evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Toda City's AI Non-Attendance Risk Score — A Saitama Truancy Early-Warning Pilot With Built-In Human Safeguards

Japan · Toda · See the Japan profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 24% 60/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Toda City, Japan fused attendance, health and counselling data across 18 public schools into an AI model flagging ~1,193 of 12,000 students as truancy-risk. 90% of schools called it reliable; the city paired it with opt-outs and anti-discrimination rules.

18 schools
Schools participating (Nov 2023-Mar 2024)
~12,000 students
Students covered (Nov 2023-Mar 2024)
1,193 students
Students flagged as elevated-risk (Nov 2023-Mar 2024)
265 students
Students prioritised for direct outreach (Nov 2023-Mar 2024)
90 %
Schools rating predictions highly reliable (post-pilot survey)
Toda City's AI Non-Attendance Risk Score — A Saitama Truancy Early-Warning Pilot With Built-In Human Safeguards

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
Toda City Board of Education, with Uchida Yoko, PKSHA Technology and Argonaut
Period
November 2023 – March 2024 (pilot, under Japan's Children and Families Agency demonstration programme)
Keywords
education, public administration, child welfare, data analytics

Context

Toda City Board of Education, in Saitama Prefecture, Japan, ran a pilot under Japan's Children and Families Agency 'Children Data Collaboration Demonstration Project' across 18 public elementary and junior-high schools (roughly 12,000 students), building an AI risk-scoring model with Uchida Yoko, PKSHA Technology and its subsidiary Argonaut.

Objectives

The pilot aimed to combine attendance and tardiness records, health-room visit logs, academic achievement survey results, school-life questionnaires and counselling records into a non-attendance ('futoko') risk score per student, restricted to principals and administrators, to enable earlier outreach to at-risk students.

Activities

The city published guidelines banning discriminatory use of the risk scores, offered families an opt-out, and restricted data access to school leadership; teachers used the risk flags to prioritise students for direct outreach and support.

Results

The model flagged 1,193 of roughly 12,000 students as elevated-risk; teachers used the flags to prioritise 265 of them for direct outreach. In a post-pilot survey, 90% of participating schools rated the predictions as highly reliable.

Conclusions

An independent education economist (Keio University's Makiko Nakamuro) publicly cautioned against over-reliance on the algorithm, stressing it should support rather than replace human judgement; the pilot ran for one school year across 18 schools with no confirmed citywide or national rollout yet documented.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Short (< 1 year)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful