Managing school attendance

5. ARE SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING ATTENDANCE DATA IN SCHOOLS EFFECTIVE?

5.1 Criteria

The Computerised Administrative System Environment in Schools (CASES21) is the primary information management system used within government schools in Victoria¹. It is used to manage all of the major financial and administrative functions within each school, and for ultimately recording and storing student attendance/absence data in most instances. CASES21 has many features to assist schools in managing student attendance, including electronic roll-marking (ERM) capabilities. It stores the attendance records of all students in the school, including reasons for any absences.

While schools do not have to use the ERM capabilities of CASES21, those schools who use manual roll-marking processes have to ensure that attendance/absence data is entered into CASES21 so that annual reports on student absences can be produced and distributed to the central office of the Department of Education and Training (DET). Schools who use third-party ERM products to maintain their attendance records are not required to re-input this information into CASES21. These schools can submit their annual summary absence reports to DET by keying-in figures into a web-based form. Our audit results suggest that approximately 10 per cent of government schools across Victoria use some form of ERM.

In examining the way CASES21 is used to manage attendance data, we considered whether:

• data standards are appropriate, and result in the collection of meaningful information on the reasons for student absences

• CASES21 helps schools to monitor and record student attendance efficiently.

5.2 Are data standards appropriate?

Student absence codes included in CASES21 are DET’s official data standards for recording and classifying the reasons for student absences. Initially, CASES had only 7 absence codes. New absence codes were implemented as schools began moving to the current CASES21 system in July 2000.

Since 2000, as schools have been progressively moving to the CASES21 system, DET has reviewed and modified absence codes and guidelines for their application. This has been based on feedback from schools and on analysis of the ways that schools have been using the system.

In 2002, a revised set of codes expanded on the original 7, increasing the total number to 48. These codes, and the accompanying guidelines for applying them, were further updated in 2003. The revised set of codes include multiple health-related codes, late arrival/early departure codes, curriculum related codes and others. These are shown in Figure 5A.

FIGURE 5A: CASES21 STUDENT ABSENCE CODES

CASES21 absence codes fall within 2 broad categories:

• Codes for absences that are counted by DET in published absence statistics/benchmarks. These include health-related, unapproved absences (i.e. refusal, truancy, unexplained), some disciplinary categories (i.e. suspension, school choice) and parental choice (i.e. parent approved, family holidays, religious/cultural observance).

• Codes for curriculum-related absences which are not counted when determining absence rates for each school (e.g. sport days, excursions camps etc.).

We identified a number of issues with the CASES21 data definitions that impact on the usefulness and consistency of the data:

• Overlap in codes - Not all of the current absence codes are mutually exclusive. For example, it is possible to classify a specific health-related absence as “medical”, “illness”, “medical appointment”, “hospitalised”, “dentist” or “medical/welfare” - depending on the information available. This does not promote consistent use of the codes by schools and, therefore, limits their use for inclusion in broader analyses across multiple schools.

• “Parental choice”- The “parental choice” code does not clearly identify why a student is absent - other than the reason being approved by the parent. As we noted in Part 4 of this report, while DET and schools generally treat absences under this code as “approved”, it is possible for the actual reason (which is normally unknown to the school) to be inconsistent with the definition of “reasonable excuse” as defined by the Community Services Act. Such absences should not be accepted without question by the school.

• Distinguishing approved/unapproved absences – DET’s data standards cannot adequately distinguish “approved” from “unapproved” absences. For example, unapproved absences due to “school withdrawal” (where the parent keeps the child away from school for reasons related to the needs of the parent) are not separately identified by CASES21 absence codes. We found that schools normally classify these absences under “parental choice”. This situation is problematic given that DET and schools generally treat this category of absences as “approved”.

Schools we audited also noted the lack of clarity in DET’s current data standards. Approximately one-third did not believe that that the current standards promote consistency in how reasons for absence are classified and recorded across schools.

5.2.1 Does CASES21 help schools record and monitor student attendance efficiently?

Although CASES21 was not designed primarily as an ERM solution for schools, it has the capability to record either half-day day or period absences directly into the system.

Teachers can generate electronic class attendance records and then mark students who are present or absent directly on-screen. However, as CASES21 operates over the school’s administrative system (which, for security reasons, is inaccessible to teachers in the classroom), these potential efficiencies are largely unachievable.

As a result, schools employ a number of approaches to facilitate electronic capture of attendance data. This can include:

• using CASES21 to generate lists with barcodes next to the name of each absent student, which are then scanned by office staff to update attendance records electronically

• using other proprietary ERM products.

We found that among those schools which mark the roll manually, attendance data in most instances (90 per cent) is transferred into CASES21 using manual data handling processes. CASES21 does not have the facility to import data from other electronic roll-marking products. While schools which use these products are not required to re-enter this information into CASES21, DET recognises that such a facility would have advantages for schools.

Managing student attendance data can consume significant resources in schools. We found that School Services Officers (SSOs), on average, devote approximately 17 per cent of their time to these activities. Time devoted by SSOs to these tasks is significantly greater at secondary schools (approximately 38 per cent) compared with primary schools (12 per cent).

DET, in its review of ERM practices in government schools in 2003, has previously noted these issues². This review recommended the development of an interface between CASES21 and third-party ERM products³ to reduce the reliance of schools upon manual data handling processes, and noted an earlier finding that the “lack of appropriate compatibility between CASES21 and external roll marking products is a source of inefficiency and reduced effectiveness particularly from a central data reporting perspective”⁴.

We were advised that this action has been logged for future implementation in CASES21 but has not yet received priority for development.

We found that many schools are not using CASES21 to simplify and streamline their management of attendance records. When we reviewed processes within schools to maintain student attendance records, we found that 68 per cent maintain their attendance records both in hard-copy and on CASES21. Only one-quarter of schools (26 per cent) used CASES21 alone.

We were advised that DET is currently overseeing the implementation of a pilot project that is exploring initiatives to address some of these issues. Details of this project are outlined in Figure 5B.

FIGURE 5B: THE “STUDENTS AT THE CENTRE” PILOT PROJECT

CASES21 has several features that can assist schools to follow-up and report on absences. For example, it can generate:

• follow-up letters for parents for unexplained absences

• absence reports by classroom teacher for follow-up and verification

• reports for year-level coordinators that can help them monitor the follow-up process

• reports that identify and track explained and unexplained absences, including reasons for absence. These can be summary reports at the school-level, or detailed reports at the student level. They can cover either a specific day or wider time frame.

Schools we visited were not fully exploiting this capability. In some instances, school staff lacked the necessary knowledge to run various CASES21 reports to extract the required data.

5.2.2 Conclusion

DET’s data standards for classifying and recording reasons for student absences need further work. Absence codes included in CASES21 are not all mutually exclusive and do not adequately distinguish between approved and unapproved absences. This situation undermines the collection of consistent and accurate information on the reasons for student absences by schools.

CASES21 has many useful features for managing student attendance. However, teachers cannot utilise its ERM features in the classroom and there is no facility to import data from third-party ERM products. This creates significant barriers for schools in making the most of its potential. As a result, schools have become overly dependent on manual, time consuming and less efficient methods for recording attendance data. The excessive time spent on data entry could be better spent on value adding tasks such as following-up with parents on reasons for absence.

In many schools, limited user skills also prevent full utilisation of the potential benefits of CASES21.

Recommendations

11. That DET undertake a review of the adequacy of existing absence codes and revise them where appropriate so that they:

• are mutually exclusive

• adequately identify all major forms of absenteeism

• distinguish between approved/unapproved absences.

12. That DET take action to enable the import of data from third-party ERM products into CASES21 so as to reduce the reliance of schools on inefficient, manual data handling processes.

13. That DET review the current arrangements for the delivery of training/professional development to schools on the utilisation of CASES21 for managing student absenteeism, and take action to improve the skill-level of users in this area.

¹ Registered non-government schools are not required to use CASES21. Attendance monitoring systems used by registered schools must comply with requirements established by the Registered Schools Board.

² Department of Education and Training 2003, Electronic Roll Marking Stage 2 Report, Department of Education and Training, Victoria, p. 36.

³ Ibid, p. 31.

⁴ Ibid, p. 1.