With the opening day of school just a few weeks away, the Auburn Enlarged City School District Board of Education is constructing policy to ensure that every student is in school and ready to learn each day.
“Research and data has shown that when students are in school, it will increase your graduation rate,” Superintendent J.D. Pabis said.
With that in mind, the board is currently reviewing and polishing a new attendance policy devised by its policy committee that calls for early intervention strategies and incentives to improve attendance. It also establishes disciplinary interventions when attendance falls below acceptable levels.
Now in first draft, the policy links daily attendance and punctuality with course credits and grades. If this is adopted - as it is expected to be by opening day - and enforced, the district can ultimately deny course credit to high school students who are absent from full-year courses at least 28 days and half-year courses at least 14 days. That averages out to be about four days per marking period.
However, the writers of the policy made clear that denying course credit is a final recourse as students are given opportunities to meet with teachers and make up classroom absences.
Parents will receive four notifications in several intervals: seven, 14, 21 and 28 days absent, and school principals are empowered to administer sanctions for chronic unexcused absences, tardiness and early departures, which include anything from parent conferences and principal hearings to a loss of driving and other student privileges.
“I think that attendance, especially in the middle and high school levels, will be improved because students know what the consequences are if they are not there,” Policy Committee Chair Ginny Kent said. “Parents will know as well, and if they have questions, they will know who to call.”
Kent believes communication is important and this policy establishes necessary dialogue between principals, teachers, parents and students. “There needs to be relationships among all these pieces in order for this to be successful,” she said.
This is not the first time the board has examined the district's attendance policy; in fact, this is the third version in five years.
According to Kent, the state Education Department passed a resolution in 2001 that granted local school districts greater autonomy over attendance policies after finding a link between attendance and academic achievement.
A committee established in 2002 comprised of key district stakeholders - on which Kent, elected to the board in 2004, served as a parent representative - discussed and ultimately crafted a policy adopted a year later that used course credit as a tool to promote attendance.
While attendance improved under this policy, Kent said, there was no language that addressed making up classwork missed.
The board revisited the policy in 2006, at which point it removed the relationship between grades and attendance. While this new policy establishes that relationship again, it does so with the idea that increased communication between principals, teachers, parents and students will keep students in school and thereby make them more likely to be successful.
Staff writer Alyssa Sunkin can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 239 or alyssa.sunkin@lee.net
With that in mind, the board is currently reviewing and polishing a new attendance policy devised by its policy committee that calls for early intervention strategies and incentives to improve attendance. It also establishes disciplinary interventions when attendance falls below acceptable levels.
Now in first draft, the policy links daily attendance and punctuality with course credits and grades. If this is adopted - as it is expected to be by opening day - and enforced, the district can ultimately deny course credit to high school students who are absent from full-year courses at least 28 days and half-year courses at least 14 days. That averages out to be about four days per marking period.
However, the writers of the policy made clear that denying course credit is a final recourse as students are given opportunities to meet with teachers and make up classroom absences.
Parents will receive four notifications in several intervals: seven, 14, 21 and 28 days absent, and school principals are empowered to administer sanctions for chronic unexcused absences, tardiness and early departures, which include anything from parent conferences and principal hearings to a loss of driving and other student privileges.
“I think that attendance, especially in the middle and high school levels, will be improved because students know what the consequences are if they are not there,” Policy Committee Chair Ginny Kent said. “Parents will know as well, and if they have questions, they will know who to call.”
Kent believes communication is important and this policy establishes necessary dialogue between principals, teachers, parents and students. “There needs to be relationships among all these pieces in order for this to be successful,” she said.
This is not the first time the board has examined the district's attendance policy; in fact, this is the third version in five years.
According to Kent, the state Education Department passed a resolution in 2001 that granted local school districts greater autonomy over attendance policies after finding a link between attendance and academic achievement.
A committee established in 2002 comprised of key district stakeholders - on which Kent, elected to the board in 2004, served as a parent representative - discussed and ultimately crafted a policy adopted a year later that used course credit as a tool to promote attendance.
While attendance improved under this policy, Kent said, there was no language that addressed making up classwork missed.
The board revisited the policy in 2006, at which point it removed the relationship between grades and attendance. While this new policy establishes that relationship again, it does so with the idea that increased communication between principals, teachers, parents and students will keep students in school and thereby make them more likely to be successful.
Staff writer Alyssa Sunkin can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 239 or alyssa.sunkin@lee.net
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 7 comment(s)
jlmorgansr wrote on Aug 14, 2008 5:11 PM:
They want all board members to behave, don't talk to the press, and most of all agree with everything JD Pabis says "
The Truth wrote on Aug 14, 2008 3:33 PM:
How about revoking some extracurricular sports (ie. football, soccer, etc) as your first line of shaping behavior ... like the very first time a student violates the policy. "
tome8689 wrote on Aug 14, 2008 2:33 PM:
quest wrote on Aug 14, 2008 1:43 PM:
The more you push a teen, the more they will rebel.
Have encouragement policies instead of consequential policies. Have drawings with prizes for perfect attendance or attendance below a certain #. Don't take away stuff, this breeds resentment. Think like a kid when you come up with policies not like a jailer, but we are in a prison town so what do you expect. "
interested wrote on Aug 14, 2008 12:06 PM:
carolc wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:46 AM:
justaround wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:42 AM:
That comment is a no brainer JD. It doesn't take anything more than common sense to know this one. So the school board has visited this problem 3 times in the last 5 years and not come up with something to get these kids in school? What happened to making parents responsible for those kids? I thought a parent could be reprimanded for kids that consistantly cut school. "