Student Wellbeing·Proposed March 19, 2026

Student Persistence Recovery Playbook

Goals

Attendance risk rate

14.1%< 8%within 6 months

4.8%

On track

At-risk students contacted

050within 4 weeks

32/50

On track

Intervention plans accepted

025+within 3 months

At risk

Students retained

0340within 6 months

142

On track

Student satisfaction (NPS)

+35+50within 6 months

+42

On track

Suggested Tasks

(3)

Priority outreach to Richard Hartwell (risk 92%) — not contacted yet

Marcus Thompson

Review student support grant budget cap — acceptance rate at 48%, approaching $80K limit

Sarah Chen

Reassign Catherine Zhao's program review — her advisor just resigned

Elena Vasquez

Origin Signals

Student engagement dropped at Manhattan Main campus

2h ago

Staff turnover is rising at Downtown campus

3h ago

Insights

Attendance Risk by Student Segment

Risk scores across student groups

Low (<50%)Medium (50-70%)High (>70%)

Execution plan

9/12 completed

ResearchMar 19

Read 14K student profiles, 2.3M student records, and 847 advisor interaction logs from connected sourcesAI

Identified 3 behavioral patterns that precede attendance risk by an average of 94 daysAI

Cross-referenced with competitor and district context feedsAI

Generated ranked list of 50 at-risk students with risk scores and recommended actionsAI

ApprovalMar 20

Verified proposal complies with data access and outreach policiesAI

Approve approach, student list, and $71K estimated costSarah

Recommendations PublishedMar 21

Published prioritized at-risk student list with individual risk profiles to platformAI

Generated per-student action cards with recommended interventions, talking points, and risk triggersAI

Notified assigned advisors and school leaders via platform notificationsAI

Team ExecutionMar 22 — ongoing

Advisors conducting student success reviews using AI-generated briefing notes

Operations

School managers processing student support grant requests in the school network

School

ReviewApr 15

Review live success metrics and decide: continue, expand, adjust, or wind down

Sarah

Owners

Sarah Chen

VP, Student Wellbeing

sponsor

Marcus Thompson

Senior Operations Lead

executor

Elena Vasquez

Chief Student Success Officer

executor

ProDIP AI Agent

Autonomous Research & Monitoring

agent

Targets

~70 users across 2 schools

Schools

Brooklyn Prep

42 staff

River STEM Academy

28 staff

Roles

School Leader

Operations Lead

Individuals

Elena Vasquez

Chief Student Success Officer

Marcus Thompson

Senior Advisor

Risks

Student support grant budget overrun — acceptance rate at 48%, approaching $80K caphigh

Advisor capacity bottleneck — 50 at-risk students across only 4 active advisorshigh

Staff turnover at Downtown — 2 senior advisors resigned, student handoffs pendingmedium

Competitor poaching — Peer network targeting the same segment with digital-first supportmedium

Budget

Spent $27K / $71K

ItemBudgetSpent

Student support grants for at-risk students25 students × $1,800 average intervention grant$45K$18K

Student success review sessions20 students × $1,000/session (senior student success advisor rate)$20K$0

Student satisfaction survey3 rounds × $1K (external NPS vendor quote)$3K$1K

Student family engagement events2 events × $1,500 (venue + catering for 15 guests)$3K$0

Agent reasoning

I analyzed student data across your Student Success schools and found a significant attendance risk pattern concentrated in upper-middle enrollment bands. Here is why I am recommending immediate action.

Reasoning chain

Data reviewed

Read 14,287 student profiles, 2.3M student records, and 847 advisor interaction logs from the Student Information System and Historical Student Data Warehouse.

Pattern identified

Found that students who reduce activity by more than 40%, skip scheduled support reviews, and decrease digital engagement are 6x more likely to leave within 90 days.

Scale assessed

Identified 50 students matching this pattern in Brooklyn Prep and River STEM Academy, representing 340 students retained potential across the next academic cycle.

Competitor context

Cross-referenced competitor and district feeds. 67% of recently departed students moved to schools with stronger personalized digital support. This is not just a pricing issue; it is an engagement issue.

Action designed

Recommended proactive advisor outreach with personalized talking points per student, student support grants for high-risk cases, and review sessions. Estimated total cost is $71K.

Data the agent read

Student Information System14,287 student profilesLast 24 months

Historical Student Data Warehouse2.3M student recordsLast 12 months

Advisor Interaction Logs847 meeting notes & call logsLast 6 months

State Policy MonitorCompetitor offers and district trendsReal-time

Student Survey Data3 NPS survey roundsQ3 2025 – Q1 2026

94%confidence

Based on the data I reviewed, I'm 94% confidentin this recommendation. The three columns below break down what I'm sure about, where I have uncertainty, and what assumptions underpin this proposal.

What I'm sure about

I had full access to student profiles and historical engagement history across both target schools, with no data gaps.

The behavioral pattern (reduced activity -> skipped reviews -> disengagement) is consistent across 18 months of historical departures. This is not a one-off signal.

The 50 at-risk students I identified are a well-defined, actionable list — not a vague segment.

What I'm less sure about

Cost estimate assumes about 50% intervention-plan acceptance. If acceptance is higher, cost could overshoot by 20%. I recommend a hard cap at $80K.

Competitor analysis is based on market and district context feeds, not direct exit interviews. The engagement thesis could be wrong for some students.

I cannot fully assess advisor relationship quality from interaction logs alone, so some student concerns may still be unlogged.

Assumptions I'm making

Proactive outreach within the 90-day window will be more effective than reactive family engagement after a student signals intent to leave.

Support grants and student success reviews are the right levers for this segment, though some students may need different interventions.

Activity

AI Agent · Suggestion: intervention-plan acceptance rate is 48% and approaching the $80K cap. Consider pausing new grants or raising the cap.Mar 26, 10:00 AM

AI Agent · Daily risk scores updated — 3 students moved from high to medium risk after contactMar 26, 8:30 AM

AI Agent · ⚡ Suggestion: Richard Hartwell (risk 92%) hasn't been contacted yet — recommend priority outreach this weekMar 25, 2:00 PM

Marcus Thompson · Marked completed: "Schedule program reviews for top 10 students"Mar 25, 11:00 AM

Sarah Chen · Budget updated — $45K -> $50K for student support grants (5 additional students)Mar 25, 9:15 AM

AI Agent · First metrics available — attendance risk rate tracking initiatedMar 24, 3:00 PM

Marcus Thompson · Student outreach started — first 5 program reviews scheduledMar 24, 10:30 AM

AI Agent · First at-risk report generated — 50 students scoredMar 24, 9:00 AM

AI Agent · Notified assigned advisors and school leadersMar 23, 2:15 PM

AI Agent · Deployed — model live, at-risk student list published to platformMar 23, 2:00 PM

SRC

School Review Committee · School Review Committee approvedMar 23, 11:00 AM

Sarah Chen · Approved — approach, student list, and $71K budget authorizedMar 22, 9:30 AM

Governance Engine · Compliance cleared — data access and outreach policies verifiedMar 19, 3:15 PM

AI Agent · Proposal generated with 50 at-risk students identifiedMar 19, 2:47 PM

AI Agent · Research initiated — read 14K student profiles, 2.3M student recordsMar 19, 2:40 PM