Out PDF

Running Head: CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING CHRONIC

ABSENTEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
A CAPSTONE RESEARCH PROJECT
Submitted to the Faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Wingate University School of Graduate Education
By
Jessica N. Grant
Wingate University
Ballantyne Campus
Charlotte, NC
May 2016
ProQuest Number: 10105995
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 10105995
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
CHRONIC ABSENEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS ii
APPROVAL SHEET
UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING CHRONIC

ABSENTEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Jessica N. Grant
© Copyright 2016 Jessica N. Grant
All Rights Reserved. Wingate University School of Graduate Education has permission to
reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the
University, including, without limitation, preservation and instruction.
CHRONIC ABSENEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS iii
ABSTRACT
Jessica N. Grant
Wingate University School of Graduate and Continuing Education
Chair: Dr. Christopher I. Cobitz
Keywords: (chronic absenteeism, attendance, truancy, high school, secondary school).
Student absenteeism is a growing problem in public schools across the country and the
adverse effects have been well established through research. The purpose of this study was to
gain insight into student chronic absenteeism in secondary schools through an examination of
school-related, family-related and self-concept/perseverance factors. Data were collected for
these factors via online student and teacher surveys as well as feedback obtained during student
and teacher focus group sessions.
Survey responses were compared between chronically absent and regularly attending
students as well as between students and teachers. Statistically significant differences were
found between chronically absent and regularly attending students within school-related and
family-related survey items. Chi square analyses revealed statistically significant differences
between student responses and teacher responses for school-related and family-related factors.
Discourse analysis of the student focus group indicated poor peer relationships, lack of teacher
support and academic struggles were primary sources of absenteeism. Discourse analysis of the
teacher focus group pointed to insufficient school policies, lack of administrative oversight and
enforcement, and poor parental influence as root causes of student absenteeism. Additional areas
for both future study and for action surfaced through all the responses.
CHRONIC ABSENEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS iv
VITAE
JESSICA N. GRANT
PERSONAL
818 Waverly Court NE, Concord, NC 28025
Email: jngrant1@gmail.com
Birthplace: Huntington, WV, USA, 1978
EDUCATION
Education Specialist Degree, Wingate University, 2014
Master of School Administration, Western Carolina University, 2009
Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2000
CERTIFICATES AND LICENSES

School Administration: Superintendent
School Administrations: Principal Grades K-12
Special Education: General Curriculum K-12
EC Language Arts K-6
EMPLOYMENT
Director of Student Services and Secondary Education, Kannapolis City Schools, 2012-Present
Curriculum Coordinator, Kannapolis City Schools, 2011-2012
Assistant Principal, Kannapolis City Schools, 2008-2011
Freshman Academy Coordinator, 2007-2008
Exceptional Children’s Teacher, 2004-2007
MEMBERSHIPS
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
North Carolina Association for School Administrators
National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth
American School Counselor Association
North Carolina School Counselor Association
CHRONIC ABSENEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my family, without whose support, I could not have
completed this journey. To my husband, Buki, there simply aren’t words to express my gratitude
for your selflessness, encouragement and patience with me during these past three years. Thank
you taking on more than your share and making sacrifices to allow me to work toward my goals.
To my amazing children, Harrison and Vivienne, your unconditional love has provided me the
motivation to keep going when I didn’t think I could. I love you so much and I dedicate this
work to you. May you always dream big! To my parents, Claude and JoAnn, I am eternally
grateful for your unyielding support, love and reassurance. Thank you for providing such an
inspiring example of how hard work and dedication can pay off and for always being my biggest
cheerleaders.
To my chairperson, Dr. Christopher Cobitz, I cannot thank you enough for your
guidance, thoughtful feedback and encouragement throughout this process. I also must thank the
other members of my committee, Dr. Rick Watkins and Dr. Chip Buckwell, whom I was so
fortunate to have steering me along the course to completion. To the Ed.D. program faculty at
Wingate, you all have played a role in getting me to this point and I am so appreciative of your
influence on my learning and leadership growth over these past three years.
To my colleagues who carried me through many Saturdays, I am so grateful for all of
you. I would not have embarked on this adventure if it weren’t for this cohort of extraordinary
individuals whose friendship I value so sincerely. I also owe a great deal of thanks to the
Kannapolis City Schools Board of Education and leadership team who provided this amazing
opportunity and make KCS such wonderful place for so many.

CHRONIC ABSENEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………… iii
VITAE………………………………………………………………………………………. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………........................ v
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………….. viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION……………….……………….................................... 1
Theoretical Framework……………….………………............................................ 3
Problem Statement………………………………………………………………… 5
Significance of the Study……………………………………..…………………… 7
Research Questions………………………………………………………..………. 8
Limitations………………………………………………………………………… 8
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………..……. 9
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE……………………………. 11
Impact of Chronic Absenteeism…………………………………………..……….. 12
Defining the Problem……………………………………………………..……….. 13
Factors Influencing Absenteeism…………………………………………………. 15
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………... 24
Participants………………………………………………………………………… 24
Procedure and Analysis Plan……………………………………..………………... 26
Research Question #1……………………………………..……………….............. 27

CHRONIC ABSENEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS vii
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS……………………………………………………………... 32
Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………… 32
Summary…………………………………………………………………………... 48
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………... 50
Overview of Findings…………………………….………………………………... 50
Limitations………………………………………………………………………… 52
Recommendations…………………………………………………………………. 52
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………… 57
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………… 67
APPENDIX A: Panorama Online Student Survey………………………………… 68
APPENDIX B: Panorama Online Teacher Survey………………………………... 71
APPENDIX C: Student Focus Group Questions………………………………….. 73
APPENDIX D: Parental Permission for Student Focus Group Participation……... 74
APPENDIX E: Teacher Focus Group Questions………………………………….. 75
APPENDIX F: Teacher Consent for Focus Group Participation………………….. 76
APPENDIX G: Research Review Board Permission……………………………… 78

CHRONIC ABSENEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Change in Chronic Absenteeism from 2012-2013 to 20132014……………... 26
Table 4.1 Chi Squared Analyses of School-related Factors for Chronically Absent vs. 34
Non-chronically Absent Students……………………………………………..
Table 4.2 Chi Squared Analyses of Family-related Factors for Chronically Absent vs. 39
Table 4.3 Chi Squared Analyses of Perceived Perseverance for Chronically Absent vs. 41
Table 4.4 Chi Squared Analyses of Teachers’ Responses vs. Students’ Responses……. 43
Table 4.5 Teacher Responses to Survey Items Related to Student Absenteeism……….. 45

CHRONIC ABSENEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS ix
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
An estimated 7.5 million students in kindergarten through twelfth grade miss a month of
school or more each year nationwide (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2012). Few would argue with the
notion that this poor attendance is associated with adverse outcomes. Students who fail to show
up to school consistently are at a higher risk for retention and dropping out, correlated to even
more social, economic and health problems in adulthood (Allensworth & Easton, 2007; Ingul,
Klöckner, Silverman, & Nordahl, 2012; Sheldon & Epstein, 2004). While quite troubling, these
findings are not surprising. Instruction cannot be delivered to students who are not present in
their classrooms. Educators are faced with a significant challenge as they attempt to unravel the
complex nature of absenteeism. And the urgency to resolve these truancy issues intensifies as
students near and surpass compulsory attendance age while in high school. Attention to this
problem has recently mounted as the Obama administration launched a nationwide “Every
Student, Every Day” initiative in October 2015 to combat chronic absenteeism through federal
data collection, resource development, early warning systems, mentoring initiatives and
advertising campaigns (Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, 2015).
This study sought to explore the issue of chronic absenteeism at the secondary level and
better understand school, family and self-concept factors associated with non-attendance. A
mixed-method research design was applied to obtain both quantitative and qualitative data
related to school absenteeism factors and perceptions. Surveys were utilized to investigate high
school students’ perceptions across various categories and compare views of those students who
attend regularly to those who are chronically absent. In addition, the research investigated high
school teachers’ perceptions across similar categories and compared these perceptions to student
CHRONIC ABSENEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS 1
feedback to determine parallels and distinctions. Views expressed during focus group sessions
with both students and teachers were also incorporated to gain further insight into absenteeism
factors.
Theoretical Framework
Each year, 10 to 15 percent of students across the United States miss more than 10
percent of the school year (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2012). The negative impacts of chronic
absenteeism are far-reaching. Research has established strong correlations between chronic
absenteeism and poor academic performance, substance abuse, criminal behavior, teen
pregnancy, dropping out and future unemployment (Attwood & Croll, 2006; Dembo, Briones-
Robinson, Barrett, Winters, Schmeidler, Ungaro & Gulledge, 2013; Kearney, 2008; Maynard,
Salas-Wright, Vaughn, & Peters, 2012; Paredes & Ugarte, 2011; Sheldon & Epstein, 2004).
High school absenteeism serves as an especially strong predictor of such outcomes. A study
conducted by Allensworth and Easton (2007) revealed that ninth grade attendance could be used
to predict four-year high school graduation outcomes with 90 percent accuracy for nearly 25,000
students in Chicago Public Schools.
While the effects are evident, the sources of absenteeism can be quite complex,
presenting a significant challenge to educators. Moreover, the lack of research and consistently
applied tracking methods, assigned parameters, and truancy definitions has further complicated
the problem. In a comprehensive literature review regarding truancy interventions, Sutphen,
Ford, and Flaherty (2010) discovered only 16 peer-reviewed research studies examining truancy
interventions between 1990 and 2007, with only eight of those studies utilizing group
comparison designs and two reporting effect size data. There was no consistent definition of
poor attendance or truancy established across these identified studies (Sutphen et al., 2010).
Attendance tracking is also inconsistent across school districts throughout the United
States, further complicating the challenge to educators (Henry, 2007). Many districts look
strictly at average daily attendance, which is simply the total number of days of attendance for all
students in a school divided by the total number of school days in a given period. This measure
can actually disguise the real problem. Consider the example provided by Bruner, Discher, and
Change (2011):
Even in a school of 200 students with 95 percent average daily attendance, 30 percent (or
60) of the students could be missing nearly a month of school (i.e. chronically absent)
over the course of the school year. It all depends whether absences are due to most
students missing a few days or excessive absences among a small but still significant
minority of students. (p. 2)
Defining absenteeism as “chronic” requires the assignment of a specific parameter. Most often
chronic absenteeism refers to missing 10 percent or more of a school year, regardless of the
reason for the absence (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2012). Both excused and unexcused absenteeism
have been linked to health risk behaviors in public school students (Eaton, Brener, & Kann,
2008).
School absenteeism increases as students get older (Attwood & Croll, 2006; De Wit,
Karioja, & Rye, 2010). The circumstances prompting students to miss school change as they
advance through the grades. In addition to developmental changes, parental influences and
social factors are also altered. However, policies related to truancy and absenteeism rarely take
these distinctions into account. While we often encourage educators to differentiate curriculum
and instruction based on varied needs, that approach is less frequently applied to policy
development. Research has also indicated that students experience a significant decline in
emotional support from both peers and teachers as they transition to high school (De Wit et al.,
2010). This further underscores the need to examine educator attitudes, relationships and
practices at the secondary level to effectively engage students and combat absenteeism.
Promoting regular attendance and developing effective truancy interventions should
require a comprehensive examination of individual student factors in combination with external
school and family-related factors (Kearney, 2008).
Problem Statement
In investigations of school truancy, predictors and correlations have often been associated
with demographic or socioeconomic variables. Less attention has been given to school-related
factors, such as climate, culture, or educator support. Other external factors, such as peer
influence and family dynamics, have also been somewhat limited in truancy-related research.
Even in studies where peer-related factors such as bullying have been examined, the examination
has been primarily limited to younger students (Gastic, 2008).
Despite efforts aimed at improving attendance district-wide, 23 percent of students
enrolled at the high school included in this study were chronically absent during the 2013-2014
school year, an increase from the previous school year. Examination of absenteeism at the
secondary level requires educators to look beyond the research conducted in lower grades.
Student experiences and needs change as they transition to upper grades, requiring educators to
take a distinct look at truancy risk factors and interventions for high school students. One study
of middle school students transitioning to high school concluded that the reported quality of
school environment declined significantly from one level to the next (Barber & Olsen, 2004).
This was especially true in terms of perceived teacher support. De Wit et al. (2010) substantiated
and extended this research by establishing a positive association between declining perceptions
of teacher support and attendance. Through a growth curve analysis, they found that both
perceived teacher and classmate support are diminished following the transition from middle to
high school (De Wit et al., 2010). These findings suggest that school climate and support factors
related to both teachers and peers should be given serious consideration when examining truancy
diversion programs and related interventions at the secondary level.
With value-added assessment systems being widely used to evaluate both teacher and
school effectiveness, chronic absenteeism demands even more attention as a result of growth
formula calculations. North Carolina began including data from the Education Value Added
Assessment System (EVAAS) in the NC Educator Evaluation System for teachers and school
administrators in 2011 (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.). This system
applies a statistical response model formula to project a student’s performance on a particular
assessment and compare that to his or her actual performance, which is then factored in to a
teacher’s effectiveness rating (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, n.d.). However,
this predicted performance is based on the assumption that students make progress that is
average for students academically like them statewide (North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction, n.d.). Suppose a student misses an excessive number of school days but is enrolled
the required 140 days of the school year to count toward a teacher’s EVAAS effectiveness rating.
That student’s projected progress is likely to be below average compared to students who
regularly attended school. In North Carolina, daily student attendance is not included in the
value-added analysis and teachers are advised not to adjust their verification rosters to account
for student absenteeism (SAS Institute Inc., 2015). Consequently, teachers should have a vested
interest in ensuring students are regularly attending their classes so they have the opportunity to
impact growth through instruction. Moreover, measures such as graduation rates are being
factored into rating systems for schools and districts. In North Carolina, 80 percent of a high
school’s performance grade is measure by an achievement score, which includes four-year
graduation cohort rates (NCDPI, 2014). Chronic absenteeism may negatively impact these
graduation rates, as truancy has been a well-established predictor of eventual high school dropout
(Archambault, Janosz, Fallu, & Pagani, 2009; Balfanz, Bridgeland, Bruce, & Fox, 2012; Paredes
& Ugarte, 2011).
To get to the root cause of absenteeism at the secondary level, research must take a more
comprehensive approach and consider the interplay of multiple factors, including what motivates
students to show up. When students are not regularly attending school, educators must look
beyond the obvious barriers and identify the underlying school-related influences, such as
curriculum, teachers, and policies, which influence a student’s decision to buy-in to what schools
are offering. As Guare and Cooper (2003) suggest, educators should view students “as thinking,
rational decision makers who assess their situation and decide, like other ‘consumers’ or
‘clients,’ to ‘buy’ their units of education” (p. 15).
Significance of the Study
The value of this research will be to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the
factors related to chronic absenteeism at a specific high school, creating an opportunity for
educators to build effective truancy prevention and intervention strategies. More specifically,
this mixed-methods study uncovered prevailing attitudes of chronically absent high school
students and compared them to peers who attended school regularly as well as provided insight
into teacher perceptions of truancy and their perceived role in the problem. The insight gained
from this research can be applied to the development of training opportunities aimed at
addressing student engagement and attendance. These findings will not only provide direction
for current reform efforts at this high school, but also offer a basis for future research related to
understanding and addressing chronic absenteeism here and in other locations.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to address the deficiencies in the research and thoroughly
investigate chronic absenteeism at the high school level in an effort to design effective truancy
interventions and develop more effective attendance-related policies. The following research
questions were addressed:
1) How do school-related factors influence attendance for chronically absent high school
students?
2) Which family-related factors relate to chronic absenteeism for high school students?
3) Which self-concept/perseverance factors relate to high school chronic absenteeism?
4) Which factors do high school teachers perceive to be causes of chronic absenteeism
for high school students?
Limitations
The most significant limitation in this study is related to the sample. The student sample
included students from only one high school and the findings may not be generalizable to
students at other high schools. Similarly, the teacher sample also included teachers from a single
high school. The level of survey response and focus group participation by students was also
limited due to the nature of this sample. Historical chronic absenteeism data for the high school
included in this study was also limited as a result of tracking procedures in the district. Prior to
2012, only average daily attendance was included in attendance data collection and reporting.
Another limitation relates the high school block schedule. Because high school students
typically attend four blocks over the course of the school day, their survey responses refer to
more than one teacher and are generalized to capture their overall perceptions. Correspondingly,
teachers’ responses on the survey are generalized to some extent because they teach up to 90
students over the course of a school day.
The high school included in this study was in a period of administrative transition at the
time the research was conducted. As a result, feedback related to school factors from both
students and teachers may have been impacted to some extent by this change in leadership.
Responses could have been indicative of more transitory issues rather than long-standing school-
related conditions.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were incorporated in this study:
Chronic absenteeism – Absenteeism is defined as chronic when a student misses 10 percent or
more of the school year for any reason. For a 180-day school year, a student who misses 18 or
more days would be considered chronically absent.
Truancy – Missing school without an acceptable or excusable reason (Gage, Sugai, Lunde, &
DeLoreto, 2013).
School refusal – Refusal to attend school, motivated by “the desire (a) to avoid school-based
stimuli that provoke negative affectivity (e.g., anxiety, depression), (b) to escape aversive social
or evaluative situations (e.g., difficulty making friends or talking to others in class or in front of
the class), (c) to get attention from significant others (e.g., parents), and/or (d) to pursue tangible
reinforcers outside school (e.g., going to the mall)” (Pina, Zerr, Gonzales, & Ortiz, 2009).
Compulsory attendance – Refers to the law governing attendance in school and varies by state.
In North Carolina, the compulsory attendance law is found within General Statue 115C-378,
requiring all children between the ages of seven and sixteen to attend school “continuously for a
period of time that is equal to the session at the public school in which the child is assigned shall
be in session” (North Carolina General Assembly, n.d., a.)
Grit – A measure of resilience in which an individual behaves passionately to reach long-term
goals (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007).

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
School attendance regulations have been influencing education in the United States since
the first compulsory attendance laws were enacted in Massachusetts in 1852, requiring children
between the ages of eight and fourteen to attend school for 12 weeks out of the year (Katz,
1976). By 1918, all states had enacted attendance laws requiring school attendance (Chicosky,
2015; Katz, 1976). These statutes differed widely in terms of regulations and enforcement.
Despite these variations, however, 90.6 percent of the students considered to be absolute
compulsory age were attending school across the nation, suggesting compulsory attendance was
becoming both a “legal standard as well as a social standard” (Katz, 1976, p. 22).
Despite numerous challenges to attendance laws and the changing educational landscape
in the United States since 1918, compulsory attendance laws have persisted. Several states have
since increased minimum schooling requirements. In 1970, only four states required students to
remain in school until age 18, and that number climbed to 19 states requiring attendance until
age 18 by 2013 (CHRISTIE, 2007; State Education Reforms (SER), n.d.). While these reform
efforts are aimed at improving attendance and graduation rates, research has not established a
significant positive impact. A 2013 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education
found “little positive impact, negative outcomes or mixed results following increases in
compulsory attendance age” (Mackey & Duncan, 2013, p. ii). Moreover, the percentage of
truancy cases handled in U.S. juvenile courts increased by 69 percent from 1995 to 2004 (Stahl,
n.d.). Simply mandating that students attend has not been sufficient in resolving attendance
issues.
While numerous efforts and initiatives aimed at reducing school absenteeism have been
launched at the federal, state and local district levels, there is a lack of convincing evidence that
any significant overall improvement has been made (Vaughn, Maynard, Salas-Wright, Perron, &
Abdon, 2013). Measuring any real impact of these efforts is complicated by inconsistent
reporting measures and imprecise definitions related to attendance. Much of the research is
focused solely on truancy rather than a broader scope of both excused and unexcused school
absenteeism (Attwood & Croll, 2006). Even when students’ absences are permissible according
to policy, they are not immune from negative consequences of missing school.
Impact of Chronic Absenteeism
The negative consequences of and correlations to not attending school regularly have
been well documented by researchers. Missing school can prove costly and impact both the
individual and society on multiple levels (Fantuzzo, Grim, & Hazan, 2005; Henry, 2007). On
the individual level, chronic absenteeism has been linked to poor academic performance and
dropping out (Balfanz et al., 2012; Zhang, Willson, Katsiyannis, Barrett, Ju, & Wu 2010;
Schoeneberger, 2012). In addition, students who are chronically absent have been found to have
a higher incidence of alcohol and drug use, social adjustment issues and psychiatric problems
compared to peers who regularly attend school (Baker, Sigmon, & Nugent, 2001; Zhang et al.,
2010; Henry, 2007; Pellegrini, 2007). Studies have also linked excessive absenteeism to
increased suicide attempts, sexual promiscuity and teen pregnancy (Kearney, 2008;
Rasasingham, 2015).
The impact of absenteeism can also reach beyond the individual student and into the
community. Truancy has been associated with increased incidence of delinquency and criminal
behavior (Henry, 2007; Ovink, 2011). Not only do truancy referrals exhaust time and resources
in juvenile court for theses youth offenders, they have also proven to have lasting effects into
adulthood. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) conducted a
longitudinal study in 1998 which revealed two-thirds of serious violent offenders and one half of
serious nonviolent offenders were truant (Hendricks, Sale, Evans, McKinley, & DeLozier Carter,
2010). Studies have also established a correlation between truancy and higher unemployment
rates, lower salaries and increased welfare benefits (Lindstadt, 2005). Truancy is not just a
school problem. Students who are not showing up to class impact the surrounding community,
in some cases immediately and in other cases subsequently.
In addition to the costly effects of absenteeism to the individual and the community,
schools can also experience a depletion of financial resources. A large percentage of school
funding in the United States is linked to attendance figures (Ovink, 2011). The actual funding
formulas vary from state to state, with some placing a greater emphasis on membership and
others incorporating daily attendance measures. While all of the mechanisms by which states
fund their schools are tied to student counts, some states are considering mechanisms to provide
financial incentives for retaining students after initial enrollment (Groginsky, 2010).
Consequently, absenteeism could soon become even more costly for public schools. Chronic
absenteeism can even impact compensation at the individual teacher level. Most teacher pay for
performance models being implemented or proposed across the U.S. are based on value-added
growth models, which do not typically take into account the actual attendance rates (Caillier,
2010).
Defining the Problem
Addressing chronic absenteeism has proven especially challenging due to inconsistencies
in defining and reporting unsatisfactory attendance. Truancy delineations and related reporting
standards vary widely across states in terms of compulsory attendance age and number of
allowable excused absences (Vaughn et al., 2013). Despite the well-established negative
outcomes associated with missing school, no uniform national definition of truancy has been
established (Sutphen et al., 2010). As a result, rates and trends are difficult to measure with any
accuracy and reliability. Truancy and related absenteeism reporting is often based on self-
reporting methods (Henry, 2007).
Chronic absenteeism problems can also be masked by average daily attendance (ADA)
calculations. According the U.S. Department of Education, ADA refers to “the aggregate
attendance of a school during a reporting period divided by the number of school days school is
in session during this period” (Snyder & Dillow, 2013). This measure is the reported indicator
for measuring attendance across the U.S. However, it fails to uncover potential chronic
absenteeism cases in which a “small but still significant minority of students” are missing an
excessive number of days (Bruner, Discher, & Chang, 2011, p. 2). Averages hide extremes and
fail to expose the chronically absent outliers (Levy, 2008).
Examining absenteeism specifically at the secondary level is also complicated by the
compulsory attendance age. Though it varies from state to state, students across the nation are
required to attend school until they reach 16, 17 or 18 years old (Snyder & Dillow, 2013).
Students are enrolled in high schools when they exceed this compulsory age. Consequently, they
can chose to no longer attend without penalty. It may appear that rates are lower in high schools
because a portion of these chronically absent students have opted to legally dropout and their
absenteeism is no longer reported (Levy, 2008).
Classifying absences as excused or unexcused can also confound the absenteeism issue.
In North Carolina, ten types of absences are considered valid, lawful excuses for nonattendance:
illness or injury, quarantine, death in the immediate family, medical or dental appointments,
court proceedings, religious observance, educational opportunity, local school board policy,
absence related to deployment, and child care for the child of whom the student is the parent or
legal guardian (NCDPI, 2014). Absences considered to be excused according to an established
list of conditions such as this may not be seen as problematic. However, the student is missing
classroom instruction regardless of the reason. A study by Eaton et al. (2008) revealed that
school absenteeism with and without permission is associated with negative risk behaviors.
They found that students who were absent with permission had significantly higher odds of
engaging in 25 of 55 risk behaviors when compared to students who were not absent (Eaton et
al., 2008).
Factors Influencing Absenteeism
The complex nature of absenteeism should not be examined through a single lens.
Research shows that multiple factors influence attendance outcomes. Four categories of
contributing factors have consistently emerged through absenteeism research: (1) individual or
student, (2) family, (3) school and (4) community or economic domains (Baker et al., 2001;
Ingul et al., 2012; Sutphen et al., 2010; Teasley, 2004). Intervention efforts aimed at
significantly impacting absenteeism in secondary schools should consider the influence of these
factors in designing effective prevention and intervention efforts.
For the purpose of this study, factors related to the school, family, and student were
examined. Community domains are often associated with income levels and other
socioeconomic measures (Sutphen et al., 2010). Obtaining accurate income information from
the students included in this sample is not feasible in that family income is considered private
information and protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires that parental consent be obtained to access
individual free and reduced lunch eligibility (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). In addition,
survey questions related to income are considered sensitive and have been found to be more
likely to produce errors or inaccuracies in reporting (Tourangeau & Yan, 2007).
School-related Factors. Poor school climate and school disengagement have been
linked to higher rates of absenteeism (Henry, 2007; Ingul et al., 2012). A longitudinal study of
6,397 students across 125 middle and high schools by Brookmeyer, Fanti & Henrich (2006)
revealed that school climate and connectedness factors were significantly positively related to
attendance rates. Positive school climate has been established as a protective factor that
moderates negative and risky behavior, such as truancy, in adolescence (Loukas, Suzuki, &
Horton, 2006). In a study of 489 middle school students, Loukas et al. (2006) determined that
strong school connectedness acts as a mediator for school climate in terms of cohesion, friction
and overall class satisfaction, resulting in fewer conduct issues.
Engaging a student in school can be attributed to a multitude of approaches and
interventions. Often engagement is characterized by enhanced interest and relationships with
adults. Establishing a mentoring relationship with an adult has been shown to enhance students’
connection to school and, consequently, lessen their risk of being truant (DeSocio et al., 2007).
Advisory programs have also been found to enhance school engagement and associated positive
outcomes in secondary schools (Van Ryzin, 2010).
Wilkins (2008) investigated the motivating factors contributing to the willingness of
students who were previously truant to regularly attend an alternative school. The qualitative
analysis of the interviews conducted with students in grades eight through eleven indicated that
they were motivated by school climate, academic environment, discipline, and relationships with
teachers (Wilkins, 2008). Additional research has supported the positive correlation between
supportive school climates and student attendance. Ingul et al. (2012) researched multiple risk
factors associated with absenteeism. Based on their analysis of 865 high school students, it was
determined that externalizing behavior, family health, and school environment were the strongest
predictors of attendance problems (Ingul et al., 2012). More specifically, they found lack of
perceived safety, lack of respect and insufficient teacher contact as the most significant school-
related factors contributing to absenteeism.
A study by Gastic (2008) revealed that students victimized by bullying were more
frequently absent than students who were not bullied by peers. Of the tenth grade students
surveyed, those who reported bullying victimization were 58 percent more likely to demonstrate
excessive absenteeism (Gastic, 2008).
School-related truancy factors have also been identified internationally. Attwood and
Croll (2006) conducted a large-scale, longitudinal study of approximately 770 British students
between the ages of 11 and 15 as well as smaller-scale interview study of 17 British students
who were persistently truant in high school. Both studies revealed that poor student-teacher
relationships were strongly associated with higher levels of truancy (Attwood & Croll, 2006).
Students’ negative attitudes toward school were linked to climate, lack of support and poor
relationships rather than any curricular factors. A study examining absenteeism in 13 primary
schools and 14 secondary schools in England revealed “secondary school pupils are more likely
to attribute their absence from school to school-related factors than home-related factors”
(Malcolm, Wilson, Davidson, & Kirk, 2003, p. vii).
School size and socioeconomic status have also been found to influence attendance.
Larger schools in low-income districts have been associated with higher incidence of truancy
compared to smaller schools in suburban and rural areas (Teasley, 2004). The actual
enforcement of attendance policies by school has also been found to influence absenteeism rates.
More consistent policy enforcement is associated with lower incidence of truancy (Epstein &
Sheldon, 2002; Teasley, 2004).
Family-related Factors. Family factors can also play a significant role in chronic
absenteeism. Parental factors such as willingness to monitor children, engagement in discussions
with children regarding school, school volunteering, and membership in parent-teacher
organizations have been found to positively influence attendance (Kearney, 2008; Sheldon &
Epstein, 2004). Teasley (2004) also identified crowded living conditions, poor parent-child
relationships, and frequent relocation to negatively impact student attendance.
While not specifically related to absenteeism, Caldas (1999) analyzed tenth grade
achievement scores from 42,041 students on the Graduation Exit Examination and found that
single-parent families proved a much stronger predictor of satisfactory scores than race, poverty
level, school spending or teaching experience. This further supports the notion that family
structure does play a significant role in educational outcomes.
A study of school refusal behavior by McShane, Walter, and Rey (2001) identified family
conflicts at home, family separation, and family history of psychiatric illness to be risk factors
for such behavior. They also found that school refusal symptoms most often began during the
first two years of high school (McShane et al., 2001). In another study related to school refusal,
Carless, Melvin, Tonge, and Newman (2015) found that parental self-efficacy was significantly
associated with increased incidence of school refusal behavior. They measured self-efficacy of
these parents in terms of perceived confidence and competence in carrying out parenting tasks
(Carless et al., 2015).
Because of the identified family factors contributing to absenteeism, successful truancy
intervention programs often incorporate a family component. DeSocio et al. (2007) determined a
particular truancy intervention program was effective in reducing absenteeism for high school
students who received teacher mentoring. This intervention also included a family involvement
component in which parents participated in the development of re-entry plans, received
telephone contacts, and were offered public transportation (DeSocio et al., 2007). While not
specifically included in their analysis, this additional support likely enhanced the positive
outcomes for the students in the treatment group.
After-school and extended day programs are also used to combat truancy and provide
opportunities for academic recovery and engagement as well as supervision of students while
many parents work. Studies have demonstrated the positive impact of family involvement in
after-school intervention programs, offering varied opportunities for support, resources, and
communication with educators (Little, Wimer, & Weiss, 2008).
Student Self-concept and Perseverance Factors. A student’s self-concept is also a
significant piece of the absenteeism puzzle. Self-concept can be defined as “an individual’s
perceptions of the self that are formed through experiences and evaluative feedback received
from significant others” (Bong, Cho, Ahn, & Kim, 2012, p. 336). A longitudinal study of 1866
high school students in Australia indicated that self-concept was a positive predictor for attitude
toward school, participation, attendance, and test performance (Green et al., 2012).
Students who are chronically absent typically experience higher levels of anxiety,
affective and disruptive disorders, and substance abuse compared to students who attend school
regularly (Ingul et al., 2012). Understanding these risk factors and assessing students effectively
can also prove beneficial in development of interventions. In a study of 192 students
demonstrating school refusal, McShane et al. (2001) found that these students had a significantly
higher incidence of anxiety and mood disorders. Academic difficulties and conflict with family
members and peers were identified as the most common sources of onset for these symptoms
(McShane et al., 2001). It is important, therefore, to consider these individual factors in
combination with external factors such as peer and family relations.
While ability is an obvious predictor of academic success, motivation and willingness
have also been found to predict positive educational outcomes. A study by Willingham, Pollack,
and Lewis (2002) found that willingness factors such as attendance, participation in
extracurricular activities, and initiative can strongly predict academic performance. Whether the
source of motivation is intrinsic or extrinsic, students who are willing to show up are taking a
step toward educational success.
Individual personality traits can also be linked to students’ educational outcomes. A
study by Poropat (2009) examined the correlation between the five-factor personality model and
academic success. Of the five factors, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness were
most strongly correlated with positive outcomes (Poropat, 2009). Moreover, conscientiousness
was found to predict performance as well as does intelligence (Poropat, 2009). Personality
factors can compensate for what students lack in terms of ability.
Conscientiousness is closely related to perseverance, self-control, and grit (Ivcevic &
Brackett, 2014). Grit refers to “persistence over time to accomplish goals” (Goodwin & Miller,
2013). It has also been described as “passion coupled with the tenacity to overcome obstacles or
challenges” (Sobel, 2014, p. 1). Students who are chronically absent may be experiencing
obstacles or challenges which prevent them from attending school. Overcoming such challenges
requires some degree of grit. In addition, perseverance is necessary even when those obstacles
are removed as students have often fallen behind as a result of their absences. Duckworth et al.
(2007) found that grit demonstrated better predictive validity of success than IQ in a study of
ivy-league undergraduates and spelling bee participants.
Teacher Perceptions and Influence. In order to intervene or support chronically absent
students effectively, teachers must develop an understanding of their potential influence and the
perceptions of their students. Klem and Connell (2004) researched the impact of teacher support
on student engagement and achievement at six urban elementary schools and three urban middle
schools. Based on analyses of academic and behavior data, engagement inventories and
perceived teacher support surveys, they determined that a significant positive correlations exists
between engagement, behavior, and achievement as well as between perceived teacher support
and engagement. Students who felt unsupported were 93 percent less likely to experience school
engagement (Klem & Connell, 2004). Students often respond more favorably to teachers who
take on supportive and encouraging roles. Wilkins (2008) found that chronically absent students
who were moved to a smaller alternative setting attributed their improvements to stronger
teacher relationships where they gained a “sense of power, status, and importance that they had
previously not experienced in school” (p. 22).
Teachers may also react to absenteeism based on the impact those student absences have
had on them. In a study of the effect of truancy on peers and teachers from 13 primary schools
and 14 secondary schools in England, Wilson, Malcolm, Edward, and Davidson (2008) found
that teachers across all grades resented the time and effort they had to devote to catching students
up who had missed class. Teachers also described these students as more demanding than other
students because they do not readily develop routines in class and experience more difficulty in
forming trusting relationships (Wilson et al., 2008). Such perceptions and frustrations can play a
significant role in the student-teacher dynamic and, consequently, intensify the student’s
absenteeism.
As students transition to the secondary level, their perception of teacher support declines
(De Wit et al., 2010). Such perception can impact their connectedness to school. Whitlock
(2006) found this trend of declining school connectedness to continue as students move through
secondary grades, with seniors reporting the lowest connectedness outcomes. The connectedness
measure was defined as “a psychological state of belonging in which individual youth perceive
that they and other youth are cared for, trusted, and respected by collections of adults that they
believe hold the power to make institutional and policy decisions” (Whitlock, 2006, p. 15)
While developmental needs change as students get older, their need for interpersonal
relationships, support and trust does not disappear. Teachers play a major role in developing
students’ connectedness and engagement.
Climate has previously been identified as a predictor of school absenteeism. Teachers
impact that climate in many ways, including within their own classroom environment. Students
are more likely to miss class if they feel the environment is chaotic or boring (Epstein &
Sheldon, 2002). This can account for the variability in period or block attendance in secondary
schools in which students may cut only some of their classes over the course of a given day. A
teacher’s own absenteeism can also be detrimental to the school climate. Imants and Van
Zoelen (1995) found that teacher absenteeism was strongly related to several school climate
factors, especially in terms of collegial relations. In another study focused on teacher
absenteeism, Roby (2013) found that teacher attendance in Ohio schools was significantly
correlated to both student attendance and student achievement. Substitutes assigned to cover
classes often lack licensure, content knowledge and established connections with students (Roby,
2013).
The impacts of strong mentoring relationships with teachers have also proven beneficial
for students (Erickson, McDonald, & Elder, 2009; Fruiht & Wray-Lake, 2013). However,
schools should also be intentional about the selection of teacher mentors for students with high
rates of absenteeism. Rather than mandate participation in staff mentoring, the desire and
commitment of the teacher should factor in assignments. In one study of a truancy intervention
pilot at an urban high school in the Northeast United States, DeSocio et al. (2007) found that
assignment of a teacher mentor resulted in improved attendance and greater probability of
remaining in school for the 29 chronically absent students who received this intervention
compared to the 37 students who did not. Teachers were asked to apply to serve as mentors for
chronically absent students and were required to offer weekly tutoring, ongoing student
advocacy, and participate regularly in mentor support sessions with other mentors.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into student chronic absenteeism at the
secondary level. The researcher investigated the impact of school, family and self-concept
factors on absenteeism in grades nine through twelve as well as high school teachers’ perceptions
of non-attendance and their perceived influence on attendance outcomes. A mixed-method
research design was applied to obtain both quantitative and qualitative data related to school
absenteeism through survey and discourse analyses. The following research questions guided
the study:
1. How do school-related factors influence attendance for chronically absent high school
students?
2. Which family-related factors relate to chronic absenteeism for high school students?
3. Which self-concept/perseverance factors relate to chronic absenteeism for high school
students?
4. Which factors do high school teachers perceive to be causes of chronic absenteeism
for high school students?
Participants
This research study included student and teacher participants from a single high school in
a medium-sized district located in the Southern Piedmont region of North Carolina. At the time
of the study, 1414 students were enrolled in grades nine through twelve at this high school. Of
those students enrolled, approximately 40 percent were White, 33 percent Black, 21 percent
Hispanic, 4 percent Multiracial and 2 percent Asian. On average, 50 percent of students are
eligible for free or reduced lunch. However, this figure is a conservative estimate as high school
students are generally less likely to complete the application (Mirtcheva & Powell, 2009).
District-wide, approximately 74 percent of the 5500 students enrolled were eligible for free or
reduced lunch at the time of this study. The high school employs 106 teachers, 59 percent of
whom have more than 10 years of teaching experience. The school experienced approximately
17 percent teacher turnover during the 2013-2014 school year, just over one percent higher than
the average turnover rate in North Carolina (“NC Report Cards,” 2014).
The district launched an initiative in 2013 to address chronic absenteeism in grades
kindergarten through 12. This initiative included data tracking, awareness, incentives and
establishment of truancy court in collaboration with a neighboring school district. While
declines were evident across all elementary schools and remained stable at the middle school
from 2013 to 2014, there was a significant increase in chronic absenteeism at the high school
level over the same period. Table 3.1 specifies this change across the school district. This
prompted district leaders to take a closer look at factors impacting absenteeism at the secondary
level.
Table 3.1
Change in Chronic Absenteeism from 2012-2013 to 2013-2014
School Chronically Absent Chronically Absent Change
2012-2013 2013-2014
Elementary #1 16% 11% -5%
Middle School 17% 17% -0%
High School 15% 23% +8%
Procedure and Analysis Plan
During the 2013-2014 school year, approximately 23 percent of students enrolled in this
high school missed 10 percent or more of the 180-day school year. To identify a population of
chronically absent students for the surveys administered by the school district, an analysis of
attendance data for the first semester of the 2014-2015 school year was conducted. 215 students
missed 10 percent or more of the first semester and were considered chronically absent. Survey
responses from these chronically absent students were compared to the survey responses of non-
chronically absent peers to determine areas of significant differences. All student responses were
anonymous. Of the 1414 survey links provided to enrolled high school students, 1122 were
completed. Teacher survey links were provided to all 90 classroom teachers employed at the
high school. 73 teachers completed this survey. To obtain further qualitative insight into the
issue of chronic absenteeism, 15 high school students were randomly selected and five agreed to
participate in a focus group session. Ten teachers were randomly selected to participate in a
focus group session to obtain further insight into teacher perceptions of chronic absenteeism.
Eight of those ten teachers participated in the focus group. The identity of both students and
teachers in this study remained hidden. Consent was obtained for students who participated in
the focus group session. Teachers also signed a consent form acknowledging the background,
purpose, and confidentiality of their participation in the teacher focus group session.
The following data collection and analyses were included in this study in an effort to
address the outlined research questions:
Research Question #1: How do school-related factors influence attendance for chronically
absent high school students?
Explanation. Various school-related factors, such as climate, safety and engagement,
have been significantly correlated to school truancy through research (Brookmeyer, Fanti, &
Henrich, 2006; Henry, 2007; Ingul et al., 2012; Wilkins, 2008). In addition, relationships with
teachers have also been found to significantly contribute to school engagement, especially as
students transition to secondary grades (De Wit et al., 2010; Imants & Zoelen, 1995; Klem &
Connell, 2004; Whitlock, 2006). The district leadership opted to survey all students enrolled at
the high school regarding these factors in an effort to gain insight into their perceptions and
determine areas of significant difference between chronically absent and non-chronically absent
students.
Instruments. The Likert scale survey included 41 questions and was developed in
collaboration with the school district and Panorama Education. Panorama is a data analytics
company based in Boston that assists school districts in conducting student, teacher and parent
surveys related to education. Panorama founder, Dr. Hunter Gehlbach, and his team of
researchers from the Harvard Graduate School of Education applied advanced survey
methodology to develop valid, reliable surveys subscales related to student perceptions of
pedagogy, environment, expectations, engagement, relationships, sense of belonging, interest in
subjects, and safety in an effort to provide schools and districts a way to measure students’
school experiences (Panorama Education, 2015). The survey developed by the school district
included in this study included a sample of items from these subscales to assess school climate.
More specifically, the online student survey included 26 school climate-related questions
(APPENDIX A). Students were asked to reflect on the physical school environment,
communication, instruction, expectations and interpersonal relationships with teachers and peers
using a Likert scale.
To provide further insight into climate and school experiences, five students participated
in a focus group session and were asked to reflect on school-related factors influencing their
attendance and engagement. The application of a focus group interview in research can be used
to support and expound on quantitative data obtained in a study (Cheng, 2014). The shared
experience of missing school makes these participants more likely to have opinions on the
interview questions and an increased willingness to participate in discussion (Hatch, 2002). The
interview questions included in this focus group session were generated based on existing
literature related to the influence of school-related factors on attendance as well as survey
responses.
Analysis. Chi square analyses were applied to compare the responses of students who
were chronically absent with those of students who were not chronically absent during the first
semester of the 2014-2015 school year. Feedback obtained during the student focus group
session was analyzed using discourse analysis.
Research Question #2: Which family-related factors relate to chronic absenteeism for high
school students?
Explanation. Family-related factors have also been linked to attendance outcomes and
school refusal (Carless et al., 2015; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Kearney, 2008; McShane et al.,
2001). In an effort to gain insight into the influence of these factors at this high school, the
school district included these family-related factors on the survey and in student focus group
questions.
Instruments. The school district included eight Likert scale questions on the student
survey to assess parental engagement and support. Students who participated in the focus group
session also provided additional insight related to the role of family support on their own school
attendance.
Analysis. A chi squared analysis was applied to this extant survey data to determine
which, if any, family support and engagement factors presented significant differences between
chronically absent and non-chronically absent high school students who completed the survey.
Feedback obtained from the student focus group session was analyzed using discourse analysis
and included in the findings.
Research Question #3: Which student self-concept factors relate to chronic absenteeism in
high school?
Explanation. Because self-concept factors and perseverance factors have been linked to
school attendance, participation and performance outcomes, the school district sought to gain
further insight into these potential influences for their students (Green et al., 2012; Poropat,
2009; Willingham, Pollack, & Lewis, 2002). More specifically, they wanted to explore the
impact of perceived conscientiousness and grit on attendance outcomes. Duckworth (2007)
found this to be more predictive of school success than IQ. Survey items related to self-concept
and perceived perseverance were included on the student survey to gain further insight.
Instruments. The school district included a grit subscale survey developed by Panorama
Education. This subscale was designed to assess students’ perceived ability to overcome
setbacks in reaching long-term goals (Panorama Education, 2015). The online student survey
included six Likert scale questions related to grit.
Analysis. A chi squared analysis was applied to these extant survey results to determine
if disparities existed in perceived grit of chronically absent students compared to students who
are were not chronically absent.
Research Question #4: What factors do teachers perceive to be causes of chronic
absenteeism for high school students?
Explanation. Teachers have been found to significantly contribute to school
engagement, achievement and attendance outcomes through relationships with their students (De
Wit et al., 2010; Klem & Connell, 2004). Furthermore, teacher attitudes toward truancy have
been found to negatively impact these relationships (Wilson et al., 2008). The school district
included survey items related perceptions of absenteeism on the teacher survey as well as the
teacher focus group questions.
In addition to assessing students’ perceptions of their relationships with teachers as
school-related factors, the school district also sought to gain insight into teacher perceptions of
the same school-related and family-related factors students were asked about to uncover any
areas of incongruity. These differences could signal areas of need and potential factors
contributing to student absenteeism.
Instruments. The school district administered an online survey to classroom teachers at
the high school included in this study to assess their perception of school climate, family
engagement and attendance. The teacher survey included 32 Likert scale questions comparable
to the questions included on the student survey. Three questions were included in the teacher
survey related specifically to attendance and student chronic absenteeism. The incongruence
between teacher and student perceptions of school climate factors can provide valuable insight
into areas of need and programming priorities for improvement efforts (Mitchell, Bradshaw, &
Leaf, 2010).
A random sample of 10 classroom teachers from the high school included in this study
were invited to participate in a focus group session. Questions presented during this focus group
session were designed to provide insight into teachers’ perceptions of student absenteeism and
their perceived role in intervening
Analysis. The teacher perceptions assessed on this survey were compared to the student
perceptions on the student survey to determine consistencies and discrepancies using chi squared
analyses. In addition, chi squared analyses were performed on the three teacher survey items
related specifically to chronic absenteeism against a 90 percent positive response rate in order to
determine areas of concern. Research by Dey (1997) suggests using this expected response rate
for comparison. Eight teachers agreed to participate in the focus group and their feedback was
included in the findings through discourse analysis.

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
This research study examined the perceptions of school, family and self-concept factors
of chronically absent high school students versus non-chronically absent high school students to
determine which, if any, significant differences exist within these domains. In addition, teacher
perceptions related to student engagement and attendance were assessed and compared to student
responses to determine which, if any, discrepancies exist. Both student and teacher focus groups
were conducted to provide further insight and views related to attendance and chronic
absenteeism factors.
This chapter presents the results of data analyses performed for this study. Analyses of
student surveys, teacher surveys, and focus group responses are included. An explanation of
data analyses conducted and results obtained for each research question is included.
Descriptive Statistics
The population of respondents in this study included students enrolled at a single high
school in a medium-sized district located in the Southern Piedmont region of North Carolina.
The school district provided a unique login for all students enrolled to complete a survey online.
Of the 1414 students enrolled, 1122 completed the survey. This equated to a 79.3% response
rate. Responses from chronically absent students were compared to responses from non-
chronically absent students using chi squared analyses. Of the students who completed the
survey, 129 were identified as chronically absent during the previous semester. Chronic
absenteeism was defined as missing 10 percent or more of the 90-day semester. All attendance
data were retrospective and collected routinely by the school district. Classroom teachers at the
same high school were also presented a unique login to complete an online survey. Of the
teachers employed, 73 completed the survey. This equated to an 81% response rate. For the
focus group sessions, 15 high school students were randomly selected and five participated. Ten
teachers were also randomly selected to participate in a focus group session and eight
participated.
Research Question 1
The first research question sought to determine which school-related factors influenced
chronic absenteeism at the high school included in this study. This information was assessed
through the examination of student survey data collected by the school district. The survey
administered was an online Panorama student survey that included 41 questions. Of the 41
questions asked, 25 were focused on school-related factors. Students were asked to reflect on the
physical school environment, communication, instruction, expectations and interpersonal
relationships with teachers using a Likert scale (APPENDIX A).
Chi squared analyses were applied to the responses of chronically absent students
compared to students who were not chronically absent during the first semester of the 2014-2015
school year. The chi-squared test is used to determine if a relationship exists between categorical
variables (Creswell, 2014). Respondents were given the option to respond Strongly Agree,
Agree, Neutral, Disagree or Strongly Disagree with each statement. Neutral responses were
treated as missing data and excluded from N. Chi squared probability values (p) less than 0.05
were considered significant. A percentage of positive responses were also calculated for each
survey item to identify areas of need for both chronically absent and regularly attending students.
Responses of Strongly Agree and Agree were combined to obtain this percentage of positive
responses.
Table 4.1 displays the results of the chi squared analyses of school-related factors for
students who were chronically absent and those who attended school regularly during the first
semester of the 2014-2015 school year. Percentages of positive responses are also included.
Table 4.1
Chi Squared Analyses of School-related Factors for Chronically Absent vs. Non-chronically
Absent Students
Survey Item % Positive % Positive Chi Squared (X2) Significant

(regular (chronically
attendance) absent)
The school rules are fair. 56.38 49.04 X2(3 ,N=872) = 5.36, p=.15 No
The school rules are enforced 54.56 37.62 X2(3 ,N=922) = 12.93, p=.005 Yes
fairly.
Students at my school treat 28.44 26.85 X2(3 ,N=871) = 5.01, p=.17 No
each other with respect.
Bullying is a problem at this 49.54 42.86 X2(3 ,N=868) = 4.42, p=.22 No
school.
The teachers in this school 92.44 88.50 X2(3 ,N=999) = 9.37, p=.023 Yes
expect me to do my best.
My teachers give me work that 91.45 87.26 X2(3 ,N=956) = 2.72, p=.44 No
challenges me.
I don't work as hard as I could 60.94 48.74 X2(3 ,N=974) = 7.43, p=.06 No
in this class.
My teacher makes what we're 52.40 49.49 X2(3 ,N=830) = 0.36, p=.05 No
learning interesting.
My teacher(s) make learning 45.38 41.11 X2(3 ,N=793) = 2.93, p=.40 No
fun.
I like coming to school. 52.94 34.65 X2(3 ,N=834) = 16.61, p<.001 Yes
My teacher believes in me. 86.77 81.19 X2(3 ,N=887) = 8.67, p=.03 Yes
I feel comfortable asking my 81.67 75.89 X2(3 ,N=952) = 6.35, p=.10 No

teacher(s) for help.
Adults treat students with 72.40 63.46 X2(3 ,N=890) = 7.62, p=.05 No
respect at school.
My school is clean and well- 67.14 56.08 X2(3 ,N=886) = 6.08, p=.11 No
maintained.
Students of all races, cultures, 65.11 50.00 X2(3 ,N=913) = 14.47, p=.002 Yes
religions, sexual orientations
and genders are treated fairly.
My teacher(s) treat me with 89.16 84.16 X2(3 ,N=950) = 5.28, p=.15 No
respect.
I am told about activities, 76.19 70.27 X2(3 ,N=968) = 2.46, p=.48 No
events, and opportunities at
school.
My teacher(s) think I can do 94.59 88.89 X2(3 ,N=994) = 12.60, p=.006 Yes
well in school.
A lot of time is wasted in my 74.28 72.56 X2(3 ,N=906) = 0.97, p=.81 No
class(es).
I am often confused in my 64.66 64.76 X2(3 ,N=869) = 2.72, p=.44 No
class(es).
I feel safe when I am at school. 77.15 69.45 X2(3 ,N=865) = 12.33, p=.006 Yes
I feel welcome at my school. 82.05 67.33 X2(3 ,N=870) = 13.72, p=.003 Yes
Doing well in school is 98.27 95.58 X2(3 ,N=1037) = 9.91, p=.019 Yes
important to me.
At least one adult at school 84.47 77.39 X2(3 ,N=1004) = 14.39, Yes
knows me well.
p=.002
If I had a personal problem, I 55.14 50.88 X2(3 ,N=921) = 10.83, p=.013 Yes
would feel comfortable talking
about it with an adult at
school.
The chi-square analyses showed that there is was a significant statistical difference in
responses between chronically absent and non-chronically absent student subgroups for 11 of the
26 school-related factors included on the student survey. A percentage of positive responses
from both chronically absent and regularly attending students were also included to indicate
areas of particular strengths or needs in cases where responses were not significantly different.
In terms of school rules, responses from chronically absent students differed significantly from
regularly attending students for the survey item, “school rules are enforced fairly.” In terms of
teacher expectations and influence, responses from chronically absent students compared to
regularly attending students differed significantly when responding to the statements, “the
teachers in this school expect me to do my best,” “my teacher believes in me,” “my teachers
think I can do well in school,” “at least one adult at school knows me well,” and “if I had a
personal problem, I would feel comfortable talking about it with an adult at school.” In terms of
school environment, responses from chronically absent students differed significantly from their
regularly attending peers when responding to the statements, “students of all races, cultures,
religions, sexual orientations and genders are treated fairly,” “I feel safe when I’m at school,”
and “I feel welcome at school.” Significant differences were also noted in response to following
statements, “I enjoy coming to school” and “doing well in school is important to me.”
While significant differences between the responses of chronically absent and regularly
attending students were not identified for the following survey items, the percentage of positive
responses indicated potential areas of need: “students at my school treat each other with respect,”
“bullying is a problem at this school, “my teachers make learning fun.” For these survey items,
the percentage of positive responses for both chronically absent and non-chronically absent
students fell below 50 percent. The negative responses to these questions from the majority of
students surveyed indicate potential areas of concern for student relations as well as instructional
delivery.
Five students participated in a focus group session moderated by a school counselor.
Fifteen students identified as chronically absent during the first semester of the 2014-2015
school year were invited to participate in the student focus group session through random
sampling. Eight of the 15 invited students agreed to participate, but only five participated with
consent due to absenteeism on the day of the scheduled focus group interview. While there is no
single standard for focus group size used in qualitative research, most recommended ranges fall
between four and 12 (Creswell, 2014; Cheng, 2014). Three participants were in twelfth grade,
one in eleventh grade and one in ninth grade. Two participants were female and three were
male. One participant was white, one black and three Hispanic. Their input during this focus
group was recorded with consent and analyzed using discourse analysis.
During the focus group interview, students were asked by the moderator to reflect on
school-related factors influencing their attendance and engagement (APPENDIX C). The
session was conducted in a small conference room inside the school. The moderator provided an
explanation of the purpose of the focus group session and provided general guidelines for
participation prior to the interview. The moderator also encouraged participants to elaborate on
their responses when possible and to ask for clarification if they did not understand a question.
Three themes emerged from the responses of the focus group participants: peer
relationships, lack of teacher support and academic struggles. While participants cited additional
influences on absenteeism, these three factors were identified most predominantly over the
course of the focus group session via discourse analysis.
Peer relationships. When asked to cite the primary cause of absenteeism, multiple
students referred to issues with peers. Two students referred to situations in which they felt
bullied by a peer or group of peers at some point during their time in high school. One student
described an altercation with a student that prompted him to subsequently skip school to avoid
confrontation. Another student described moving to the school from out of town and feeling like
an outsider, finding it difficult to make friends and fit in.
Lack of teacher support. Teacher influence emerged as another prominent source of
absenteeism among participants. Multiple students reported a lack of connection with teachers at
the school and felt that their teachers were indifferent about their attendance in class. A couple
students added that conflict with teachers caused them to skip class or stay home. One student
revealed that after she fell behind, teachers made no attempt to help get her back on track.
Academic struggles. During the course of the focus group session, several students
referenced poor academic performance and difficulty with a particular course or courses that
triggered their absenteeism. Their struggles sparked frustration, lack of engagement and ultimate
truancy. There was also significant discussion regarding the “failure due to attendance policy” in
which students do not receive credit for a course after they exceed eight absences. They felt that
once they had surpassed those eight days, they could find no purpose in returning.
Focus group participants unanimously agreed that the school does very little to promote
student attendance and only one indicated that a staff member had made contact with a parent to
discuss concerns regarding absenteeism. Based on their feedback, incentives for attending
school regularly, revised grading policies to eliminate failure due to absenteeism, and increased
opportunities to make up time would improve attendance at the secondary level.
Research Question 2
The second research question assessed family-related factors related to chronic
absenteeism. These factors were assessed via survey data collected by the school district on the
same online Panorama survey. Seven of the 41 questions on the survey included family-related
factors. Students were asked to reflect on parent/guardian expectations, communication and
involvement with school, supportive relationships and living arrangements (APPENDIX A).
school year for this domain. Respondents were given the option to respond Strongly Agree,
Agree, Neutral, Disagree or Strongly Disagree with six of the seven questions related to family
support, involvement, expectations and communication with school. Neutral responses were
treated as missing data and excluded from N. For the survey item related to living arrangement,
students were asked to choose from the following: one parent/guardian, two parents/guardians,
another family member/relative, a friend/non-relative or living alone/unaccompanied. Chi
squared probability values (p) less than 0.05 were considered significant. A percentage of
positive responses were also calculated for each survey item to identify areas of need for both
chronically absent and regularly attending students. Responses of Strongly Agree and Agree
were combined to obtain this percentage of positive responses.
Table 4.2 displays the results of the chi squared analyses of family-related factors for
students who were chronically absent and those who attended school regularly. Percentages of
positive responses are also included.
Table 4.2
Chi Squared Analyses of Family-related Factors for Chronically Absent vs. Non-chronically
Absent Students

attendance) absent)
My parent(s)/guardian(s) have 95.18 90.60 X2(3 ,N=1050) = 9.26, p=.026 Yes
high academic expectations for
me.
My parent(s)/guardian(s) 64.66 54.94 X2(3 ,N=855) = 3.75, p=.29 No
communicate with my
teachers.
My parent(s)/guardian(s) 52.05 53.19 X2(3 ,N=851) = 0.26, p=.97 No
communicate with my
schools’ administrators.
My parent(s)/guardian(s) 95.91 92.86 X2(3 ,N=1016) = 10.12, p=.018 Yes
expect me to attend college.
My parent(s)/guardian(s) 82.64 77.28 X2(3 ,N=951) = 15.08, p=.002 Yes
monitor my grades and
homework.
My family supports my 96.63 93.33 X2(3 ,N=1033) = 3.17, p=.37 No
learning and other school
activities.
I currently live with____. N/A N/A X2(4 ,N=1109) = 23.64, p<.001 Yes
The chi squared analyses revealed significant statistical differences in the responses of
chronically absent students compared to regularly attending peers for four of the seven family-
related factors included on the student survey. In terms of parent expectations, chronically
absent students’ responses differed significantly from regularly attending peers in response to
“my parent(s)/guardian(s) have high expectations for me” and “my parent(s)/guardian(s) expect
me to attend college.” For both survey items, regularly attending students responded
significantly more positively compared to chronically absent peers. In regards to family
involvement, there was a significant difference found between respondents for the item “my
parent(s)/guardian(s) monitor my grades and homework.” Students who attended school

regularly responded significantly more positively to this item when compared to chronically
absent peers.
During the student focus group session, students were asked to reflect on their
parent(s)/guardian(s) attitudes toward their absenteeism. Two of the five participants indicated
that their parents(s)/guardian(s) were concerned about their attendance and attempted to
intervene. Due to their continued absenteeism, this would suggest that parental intervention is
ineffective in improving student attendance. One participant indicated that their parents were
unaware of their absenteeism. This parent did not receive automated attendance calls to the
student’s knowledge and the student was unaware of any attendance letters being sent by the
school or individual teachers. Another participant reported parental indifference regarding
attendance. These varied findings suggest no single, detectible parental attitude toward their
children’s chronic absenteeism.
Research Question 3
The third research question sought to identify differences in students’ self-concept of
perseverance between chronically absent and regularly attending students using a grit subscale
developed by Panorama. This six-item Likert subscale was included on the online student
survey administered by the school district (APPENDIX A). Students were asked to reflect on
their willingness and likelihood to overcome various setbacks and maintain focus when working
toward goals to determine their perceived level of perseverance.
school year for this domain. Neutral responses were treated as missing data and excluded from
N. Chi squared probability values (p) less than 0.05 were considered significant. A percentage
of positive responses were also calculated for each survey item to identify areas of need for both
chronically absent and regularly attending students. Responses of Quite Likely and Extremely
Likely as well as Quite Well and Extremely Well were combined to obtain this percentage of
positive responses.
Table 4.3 displays the results of the chi-squared analyses of self-concept factors related to
perseverance for students who were chronically absent compared to those who attended school
regularly. Percentages of positive responses are also included.
Table 4.3
Chi Squared Analyses of Perceived Perseverance for Chronically Absent vs. Non-chronically
Absent Students

attendance) absent)
If you have a problem while 85.54 78.74 X2(4 ,N=1116) =6.09 , p=.19 No
working towards an important goal,
how well can you keep working?
How often do you stay focused on 85.60 87.50 X2(4 ,N=1107) = 8.17, p=.09 No
the same goal for several months at
a time?
When you are working on a project 83.40 82.03 X2(4 ,N=1104 = 1.53, p=.82 No
that matters a lot to you, how
focused can you stay when there
are lots of distractions?
If you fail to reach an important 88.82 85.27 X2(4 ,N=1113) = 7.02, p=.13 No
goal, how likely are you to try
again?
How likely is it that you can 85.91 81.25 X2(4 ,N=1107) = 4.61, p=.33 No
motivate yourself to do unpleasant
tasks if they will help you
accomplish your goals?
If you have a problem while 87.66 84.25 X2(4 ,N=1108) = 7.23, p=.12 No
working towards an important goal,
how well can you keep working?
The chi-square analyses revealed no significant statistical differences between
chronically absent and regularly attending students for any self-perceived perseverance factor
measured by the grit subscale. Furthermore, favorable responses exceeded 80 percent for all
students on survey items related to perseverance with the exception of one item for chronically
absent students: “If you have a problem while working towards an important goal, how well can
you keep working?” 79 percent of chronically absent students responded favorably to this
question. This finding suggests perseverance does not play a significant role in chronic
absenteeism at the secondary level.
Research Question 4
The final research question focused on teacher perceptions of school climate, family
engagement and student attendance. This information was assessed through the examination of
teacher survey data collected by the school district through administration of a 32 question online
Panorama survey (APPENDIX B). Questions included on this survey were comparable to
student survey questions related to school and family-related factors so that a comparison in
responses could be made to identify areas of likeness and incongruence.
Chi squared analyses were applied in order to make a comparison between student survey
items and related teacher survey items. Neutral responses were treated as missing data and
excluded from N. Chi squared probability values (p) less than 0.05 were considered significant.
A percentage of positive responses were also calculated for each survey item to identify areas of
need for students and teachers surveyed.
Table 4.4 displays the results of chi-squared analyses of teachers’ responses compared to
students’ responses. Percentages of positive responses are also included.

Table 4.4
Chi Squared Analyses of Teachers’ Responses vs. Students’ Responses
Survey Item % Positive % Positive Chi Square (X2) Significant

(students) (teachers)
The school rules are fair. 55.50 92.65 X2(3, N=938) =79.33, p<.001 Yes
The school rules are enforced 52.71 39.34 X2(3, N=983) =8.85, p=.03 Yes
fairly.
Students at this school treat each 28.24 47.54 X2(3, N=932) =29.81, p<.001 Yes
other with respect.
Bullying is a problem at this 48.73 44.44 X2(3, N=922) =37.17, p<.001 Yes
school.
The teachers in this school expect 92.59 92.31 X2(3, N=1064) =4.44, p=.22 No
me/students to do their best.
Teachers/I assign work that 91.00 98.55 X2(3, N=1025) =13.14, p=.004 Yes
challenges students/me.
I/most students don’t work as hard 59.45 84.58 X2(3, N=1041) =25.04, p<.001 Yes
as I/they could in class.
My teacher/I make learning 52.05 100.00 X2(3, N=896) =93.61, p<.001 Yes
interesting.
My teacher/I make learning fun. 44.89 99.44 X2(3, N=857) =116.96, p<.001 Yes
I/Most students like coming to 50.72 60.66 X2(3, N=895) =36.57, p<.001 Yes
school.
My teacher/I believe(s) in me/my 86.13 100.00 X2(3, N=955) =63.99, p<.001 Yes
students.
I/my students feel comfortable 80.99 97.14 X2(3, N=1022) =40.93, p<.001 Yes
asking my teacher/me for help.
Adults treat students with respect at 71.35 95.45 X2(3, N=956) =29.93, p<.001 Yes
this school.
My school is clean and well 65.80 92.31 X2(3, N=956) =59.41, p<.001 Yes
maintained.
Students of all races, cultures, 63.42 90.63 X2(3, N=977) =32.21, p<.001 Yes
religions, sexual orientations and
genders are treated fairly.
My teachers/I treat me/my students 88.63 100.00 X2(3, N=1022) =121.98, Yes
with respect. p<.001
I/my students am/are told about 75.52 82.35 X2(3, N=1036) =16.99, p<.001 Yes
activities, events and opportunities
at school.
My teachers/I think I/my students 93.96 100.00 X2(3, N=1064) =32.66, p<.001 Yes
can do well in school.
A lot of time is wasted in my 74.06 13.04 X2(3, N=971) =207.94, p<.001 Yes
classes.
I/My students am/are often 64.67 11.94 X2(3, N=936) =134.28, p<.001 Yes
confused in my classes.
I/My students feel safe at school. 76.18 97.01 X2(3, N=932) =26.69, p<.001 Yes
I/My students feel welcome at 80.34 98.48 X2(3, N=936) =22.42, p<.001 Yes
school.
Doing well in school is important 97.97 68.97 X2(3, N=1095) =539.04, Yes
to me/my students. p<.001
At least one adult at school knows 83.67 95.45 X2(3, N=1070) =48.07, p<.001 Yes
me well./ I know my students well.
If I had a personal problem, I 54.61 88.14 X2(3, N=980) =55.55, p<.001 Yes
would feel comfortable talking
about it with an adult at school./My
students feel comfortable coming
to me if they have a personal
problem.
My/most parent(s)/guardian(s) 94.67 53.45 X2(3, N=1108) =491.30, Yes
have high academic expectations p<.001
for me/my students.
My/most parent(s)/guardian(s) 63.63 55.56 X2(3, N=918) =19.92, p<.001 Yes
communicate with my teachers/me.
My/most parent(s)/guardian(s) 52.17 56.82 X2(3, N=895) =17.99, p<.001 Yes
communicate with school’s
administrators.
My/most parent(s)/guardian(s) 82.02 35.00 X2(3, N=1011) =181.12, Yes
monitor my/my students grades p<.001
and homework.
Chi square analyses revealed significant differences in student responses compared to
teacher responses for 28 of 29 survey questions. One survey item, “The teachers in this school
expect me/students to do their best,” revealed no significant difference between student and
teacher respondents, with 92 percent and 93 percent respectively responding favorably. In
addition to the significant difference found for the item, “Students at this school treat each other
with respect,” less than 50 percent of both student and teacher respondents expressed agreement,
indicating a particular area of need. The negative responses to these questions from the majority
of both students and teachers surveyed indicate an area of concern in terms of student
relationships. Less than 50 percent of teachers surveyed responded favorably to the items,
“School rules are enforced fairly” and “Most parent(s)/guardian(s) monitor my students’ grades
and homework,” also indicating a potential area of need. The negative responses to these survey
items from the majority of teachers surveyed indicate an area of concern with administrative
enforcement of rules and parental involvement. However, students responded more positively to
both these survey items. Further examination is necessary to determine the source of this
incongruity.
In addition to survey items comparable to those found on the student survey, teachers
were asked to reflect on three questions specifically related to student attendance. Chi squared
analyses were conducted against a 90 percent positive response rate to obtain insight into the
teachers’ reaction to these survey items (Dey, 1997). These analyses are summarized in Table
4.5. Based on these results, teachers recognize chronic absenteeism as a significant problem at
their school and do not feel that the school adequately encourages good attendance. This is
despite teachers’ reported communication with parent(s)/guardian(s) regarding students’
attendance problems.
Table 4.5
Chi Square Analyses of Teacher Responses to Survey Items Related to Student Absenteeism vs.
90 Percent Positive
Survey Item % Positive Chi Square (X2) Significant

Student chronic absenteeism is a problem at my 12.23 X2(3, N=66) =563.45, p<.001 Yes
school.
My school encourages good attendance. 63.68 X2(3, N=63) =29.95, p<.001 Yes
I communicate my students’ attendance 85.71 X2(3, N=63) =1.50, p=.68 No

problems with parent(s)/guardian(s).
A teacher focus group was convened in order to obtain additional insight related to
student absenteeism. A random sample of 10 teachers from the high school were invited to
participate in the focus group session, eight of which accepted the invitation and participated.
The counselor who moderated the student focus group session also served as the moderator for
this teacher focus group. The session was held after school in a media center conference room.
Teachers’ input during this interview was recorded with consent and analyzed using discourse
analysis.
The moderator began the session by providing an explanation of the purpose of the focus
group as well as guidance for participation. During the course of the interview, the moderator
asked the teachers to reflect on student attendance and absenteeism at their school (APPENDIX
E). The moderator provided an explanation of the purpose of the focus group session and
provided general guidelines for participation prior to the interview. At the conclusion of the
session, the moderator offered participants the opportunity to provide any additional comments
relevant to absenteeism that were not included during over the course of the interview.
During the course of the teacher focus group session, three themes emerged: policy,
administrative enforcement and parental influence.
Policy. Throughout the focus group interview, teachers repeatedly referenced inadequate
student attendance policies, ineffective attendance policies, misinterpretation of attendance
policies and poor communication of attendance policies as sources of increased student
absenteeism. They further cited these policy issues as the basis of student apathy and
disengagement. There was overwhelming agreement among participants that policy
development and consistent application of those policies by teachers would produce much
improvement in student attendance.
Administrative oversight and enforcement. Teachers cited inconsistent administrative
follow-up and policy enforcement as a source of frustration related to student absenteeism
multiple times over the course of the session. Two teachers spoke of their frustration with
administrators who discouraged them from assigning failing grades after students violated the
attendance policy. There was also discussion about administration’s failure to file juvenile
truancy petitions with the court and the negative impact this has had on attendance. Multiple
participants expressed concern that students feel that the absenteeism issue persists because
students know there will be no consequences to their behavior. Additionally, two participants
spoke about administration’s willingness to approve so many unnecessary field trips and excuse
absences for activities related to clubs, sports, and other school-sponsored activities and events
during the school day. They felt that it sends the wrong message to students. One participant
also felt that the pressure to increase graduation rates has prompted school and district
administrators to become more lax in enforcing attendance mandates. This feedback was
consistent with the teacher survey results in which only 39 percent of teachers surveyed felt that
school rules were fairly enforced.
Parental influence. Teachers referenced the role of parent(s)/guardian(s) on multiple
occasions during the focus group session. In addition to parental apathy, teachers spoke of
parents’ frequent failure to provide updated contact information to the school. Two participants
alluded to the influence of the parents’ negative attitude and past adverse school experiences as a
source of attendance problem for their own children. They described it as a “learned behavior”
that could be traced back to early grades. There was also discussion about parents’ indifference
about regular attendance, adding that they have seen an increase in vacations being taken by
families during the school year. One participant felt that the there was a lack of expectations
beyond just the parents, extending to the larger community.
Focus group participants overwhelmingly felt that little is done to positively promote
attendance at the school and agreed that incentives tied to attendance would likely produce
desirable results. There was some discussion related to previous initiatives, such as freshman
academy team meetings and the Renaissance Program, and their positive influence on
attendance. However, there were additional concerns expressed that these benefited only small
groups of students rather than make school-wide impacts.
Teacher and instructional influence was given little mention over the course of the focus
group. One participant did mention that she has found success in letting students know she cares
and taking an interest in finding out why they are missing school. Another added that when she
participated on a previous dropout prevention committee, students who were surveyed cited lack
of relationships with teachers as a primary reason they didn’t come to school. However, other
participants redirected the conversation back to attendance policies and policy enforcement on
both occasions. Another teacher-related factor expressed during the session related to consistent
expectations. Teachers expressed frustration when peers failed to hold students accountable and
maintain consistent expectations for regular attendance. One participant added that
administrators play a significant role in holding teachers accountable for maintaining consistent
expectations of their students, including regular attendance. This feedback suggests teachers do
not consider themselves contributors to students’ attendance outcomes.
Summary
The result of this research provided insight into school, student self perception and family
factors related to chronic absenteeism in secondary school. Quantitative analyses of student
surveys revealed significant differences between chronically absent and regularly attending
students within both school-related and family-related domains. Within the school-related
domain, rule enforcement, teacher expectations, relationships with adults in the school and safe,
welcoming and respectful environment were specific areas of disparity. While not significantly
different, survey items related to student relationships, bullying, academic enjoyment and time
spent on task revealed potential areas of concerns as less than half of both groups responded
positively to these items. Within the family domain, parental expectations and academic
oversight revealed significant differences in survey responses. There was no significant
difference found between chronically absent and regular attending students on the grit subscale
designed to measure self-perceived perseverance. Qualitative analysis of a student focus group
session revealed feedback consistent with the quantitative analyses, as chronically absent
students cited poor peer relationships, poor teacher relationships, and lack of academic
engagement as sources of their absenteeism.
Quantitative analyses of teacher feedback across school and family domains compared to
student feedback revealed several areas of incongruity on the administered surveys. Significant
differences between teacher and student survey responses were found for all but one of 29
questions compared. Teachers agreed that student chronic absenteeism is a problem at their
school, even though most also agree that they communicate attendance concerns to parents.
Qualitative analysis of the teacher focus group revealed their sense that policy issues,
administrative oversight and parental influence are primary sources of absenteeism. This was
inconsistent with the feedback obtained from students. Research related to truancy supports this
divergence, citing school-related factors as the primary cause identified by parents and students,
while teachers cite parent attitudes and home environment as the primary source of absenteeism
(Malcolm et al., 2003; Reid, 2005).

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview of Findings
This mixed-method research study examined factors related to chronic absenteeism at
one high school through a quantitative survey comparison of school, self-concept and family
factors between chronically absent and regularly attending students as well as a qualitative
analysis of focus group participation by five chronically absent students. Additionally,
quantitative comparisons were conducted on these same factors between students and teachers to
determine areas of discrepancy as well as a qualitative analysis of teacher opinions during a
focus group related to student absenteeism. The following conclusions were made based on
these analyses:
1. Significant differences in school and family factors exist between chronically absent
and regularly attending high school students.
2. There is no significant difference in self-perceived perseverance between chronically
absent and regularly attending high school students.
3. Students attribute chronic absenteeism to poor peer relations, poor teacher relations
and academic struggles.
4. Significant incongruity exists between teacher and student perceptions of school and
family involvement factors surveyed.
5. Teachers attribute chronic absenteeism issues to inadequate attendance policies, lack
of administrative oversight and lack of parental influence.
Analyses of school-related factors revealed that chronically absent students have
significantly different opinions in regards to rule enforcement, teacher expectations, teacher
relationships, safe and respectful environment, feeling welcome and overall enjoyment of school
when compared to their regularly attending peers. In addition to these significant differences,
both chronically absent and regularly attending students identified bullying, lack of respect
between students and lack of instructional engagement as problematic. These findings were
consistent with feedback expressed in the student focus group in which chronically absent
students attributed absenteeism to problems with teachers and peers as well as to academic
struggles.
Family factors were also found to differ between chronically absent and regularly
attending students in regards to parent expectations as well as parental oversight of schoolwork
and academic performance. This is consistent with research by Malcolm et al. (2003) in which
parents of students with higher rates of absenteeism placed significantly less value on education
when compared to parents of students of regularly attending students.
Upon analysis of grit subscale survey responses, self-perceived perseverance was not
found to differ significantly between chronically absent and regularly attending students. This is
contrary to research by Duckworth et al. (2007) in which grit was found to have predictive
validity of successful outcomes. This finding is, however, supported by research conducted by
Ivcevic and Brackett (2014) in which grit was not found to be a valid predictor of school success
in comparison to conscientiousness and emotional regulation ability. They further suggest that
grit plays a more significant role in situations where students have more choice, such as
extracurricular activities or elective courses (Ivcevic & Brackett, 2014).
Significant discrepancies were identified between students and teachers on both school
and family-related factors surveyed. For all but one of the 29 survey questions compared, chi-
square analyses indicated significant differences in responses. This quantitative finding was
consistent with qualitative feedback obtained during a teacher focus group session in which
teachers cited inadequate policies, lack of administrative regulation and lack of positive parental
influence as sources of chronic absenteeism. None of these issues were cited by chronically
absent students during their focus group session. More than half of both students and teachers
surveyed indicated bullying is a problem at the school and students are not respectful to one
another. This indicates a particular area of concern in regards to student relationships. This
finding is also consistent with recent research establishing bullying as a primary cause of student
truancy.
Limitations
Research for this study was conducted in only one high school. Therefore, results
obtained and conclusions drawn cannot be generalized to larger populations. In addition,
research was conducted during a time of administrative leadership transition. School-related
factors, especially those related to administrative oversight and enforcement, may have been
temporary conditions associated with new leadership rather than established circumstances.
Finally, participation in the student focus group was limited as a result of the nature of the
included population. Chronically absent students are more difficult to capture and less likely to
agree to participate due to the perceived negativity associated with absenteeism.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this research study, future research is advised to include the
following:
1. Expand population sample to include other high schools to determine if results from the
study can be generalized.
2. Readminister the survey instrument to students and teachers during subsequent years to
determine if the change in administrative leadership at the time of this research affected
outcomes.
3. Conduct the same research at middle and elementary grades to determine if results are
exclusive to high school populations or can be applied to younger students. This would also
provide insight into how assessed factors are influenced by age or grade.
In addition to the identified recommendations for future research, the findings of this
research study also provides the basis for the following actions by the local education agency in
which the study was conducted:
Provide professional development to high school teachers related to strengthening
student relationships. Chronically absent students characterize their relationships with their
teachers more negatively when compared to their regularly attending peers. The student focus
group feedback was consistent with this finding. In addition, a comparison of teacher and
student surveys revealed significant incongruities in the perceived quality of teacher-student
relationships. Research has also demonstrated the significant impact of positive student-teacher
relationships on student outcomes (DeSocio et al., 2007; Klem & Connell, 2004; Wilkins, 2008).
Efforts to strengthen these relationships through focused professional development could
enhance attendance rates as well as overall school climate outcomes. Approaches such as
Responsive Classroom training and the New Century School Initiative focused on enhancing the
quality of relationships and connectedness between teachers and students have proven successful
in generating positive student outcomes (Baroody, Rimm-Kaufman, Larsen, & Curby, 2014;
Shiller, 2009). Implementing a comparable research-based professional development approach
to strengthening relationships would likely increase student attendance rates through improving
school culture, climate and student engagement because the study found school culture and
climate to be problematic for these students.

Administer and analyze annual student surveys related to teacher relationships and
school safety. The results of this study indicated that chronically absent students felt less
connected to their teachers and significantly less safe at school when compared to regularly
attending peers. The administration and analysis of this survey annually would allow the district
to provide formative feedback to teachers related to student relationships as well as inform
school and district leaders about the specific factors contributing to students’ unsafe perceptions
of the school.
In order to make feedback more actionable for teachers, a student survey designed to
provide insight into building and maintaining relationships with specific teachers would be
advisable. Student perceptual feedback data have proven to be a reliable approach to assessing
teacher effectiveness (Kane & Staiger, 2012; Peterson, Wahlquist, & Bone, 2000). The results of
the surveys should be analyzed and shared with teachers to provide them awareness of their own
individual strengths and needs in regards to relationships with their students.
Because school safety is multidimensional, the student survey should include questions
related to the school’s physical environment as well as the interactions with peers and adults to
fully assess factors that may contribute to their sense of safety (Marshall, 2006). This insight is
required to determine further action steps needed to improve safe conditions at the school.
Implement a research-based, bullying prevention program at the high school. Both
teachers and students indicated on the survey that bullying is a problem at this high school.
While research on bullying prevention programs is most often conducted in the early grades, a
recent meta-analysis of 12 bullying prevention programs found the most significant effects on
reducing bullying behaviors occurred at the high school level compared to elementary and
middle schools (Bradshaw, 2015). In addition, Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
(PBIS) have also been found to reduce bullying behaviors at the high school level (Sugai &
Homer, 2006). Uniting this supportive framework with the implementation of a bullying
prevention program would be ideal.
Convene a committee to revise existing high school attendance policies and
implement recommended changes. Teachers cited both inadequate attendance policies and
inconsistent policy enforcement multiple times during the teacher focus group session. This
finding was consistent with teacher survey responses in which less than half of teachers surveyed
perceived rules as being enforced fairly. In addition, chronically absent students also expressed
overwhelming disagreement with rules being fairly enforced. The school’s administration
should consider the input from teachers, parents and students when creating and proposing new
policies and procedures to enhance efficacy and buy-in. Such shared decision-making has been
found to not only enhance attitudes toward school, but to also produce positive academic growth
and improved achievement outcomes (Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Johnson & Pajares, 1996;
Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Once related policies and procedures are revised, the district
leadership should monitor the execution of the new policies and take action as necessary to
ensure proper enforcement.
Provide professional development to high school teachers designed to enhance
parental communication and collaboration. Significant discrepancies were found between
teachers and students regarding parent expectations, oversight and communication. Nearly half
of teachers don’t feel their students’ parent(s)/guardian(s) have high expectations for their
children. This belief may inhibit their willingness to even attempt collaboration with these
parent(s)/guardian(s). This is also in sharp contrast to students’ perceptions of their
parent(s)/guardian(s)’ expectations. In addition, teachers cited lack of parental support and

influence as a primary factor in student chronic absenteeism during the teacher focus group
session. Improved communication and collaboration may enhance that support, or at least the
perception of it. Research related to teacher perceptions of student absenteeism found that
teachers perceive their roles demanding more “social work-related activity” due to the increasing
dysfunction within students’ families (Reid, 2006). Teachers need additional training to
effectively engage in such activity and connect with these families.
Provide mentors and additional supports to students who are identified as
chronically absent. When compared to regularly attending peers, chronically absent students
indicated significantly more negative perceptions of feeling welcome, knowing at least one adult
well, and feeling comfortable talking about problems with adults in the school. This was
corroborated by student focus group participants who cited lack of positive, supportive
relationships with teachers as a primary factor in their chronic absenteeism. Creating mentorship
opportunities can provide those positive, supportive relationships for these students and improve
their school engagement. Teacher mentors have been found to have significantly positive impact
on their students’ educational attainment and engagement (Erickson et al., 2009; Fruiht & Wray-
Lake, 2013).
This research study provided insight into chronic absenteeism factors at the secondary
level. The findings provide a basis for recommendations for future research as well as actions
for the school and district leadership to consider in their efforts to reduce chronic absenteeism
rates. It has been well established that school absenteeism is detrimental to students’ academic
and social successes. Therefore, educational leaders must take measures to motivate, support
and engage students to surmount this challenge.

REFERENCES
Allensworth, E. M., & Easton, J. Q. (2007). What matters for staying on track and graduating in
Chicago Public High Schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J.S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and its
relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 32(3), 651–670.
Attwood, G., & Croll, P. (2006). Truancy in secondary school pupils: prevalence, trajectories and
pupil perspectives. Research Papers in Education, 21(4), 467–484.
Baker, M. L., Sigmon, J. N., & Nugent, M. E. (2001). Truancy Reduction: Keeping Students in
School. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED468296
Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J. M., Bruce, M., & Fox, J. H. (2012). Building a Grad Nation: Progress
and Challenge in Ending the High School Dropout Epidemic. Annual Update, 2012.
Civic Enterprises.
Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2012). The importance of being in school: A report on absenteeism in
the nation’s public schools. Education Digest, 78(2), 4–9.
Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (2004). Assessing the transitions to middle and high school.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(1), 3–30.
Baroody, A. E., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Larsen, R. A., & Curby, T. W. (2014). The link between
responsive classroom training and student-teacher relationship quality in the fifth grade:
A study of fidelity of implementation. School Psychology Review, 43(1), 69–85.
Bong, M., Cho, C., Ahn, H. S., & Kim, H. J. (2012). Comparison of self-beliefs for predicting
student motivation and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(5), 336-
352.
Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Translating research to practice in bullying prevention. American
Psychologist, 70(4), 322–332.
Brookmeyer, K. A., Fanti, K. A., & Henrich, C. C. (2006). Schools, parents, and youth violence:
A multilevel, ecological analysis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,
35(4), 504–514.
Bruner, C., Discher, A., & Chang, H. (2011). Chronic elementary absenteeism: A problem
hidden in plain sight. Attendance Works and Child & Family Policy Center.
Caillier, J. (2010). Paying teachers according to student achievement: Questions regarding pay-
for-performance models in public education. Clearing House, 83(2), 58–61.
Caldas, S. J., & Bankston III, C. L. (1999). Multilevel examination of student, school, and
district-level effects on academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research,
93(2), 91-100.
Carless, B., Melvin, G. A., Tonge, B. J., & Newman, L. K. (2015). The role of parental self-
efficacy in adolescent school-refusal. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(2), 162–170.
Cheng, K. W. (2014). A study on applying focus group interview on education. Reading
Improvement, 51(4), 381-385.
Chicosky, C. L. (2015). Restructuring the Modern Education System in the United States: A
Look at the Value of Compulsory Education Laws. BYU Education & Law Journal, 1.
Christie, K. (2007). The complexity of compulsory attendance. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(5), 341–
342.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. Pearson College Division.

Dembo, R., Briones-Robinson, R., Barrett, K., Winters, K. C., Schmeidler, J., Ungaro, R. A.,
Gulledge, L. (2013). Mental health, substance use, and delinquency among truant youth
in a brief intervention project: A longitudinal study. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral
Disorders, 21(3), 176–192.
DeSocio, J., VanCura, M., Nelson, L. A., Hewitt, G., Kitzman, H., & Cole, R. (2007). Engaging
truant adolescents: Results from a multifaceted intervention pilot. Preventing School
Failure, 51(3), 3–9.
De Wit, D. J., Karioja, K., & Rye, B. J. (2010). Student perceptions of diminished teacher and
classmate support following the transition to high school: Are they related to declining
attendance? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(4), 451–472.
Dey, E. L. (1997). Working with low survey response rates: The efficacy of weighting
adjustments. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 215–227.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–
1101.
Eaton, D. K., Brener, N., & Kann, L. K. (2008). Associations of health risk behaviors with
school absenteeism. Does having permission for the absence make a difference? Journal
of School Health, 78(4), 223–229.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance
through family and community involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(5),
308.
Erickson, L. D., McDonald, S., Elder, J., & Glen H. (2009). Informal mentors and education:
Complementary or compensatory resources? Sociology of Education, 82(4), 344–367.

Fantuzzo, J., Grim, S., & Hazan, H. (2005). Project start: An evaluation of a community-wide
school-based intervention to reduce truancy. Psychology in the Schools, 42(6), 657–667.
Fruiht, V., & Wray-Lake, L. (2013). The role of mentor type and timing in predicting
educational attainment. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 42(9), 1459–1472.
Gage, N. A., Sugai, G., Lunde, K., & DeLoreto, L. (2013). Truancy and zero tolerance in high
school: does policy align with practice? Education and Treatment of Children, 36(2),
117-138.
Gastic, B. (2008). School truancy and the disciplinary problems of bullying victims. Educational
Review, 60(4), 391–404.
Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Grit + Talent = Student Success. Educational Leadership,
71(1), 74–76.
Green, J., Liem, G., Martin, A. J., Colmar, S., Marsh, H. W., & McInerney, D. (2012). Academic
motivation, self-concept, engagement, and performance in high school: Key processes
from a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1111–1122.
Groginsky, S. (2010). Student Enrollment Count Mechanisms for School Funding: A Survey of
State Policies. Colorado Children's Campaign.
Guare, E. R., & Cooper, S. B. (2003). Truancy revised: Students as school customers.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to
school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 46(3), 659–689.

Hendricks, M. A., Sale, E. W., Evans, C. J., McKinley, L., & DeLozier Carter, S. (2010).
Evaluation of a truancy court intervention in four middle schools. Psychology in the
Schools, 47(2), 173–183.
Henry, K. L. (2007). Who’s skipping School: Characteristics of truants in 8th and 10th Grade.
Journal of School Health, 77(1), 29–35.
Imants, J., & Van Zoelen, A. (1995). Teachers’ sickness absence in primary schools, school
climate and teachers’ sense of efficacy. School Organization, 15(1), 77–86.
Ingul, J. M., Klöckner, C. A., Silverman, W. K., & Nordahl, H. M. (2012). Adolescent school
absenteeism: Modeling social and individual risk factors. Child and Adolescent Mental
Health, 17(2), 93–100.
Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. (2014). Predicting school success: Comparing conscientiousness,
grit, and emotion regulation ability. Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 29–36.
Johnson, M. J., & Pajares, F. (1996). When shared decision making works: A 3-year longitudinal
study. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 599–627.
Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality
observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Research Paper. MET Project.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Katz, M. S. (1976). A History of Compulsory Education Laws. Fastback Series, No. 75.
Bicentennial Series. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Kearney, C. (2008). An interdisciplinary model of school absenteeism in youth to inform
professional practice and public policy. Educational Psychology Review, 20(3), 257–282.
Klem, A. M. & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262–273.

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561.
Levy, H. O. (2008). The Great Truancy Cover-up. Yale Review, 96(3), 86–98.
Lindstadt, M. A. (2005). Employing mediation to approach truancts. Family Court Review,
43(2), 303–322.
Little, P., Wimer, C., & Weiss, H. B. (2008). After school programs in the 21st century: Their
potential and what it takes to achieve it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research
Project.
Loukas, A., Suzuki, R., & Horton, K. D. (2006). Examining school connectedness as a mediator
of school climate effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence (Wiley-Blackwell), 16(3),
491–502.
Mackey, P., & Duncan, T. (2013). Does Raising the State Compulsory School Attendance Age
Achieve the Intended Outcomes? Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.
Malcolm, H., Wilson, V., Davidson, J., & Kirk, S. (2003). Absence from school: A study of its
causes and effects in seven LEAs. The SCRE Centre: University of Glasgow.
Marshall, M. L. (2006). Examining school climate: Defining factors and educational influences.
Retrieved from http://education.gsu.edu/schoolsafety/
Maynard, B., Salas-Wright, C., Vaughn, M., & Peters, K. (2012). Who are truant youth?
Examining distinctive profiles of truant youth using latent profile analysis. Journal of
Youth & Adolescence, 41(12), 1671–1684.
McShane, G., Walter, G., & Rey, J. M. (2001). Characteristics of adolescents with school
refusal. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35(6), 822.

Mirtcheva, D. M., & Powell, L. M. (2009). Participation in the national school lunch program:
Importance of school-level and neighborhood contextual factors. Journal of School
Health, 79(10), 485–494.
Mitchell, M. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Student and teacher perceptions of
school climate: A multilevel exploration of patterns of discrepancy. Journal of School
Health, 80(6), 271–279.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). (2014). School Attendance and
Student Accounting Manual 2014 – 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/accounting/manuals/sasa.pdf
NC Report Cards. (2014). Retrieved from
https://ncreportcards.ondemand.sas.com/SASVisualAnalyticsViewer/VisualAnalyticsVie
wer_guest.jsp?reportPath=/ReportCard/NC_SRC&reportName=NC+Report+Cards
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.). EVAAS. Retrieved from
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/effectiveness-model/evaas/
North Carolina General Assembly. (n.d.). GS_115C-378. Retrieved from
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_115c
/GS_115c-378.html
Office of the Press Secretary, The White House. (2015). Every Student, Every Day: Obama
Administration Launches First-ever National, Cross-Sector Initiative to Eliminate
Chronic Absenteeism in Our Nation’s Schools (Press Release). U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/every-student-every-
day-obama-administration-launches-first-ever-national-cross-sector-initiative-eliminate-
chronic-absenteeism-our-nations-schools
Ovink, S. (2011). “This ain't my school!’ Criminality, control, and contradictions in institutional
responses to school truancy. Qualitative Sociology, 34(1), 79–99.
Panorama Education. (2015). Resources | Panorama Education. Retrieved from
https://www.panoramaed.com/resources
Paredes, R. D., & Ugarte, G. A. (2011). Should students be allowed to miss? Journal of
Educational Research, 104(3), 194–201.
Pellegrini, D. W. (2007). School Non-attendance: Definitions, meanings, responses,
interventions. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(1), 63–77.
Peterson, K. D., Wahlquist, C., & Bone, K. (2000). Student surveys for school teacher
evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(2), 135–153.
Pina, A. A., Zerr, A. A., Gonzales, N. A., & Ortiz, C. D. (2009). Psychosocial interventions for
school refusal behavior in children and adolescents. Child Development Perspectives,
3(1), 11–20.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338.
Rasasingham, R. (2015). The risk and protective factors of school absenteeism. Open Journal of
Psychiatry, 05(2), 195.
Reid, K. (2005). The causes, views and traits of school absenteeism and truancy. Research in
Education, (74), 59–82.
Reid, K. (2006). An evaluation of the views of secondary staff towards school attendance issues.
Oxford Review of Education, 32(3), 303–324.
Roby, D. (2013). Teacher attendance effects on student achievement: Research study of Ohio
schools. Education, 134(2), 201–206.

SAS Institute Inc. (2015). NC DPI Login. Retrieved from
https://ncdpi.sas.com/?ai=%2Fwelcome.html%3Fad%3DDphF7mRShUUvDRCY
Schoeneberger, J. A. (2012). Longitudinal attendance patterns: Developing high school dropouts.
Clearing House, 85(1), 7–14.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and community
involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism. School Community Journal, 14(2), 39–56.
Shiller, J. (2009). “These are our children!” An examination of relationship-building practices in
urban high schools. Urban Review, 41(5), 461–485.
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics, 2012. NCES 2014-015
[APPENDIX A: Guide to Sources; APPENDIX B: Definitions; APPENDIX C: Index of
Table Numbers]. National Center for Education Statistics.
Sobel, A. (2014). How failure in the classroom is more instructive than success. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 60(34), 17.
Stahl, A. L. (2008). Petitioned status offense cases in juvenile courts, 2004. Retrieved from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200802.pdf
State Education Reforms (SER). (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_1.asp
Sugai, G., & Homer, R. R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-
wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245–259.
Sutphen, R. D., Ford, J. P., & Flaherty, C. (2010). Truancy interventions: A review of the
research literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(2), 161–171.
Teasley, M. L. (2004). Absenteeism and truancy: Risk, protection, and best practice implications
for school social workers. Children & Schools, 26(2), 117–128.

Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin,
133(5), 859–883.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). FERPA for Parents [Websites]. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/parents.html
Van Ryzin, M. (2010). Secondary school advisors as mentors and secondary attachment figures.
Journal of Community Psychology, 38(2), 131–154.
Vaughn, M. G., Maynard, B. R., Salas-Wright, C. P., Perron, B. E., & Abdon, A. (2013).
Prevalence and correlates of truancy in the US: Results from a national sample. Journal
of Adolescence, 36(4), 767–776.
Whitlock, J. L. (2006). Youth perceptions of life at school: Contextual correlates of school
connectedness in adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 10(1), 13–29.
Wilkins, J. (2008). School characteristics that influence student attendance: Experiences of
students in a school avoidance program. High School Journal, 91(3), 12–24.
Willingham, W. W., Pollack, J. M., & Lewis, C. (2002). Grades and test scores: Accounting for
observed differences. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39(1), 1–37.
Wilson, V., Malcolm, H., Edward, S., & Davidson, J. (2008). “Bunking off”: The impact of
truancy on pupils and teachers. British Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 1–17.
Zhang, D., Willson, V., Katsiyannis, A., Barrett, D., Ju, S., & Wu, J. (2010). Truancy offenders
in the juvenile justice system: A multicohort study. Behavioral Disorders, 35(3), 229–
242.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Panorama Online Student Survey

APPENDIX B: Panorama Online Teacher Survey

APPENDIX C: Student Focus Group Questions
1. What are the main reasons for missing school?
2. When did you begin to experience problems with school attendance?
3. What does your school do promote good attendance?
4. What could your school do better to promote good attendance?
5. How do your parents/guardians feel about you missing school?
6. Has anyone discussed your absenteeism with you? If so, what was communicated?
7. How would you describe your relationship with teachers in this school?
8. Is there anything you would like to add related to attendance?

APPENDIX D: Parental Permission for Student Focus Group Participation
Wingate University
Parental Permission to Participate in Focus Group
May 27, 2015
Dear Parent:
We are from the Department of Educational Leadership at Wingate University and we would like to include your
child, along with about 9 of his or her classmates, in a research project on chronic absenteeism at the secondary
level. If your child takes part in this project, approximately 30 minutes per day of your child's regular school day
will be spent reflecting on school attendance. Questions regarding school climate, teacher relationships, and
absenteeism will be asked to the group. There are no known risks associated with your child’s participation in this
focus group.
Your child's participation in this project is completely voluntary. In addition to your permission, your child will also
be asked if he or she would like to take part in this project. Only those children who have parental permission and
who want to participate will do so, and any child may stop taking part at any time. You are free to withdraw your
permission for your child's participation at any time and for any reason without penalty. These decisions will have
no affect on your future relationship with the school or your child’s status or grades there.
The information that is obtained during this research project will be kept strictly confidential and not become a part
of your child's school record. Any sharing or publication of the research results will not identify any of the
participants by name.
In the space at the bottom of this letter, please indicate whether you do or do not want your child to participate in
this project and return this note to your child’s teacher before June 5th. Please keep the second copy of this form for
your records.
If you have any questions about this project, please contact us using the information below. If you have any
questions about your rights as a participant in research involving human subjects, please feel free to contact the
Wingate University Research Review Board (RRB) Chairman at 704-233-8187 or .
Please keep the attached copy of this letter for your records.
Sincerely,
(
Jessica Grant Dr. Christopher Cobitz
(704)938-1131 (980) 359-1034
Je.grant@wingate.edu c.cobitz@wingate.edu
I do/do not (circle one) give permission for my child (name of child)
to participate in the research project described above.
___________________ ________________
Parent’s signature Parent’s name Date
APPENDIX E: Teacher Focus Group Questions
1. What do you consider the primary causes of chronic absenteeism?
2. How do you respond to absenteeism issues with students?
3. How to you address absenteeism issues with parents/guardians of chronically absent
students?
4. What does the school currently do to promote good attendance?
5. What could the school do better to promote good attendance?
6. How would you describe the teacher’s role in addressing chronic absenteeism?
7. Is there anything you would like to add related to attendance or chronic absenteeism?
APPENDIX F: Teacher Consent for Focus Group Participation
Consent Form
Wingate University
Chronic Absenteeism at the Secondary Level
I am conducting a study about chronic absenteeism at the secondary level. I invite you to participate in this research.
You were selected as a possible participant because you teach students at A.L. Brown High School. Please read this
form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.
This study is being conducted by: Jessica Grant, doctoral candidate in Educational Leadership at Wingate
University; Dr. Christopher Cobitz, advisor.
Background Information:
The purpose of this study is to investigate chronic absenteeism at the high school level to determine school-related,
student self-concept and family-related factors as well as teacher perceptions of these factors and how they
contribute to absenteeism.
Procedures:
If you agree to be in this study, I will ask you to do the following things: Participate in a single focus group session
of approximately 8-10 teacher participants. You will be asked to reflect on questions related to student absenteeism.
The session will last approximately one hour. The session will be recorded and transcribed.
Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study:
There are no risks for participating in this study. There are no direct benefits for you for participating in this study.
Confidentiality:
Research records will be kept in a locked file at the Kannapolis City Schools district office. I am the only person
who will have access to the records. Transcripts from focus group sessions will be reviewed to determine teacher
perceptions of chronic absenteeism. Identities of participants will be kept confidential.
Voluntary Nature of the Study:
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your
current or future relations with any cooperating institutions or Wingate University. If you decide to participate, you
are free to withdraw at any time without penalty.
Contacts and Questions
My name is Jessica Grant. You may ask any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you may contact
me at (704)938-1131 You may also contact the chairperson of the Wingate University Research Review Board at
or at 704-233-8187 with any questions or concerns.
If you would like a copy of this form for your records, please let me know.
Statement of Consent:
I have read the above information. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I consent to participate in
the study and understand that my participation in the focus group session will be recorded and transcribed.
_____________________________ _________________
Signature of Study Participant Date
______________________________ _________________
Signature of Researcher Date
APPENDIX G: Research Review Board Approval

Out PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Out PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS

UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING CHRONIC

A CAPSTONE RESEARCH PROJECT

Submitted to the Faculty

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Wingate University School of Graduate Education

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved.

UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING CHRONIC

© Copyright 2016 Jessica N. Grant

Keywords: (chronic absenteeism, attendance, truancy, high school, secondary school).

school-related, family-related and self-concept/perseverance factors. Data were collected for

and teacher focus group sessions.

CERTIFICATES AND LICENSES

To my colleagues who carried me through many Saturdays, I am so grateful for all of

opportunity and make KCS such wonderful place for so many.

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………….. viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION……………….……………….................................... 1

Significance of the Study……………………………………..…………………… 7

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE……………………………. 11

Impact of Chronic Absenteeism…………………………………………..……….. 12

Defining the Problem……………………………………………………..……….. 13

Factors Influencing Absenteeism…………………………………………………. 15

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………... 24

Procedure and Analysis Plan……………………………………..………………... 26

Research Question #1……………………………………..……………….............. 27

Research Question #2……………………………………..……………….............. 29

Research Question #3……………………………………..……………….............. 29

Research Question #4……………………………………..……………….............. 30

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS……………………………………………………………... 32

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………... 50

APPENDIX A: Panorama Online Student Survey………………………………… 68

APPENDIX B: Panorama Online Teacher Survey………………………………... 71

APPENDIX C: Student Focus Group Questions………………………………….. 73

APPENDIX D: Parental Permission for Student Focus Group Participation……... 74

APPENDIX E: Teacher Focus Group Questions………………………………….. 75

APPENDIX F: Teacher Consent for Focus Group Participation………………….. 76

APPENDIX G: Research Review Board Permission……………………………… 78

Table 3.1 Change in Chronic Absenteeism from 2012-2013 to 20132014……………... 26

Table 4.5 Teacher Responses to Survey Items Related to Student Absenteeism……….. 45

students in Chicago Public Schools.

the problem. In a comprehensive literature review regarding truancy interventions, Sutphen,

minority of students. (p. 2)

Promoting regular attendance and developing effective truancy interventions should

require a comprehensive examination of individual student factors in combination with external

school and family-related factors (Kearney, 2008).

has been primarily limited to younger students (Gastic, 2008).

Despite efforts aimed at improving attendance district-wide, 23 percent of students

diversion programs and related interventions at the secondary level.

applies a statistical response model formula to project a student’s performance on a particular

school’s performance grade is measure by an achievement score, which includes four-year

& Ugarte, 2011).

‘clients,’ to ‘buy’ their units of education” (p. 15).

Significance of the Study

understanding and addressing chronic absenteeism here and in other locations.

questions were addressed:

3) Which self-concept/perseverance factors relate to high school chronic absenteeism?

4) Which factors do high school teachers perceive to be causes of chronic absenteeism

for high school students?

students over the course of a school day.

The following terms were incorporated in this study:

Chronic absenteeism – Absenteeism is defined as chronic when a student misses 10 percent or