Each spring, the conversation in education turns to one topic in particular: employee absences.
 
You may already know that employee absences rise in the spring. But do you know how often K-12 employees are really absent? On which days and why? And if there are enough substitutes to cover these absences?
 
With access to absence data for over 4,800 K-12 organizations, we’ve set out to provide real insights around some of these key areas. In fact, this data is so comprehensive, that the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University has declared it to be representative of national trends.
 
Check back each month to see nationwide trends you can compare to your own district!

FEBRUARY 2016 STATISTICS 

This month’s report is based on data from more than 4,800 educational organizations and 2.6 million employees in Frontline’s Aesop absence and substitute management system.

 


Average Absences Per Employee

From January to February, absences increased from an average of 1.58 to 1.59 per employee. Sound small? This increase actually represents about 65,000 additional absences nationwide.



 


Absences by Reason

Over half (51%) of all absences were due to Illness in February, with Personal Reasons coming in 2nd at 16% and Professional Development in third at 11%. 



 


Average Fill Rates

Fill rates (the percentage of absences requiring a substitute that were actually filled by a substitute) declined by 4% in February — averaging 85% this month. The lowest fill rate days this month? Mondays and Fridays.



 


Percentage of Non-Working Subs & Fill Rates

Many substitutes are not actively working — 58%, in fact, on average in both January and February. This percentage seems to directly impact fill rates, with higher percentages of non-working substitutes correlating to lower fill rates. 


 

Get the Full Report

In this report, you’ll also learn:

  • Which days of the week had the most absences

  • What types of districts had the highest fill rates

  • How many substitutes are available compared to employees

  • The impact of non-working substitutes on fill rates