Escalation is not the measure of a successful attendance system.Resolving barriers at the earliest appropriate level is.

Practice quality

Evaluate the system, not the students

These tools check whether our process is working: are we identifying early, matching interventions, verifying implementation, and holding when holding is the right call?

Implementation self-audit

Run once per semester at each site. Ten questions.

Early identification

Are we identifying students in the first 10-15 days of a pattern rather than at the quarter?

Evidence to look at: Date of first documented outreach compared with date the pattern began.

Barrier documentation

Is a barrier — or an explicit 'unknown' — documented for the students we are intervening with?

Evidence to look at: Share of active interventions with a recorded barrier.

Matching

Do the interventions match the documented barrier?

Evidence to look at: Spot-check five cases: does the strategy plausibly address the recorded barrier?

Review dates

Are review dates being set and actually happening?

Evidence to look at: Share of cases with a review that occurred within 5 days of the planned date.

Fidelity

When we say an intervention did not work, did we verify it was implemented?

Evidence to look at: Presence of a fidelity check before any escalation.

Family participation

Are families participating, and if not, have we examined access — timing, language, format?

Evidence to look at: Participation rate plus documented access adjustments.

Student voice

Was the student asked what is getting in the way?

Evidence to look at: Documented student conversation before Tier 3.

Escalation quality

Are cases escalating because interventions were exhausted, or because meetings were available?

Evidence to look at: Share of escalations with a completed fidelity check and matched intervention.

Recurring barriers

Which barriers keep recurring across students at this site?

Evidence to look at: Aggregate barrier tally for the semester.

Step-down

Are students stepping down when they stabilize, or staying in intensive support indefinitely?

Evidence to look at: Number of documented step-downs this semester.

Equity & consistency check

Quality control before escalation.

Would a student with similar circumstances at another site be at this same level of intervention?
Inconsistent escalation thresholds across sites are a system problem, not a student problem.
Are we escalating a group of students disproportionately compared with the site's enrollment?
Review the pattern at the site level, not to accuse individual staff, but to check the process.
Was the intervention actually responsive to this family's circumstances?
A support that requires a car, daytime availability, English, or cost the family does not have is not a real support.
Was information offered in the family's language and in a format they can use?
Language and format access is one of the most common quiet causes of non-participation.
Did the family have a realistic opportunity to participate — timing, location, notice?
A meeting scheduled during a work shift is not an opportunity.
Are we escalating because the intervention was exhausted, or because a meeting was available?
Escalation should follow evidence, not the calendar.

The purpose is consistency, not accusation. Differences usually point to a process gap rather than to a person.

Administrator coaching questions

Use these when someone brings you an attendance concern.

1“What pattern are you seeing?”Listen for: A specific pattern — days, periods, timing — not a general 'lots of absences.'
2“What does the student say?”Listen for: Whether anyone has actually asked, and in what tone.
3“What does the family say?”Listen for: A barrier in the family's own words, or an honest 'we haven't reached them yet.'
4“What's the barrier?”Listen for: A named barrier — or an explicit 'unknown,' which is a valid answer.
5“What have we tried?”Listen for: Specific strategies with owners, not a list of notices sent.
6“Was it implemented?”Listen for: Frequency, duration, and access — not just whether it was assigned.
7“What happened?”Listen for: Monitored evidence, not an impression.
8“What are you asking the next team to help solve?”Listen for: A specific unresolved problem. If there isn't one, the case is not ready to move.

Asked consistently, these eight questions become district culture.

Hold, don't refer

When NOT to refer

Escalation should follow evidence, not the meeting calendar. At each transition, these circumstances mean the current intervention should continue.

Tier 1 → Tier 2 (Site-Level Intervention)

Hold and continue when

• No one has yet asked the student or family what is getting in the way
• A universal support (breakfast, greeting, teacher contact) has not been tried
• The absences are verified illness with a plan already in place
• The pattern is fewer than 5 days old and nothing has been attempted

Tier 2 → Tier 3 (SST / MTSS team)

Hold and continue when

• The site-level intervention was never actually implemented, or ran under 10 instructional days
• The barrier is identified and the matched support is showing early improvement
• The family requested a specific support that has not yet been provided
• Implementation broke down on the school's side — fix that and re-run the cycle

Tier 3 → SART

Hold and continue when

• Attendance is improving, even slowly, under the current plan
• The team has not yet verified fidelity of the Tier 3 supports
• A newly identified barrier has a matched support that has not started
• The only new element SART would add is another meeting with the same content

SART → SARB

Hold and continue when

• SART commitments made by the school have not been fully delivered
• The family is participating and attendance is trending up
• The SART plan is under 20 instructional days old
• A resource connection is in progress but not yet confirmed
• The referral would be based only on an absence count

If the family follows everything we are asking them to do, have we done everything we reasonably can to make attendance possible?

Before we escalate

Before moving forward, ask

If the family follows everything we are asking them to do, have we done everything we reasonably can to make attendance possible?

Do we understand the attendance concern?
Have we heard the student perspective, when appropriate?
Have we heard the family perspective?
Have we reasonably identified the barrier?
Did the selected intervention address that barrier?
Was the intervention actually implemented?
Was progress monitored?

What remains unresolved?

What specifically requires the next level of support?

Not ready to move forward. 7 checkpoints remain unanswered — starting with “Do we understand the attendance concern?”. Address that before considering a next level of support.

Stay & continue

The intervention is working. Keep it in place and keep the review date.

Modify

The barrier may be correct, but the intervention needs adjustment — dosage, owner, access, or fit.

Step down

Attendance has stabilized sufficiently for less intensive support. Name what stays and who watches.

Intensify

Additional coordinated support is needed, and you can say specifically what problem the next team is being asked to solve.

Consider SARB readiness

Previous reasonable interventions have not sufficiently resolved the concern and intensive coordination may be needed. Never based solely on an absence count.