%
Oyster-Adams Bilingual School 2.1% 6.3% 2.6% 2.3%
Patterson Elementary School 65.4% 64.2% 78.7% 72.0%
Paul PCS - International High School 46.1% 51.1% 26.0% 25.5%
Paul PCS - Middle School 18.5% 36.9% 17.0% 16.0%
Payne Elementary School 22.5% 25.8% 32.9% 20.0%
Peabody Elementary School (Capitol Hill
Cluster) 14.6% 6.3% 38.9% <=5%
Perry Street Preparatory PCS 26.8% 46.4% 25.3% 39.9%
Phelps Architecture, Construction and
Engineering High School 12.4% 56.5% 19.6% 31.7%
Plummer Elementary School 62.6% 48.2% 72.3% 22.1%
Powell Elementary School 12.3% 14.3% 27.4% 12.1%
Randle Highlands Elementary School 52.4% 26.6% 73.6% 12.3%
Raymond Elementary School 34.9% 28.9% 54.1% 19.1%
Richard Wright PCS for Journalism and
Media Arts 20.3% 8.9% 14.8% 5.7%
River Terrace Education Campus 50.0% 49.2% 66.7% 47.9%
Rocketship PCS - Infinity Community Prep 44.8% 55.3% 40.2% 48.0%
Rocketship PCS - Legacy Prep 52.4% 86.1% 67.0% 86.1%
Rocketship PCS - Rise Academy 60.3% 82.1% 71.1% 86.6%
Ron Brown College Preparatory High School 45.5% 76.9% 64.4% 67.3%
Roosevelt High School 53.8% 81.2% 64.0% 77.9%
Roosevelt STAY High School 94.1% 96.9% 72.2% 63.9%
Roots PCS 14.6% 29.9% <=5% <=5%
Ross Elementary School 1.9% 5.3% 2.5% 5.3%
SEED PCS of Washington DC 24.8% 97.2% 33.3% 54.1%
Savoy Elementary School 83.0% 71.2% 94.2% 76.0%
School Without Walls @ Francis-Stevens 19.1% 22.0% 34.1% 16.1%
School Without Walls High School 2.5% 30.1% <=1% 2.3%
School-Within-School @ Goding 4.2% 6.5% 8.7% 3.6%
Seaton Elementary School 16.4% 28.0% 23.6% 24.0%
Sela PCS 11.4% 35.0% 7.8% 3.1%
Shepherd Elementary School 9.2% 5.8% 20.6% 4.4%
Shining Stars Montessori Academy PCS 22.6% 30.5% 22.2% 13.8%
Simon Elementary School 55.0% 61.0% 69.7% 67.3%
Page 29 of 68
% %
Absent, Absent, 2020-21 2021-22
Smothers Elementary School 58.2% 65.3% 73.4% 64.0%
Social Justice PCS 42.3% 48.2% 36.5% 56.3%
Sousa Middle School 20.0% 56.7% 31.9% 68.5%
St. Coletta Special Education PCS 63.9% 89.6% 60.9% 23.9%
Stanton Elementary School 56.0% 63.3% 74.2% 76.7%
Statesmen College Preparatory Academy for
Boys PCS 11.8% 9.5% 16.7% 20.9%
Stoddert Elementary School 7.7% 8.1% 9.5% 2.0%
Stuart-Hobson Middle School (Capitol Hill
Cluster) 14.9% 32.0% 27.7% 32.6%
Takoma Elementary School 37.5% 31.7% 53.4% 21.3%
Thaddeus Stevens Early Learning Center N/A N/A N/A n<10
The Children's Guild DC PCS 70.0% 95.6% 80.2% 93.0%
The Sojourner Truth School PCS 29.3% 65.8% 34.8% 53.5%
Thomas Elementary School 51.4% 48.3% 69.0% 22.6%
Thomson Elementary School 3.1% 17.9% 9.6% 10.7%
Thurgood Marshall Academy PCS 26.2% 35.4% 29.8% <=1%
Truesdell Elementary School 16.8% 38.6% 27.2% 16.9%
Tubman Elementary School 36.3% 31.1% 46.0% 24.6%
Turner Elementary School 61.9% 54.2% 77.3% 68.6%
Two Rivers PCS - 4th Street 10.0% 25.6% 16.3% 19.4%
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 9.8% 23.7% 12.7% 22.4%
Two Rivers PCS - Young Middle School 9.6% 38.2% 17.3% 27.2%
Tyler Elementary School 26.2% 29.3% 33.6% 13.2%
Van Ness Elementary School 28.3% 27.4% 49.0% 25.5%
Walker-Jones Education Campus 28.5% 71.0% 42.8% 74.5%
Washington Global PCS 22.8% 35.2% 8.6% 20.0%
Washington Latin PCS - Middle School 5.5% 6.3% 11.7% 4.5%
Washington Latin PCS - Upper School 15.3% 17.2% 20.3% 11.7%
Washington Leadership Academy PCS 31.9% 72.2% 33.0% 75.3%
Washington Yu Ying PCS 11.9% 26.6% 24.9% 28.1%
Watkins Elementary School (Capitol Hill
Cluster) 6.4% 6.0% 11.9% 4.4%
Wheatley Education Campus 42.8% 58.8% 55.1% 59.9%
Whittier Elementary School 26.7% 28.5% 39.9% 17.6%
Woodrow Wilson/ Jackson-Reed High
School* 19.3% 53.2% 27.0% 45.0%
* The high school formerly known Woodrow Wilson changed its name to Jackson-Reed on March 15
Page 30 of 68
Appendix B: Data Methodology

Business Rules
I. State-level Truancy Rate
a. Numerator: Number of compulsory-aged students who accumulate 10 or more full-day
unexcused absences across the entire school year and across all schools and LEAs in which the
student enrolled during the school year
b. Denominator: Number of compulsory-aged students enrolled at schools in the state for at
least 10 days during the school year
II. State-level Chronic Absenteeism Rate
a. Numerator: Number of students who are absent (excused or unexcused) for 10 percent or
more of the school days on which the student was enrolled across the entire school year and
across all schools and LEAs in which the student was enrolled, and who was enrolled for at
b. Denominator: Number of students enrolled at schools in the state for at least 10 days during
the school year
III. School-level Truancy Rate
a. Numerator: Number of compulsory-aged students who accumulate 10 or more unexcused
absences at each respective school during the school year
b. Denominator: Number of compulsory-aged students enrolled at each respective school for at
IV. School-level Chronic Absenteeism Rate
a. Numerator: Number of students who are absent (excused or unexcused) for 10 percent or
more of the school days on which the student was enrolled at each respective school during
the school year, and who was enrolled for at least 10 days at that school during the school
year
b. Denominator: Number of students enrolled at each respective school for at least 10 days
during the school year
2021-22 List of Attendance Codes

The table below lists all attendance codes used in the 2021-22 school year and indicates whether they count
toward the numerator for in-seat attendance, chronic absenteeism, and truancy.
ADT Value ADT Full Description Included in Included
Descriptor Value Chronic in Truancy
Absenteeism
Numerator
Present Full - PFIP The student is in attendance at expected periods of NO NO
In Person instruction at the educational institution in which
the student was enrolled or in attendance at a
school-approved activity. The instruction takes
place when the student is physically present and is
Page 31 of 68

Absenteeism
Numerator
delivered by the school in which the student is
enrolled.
Present Full - PFDLS The student is in attendance at the expected NO NO

Distance periods of instruction at the educational institution
Learning in which the student was enrolled or in attendance
Situational at a school-approved activity. The instruction takes
place with the student not physically present due to
a situational need (i.e., quarantining, etc.) and
enrolled.
Present Full - PFDLMC The student is in attendance at the expected NO NO
Medical at a school-approved activity. The instruction takes
Certification place with the student not physically present due to
a medical exemption issued twice a year (the first
exemption covers from the start of the school until
Dec. 31 of the current school year and the second
exemption covers from Jan. 1 to the end of the
current school year) by the LEA and delivered by
the school in which the student is enrolled.
Present Full - PFDLR The student is in attendance at the expected NO NO
Routine at a school-approved activity. The instruction takes
place with the student not physically present due to
an approved distance learning program (i.e., virtual
program, online program, etc.) and delivered by the
school in which the student is enrolled.
Present Partial PPEIP Presence of the student for more than 80 percent NO NO
Excused - In and less than 100 percent of the school day. The
Person instruction takes place when the student is
physically present and is delivered by the school in
which the student is enrolled.
This includes students who are minimally late to

school, missing less than 20 percent of the school
day with a valid excuse reason.
Present Partial PPEDLS Presence of the student for more than 80 percent NO NO
Excused - and less than 100 percent of the school day. The
Distance instruction takes place with the student not
Learning physically present due to a situational need (i.e.,
Situational quarantining, etc.) and delivered by the school in
Page 32 of 68

Absenteeism
Numerator
Present Partial PPEDLMC Presence of the student for more than 80 percent NO NO
Learning physically present due to a medical exemption
Medical issued twice a year (the first exemption covers from
Certification the start of the school until Dec. 31 of the current
school year and the second exemption covers from
Jan. 1 to the end of the current school year) by the
LEA and delivered by the school in which the
student is enrolled.

Present Partial PPEDLR Presence of the student for more than 80 percent NO NO
Learning physically present due to an approved distance
Routine learning program (i.e., virtual program, online
program, etc.) and delivered by the school in which
the student is enrolled.

Present Partial PPUIP Presence of the student for more than 80 percent NO NO
Unexcused - In and less than 100 percent of the school day. The
Person instruction takes place when the student is

day without a valid excuse reason.
Present Partial PPUDLS Presence of the student for more than 80 percent NO NO
Unexcused - and less than 100 percent of the school day. The
Learning physically present due to a situational need (i.e.,
Situational quarantining, etc.) and delivered by the school in

Page 33 of 68

Absenteeism
Numerator
Present Partial PPUDLMC Presence of the student for more than 80 percent NO NO
Learning physically present due to a medical exemption
Medical issued twice a year (the first exemption covers from
Certification the start of the school until Dec. 31 of the current

Present Partial PPUDLR Presence of the student for more than 80 percent NO NO
Learning physically present due to an approved distance
Routine learning program (i.e., virtual program, online

Absent Partial APEIP Presence of the student for less than 80 percent of YES NO
Excused - In the school day with an LEA-approved excuse. This
Person includes students who arrive on-time and stay for
part of the school day but leave before the end of
the school day with a valid excuse reason. The
instruction takes place when the student is
Absent Partial APEDLS Presence of the student for less than 80 percent of YES NO
Excused - the school day with an LEA-approved excuse. This
Distance includes students who arrive on-time and stay for
Learning part of the school day but leave before the end of
Situational the school day with a valid excuse reason. The
instruction takes place with the student not
physically present due to a situational need (i.e.,
quarantining, etc.) and delivered by the school in
Absent Partial APEDLMC Presence of the student for less than 80 percent of YES NO
Medical the school day with a valid excuse reason. The
Certification instruction takes place with the student not
Page 34 of 68

Absenteeism
Numerator
physically present due to a medical exemption
issued twice a year (the first exemption covers from
the start of the school until Dec. 31 of the current
Absent Partial APEDLR Presence of the student for less than 80 percent of YES NO
Routine the school day with a valid excuse reason. The
physically present due to an approved distance
learning program (i.e., virtual program, online
Absent Partial APUIP Presence of the student for less than 80 percent of YES NO
Unexcused - In the school day without an LEA-approved excuse.
Person This includes students who arrive on-time and stay
for part of the school day but leave before the end
of the school day without a valid excuse reason. The
instruction takes place when the student is
Absent Partial APUDLS Presence of the student for less than 80 percent of YES NO
Unexcused - the school day without an LEA-approved excuse.
Distance This includes students who arrive on-time and stay
Learning for part of the school day but leave before the end
Situational of the school day without a valid excuse reason. The
physically present due to a situational need (i.e.,
quarantining, etc.) and delivered by the school in
Absent Partial APUDLMC Presence of the student for less than 80 percent of YES NO
Medical of the school day without a valid excuse reason. The
Certification instruction takes place with the student not
physically present due to a medical exemption
issued twice a year (the first exemption covers from
the start of the school until Dec. 31 of the current
Page 35 of 68

Absenteeism
Numerator
Absent Partial APUDLR Presence of the student for less than 80 percent of YES NO
Routine of the school day without a valid excuse reason. The
physically present due to an approved distance
learning program (i.e., virtual program, online
Absent Full AFEIP The student is not in attendance at the expected YES NO
Excused - In period of instruction at the educational institution
Person in which the student was enrolled or in attendance
at a school approved activity. The instruction would
have taken place when the student would be
physically present and delivered by the school in
which the student is enrolled. The student has a
valid excuse consistent with the LEA’s policy.
Absent Full AFEDLS The student is not in attendance at expected YES NO
Excused - periods of instruction at the educational institution
Distance in which the student was enrolled or in attendance
Learning at a school-approved activity. The instruction that
Situational would have taken place would have occurred when
the student was not physically present due to a
situational need (i.e., quarantining, etc.) and
enrolled. The student had a valid excuse consistent
with the LEA’s policy.
Absent Full AFEDLMC The student is not in attendance at expected YES NO
Medical would have taken place would have occurred when
Certification the student was not physically present due to a
medical exemption issued twice a year (the first
the school in which the student is enrolled. The
student had a valid excuse consistent with the LEA’s
policy.
Absent Full AFEDLR The student is not in attendance at expected YES NO
Routine would have taken place would have occurred when
the student was not physically present due to an
Page 36 of 68

Absenteeism
Numerator
approved distance learning program (i.e., virtual
school in which the student is enrolled. The student
had a valid excuse consistent with the LEA’s policy.
Absent Full AFUIP The student is not in attendance at the expected YES YES
Unexcused - In period of instruction at the educational institution
Person in which the student was enrolled or in attendance
at a school approved activity. The instruction would
have taken place when the student would be
physically present and delivered by the school in
which the student is enrolled. The student does not
have a valid excuse consistent with the LEA’s policy.
Absent Full AFUDLS The student is not in attendance at expected YES YES
Unexcused - periods of instruction at the educational institution
Situational would have taken place would have occurred when
the student was not physically present due to a
situational need (i.e., quarantining, etc.) and
enrolled. The student does not have a valid excuse
consistent with the LEA’s policy.
Absent Full AFUDLMC The student is not in attendance at expected YES YES
Medical would have taken place would have occurred when
Certification the student was not physically present due to a
medical exemption issued twice a year (the first
the school in which the student is enrolled. The
student does not have a valid excuse consistent
with the LEA’s policy.
Absent Full AFUDLR The student is not in attendance at expected YES YES
Routine would have taken place would have occurred when
the student was not physically present due to an
approved distance learning program (i.e., virtual
school in which the student is enrolled. The student
does not have a valid excuse consistent with the
LEA’s policy.
Page 37 of 68

Absenteeism
Numerator
Excused AFEI Attendance code for schools to use for non- YES NO
Absence compliant students who are removed from
Immunization attendance after the 20-school day period has
passed. This code will be counted by OSSE in the
same manner as other unexcused absences.
Unexcused AFUI Attendance code to use for students who were YES YES
Absence previously removed from school but are allowed to
Immunization return after the school secures immunization
certification. All “unexcused absences –
immunization” days shall be reclassified as
“excused absence – immunization” when the
student returns.
Present - In PIS Student is present for an in-school suspension and NO NO
School cannot participate in normal classroom setting for
Suspension more than 40 percent of the school day but is
eligible to receives related services.
NOTE: This does not include detention or time-outs.

Absent - Out AOS Student is absent but due to an out of school YES NO
of School suspension
Suspension
Absent - Adult ANS ADULT ED USE ONLY - Student is not scheduled to NO NO
Ed No Session attend school on an LEA instructional day. Data will
reflect as Non-School Day for the student.
Non-School NO NO
NSD Non-school day
Day
Page 38 of 68
Appendix C: Additional Figures
Figure C.1: Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by Level of Special Education Services, School Year 2021-2022
Page 39 of 68
Figure C.2: Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by At-Risk Status
Figure C.3: Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by TANF/SNAP Eligibility
Page 40 of 68
Figure C.4: Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by CFSA Status
Figure C.5: Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by Homeless Status
Page 41 of 68
Figure C.6: Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by Overage Status
Figure C.7 Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by English Learner Status
Page 42 of 68
Figure C.8: Chronic Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by Disability Status
Figure C.9: Chronic Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by TANF/SNAP Eligibility
Page 43 of 68
Figure C.10: Chronic Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by CFSA Status
Figure C.11: Chronic Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by Homeless Status
Page 44 of 68
Figure C.12: Chronic Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by Overage Status
Figure C.13: Chronic Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by Current English Learner Status
Page 45 of 68
Figure C.14: PARCC ELA Performance Level, by Chronically Absent and At-Risk Status
Figure C.15: PARCC Math Performance Level, by Chronically Absent and At-Risk Status
Page 46 of 68
Appendix D: Data Tables

Table D.1: State-level rates of Truancy and Chronic Absenteeism (Figure 1)
Year Metric Percentage Students

2016-17 Chronically Absent 29.5% 22,370
2016-17 Truant 25.5% 18,484
2017-18 Truant 27.4% 20,258
2018-19 Truant 29.9% 22,460
2019-20 Truant 16.7% 12,642
2020-21 Truant 38.6% 29,441
2021-22 Truant 41.8% 32,412
Table D.2 Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by Grade, School Year 2021-2022 (Figure 6)
Total
Grade Absenteeism Risk Tier Percentage Students
Students
KG Satisfactory Attendance (missed <5%) 31% 2,365 7,609
KG At-risk Attendance (missed 5%-9.99%) 26% 1,967 7,609
KG Moderate Chronic Absence (missed 10%-19.99%) 24% 1,830 7,609
KG Severe Chronic Absence (missed 20%-29.99%) 10% 752 7,609
KG Profound Chronic Absence (missed 30%+) 9% 695 7,609
01 Satisfactory Attendance (missed <5%) 34% 2,419 7,212
01 At-risk Attendance (missed 5%-9.99%) 26% 1,864 7,212
01 Moderate Chronic Absence (missed 10%-19.99%) 24% 1,745 7,212
01 Severe Chronic Absence (missed 20%-29.99%) 9% 658 7,212
01 Profound Chronic Absence (missed 30%+) 7% 526 7,212
Page 47 of 68
Total
Grade Absenteeism Risk Tier Percentage Students
Students
09 Profound Chronic Absence (missed 30%+) 35% 2,691 7,679
10 Satisfactory Attendance (missed <5%) 16% 809 5,030
10 At-risk Attendance (missed 5%-9.99%) 19% 941 5,030
11 Moderate Chronic Absence (missed 10%-19.99%) 23% 985 4,333
Page 48 of 68
Appendix E: Regression Output Tables

Table E.1: Logistic regression of a student’s odds of chronic absenteeism regressed on student-level indicator
variables (odds ratios)
(1) (2)
VARIABLES At-Risk Components At-Risk Composite
Male 0.966 0.964
(0.0234) (0.0244)
Experiencing Homelessness 1.963***
(0.118)
TANF/SNAP 2.699***
(0.120)
CFSA 0.821
(0.130)
Overage 2.257***
(0.373)
Current English Learner 0.825** 0.805***
(0.0628) (0.0606)
Special Education Level 1 1.023 1.032
(0.0442) (0.0454)
Special Education Level 2 1.385*** 1.397***
(0.0811) (0.0825)
(0.115) (0.115)
Special Education Level 4 1.288** 1.293**
(0.129) (0.131)
Multiple Schools 1.709*** 1.789***
(0.153) (0.161)
Asian 1.261 1.240
(0.197) (0.194)
Black or African American 5.123*** 5.039***
(0.887) (0.823)
Hispanic or Latino 3.473*** 3.373***
(0.601) (0.554)
Other 1.875*** 1.886***
(0.299) (0.288)
High School 2.386*** 2.554***
(0.409) (0.411)
At-Risk 3.039***
(0.142)
Constant 0.107*** 0.103***
(0.0174) (0.0162)
Page 49 of 68
Observations 81,854 81,854
Robust see form in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Page 50 of 68
Table E.2: Logistic regression of a student’s odds of truancy, regressed on student-level indicator variables
(odds ratios)
(1) (2)
VARIABLES At-Risk Components At-Risk Composite
Male 1.007 1.004
(0.0241) (0.0246)
Experiencing Homelessness 1.686***
(0.112)
TANF/SNAP 2.716***
(0.131)
CFSA 0.800
(0.127)
Overage 1.713***
(0.197)
Current English Learner 0.726*** 0.694***
(0.0668) (0.0614)
(0.0439) (0.0445)
(0.0710) (0.0720)
(0.111) (0.110)
(0.115) (0.115)
Multiple Schools 0.642*** 0.681***
(0.0449) (0.0468)
Asian 1.816*** 1.792***
(0.382) (0.378)
Black or African American 8.983*** 8.860***
(2.475) (2.353)
(1.642) (1.556)
Other 3.138*** 3.162***
(0.779) (0.758)
High School 1.953*** 1.963***
(0.403) (0.389)
At-Risk 2.941***
(0.145)
Constant 0.0522*** 0.0511***
(0.0143) (0.0137)
Page 51 of 68
Robust see form in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Page 52 of 68
Commentary on Tables E.3-E.6
OSSE estimated a series of models of the form:
𝑃𝐴𝑅𝐶𝐶𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝐼𝑆𝐴𝑖 + 𝛽2 𝑥2𝑖 + ⋯ + 𝛽𝑛 𝑥𝑛𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖

where 𝑃𝐴𝑅𝐶𝐶𝑖 is an individual student’s PARCC ELA or math scale score (ranging from 650 to 850)32, 𝐼𝑆𝐴𝑖 is
the student’s in-seat attendance rate, 𝑥2𝑖 − 𝑥𝑛𝑖 are a series of individual demographic characteristics, and
𝜀𝑖 is an error term. The results of the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression can be found in Tables E.3 (ELA)
and E.4 (math). In both tables, the ISA variable is mean-centered and divided by 10, so that an increase of
one unit is interpreted as a 10-percentage-point increase in a student’s in-seat attendance rate. Model 1
includes control variables for race/ethnicity (with Black or African American as the reference group), at-risk
status, gender, an indicator of whether a student was ever an English learner, disability status, the percent
of students who are at-risk at the student’s school, and grade band (with elementary as the reference group).
After adjusting for these variables, Model 1 shows that for every 10-percentage-point increase in a student’s
in-seat attendance, ELA PARCC scale score increases by 6 points and Math PARCC scale score increases by
4 points, on average. The control variables show that Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and White students, on
average, have higher PARCC scores than Black or African American students. Female students have higher
ELA scores but lower Math scores, on average, than non-female students.33 At-risk students, students with
disabilities, and students who have ever been English learners have lower scale scores, on average, than not-
at-risk students, students without disabilities, and students whose native language is English. Middle- and
high-school students had, on average, higher ELA scores but lower math scores than elementary-school
students.34
Model 2 introduces interaction terms between ISA and the control variables. These interaction terms
measure the degree to which the relationship between ISA and PARCC scores varies for different student
groups. In this model, every 10-percentage-point increase in ISA yields an average PARCC ELA scale score
increase of 12 points, and a math score increase of 14 points, for the reference group: Black or African
American, male elementary school students who were never English learners, are not at-risk, do not have
disabilities, and attend a school with an average percentage of at-risk students. However, the relationship
between attendance and PARCC scores changes for different student groups. Asian and white students see
greater gains in their PARCC ELA and math scores for each additional day of attendance, compared to Black
or African American students. Female students see greater gains than non-female students in their ELA
scores, but not math scores, for each additional day of attendance. At-risk students and students with
disabilities still see gains in their PARCC scores for each additional day of attendance, but their gains are not
as large as those of not-at-risk students and students without disabilities. Similarly, students who attend
schools with a high percentage of at-risk students still benefit from increased attendance but see less of an
increase in PARCC scores for each additional day of attendance compared to students who attend schools
with a low percentage of at-risk students.
32
Students who took the Multi-State Alternate Assessment (MSAA) were excluded from the analysis because the scale
score does not align with the PARCC scale scores.
33
This group includes male students and a small number of non-binary students
34
See https://osse.dc.gov/page/2021-22-parcc-and-msaa-results-and-resources for more information on PARCC
Page 53 of 68
Tables E.5 and E.6 show the results of a final set of models for this analysis. These tables introduce a control
variable for the student’s PARCC performance level (ranging from 1 to 5) in the 2018-19 school year, the last
year PARCC was administered. Because third grade is the first grade in which students take PARCC, this
analysis includes only students in sixth grade and above in the 2021-22 school year who have both a 2018-19
school year test score and a 2021-22 school year test score. The results show that attendance remains a
significant predictor of PARCC performance after adjusting for 2018-19 school year PARCC performance level,
but the strength of the association is reduced; a ten-percentage-point increase in ISA is associated with an
increase of 4 points in ELA scale score and 2 points in Math scale score. An increase of one performance
level on a student’s 2018-19 ELA PARCC assessment is associated with an 19-point increase on the 2021-22
ELA scale score, on average. For math, an increase of one performance level in 2018-19 is associated with a
14-point increase on the 2021-22 math scale score, on average.
Model 2 includes the same interaction terms as in Tables E.3 and E.4, with the addition of an interaction
between the 2018-19 school year performance level and ISA. For the reference group in this model, which
has a performance level of 3, every 10-percentage-point increase in ISA yields a 7-point increase in ELA scale
score and an 8-point increase in math scale score. However, the relationship strengthens as a student’s 2018-
19 school year performance level increases; students who scored higher on PARCC in 2018-19 see stronger
correlations between attendance and their 2021-22 PARCC scores.
Page 54 of 68
Table E.3: PARCC ELA scale score regressed on ISA and other student characteristics
(1) (2)
VARIABLES Model 1 Model 2
In-Seat Attendance/10 6.006*** 11.70***

(0.137) (0.519)
Asian 27.38*** 21.03***
(1.394) (2.398)
(0.642) (0.721)
White 30.35*** 26.83***
(0.617) (0.984)
Other 21.06*** 17.55***
(0.962) (1.109)
At-Risk -8.245*** -7.722***
(0.373) (0.374)
Female 9.845*** 9.885***
(0.315) (0.313)
Ever English Learner35 -10.46*** -10.01***
(0.616) (0.716)
Students with Disabilities -28.78*** -29.34***
(0.415) (0.419)
Percent of Students At-Risk at the Student’s School -0.338*** -0.318***
(0.00837) (0.00843)
Middle School 9.865*** 10.30***
(0.353) (0.357)
High School 14.44*** 15.17***
(0.435) (0.441)
In-Seat Attendance*Asian 6.040**
(2.550)
In-Seat Attendance*Hispanic or Latino 0.595
(0.681)
In-Seat Attendance*White 2.336**
35
This and following models use the category of “ever English learner” to capture both current English learners and
students who were English learners in the past but subsequently reached English proficiency and exited English
learner status. Research suggests this is a more meaningful category for understanding how well schools are serving
English learners (see https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/English-learners-in-Chicago-public-schools).
Because the status of English learner is not static, but is one that students exit out of, most English learners eventually
exit and become proficient. However, at any given point in time, many students who are actively in the “English
learner” category are long-time English learners who often have other challenges, such as disabilities or at-risk status,
that make it more difficult for them to exit to proficiency. Because of this, the active English learner category is
typically not representative of the larger category of students who have ever been English learners.
Page 55 of 68
(1.048)
In-Seat Attendance*Other 4.389***
(1.053)
In-Seat Attendance*At-Risk -2.311***
(0.317)
In-Seat Attendance*Female 0.413*
(0.242)
In-Seat Attendance*Ever English Learner -0.484
(0.694)
In-Seat Attendance*Students with Disabilities -3.090***
(0.293)
In-Seat Attendance*Percent of Students At-Risk -0.0568***
(0.00617)
In-Seat Attendance*Middle School -0.652**
(0.327)
In-Seat Attendance*High School 0.284
(0.313)
Constant 739.0*** 736.5***
(0.574) (0.597)

R-squared 0.414 0.419
Standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Page 56 of 68
Table E.4: PARCC Math scale score regressed on ISA and other student characteristics
(1) (2)

(0.117) (0.449)
Asian 31.57*** 23.03***
(1.171) (2.073)
(0.540) (0.601)
White 32.05*** 26.68***
(0.526) (0.815)
Other 21.71*** 16.43***
(0.820) (0.974)
At-Risk -7.121*** -6.221***
(0.315) (0.313)
Female -1.335*** -1.288***
(0.266) (0.262)
Ever English Learner -6.199*** -6.236***
(0.518) (0.597)
(0.349) (0.349)
(0.00707) (0.00707)
Middle School -2.046*** -0.895***
(0.295) (0.296)
High School -0.595 -0.301
(0.378) (0.381)
In-Seat Attendance*Asian 7.936***
(2.199)
(0.566)
In-Seat Attendance*White 3.818***
(0.851)
(0.956)
(0.269)
In-Seat Attendance*Female -0.326
(0.205)
In-Seat Attendance*Ever English Learner 0.420
(0.575)
(0.248)
(0.00549)
Page 57 of 68
In-Seat Attendance*Middle School -2.920***

(0.274)
In-Seat Attendance*High School -3.763***
(0.267)
Constant 736.3*** 732.3***
(0.484) (0.502)

R-squared 0.406 0.420
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Page 58 of 68
Table E.5: PARCC ELA scale score regressed on ISA and other student characteristics, including PARCC ELA
SY2018-19 performance level
(1) (2)

(0.139) (0.504)
Asian 19.69*** 12.04***
(1.744) (2.449)
(0.763) (0.760)
White 18.59*** 14.30***
(0.738) (1.029)
Other 11.56*** 10.38***
(1.140) (1.210)
At-Risk -2.801*** -2.593***
(0.412) (0.412)
Female 6.503*** 6.592***
(0.358) (0.356)
Ever English Learner -1.849** -1.480**
(0.739) (0.736)
(0.500) (0.517)
(0.0102) (0.0102)
High School -1.442*** -1.393***
(0.382) (0.386)
PARCC Performance Level 2018-19 18.86*** 19.05***
(0.182) (0.183)
(2.588)
(0.383)
(1.110)
In-Seat Attendance*Other 0.153
(1.072)
(0.320)
(0.320)
(0.00726)
In-Seat Attendance*High School -0.0190
(0.259)
In-Seat Attendance*PARCC Performance Level 2018-19 1.267***
Page 59 of 68
(0.125)
Constant 739.1*** 737.7***
(0.646) (0.652)

R-squared 0.611 0.616
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Page 60 of 68
Table E.6: PARCC math scale score regressed on ISA and other student characteristics, including PARCC math
SY2018-19 performance level
(1) (2)

(0.122) (0.456)
Asian 21.18*** 13.78***
(1.529) (2.199)
(0.661) (0.653)
White 21.66*** 16.50***
(0.653) (0.923)
Other 12.96*** 9.725***
(1.002) (1.097)
At-Risk -2.552*** -2.106***
(0.354) (0.352)
Female -0.360 -0.241
(0.306) (0.302)
Ever English Learner -2.310*** -2.219***
(0.639) (0.631)
(0.419) (0.429)
(0.00873) (0.00865)
High School 4.072*** 3.833***
(0.334) (0.335)
PARCC Performance Level 2018-19 14.14*** 14.20***
(0.162) (0.161)
(2.335)
(0.342)
(0.991)
(1.041)
(0.279)
(0.267)
(0.00677)
In-Seat Attendance*High School -0.431*
(0.231)
In-Seat Attendance*PARCC Performance Level 2018-19 1.541***
Page 61 of 68
(0.119)
Constant 725.4*** 723.6***
(0.560) (0.562)

R-squared 0.540 0.553
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Page 62 of 68
Commentary on Tables E.7 and E.8
OSSE estimated a model of the form:
𝐼𝑆𝐴𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑝𝑐𝑡_𝑎𝑡_𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑖 + 𝛽2 𝑥2𝑖 + ⋯ + 𝛽𝑛 𝑥𝑛𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖

where 𝐼𝑆𝐴𝑖 is an individual student’s in-seat attendance rate, 𝑝𝑐𝑡_𝑎𝑡_𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑖 is the percent of students at the
student’s school who are at-risk, 𝑥2𝑖 … 𝑥𝑛𝑖 are a series of individual demographic characteristics, and 𝜀𝑖 is an
error term. The regression results can be found in Table E.7. The percent at-risk variable is mean-centered
and divided by 10, such that an increase of one unit in the variable represents an increase of 10 percentage
points in the percent of at-risk students attending the school. Model 1 includes control variables for
race/ethnicity (with Black or African American as the reference group), individual at-risk status, gender,
disability status, an indicator of whether the student was ever an English learner, and grade band (with
elementary as the reference group). After adjusting for these variables, Model 1 shows that every 10-
percentage-point increase in the percent of at-risk students in a school is associated with an average
decrease of 1.3 percentage points in students’ ISA, or about two fewer days present at school in a typical
180-day school year. Hispanic or Latino students had lower attendance, on average, than Black or African
American students, while white students had higher average attendance. At-risk students and students with
disabilities had lower attendance, on average, than not-at-risk students and students without disabilities.
Students in pre-K, middle school, high school, and adult grades all had lower average attendance than
elementary school students. Female students and students who have ever been English Learners had higher
average attendance than non-female students and students who were never English learners.
Model 2 introduces interaction terms to test whether the relationship between a school’s percentage of at-
risk students and students’ attendance rates is stronger or weaker for different groups of students. The main
effect for the reference group (Black or African American, male, not-at-risk, elementary school students
without disabilities who were never English learners) remained negative, but decreased in absolute value to
a 0.6 percentage point reduction in ISA for every 10-percentage-point increase in the percent of at-risk
students in a school. However, the negative relationship between the percent of students at-risk and ISA was
stronger, in the negative direction, for Hispanic or Latino students. In other words, an increase in the percent
of at-risk students at a school is correlated with lower attendance rates for all student groups, but the
decrease was larger in magnitude for Hispanic or Latino students compared to Black or African American
students. Conversely, white students saw smaller reductions in attendance than Black or African American
students as the percent of at-risk students increased. At-risk students experienced larger reductions in
attendance rates than not-at-risk students as the percentage of at-risk students in a school increased. Pre-K
students, middle school students, and high school students’ attendance declined more steeply than
elementary school students’ attendance as the percent of at-risk students rose. However, adult student
attendance was not significantly affected by the percent of at-risk students in their schools. Students with
disabilities and students who were ever English learners also had smaller reductions in attendance as the
percent of at-risk students increased than students without disabilities and students who were never English
learners.
Table E.8 includes an additional control variable for students’ 2018-19 school year PARCC performance level
(ranging from 1 to 5). To reduce multicollinearity, this variable is a composite of students’ math and ELA
PARCC performance levels. As discussed previously, because PARCC is first administered in third grade, this
analysis is limited to students in sixth grade and higher in school year the 2021-22 school year who have a
Page 63 of 68
2018-19 PARCC score. This variable is centered at performance level 3. With the inclusion of this variable in
Model 1, every 10-percentage-point increase in the percent of at-risk students in a school is associated with
an average reduction of 1.6 percentage points in ISA, or about three fewer days present in a typical 180-
day school year. Students who had high PARCC performance levels in the 2018-19 school year had higher
attendance in 2021-22 than students with low PARCC performance levels, holding all else constant. Also, it is
striking that, after adjusting for 2018-19 school year PARCC performance level, Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and
white students all have lower attendance, on average, than Black or African American students. That is, Black
or African American students have higher attendance, on average, than other racial groups when comparing
among students with the same PARCC performance level.
With the addition of interaction terms in Model 2, the reference group sees, on average, a 0.4 percentage
point reduction in ISA for every 10-percentage-point increase in the percent of at-risk students in a school.
However, students who had high PARCC scores in the 2018-19 school year experienced more modest
reductions in attendance as the percent of at-risk students in their school increased.
Page 64 of 68
Table E.7: In-Seat Attendance rate regressed on school-level percent of students at-risk and student-level
characteristics
(1) (2)
Percent of Students At-Risk/10 -1.348*** -0.609***

(0.0271) (0.0544)
Asian 0.751 2.523***
(0.462) (0.784)
Hispanic or Latino -1.888*** -0.883***
(0.203) (0.239)
White 1.065*** 3.150***
(0.205) (0.361)
Other 0.694** 2.027***
(0.325) (0.431)
At-Risk -7.531*** -7.150***
(0.129) (0.128)
Female 0.402*** 0.396***
(0.108) (0.106)
(0.144) (0.145)
Ever English Learner 3.054*** 2.368***
(0.198) (0.241)
Pre-K -4.304*** -4.542***
(0.173) (0.170)
Middle School -2.003*** -2.216***
(0.150) (0.148)
High School -13.14*** -11.44***
(0.143) (0.144)
Adult -28.90*** -28.02***
(0.242) (0.247)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Asian 0.237
(0.237)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Hispanic or Latino -0.229***
(0.0863)
Percent of Students At-Risk*White 0.348***
(0.107)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Other 0.270**
(0.135)
Percent of Students At-Risk*At-Risk -0.587***
(0.0534)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Female 0.0413
(0.0395)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Students with Disabilities 0.225***
(0.0568)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Ever English Learner 0.435***
Page 65 of 68
(0.0879)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Pre-K -0.344***
(0.0642)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Middle School -0.179***
(0.0596)
Percent of Students At-Risk*High School -2.899***
(0.0557)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Adult 0.729***
(0.0761)
Constant 91.53*** 91.66***
(0.136) (0.136)

R-squared 0.284 0.310
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Page 66 of 68
Table E.8: In-Seat Attendance rate regressed on school-level percent of students at-risk and student-level
characteristics, including SY2018-19 PARCC performance level
(1) (2)
Percent of Students At-Risk/10 -1.618*** -0.424***

(0.0581) (0.109)
Asian -3.081*** -1.754
(0.996) (1.777)
Hispanic or Latino -2.258*** -2.298***
(0.448) (0.512)
White -2.651*** -1.738*
(0.429) (0.966)
Other -1.051 1.980**
(0.679) (0.985)
At-Risk -7.401*** -7.129***
(0.237) (0.239)
Female -0.259 -0.312
(0.205) (0.203)
Students with Disabilities 0.559* 0.0178
(0.286) (0.298)
Ever English Learner 3.585*** 3.456***
(0.432) (0.509)
High School -8.826*** -8.132***
(0.204) (0.204)
Adult -30.76*** -32.38***
(1.755) (1.947)
PARCC Proficiency Level 2018-19 3.308*** 0.0851
(0.119) (0.300)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Asian -0.438
(0.558)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Hispanic or Latino -0.697***
(0.202)
Percent of Students At-Risk*White -0.764**
(0.297)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Other 0.347
(0.334)
Percent of Students At-Risk*At-Risk -0.732***
(0.111)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Female 0.129
(0.0850)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Students with Disabilities 0.831***
(0.128)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Ever English Learner 0.553***
(0.195)
Percent of Students At-Risk*High School -2.021***
Page 67 of 68
(0.0864)
Percent of Students At-Risk*Adult 0.279
(0.648)
Percent of Students At-Risk*PARCC Proficiency Level 2018-19 0.0538***
(0.00507)
Constant 90.58*** 90.96***
(0.240) (0.242)

R-squared 0.251 0.272
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Page 68 of 68

DCPS 2021-22 Attendance Report (Nov 28 2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DCPS 2021-22 Attendance Report (Nov 28 2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DCPS 2021-22 Attendance Report (Nov 28 2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

November 30, 2022

Legal Landscape ..............................................................................................................................................5

Appendix B: Data Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix D: Data Tables................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix E: Regression Output Tables ............................................................................................................ 49

Amendments to Compulsory Educ. & Sch. Attendance Reguls, SR22-3,

Every Day Counts! Taskforce

Data Quality and Accountability

Background and Definitions

Cumulative vs. Absolute Identifications

Attendance Risk Tiers

1) Satisfactory Attendance: Students who missed 0%-4.99% of school days;

Attendance Collection in the 2021-22 School Year

Figure 1: State-level rates of Truancy and Chronic Absenteeism

Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy Rates by Month

Figure 2: State-level rates of Cumulative Chronic Absenteeism, by Month

In-Person Learning Rates by Month

2021-22 Populations in Focus

Relationship Between Attendance and PARCC Scores

Relationship Between School-Level Percent At-Risk and

Figure 9. Distribution of Students by School-Level Percent of Students At-Risk

Appendix A: School-Level Rates of Chronic

Appendix B: Data Methodology

2021-22 List of Attendance Codes

ADT Value ADT Full Description Included in Included

Present Full - PFDLS The student is in attendance at the expected NO NO

This includes students who are minimally late to

This includes students who are minimally late to

ADT Value ADT Full Description Included in Included

This includes students who are minimally late to

This includes students who are minimally late to

This includes students who are minimally late to

This includes students who are minimally late to

ADT Value ADT Full Description Included in Included

This includes students who are minimally late to

This includes students who are minimally late to

ADT Value ADT Full Description Included in Included

ADT Value ADT Full Description Included in Included

ADT Value ADT Full Description Included in Included

ADT Value ADT Full Description Included in Included

NOTE: This does not include detention or time-outs.

Appendix C: Additional Figures

Figure C.2: Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by At-Risk Status

Figure C.3: Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by TANF/SNAP Eligibility

Figure C.4: Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by CFSA Status

Figure C.5: Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by Homeless Status

Figure C.6: Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by Overage Status

Figure C.7 Chronic Absenteeism and Truancy, by English Learner Status

Figure C.8: Chronic Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by Disability Status

Figure C.9: Chronic Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by TANF/SNAP Eligibility

Figure C.10: Chronic Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by CFSA Status

Figure C.11: Chronic Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by Homeless Status

Figure C.12: Chronic Absenteeism Risk Tiers, by Overage Status

Appendix D: Data Tables

Year Metric Percentage Students

Appendix E: Regression Output Tables

Observations 81,854 81,854

Robust see form in parentheses

In-Seat Attendance/10 6.006* 11.70*

In-Seat Attendance/10 4.257* 13.72*

In-Seat Attendance/10 4.108* 6.982*

In-Seat Attendance/10 2.323* 7.541*

Percent of Students At-Risk/10 -1.348* -0.609*

Percent of Students At-Risk/10 -1.618* -0.424*