University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

“Going up the river”: the consequence of response & the assumptions that underlie, support, and justify the practices of educational leaders for chronically absent youth

(USC Thesis Other)

“Going up the river”: the consequence of response & the assumptions that underlie, support, and justify the practices of educational leaders for chronically absent youth

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content “Going Up The River”:
The Consequence Of Response & The Assumptions That Underlie, Support, And Justify
The Practices Of Educational Leaders For Chronically Absent Youth
by
Jacqueline Loew
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2024
2024 Jacqueline Loew

© Copyright by Jacqueline Loew 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jacqueline Loew certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Dr. Maria Ott, Committee Chair
Dr. Libby Madding
Dr. Bradley Ermeling
Dr. David Cash
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

Abstract
Education researchers and the US Department of Education interpret chronic absentee data as
supporting a causal relationship between absenteeism and negative outcomes later in life
(Berkowitz et al., 2017; Frydenlund, 2022; Hopson & Lee, 2011; Thapa et al., 2013). As school
absence rates continue to reflect disparities among students of color and students who are
economically disadvantaged (Kearney et al., 2022), the response to absences are often based on
deficit-based assumptions that are supported by compulsory attendance laws: students are not
where they are required to be (Frydenlund, 2022). This study addressed three research questions
focused on investigating how leaders develop perceptions of the chronically absent and practices
for attendance intervention (RQ1), how site leader describe their practices towards chronically
absent youth (RQ2), and the role that site leaders believe they place in creating a sense of
belonging and self-determination among chronically absent youth (RQ3). This is a qualitative
study that involved semi-structured interviews with 17 site leaders from a central coast school
district in California with an intentional attendance intervention system, community partnerships,
and significant resources allocated for supporting positive attendance. Key findings include: (1)
organizational culture is critical to creating conditions that humanize students or perpetuate
enclosures and judgments on students and families who do not comply with institutional
expectations, (2) deficit-based perceptions of chronically absent students guide leaders to focus
on outcomes and changes in behavior as they assess the effectiveness of their practices and
interventions, (3) brain-based, culturally responsive perceptions of chronically absent students
guide leaders to humanize their students and to focus on repairing relationships between the
family and the school, (4) leaders who have experienced the impact of not belonging prioritized
and defended the importance of belonging, especially for the chronically absent student, (5)
leaders who have not had the opportunity to experience being marginalized viewed belonging as
ix

another educational initiative that could be addressed through systemic programming and good
intentions. The findings of this study reveal the influence of leaders’ positionalities and
perceptions on their practice and the areas of opportunities to focus on well-being and the
survivance of marginalized learning community members. The findings of this study offer
recommendations for creating conditions that support a brain-based, culturally responsive
approach to supporting students who are identified as chronically absent.
v

Dedication
This academic voyage was instigated by a persistence to resist the white supremacy that
emboldened the discrimination and injustice that wanted to extinguish my spirit and erase my
identity as an educator.
I dedicate this study to the freedom dreamers who continue to fight to become fully human.
vi

Acknowledgments
The completion of each page of this study is evidence of being lifted and sustained by the humans
in my life. I would like to express my deepest gratitude and immense love to:
Michael, my life partner who faithfully sees me, knows me, and sustains me with his love and
presence. I would not have even applied had we not had an argument about your belief that I was more
than good enough for USC—you were right;
Alma and Peter for taking on the role of being my parents who love me and my pendejadas;
Alann, for allowing me to be wildly obnoxious and trustworthy;
Lucas, whose experiences of liberty, joy and self-actualization I fight to preserve;
Theo, whose spirit redeemed my ability to imagine and dream;
Amy and George for their unwavering presence and love during the darkest of times;
Alisa, for giving me the space to be myself, for nurturing me when I was healing, and for the
unbridled safety you provide for me in your friendship. So much love, dude;
and Minkwan, who taught me how to radically love and forgive. I miss you, daddy.
In addition, I am grateful for the wisdom and guidance of my committee:
To my chair warrior, Dr. Maria Ott, your unrelenting support, time, and patience was invaluable
to me and the completion of this dissertation. I hope to be like you when I grow up.
To Dr. Libby Madding, I will always treasure your support and understanding of this doctoral
journey. Thank you for teaching me how to see the unseen, how to fight for those who have given up, and
to love those who have been told they are unloveable.
To Dr. Bradley Ermeling, your expertise and courageous honesty pushed me to believe in myself.
To Dr. David Cash, your presence and insight provided the direction I needed to believe that I
would finish this dissertation on time and with excellence.
This study is possible because of the authenticity and transparency of my participants. Thank you
for sharing your time, your words, and your experiences with me. They are a gift.
vii

Table of Contents
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………. ix
Dedication ………………………………………………………………...……………………. vi
Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………...…………… vii
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………………… xi
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………,…… xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ……………………………………………………………. 1
Background of the Problem ……………………………………………………………... 3
Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………………... 6
Purpose of the Study & Research Questions…………………………………………….. 7
Significance of the Study ……………………………………………………….……….. 9
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ……………………………………………. 11
Definition of Terms …………………………………………………………………….. 12
Organization of the Study ……………………………………………………………… 15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature………………………………………………………… 16
Chronic Absenteeism: An Educational Inequity………………………………………... 17
How We See “Chronically Absent Youth” Matters ……………………………………. 30
Liberation at the Intersection of Love and Power ……………………………………… 38
Perceptions, Principal Leaders, and Power …………………………………………….. 51
The Intersection of Liberatory Leadership and School Culture ………………………... 55
Reframing Chronic Absenteeism: In Spite of It All: Survivance ……………………… 61
Conceptual Framework ………………………………………………………………………… 62
Chapter Three: Methodology ………………………………………………………………….. 63
Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………………… 63
Purpose of the Study …………………………………………………………………... 63
Sample and Population …………………………………………………………………64
Design Summary ……………………………………………………………………… 66
viii

Methodology …………………………………………………………………………... 67
Instrumentation ……………………………………………………………………….. 67
Data Collection ………………………………………………………………………... 69
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………………….. 70
Trustworthiness and Credibility ……………………………………………………….. 71
Role of the Researcher ………………………………………………………………… 72
Summary ………………………………………………………………………………. 74
Chapter Four: Findings ………………………………………………………………………... 75
Recruited Participants ………………………………………………………………….. 80
RQ 1: What do site leaders identify as the influences on their attendance intervention
policies/ practices for reintegrating chronically absent youth into their learning
communities? ……………………………………………………………………………82
Discussion of RQ 1……………………………………………………………………... 92
RQ 2: How do site leaders describe their practices and responses towards chronically
absent youth on school climate and culture?.....................................................................94
Discussion of RQ 2 …………………………………………………………………… 104
RQ 3: What role do site leaders believe they play in creating a sense of belonging and
self determination among chronically absent youth? ………………………………… 106
Discussion of RQ 3 …………………………………………………………………… 117
Summary ……………………………………………………………………………... 118
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ……………………………………………. 119
Discussion of Findings ……………………………………………………………….. 119
Implications for Practice ……………………………………………………………… 126
Recommendations for Practice ………………………………………………………. 128
Limitations and Delimitations ………………………………………………………... 133
Recommendations for Future Research ……………………………………………… 134
Implications for Equity and Connection to the Rossier Mission ……………………... 135
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 136
References ………………………………………………………………………….………… 138
ix

Appendix A: Pre-Interview Questionnaire ……………………………………………………163
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ……………………………………………………………... 166
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Studies ……………………………………….... 170
x

List of Tables
Table 1: Research Questions and Method of Data Collection…………………………… 67
Table 2: Interview Participants…………………………………………………………... 81
xi

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ……………………………………………………………… 62
xii

1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Freedom is a place.
Ruth Wilson Gilmore
Introduction
There is a Tom Wayman (1993) poem that I read in my senior AP English Literature and
Composition class in 2008 titled Did I Miss Anything?. The structure of this poem is an exchange
between students who miss class, return, and ask their teacher if they missed anything important
(emphasis mine). The stanzas in the poem are a series of quippy, facetious responses from the
teacher to the student. These responses suggest an annoyance with the absent student who is
perceived as having the audacity to imply that there is a possibility that the previous day of
lessons was insignificant. Shifting from the response of “Nothing” to “Everything” with fictional
explanations, the final lines of the poem reflect a common assumption of teachers, policy
makers, and researchers towards the student who has missed school:
Contained in this classroom
Is a microcosm of human existence
assembled for you to query and examine and ponder
This is not the only place such an opportunity has been gathered
But it is one place
And you weren’t here (Wayman, 1993).
As an educator, I too, used to mimic this belief that my classroom could not be replaced, that
physical presence in this space equaled sole passage to knowledge, dignity, and humanity. Innate
in this poem, and in many assumptions about school absence, is the belief that the missing of
school is shameful, results in negative consequences, and justifies animosity between the student
and the learning environment when they return. Another critical assumption in this poem is that
attendance is the only barrier for students to access an environment where they can query,

2
examine, or ponder —an environment that is safe, inclusive, and culturally responsive for all
students; even the most vulnerable populations.
As a former alternative education teacher who worked with independent studies students
and students at a continuation high school, I often found myself in conversation with at-promise
students who are labeled as at-risk of not graduating (Hamlin, 2021; Swadener & Lubeck, 1995).
Themes of peer-to-peer or staff -to-student conflict, social anxiety, mental health issues, other
medical issues, or general apathy towards their education are most common. In my attempts to
navigate and support each students’ success, I was often reminded of the importance of seeing
their humanity, of nurturing my students’ beliefs that they belong in their school community and
that they are capable of academic growth and achievement. However, I have also found a culture
of hostility or shame among students and staff at the comprehensive high school towards those
who are chronically absent when they do return to school. This culture, whether inadvertently or
deliberately, exists as a real barrier of exclusion of at-promise students who are chronically
absent—for when they do return to their learning environments, they often receive messages,
explicitly or implicitly, that they do not belong. These messages perpetuate disengagement and
potentially provokes further school absence (Daily et al, 2020).
Researcher Shawn Ginwright (2022) argues that “the history of not belonging is
enshrined in America’s DNA” (p. 94). He refers to a history of exclusion through systemic and
legislative practices that create hierarchies, isolation, exclusion, and harm (Coates, 2014; Freire,
1976; Kendi, 2016; Kendi, 2019; Hannah-Jones, 2019; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Said, 1979;
Spring 2016; Wilkerson, 2020). This history, naturally, bleeds through and stains the system of
education; as schools are structured as hegemonic environments that manifest and perpetuate not
belonging (DeNicolo et al., 2017; Gramsci, 2000; Souto-Manning et al., 2021) through academic

3
and nonacademic practices. This study aims to focus on how school attendance practices,
specifically for chronically absent youth (CAY), are developed and implemented. I wish to
explore how these practices influence the conditions of school climates and cultures that
chronically absent students experience when they do return to school.
Years of school absence research and practice has related chronic absenteeism among
youth as a critical problem in education because of the belief that school presence is necessary
for the positive academic and social development of youth (Ansari et al., 2020; Attwood & Croll,
2006; Gleason & Dynarski, 2002; Gottfried & Gee, 2017). Many researchers, while
distinguishing between types of absences, perpetuate the assumption that absences have causal
consequences that lead to academic and later in life outcomes such as mental health issues,
poverty, and involvement in the criminal justice system (Allen et al., 2018; Finning et al., 2019;
Kearney, 2008; Maynard et al., 2015). However, viewing absences as a causative factor requires
specific assumptions and expectations that treat absences as the problem and not the sign of one
(Frydenlund, 2022). Exploring the relationship between chronic absenteeism, reintegration
practices, and school climate and culture makes space for examination and the possibility of
rebuilding of “systems of power within schools” (Southwell, 2006; Wilkins, 2008) and systems
of power that influence positive school environments (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Ladson-Billings,
2006) that vulnerable students want to remain in.
Background of the Problem
Chronic absenteeism is not a new phenomenon or a new educational inequity. While
attendance has been tracked by the US Department of Education since 1870 (Elliot, 1993), the
impetus of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 began the contemporary
accountability reporting of chronic-absenteeism as an indicator of school success. As a result,

4
educators were confronted with the reality that 7.8 million students were chronically absent from
school in 2019 (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). In addition to ESSA’s accountability
efforts, the State of California uses Average Daily Attendance (ADA) to determine school district
funding (Ed § 41372). Students who are absent impact the funding that schools receive. This
system perpetuates punitive attendance interventions (Mallet, 2016) and reduction of resources
for high-needs districts (Ely & Fermanich, 2013).
However, the momentum for measuring chronic absenteeism was thwarted during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Attendance policies were paused, legislation accounted for the increase of
absences because of public health protocols, and an educational system that depends on school
attendance for learning and socializing with peers was forced to reimagine schooling and
educating of youth (California Department of Education, 2020). As the United States public
education system gathers itself and transitions to a post-pandemic reality, the lasting impacts of
COVID-19 on youth and the educational system are still being studied today (Reimers, 2021).
One of those impacts relates to how attendance data is being assessed. Despite efforts to measure
attendance data, state and federal data collection agencies continue to openly disclaim that data
sets cannot be relied upon as accurate representation of actual chronic absentee
numbers—especially for the 2019-2020 school year (EdDataExpress).
As school districts across the nation also recover and stabilize after a global pandemic,
absenteeism rates continue to increase (Kuhfield et al, 2022). In December 2022, the state of
California School Dashboard released findings that reflected the increasing decline in school
attendance in the 2021-2022 school year. The dashboard also revealed an increase from the
2020-2021 school year of 14.3% chronic absenteeism to 2021-2022 school year’s 30% of
students marked chronically absent. The 2021-2022 chronic absenteeism rates were highest

5
among “students experiencing homelessness, Pacific Islander, African American and American
Indian students” (CSBA, 2022). Rising chronic absentee rates continue to be a relevant indicator
of school success and a relevant educational area of focus for policymakers, researchers, and
practitioners.
Historically, education researchers and the US Department of Education interpret chronic
absentee data as supporting a causal relationship between absenteeism and negative outcomes
later in life (Berkowitz et al., 2017; Frydenlund, 2022; Hopson & Lee, 2011; Thapa et al., 2013;
U.S. Department of Education, 2019). As school absence rates continue to reflect disparities
among students of color and students who are economically disadvantaged (Kearney et al.,
2022), educators are faced with the impact of this reality on practices today and their
responsibility to this problem. The executive director of Attendance Works, Hedy Chang, argues
that:
chronic absence is a leading indicator of educational inequity — it’s the canary in the
coal mine that alerts us that an individual student or groups of students are at risk of
falling behind and gives us enough time to address challenges and provide support
(CSBA, 2022, par. 4).
The well-meaning view of chronic absenteeism as an educational inequity aims to encourage
educational leaders to pay attention to school attendance challenges and to support chronically
absent students. This call to notice and act is an opportunity for root analysis of the problems that
absences are reflecting. However, a significant barrier in addressing this growing educational
inequity is influenced by historical responses to absences through deficit based assumptions that
are supported by compulsory attendance laws. The primary assumption being that students who
are not where they are supposed to be need to be protected from themselves (Frydenlund, 2022).

6
Combatting this assumption must take place in the beliefs and attitudes of the educational
leaders who are tasked with addressing chronic absence. This study will examine how a leaders’
response to chronic absenteeism is influenced by their assumptions or beliefs about chronically
absent youth and their role in improving youth attendance through intentional intervention and
reintegration practices that create cultures and climates of belonging and self-determination.
Practices that target youth and their parents/guardians for failing to meet expectations of being in
their seats at school rather than exploring why they are not at school miss the opportunity to
transform learning communities that are culturally responsive and restorative. Inadvertently, an
attendance system that wants students in school because of the assumption that the physical act
of being in school will eliminate poverty, criminalization, drug use, etc. may actually perpetuate
conditions that lead to more absences as students’ sense of belonging and self-determination is
compromised as they are penalized for not meeting yet another standard of expectations that are
designed to enclose them (de Oliviera Andreotti, 2021; Frydenlund, 2022; Tuck &
Gaztambide-Fernandez, 2013; Tuck, 2009).
Statement of the Problem
Past research on school absence has viewed absences as having causal power—that is,
missing school leads to negative academic and nonacademic outcomes (Frydenlund, 2022).
Research indicates that while consequences of absenteeism on learning negatively impacts all
students, “vulnerable subgroups of students” are more susceptible to learning loss (Santibañez &
Guarino, 2021, p. 399). These blanket assumptions can drive disparities rather than mitigate and
liberate vulnerable populations from the actual problems that lead to negative outcomes (Gee,
2018). Well-meaning beliefs about equity and inclusion are empty when not calibrated with
action that produces equitable and inclusive outcomes that liberate all members of a community

7
(Freire, 1970; hooks, 2014 ). Assumptions that are not developed with accurate understandings
of disparities and systemic inequity can create further division as cognitive dissonance separates
rather than unifies (Aguilar et al, 2022; Carpenter, 2019;Cooper, 2019).
Deficit-based practices mislead practitioners from questioning how they may be
perpetuating disparities and cultures of exclusion and shame (Gupta & Blumhardt, 2018; Matus
& Riberi, 2022; McClure & Reed, 2022; Tesemma & Coetzee, 2022). This study aims to
consider the layers of influence that manifest in a chronically absent student’s experience of their
place and position in school through the systems put in place by the educational leaders tasked
with creating inclusive learning conditions. This study is an act of resistance and an opportunity
to practice Freire’s (1970) conscientizacao concept as multiple stakeholders are included in the
system of school attendance and play a role in liberating punitive and deficit frameworks that
target chronically absent students and compromise their sense of belonging and
self-determination (Farini & Scollan, 2019; Habib & Ward, 2019; Shogren & Raley, 2022; Slee,
2019; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).
Purpose of the Study
Oftentimes, inside and outside of classrooms, vulnerable students are shown that their
identities and experiences do not matter (Buckley & Park, 2019; Culver, 2021; Museus, 2020).
As a result, students who feel marginalized because of their identities develop a warped sense of
belonging at school and doubt their own academic abilities ( Culver et al, 2021; Murphy &
Destin, 2016). Building on the conceptual framework of Jonas Hojgaard Frydenlund (2022), the
exploration of chronic absenteeism and reintegration practices is an exploration of educational
inclusion and the possibility for authentic, liberatory leadership within polarized contexts. This
study endeavored to research how educational leaders perceive chronic absence and CAY.

8
As research studies indicate that school climate and attendance factors are interrelated
(Basile & Thomas, 2022; Daily et al, 2020; Hamlin, 2021; Hendron & Kearney, 2016; Kim &
Gentle-Genitty, 2020; Pampatti et al, 2020; Van Eck et al, 2016), it is reasonable to explore how
absence response practices communicate a youths' place and position at school once they break
attendance expectations (Frydenlund, 2022). This study also aims to examine how leaders
understand the role that their responses to chronic school absence have on school climate and
culture at their sites. School climates inform a student's sense of belonging, and belief in their
own self-determination influences their ability to go to school (Daily et al., 2020; Hamlin, 2021;
Rahman, 2013; Van Eck, 2017; Yuval-Davis, 2011). As chronic absenteeism rates and societal
disparities climb higher to divide the haves and have nots (U.S. Congress. House. Committee on
Education and Labor, 2020), questions of how practitioners view CAY and their responsibility to
reintegrate them; questions of what practitioners are doing to facilitate a student’s return to
school; and questions of why practices are selected and implemented arise for practitioners to
answer. Yoking these questions together can open conversation for innovation and transformative
action. Rather than solely focusing on the perceived issue of chronic absence as canaries, perhaps
the real canaries are the absent students who have been alerting us that the coal mines, or their
learning environments, are not safe. Reframing how chronic absence is understood and
responded to can transform practices that are oriented towards survivance, healing, restoration,
and liberation (Freire, 1970; Ginwright, 2022; Tuck, 2009; Vizenor, 1998).
Research Questions
The following questions guide and ground this study:
1. What do site leaders identify as the influences on their attendance intervention practices
for reintegrating chronically absent youth into their learning communities?

9
2. How do site leaders describe their practices towards chronically absent youth?
3. What role do site leaders believe they play in creating a sense of belonging and
self-determination among chronically absent youth?
This study seeks to engage school leaders through purposive sampling. Patton (1985)
claims that qualitative research “is an effort to understand . . . the nature of [a] setting—what it
means for participants to be in that setting, what their lives are like, what’s going on for them,
what their meanings are, what the world looks like in that particular setting—” (p.1). Because I
take these perceptions “seriously” (Maxwell, 2003, p. 53), I aim to understand the relationship
between their positionalities, epistemologies, and perceptions of CAY and how these ways of
knowing and being inform the practices of each participating leader.
This study will “explicit[ly] incorpor[ate] [my] identity and experience in [my research]”
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 45) as I am deeply led by a belief in the importance of belonging, connection,
and self-determination among vulnerable communities. With this belief and an understanding
that the U.S. educational system was not designed for many communities and their youth
(Spring, 2016), this study is influenced by Paolo Freire’s (1970) concept of a pedagogy of the
oppressed. Critical theories that highlight resistance and liberation will further inform my
analysis (Basil & Thomas, 2022; de Oliveira, 2012; Ginwright, 2022; hooks, 2014;
Sosa-Provencio et al., 2020; Villaverde, 2008).
Significance of the Study
Hamlin (2021) acknowledges gaps in literature that studies the relationship between
school culture, school climate, and school attendance. He also recommends that future work
should seek to understand how household, school, and neighborhood factors together impact
attendance (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2018; Corcoran et al., 2016; Hamlin, 2021; Moricca et al., 2013;

10
Sheldon, 2007). Rather than beginning with a negative view of school absence, I will study
absence as an event without immediate judgment. Therefore, the consistent event of not being
“present at a lawfully appointed place and time, specifically the classroom during class hours,
made noticeable by various materials and practices” (Frydenlund, 2022, p. 660) allows for both
the focus on responses by practitioners and the possibility of viewing chronic absences as an act
of agency and resistance of an educational system that is not designed to lift everyone up
(Spring, 2016). This study wishes to reframe actions of resistance from chronically absent
students, who are often also labeled as foster youth, unstably-housed youth, students with
disabilities, English learners, students economically disadvantaged, or students of color.
Reframing chronic absenteeism as acts of resistance to school climates and cultures that erase,
exclude, or reduce historically marginalized peoples allows for attention on individuals who are
given the power and authority to influence real, liberatory change (Ladson-Billings, 1999) —i..e.
educational leaders. This study aims to consider how rebuilding/healing systematic exclusion of
the unwanted/unseen must factor into chronic absentee efforts.
Viewing chronic absence as an act of resistance allows for restoration of the agency of
historically marginalized youth. Noguera (2009) contends that “youth are treated as passive
objects” who are often removed from the conversations about their experiences by the very
adults tasked with teaching and caring for them (p.17). Bridging the gap between student
absentee data and the perceptions and practices of educators allows for engaging “possibilities
and [the] challenges of teaching in critical contexts” as a collaborative endeavor between youth
and educators (Yeom et al., 2020, p. 483). This study aims to understand systemic and
institutional ways that chronically absent youth are brought into their learning environments
through both direct and indirect practices that are driven by practitioner perceptions.

11
Ladson-Billings (2021) argues that the pandemic gave the US education system an
opportunity to pause and engage in discourse that truly values the education of every student.
She writes, “The Constitution came about as a result of talking about democracy, not just
wishing for it. It took hard conversations, deliberating over every single world. This is our
mechanism. We need to talk” (p. 11). This study will engage in this very mechanism by
exploring how educational leaders engage and respond to chronic absenteeism through
conversations, the enclosure or liberation of reintegration practices, and the role and influence
that leaders play in perpetuating exclusion or empowering and reintegrating chronically absent
youth.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
The qualitative nature of this study comes with inherent limitations. First, I could not
control the veracity of the responses I gained from educational leaders who participated in this
study. In addition, as an isolated researcher, the inability to approach this study through a
collaborative process limits the contribution of additional interpretations during the coding and
analysis process. Additionally, the willingness of participants to participate was out of my
control. Had I had the opportunity to hear from every site principal and assistant principal, I
would have gained a full picture of how a particular school district engages with CAY through
leadership. Time was another limitation as the study was constrained by a lengthy recruitment
process as well as university timelines. Additional time analyzing an extensive amount of data
could have also enriched and strengthened the data analysis phase of the study.
The delimitations of this study involve the intentional selection of the participants (i.e.
principal, assistant principals, deans, attendance intervention team members) at the exclusion of
teachers, other types of support staff, and chronically absent youth and their families.

12
Additionally, a focus on chronic absenteeism and school climate and culture is at the exclusion of
graduation rates, grades, academic achievement, college or career readiness, and extracurricular
activities.
Definition of Terms
Belonging: “the capacity to see the humanity in those that are not like us and to recognize that
the same elements that exist within them also exist within us” (Ginwright,2022, p. 15). There are
three levels to belonging: “The first level concerns social locations; the second relates to
individuals’ identifications and emotional attachments to various collectivities and groupings; the
third relates to ethical and political value systems with which people judge their own and others’
belonging/s” (Yuval-Davis, 2006, p. 199).
Brain-based thinking: “applying brain principles from neuroscience to mediate learning
effectively for all learners” (Hammond, 2015, p. 20).
Chronic Absenteeism: The California Department of Education defines chronic absenteeism as
students who are absent ten percent of the instructional days they’re enrolled in a school in a
school year (EC Section 60901(c)(1)).
Deficit Thinking: “a distorted lens, focused on student weaknesses, that blames students and
their families for student difficulties rather than acknowledging the impact of [educator]
practices and broader structural inequities” (McClure & Reed, 2022, p. 10).
Inclusion: The full, active, and expected participation of all students as their authentic selves
within their learning communities. “A comprehensive definition of inclusion (in three levels): (1)
the numeric level: is the student physically included in the community? (2) the social level: is the
student socially active in the community? (3) the psychological level: does the student perceive
him-or herself as being recognized by other members of the community? Is there a sense of

13
school belonging” (Qvortrup & Qvortrup, 2018, p. 812).
Leader: A leader is developed from more than a title or position. A leader is a person who
demonstrates the courage to act and advocate for the possibility of an equitable world for
everyone. A leader is someone who moves themselves and others towards justice and love
(Douglas and Nganga, 2015; Eddy and VanDerLinden, 2006; Palmer, 2000; West, 2013).
Liberation: the act of restoring “one’s ability to ‘realize goals and plans extending beyond their
most basic needs, if they experience acceptance and security through various forms of
recognition’ (Felder, 2018); transformation of “existing power and privilege in the service of
greater social justice and human freedom” (McLaren, 1997; as cited in del Carmen Salazar,
2013).
Love: The intentional act of honoring and protecting the dignity and freedom of another being
(Douglas and Nganga, 2015; Palmer, 2000; West, 2013).
Marginalized youth: as young people who experience multiple forms of social exclusion;
particularly those “who live in poverty, are court-involved (i.e. juvenile justice, child welfare),
live with a disability, identify as sexual minorities, or possess undocumented immigrant status
(IOM NRC, 2014). . . ” (Sapiro & Ward, 2019, p. 343). Other forms of social exclusion include
“students of color and students from low socioeconomic status (SES) background”
(Hipolito-Delgado & Zion, 2017, p. 699).
Power: The ability to influence or cause others to act or think in a particular way. Power is also
the ability to persuade others that one has something of value that others should need or want.
Reintegration: the act of “to integrate again into an entity: restore to unity” (Merriam-Webster,
2022).
School Absence: This study will define a school absence as “the phenomenon when a specific

14
child is not present at a lawfully appointed place and time, specifically the classroom during
class hours, made noticeable by various materials and practices” (Frydenlund, 2022, p. 660).
School Climate: “School climate is composed of the affective and cognitive perceptions
regarding social interactions, relationships, safety, values, and beliefs held by students, teachers,
administrators and staff within a school” (Rudasill et al., 2017, p. 46). School climate,
conceptually, is difficult to define consistently across schools, districts, states, etc. as all ways of
knowing influence how human beings perceive and understand the world, it is natural that
positionalities and epistemologies impact how school climate is defined and understood. The
California Healthy Kids survey recognizes within its School Climate domain that issues common
to marginalized populations relate to how a student or staff perceive and understand school
climate.
School Culture: A school culture consists of roles, expectations, value systems, and ways of
being and knowing within a community of individuals brought together by choice and obligation
(DeNicolo et al, 2017; Yuval-Davis, 2011).
Self Determination Theory: “ A macro-theory of human motivation and wellness that focuses
largely on how environments support or thwart people’s basic psychological needs for autonomy
(experiencing volition and self-endorsement), competence (feeling effective and capable) and
relatedness (having a sense of social connection and belongingness). When people’s basic
psychological needs are satisfied rather than frustrated, SDT predicts that people will display
enhanced motivation, performance and well-being” (Jeno et al., 2019; Leo et al., 2022; Ryan and
Deci, 2020).
Student Engagement: “Student engagement represents two critical features. The first is the
amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful

15
activities. . . The second component of student engagement is how the institution deploys its
resources and organizes the curriculum, other learning opportunities, and support services to
induce students to participate in activities that lead to the experiences and desired outcomes such
as persistence, satisfaction, learning, and graduation” (Kuh et al., 2007, p. 44).
Survivance: “a native sense of presence, the motion of sovereignty and the will to resist
dominance. Survivance is not just survival but also resistance, not heroic or tragic, but the tease
of tradition, and my sense of survivance outwits dominance and victimry. (Vizenor, 1998, p. 93)
Truancy: “a student missing more than 30 minutes of instruction without an excuse three times
during the school year must be classified as a truant and reported to the proper school authority”
(EC § 48263.6, 2013).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter serves as an overview of the
study and introduces the data collected and analyzed in order to determine the correlation
between reintegration intervention practices for chronically absent students and the perceptions
of educational leaders. Chapter two consists of a literature review in the following areas: chronic
absenteeism; deficit thinking and its connection to attendance interventions; self-determination
among chronically absent youth and school climates that value and honor belonging; perceptions
and actions of principal leaders; the role of healing-centered/ liberatory leadership; and reframing
chronic absenteeism as survivance. Chapter three presents the methodology for this research
study and includes: sample and participant selection, interview questions, data collection, and
data analysis. Chapter four provides a report of the research findings. Chapter five presents a
summary of the findings, implications for practice, conclusions and recommendations. The
conclusion of the study includes references and appendices.

16
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This study seeks to explore the influences that inform educational leaders’ intervention
practices for reintegrating chronically absent youth into their learning communities. Each
section of this chapter is part of a larger perspective that demonstrates how complex
understandings of chronic absenteeism inform responses and practices. I will first review
a traditional understanding of chronic absenteeism and then present an alternative
approach to viewing chronic absenteeism as an educational problem. Next, I will explore
the influence of deficit thinking on understanding student behavior and applying
school-wide chronic absence interventions and what it means to “hack” deficit thinking
through brain-based cultural responsiveness. Guided by Paolo Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy
of the Oppressed theory and Eve Tuck’s (2009) call for a moratorium on damage-centered
research and damaging research, I will explore how concepts of belonging and
self-determination within school climate and culture relates to school attendance. As the
chapter shifts towards the role of principal perceptions of chronically absent students and
school attendance, I will then turn my attention to the power of resistance and liberatory
leadership that is focused on survivance for chronically absent youth. Lastly, I will
explore the factors involved in an approach to educational equity that reimagines chronic
absenteeism before completing the chapter by presenting the conceptual framework.

17
Chronic Absenteeism: An Educational Inequity
The California Department of Education defines chronic absenteeism as missing ten
percent of the instructional days that students are enrolled in a school in a school year (Chronic
Absenteeism Calculation). As a result, from the moment an education rights holder enrolls their
student in a school, that student’s attendance will be monitored daily and for as long as they are
enrolled in a school district (EDC§ 46000). Notwithstanding years of research that supports the
correlative relationship between school attendance and school achievement (Ansari et al., 2020;
Attwood & Croll, 2006; Berkowitz et al., 2017; Gleason & Dynarski, 2002; Gottfried & Gee,
2017; Gottfried, 2014; Gottfried, 2019; Hopson & Lee, 2011; Thapa et al., 2013), the concept
that students who were not in class and therefore not learning is a common assumption
understood by many researchers (Frydenlund, 2022). School attendance was and continues to be
foundational to how school districts and the State of California measure organizational
well-being as accountability measures are directly, i.e. ADA funding, or indirectly, i.e. academic
achievement, connected to school attendance (EDC § 41372; EDC § 52051; EDC § 52052).
The importance of school attendance can be understood among various priorities: a
pedagogical standpoint (Gottfried, 2014, Gottfried, 2019; Newman-Ford et al, 2008; Santibañez
& Guarino, 2021; Sprick et al, 2020), a civil rights perspective (McNeely et al, 2019; Southwell,
2006; Welsh, 2018; Whitney & Liu, 2017), and, as previously stated, the organizational health of
local school districts because of how state funding is connected to school attendance (EDC §
41372; LaFortune & Herrera, 2022). Regardless of motivating factors that prioritize school
attendance, chronic absentee rates continue to be a critical equity issue for all educators. In 2016,
the United States Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights reported that 13%, roughly
six million students, of public school students in the nation missed at least three weeks of school.

18
This number included “20% of all high school students, 20% of black and [latinx] students, and
25% of students with disabilities” (Balfanz, 2016, p.1). These numbers were further exacerbated
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (2022) released a study that indicated that
during the COVID-19 pandemic, 48% of public teachers had at least one student who never
came to class during the 2020-2021 school year. The majority of these students were non-white
and enrolled in urban schools (US GAO, 2022). Similar trends were reflected in the State of
California, from 2019-2020 to 2021-2022, the largest attendance declines occurring in the rural
counties located in the Sierras and Northern California (LAO, 2022). In 2021-2022, chronic
absenteeism rates were highest among “students experiencing homelessness, Pacific Islander,
African American, and American Indian students” (CSBA, 2022). This emphasis on collecting
and monitoring attendance data has been summarized by the United States Department of
Education (2019) as a response to a “hidden educational crisis.”
A Not-So-Hidden Educational Crisis: Types of Absences and Attendance Factors
Since the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 began to include
“non-academic” measures for evaluating schools, chronic absenteeism rates have been included
as accountability indicators for 75% of states’ ESSA implementation plans (Bauer et al., 2018;
Jordan et al., 2018). The act of creating accountability expectations based on attendance is often
driven by well-intentioned actors; however, without clear understanding of the problem itself,
solutions can be misguided and miss the mark. Even though the impetus of ESSA (2015)
triggered the monitoring of attendance rates, a universal definition and understanding of what
absence means still does not exist. There are, however, patterns and categories that are relied
upon to develop monitoring and intervention efforts (Eklund et al., 2022; Freeman et al., 2018;

19
Kearney & Childs, 2020).
Types of absences are often understood through binaries: excused/ unexcused (Reid,
2005), problematic/ unproblematic (Heyne et al., 2018), school-refusal/ truancy (Kearney, 2008),
volitional/ non-volitional (Birioukov, 2015). In addition to trying to categorize a school absence,
researchers have demonstrated that issues of chronic absenteeism are even more complicated as
additional factors can also influence school attendance (Allen et al., 2018; Childs & Lofton,
2021). Common factors include: socioeconomic status (Kukla-Acevedo et al., 2023), family/
background/ culture (Lim et al., 2019; O’Connor, 2021), transportation (Cordes et al., 2022),
illness (mental (Dannow et al., 2020) or physical (Mazyck, 2013)), disability (Locquiao et al.,
2021; Sprick et al., 2020), school climate (bullying, relationships with peers, teachers, or staff)
(Daily et al., 2020; Van Eck & Bettencourt, 2017; Wilkins, 2008), and personal belief that school
is worth attending.
This data-exposed crisis is summarized by educators, policymakers, researchers, and
practitioners as school attendance problems (SAPs) that are assumed to be linked to several
negative outcomes (Ansari et al., 2020; Attwood & Croll, 2006; Carroll, 2010; Christle et al.,
2007; Gottfried, 2014; Henry & Huizinga, 2007; Heyne, 2018; Heyne & Sauter, 2013; Garland,
2001; Garry, 1996; Hersov, 1990; Malcolm et al., 2003). Since 1932, school absences have been
categorized through deficit frameworks that create enduring separation between students and
their guardians and the educators, policy makers, and researchers (Heyne et al, 2018) rather than
collaboration to understand underlying causes of school absences (Welsh, 2008; Whitney & Liu
2017). The desire to prevent these negative later in life outcomes has justified a history of
defining school absence as a problem as opposed to a symptom or a warning of other obstacles
(Frydenlund, 2022; Heyne et al, 2018).

20
While school attendance researchers concede that there is a need to develop a shared
understanding of SAPs (Heyne et al., 2018; Kearney, 2003; Pellegrini, 2007). Heyne et al.,
(2018) aim to conceptualize problematic absenteeism as school refusal, truancy, school
withdrawal, and school exclusion while allowing the caveat for “non-problematic absenteeism.”
These four categories are designed to identify problems and thus problematic students and their
families rather than seeing what is right before them. Students’ problems are not that students are
not in school but that they are impacted by several problematic factors and yet held to the same
expectations as students who are free from these factors.
Motivated by intentions of reducing negative later in life outcomes, educators,
policymakers, and practitioners believe that the collection of attendance data allows for
data-based decision-making frameworks to address achievement and attendance gaps and target
student resources (Henderson & Fantuzzo, 2022). These beliefs are founded on two significant
assumptions: all absences are equally detrimental to student outcomes and should be given the
same ‘weight’ in classifying students as being at risk; there is a threshold for student risk status
that can be determined (10% total days of absence) (Henderson & Fantuzzo, 2022). With the
surge in attendance data collection, it is unclear what exactly about chronic absenteeism remains
hidden. Abundant research identifies that students are missing school. What is not identified is
what students are doing instead of school (Frydenlund, 2022) or how responses to absences are
“accru[ing] consequences” (Frydenlund, 2022, p. 699).
Belief in the Causal Power of School Absence: Another Educational Debt?
This national orientation towards school absence as a crisis is supported by numerous
studies that link absences from school to negative, or undesirable, later in life outcomes; these
include: mental health issues, poverty, and criminalization (Allen et al., 2018, Finning et al.,

21
2019; Kearney, 2008; Maynard et al., 2015). Further research indicates that school attendance is
necessary for positive, or desirable, academic and social development (Ekstrand, 2015; Elliot &
Place, 2019; Gottfried & Hutt, 2019). Believing in a subjective linkage of school absence and
negative outcomes for students has motivated researchers, policy makers and practitioners to
monitor school attendance and to pursue prevention and intervention strategies to improve what
is often referred to as an attendance gap (Henderson & Fantuzzo, 2022). This attendance gap is
often manifested through school mobility and pathways that schooling compliance opens for
students who comply (Welsh, 2018).
I wish to expand the concept of an attendance gap by first exploring what education
scholar Gloria Ladson-Billings (2006) refers to as the education debt. This concept draws on
more than gaps in standardized test scores but considers the historical, economic, sociopolitical,
and moral factors of a debt owed to the more vulnerable members of American society
(Ladson-Billings, 2006). In collaboration with economist Robert Havemen, Ladson-Billings
(2006) understands the education debt to refer to
the foregone schooling resources that we could have (should have) been investing in
(primarily) low income kids, which deficit leads to a variety of social problems (e.g.
crime, low productivity, low wages, low labor force participation) that require on-going
public investment. This required investment sucks away resources that could go to
reducing the achievement gap. Without the education debt we could narrow the
achievement debt (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p. 5).
Ladson-Billings (2006) argues that an education debt is created and perpetuated by many moving
parts within a national system that expands past education. One of those parts, I would argue, is
further manifested through a belonging debt and a self-determination debt within school cultures

22
and climates.
My contention is that these dual debts can help to understand the role that a sense of
belonging and belief in the self-determination of youth plays in creating conditions where
vulnerable students want to be. Addressing these debts could work to acknowledge the education
debt that actively manifests itself within chronic absenteeism rates. Ladson-Billings (2006)
believes that addressing debts is critical to education progress. Addressing these debts must
include a sort of tallying of the debts education has created in order to facilitate reparations and
build a liberating future within education possible. However, I wish to dig even deeper into why
debts must be addressed by exploring a decolonial, humanistic approach of how we come to
know and understand what it means to educate. Specifically, I wish to explore how the reality of
colonization has stained and constrained education in the United States.
Vanessa de Oliveira (2012) presents four ways of explaining colonization in education
through how education as an institution is conceptualized. First, de Oliveira (2012) refers to
“epistemic blindness” (p.21) and how education facilitates the exclusion of others through the
colonization of the imagination. This epistemic blindness means that because we view and
understand ourselves individually, autonomously, and as self-sufficient actors solely capable of
moving “forward” as a society, we limit ourselves to viewing differences as deficits rather than
developing an interdependence of mutual differences (Lorde, 1984). As a result, solutions in
education are limited to whichever group holds superiority in an American caste system (de
Oliveira, 2012; Wilkerson, 2020). Second, education is taught as a vehicle for social
transformation (de Oliveira, 2012) operated by educator heroes. This perspective narrows, if not
mutes, the reflexivity of educators and how they practice. Rather than teaching and training
educators to view their roles as instrumental in solving the world’s problems, de Oliveira (2012)

23
argues for shifting how knowledge is viewed (i.e. “knowledge versus ignorance” (p. 23) towards
the “every knowledge is also an ignorance (of other knowledges)” (p.23). This comprehensive
approach understands how knowledge is produced, how it relates to power, and how knowledge
shapes “subjectivities and relationships in conscious and non-conscious ways” (p. 23).
de Oliveira (2012) presents a third way of how a colonized education system exists
through a narrative that illustrates how educational problems are treated. This narrative describes
a group of people seeing young children drowning in a river with a strong current. This group
tries to save them. de Oliveira (2012), however, asks: “what if they looked up the river and saw
many boats throwing the children in the water and these boats were multiplying by the minute?”
(p. 24). Readers are presented with how more than one task is necessary for saving the children
and the possibility that the rescuers may be the ones throwing children with one hand and
rescuing them with the other (de Oliveira, 2012). This narrative is designed to suggest that
addressing gaps or debts must focus at the root level. This narrative proposes that education is
not about saving students from current circumstances but about understanding how
circumstances came to be and the roles educators, policymakers, researchers, and practitioners
play in perpetuating harm disguised as solutions. de Oliveira (2012) argues that going up the
river involves challenging historical patterns of hegemony, ethnocentrism, ahistoricism,
depoliticization, salvationism, un-complicated solutions, and paternalism.
In addition, de Oliveira (2012) argues that viewing education as a space for bringing out
the good and working out the bad in people fails to recognize the complexities, pluralism, and
imperfections of humanity. Instead of denying our humanity, de Oliveira (2012) proposes that an
interdependence and deep connection should drive how education is understood and practiced.
Resisting and combating practices that segregate and divide communities can begin in the

24
institution that we call education if we are willing to hack how we have systematically reinforced
the othering of groups of people who are held in lower castes (Alexander, 2005; Bonilla-Silva,
2006; de Oliveira, 2012; Spivak, 2004; Souza Santos, 2007; Todd, 2009; Wilkerson, 2020). This
willingness to hack how we have come to know and understand educational problems such as
chronic absenteeism will allow us to look up the river and confront all the factors that cause
students to choose not to come to school rather than solely focusing on the fact that a student
failed the expectation to be at school. Perhaps then we can also see how an attendance gap is
better framed as an attendance debt.
Frydenlund (2022) contends that an absence is “an open description of what a [student]
does instead of school” (p. 668). The reasons that justify the belief in the causal power of
absences is contradicted in the concession of excused and unexcused absences (Frydenlund,
2022). While Kearney (2003) describes non-problematic absenteeism as absences that are
“agreed on by parents and school officials as legitimate in nature and not involving detriment to
the child” (p. 59) and Heyne et al (2018) list illness, religious holidays, or natural disasters as
acceptable reasons for absence, the belief that unexcused absences are more harmful to student
learning than excused absences (Gershenson et al., 2017; Gottfried, 2009) is a demonstration of
privilege and deserves to be critiqued more. Frydenlund (2022) argues that physically being at
school matters or it does not. If absence was stripped of positive or negative categorizations,
attention could be diverted to the problems that are put on these students by the educators, policy
makers, researchers, and practitioners who are trying to help solve other problems (Frydenlund,
2022; Weathers et al, 2021).
Understanding The Intersection of State Legislation and School Absence
Deficit-based interventions and practices for combating chronic absence are often based

25
on expectations that were created to identify people who are not meeting the expectations of
those in power. Understanding the ways that power, hegemony, and social castes operate to
determine these expectations and how they are to be monitored and subjected will always create
room for arbitrary systems. In this case, knowing that attendance is linked to school funding in
the state of California, it is understandable why educators, policy makers, and researchers have
put forth significant effort to protect this funding. These actors go as far as to implement
compulsory legislation that does more to protect funding and enforcing attendance than
supporting the youth who are absent (Rocque & Snellings, 2018; Weathers et al, 2021).
In the state of California, youth between the ages of six and eighteen are legally required
to attend public school unless they provide evidence of their enrollment in private school,
homeschool, or of special needs exceptions (Ed code § 48320. According to Ed code § 48260
(a), students are only labeled as truant if their absences are unexcused. California education code
§ 48205(a) identifies specific reasons that are permitted and accepted as excused absences. These
include: (1) the student is ill; (2) a local health officer has issued a quarantine; (3) student has a
medical, dental, vision, or chiropractic appointment; (4) the student is attending an immediate
family member’s funeral; (5) the student has jury duty; (6) the student is the custodial parent of a
child who has a medical appointment or is sick; (7) the school approves based on justifiable
personal reasons; (8) the student is serving as a member of a precinct board for an election; (9)
The student is with an immediate family member on active military duty; (10) the student is
attending their own naturalization ceremony; or (11) the school administrator gives their
discretion. The procedure for gaining permission to be excused from school falls on a student’s
educational rights holder (i.e. parent or guardian). For an absence to be excused, parents/
guardians are required to notify schools in a reasonable way (Cal. Ed. Code § 48260.6.). Parents/

26
guardians are typically allowed to send a note or call the school to process an absence.
In addition to these guidelines, California Education code states that school districts may
or may not partner with County Offices of Education to assign an attendance supervisor
(Cal.Ed.Code § 48240(a)). This supervisor is intended to promote a “culture of attendance” and
develop and implement prevention and intervention systems that encourage school attendance
(Cal.Ed.Code § 48240). The intended outcome of this legislation is to ensure that school
communities are aware of the effects of chronic absenteeism and truancy; to identify and respond
to patterns of chronic absenteeism or truancy; to identify and address factors that contribute to
chronic absenteeism and habitual truancy, including suspension and expulsion; to ensure students
with attendance problems are identified early and provided with appropriate support services and
intervention; and to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies used to reduce chronic absenteeism
and truancy rates (Cal.Ed.Code § 48240(b)). Under the leadership of the attendance supervisor,
the state provides further guidance on ways the supervisor is designed to support attendance
efforts and manage compliance with truancy legislation (Cal.Ed.Code§ 48240 (c)).
In light of the legislative intentions to assist schools and school districts in the monitoring
of school attendance, researchers have continued to inform policymakers and educators about the
root causes of school absence. It is known that poor instruction and poor relationships between
teachers and students deter school attendance (Gase et al, 2016). Peer relationships are another
important factor. Bullying (Grinshtyen & Tony Yang, 2017), a lack of a strong friend/community
(Kirksey & Gottfried, 2018), and unwelcoming environments that privilege white middle-class
norms (Noguera, 2001) are all reasons why students may choose not to enter in school spaces.
Mental illness (Burton et al, 2014), parental engagement (Trujillo, 2006), poverty, and even
transportation can also play a role in school absence (Peralta, 2014). In considering some of the

27
root causes for why students are chronically absent/truant, a disconnection becomes apparent in
how policymakers and educators approach solving attendance noncompliance.
While Frydenlund (2022) would argue that the consequences of absence, excused or not,
are equal, policymakers and educators create a strong distinction between the excused absence
and the unexcused absence. It is through the unexcused parameters of truancy that punitive and
exclusionary policies and practices exist (Weathers et al, 2021). Truancy laws are drafted,
implemented, and enforced for youth and their educational rights holders who do not comply
with attendance expectations. The state defines a student as truant if they have any combination
of the following: three unexcused absences, three unexcused tardies, or three absences exceeding
thirty minutes (Cal.Ed.Code § 48260). Further, a student who misses school or is tardy on five
or more occasions is labeled “chronically truant” (Cal.Ed.Code § 48260). This way of labeling
students who fail to meet expectations does not escape the reality that arbitrary compulsory laws
are empowered to dictate what absences are allowed and which are not allowed.
Compulsory laws, initially developed to address child labor problems in the early 1900s
(Trujillo, 2006), were vague in description, enforcement, and penalties (Lleras-Muney, 2002).
However, states began to remove students or impose fines for being truant (Trujillo, 2006;
Lleras-Muney, 2002). Contemporary truancy laws place responsibility on student and
parent/guardian (Reyes, 2020; Weathers et al, 2021). Truancy, portrayed as an economic burden
for society and even a threat to public safety (Peralta, 2014), is often based on negative
perceptions of specific students and parents (Peralta, 2014; Weathers et al, 2021). As a result of
the hostility and deficit orientation towards failing to comply with legislative attendance
expectations, school based interventions mirror a similar orientation that perpetuates systems that
do not address root issues of why students are not going to school but focus on enforcing

28
compliance and penalizing noncompliance (Weathers et al, 2021).
Traditionally, school districts have employed common deficit-based practices for chronic
absence/truancy prevention and intervention efforts. Schools often rely on electronic monitoring
systems (Newman-Ford et al., 2008) and attendance secretaries who monitor teacher inputted
attendance and reach out to parents via phone, text, or email (Marvul, 2012; McCluskey et al,
2004). Before utilizing legal recourse, districts have made use of nudge letters (Mac Iver et al.,
2022); attendance contracts (Lee et al., 2020); mentoring programs (Guryan et al., 2020);
targeting the perception of parents’ misbeliefs (Rogers & Feller, 2018) of the importance of
school attendance; Saturday school (Flannery et al, 2012); and exclusionary discipline, such as
suspension/expulsion (Ritter & Anderson, 2018). When school-based interventions do not
provide educators with changes in attendance behavior, court-based and legal-system-based
interventions are relied upon (Weathers et al, 2021).
After the state Legislature enacted EC 48320 to “enhance the enforcement of compulsory
education laws and to divert students with school attendance or behavior problems from the
juvenile justice system until all available resources have been exhausted” (School Attendance
Review Boards), most schools in California created School Attendance Review Boards (SARBs)
(Cal. Ed. Code § 48263). These review boards have the power to refer students and their
parents/guardians to court. There are two routes that a SARB can take in attempting to enforce
compliance that take place either in the school system or the penal system. With wide discretion,
consequences from a SARB can result in (1) stripping students of school privileges, (2) requiring
attendance at meetings with teachers and parents/guardians, (3) requiring students to attend
counseling, (4) fines up to $100 for a student and a family up to $500 (Cal. Ed. Code § 48264.5;
Cal. Ed. Code § 48293(a)). If initial actions do not reform a student’s noncompliance, the SARB

29
can refer the student to the local Juvenile Court or district attorney (Cal. Ed. Code § 48263.5.)
With the power to enforce harsher penalties, the Court or prosecutor can (1) require the
student to attend makeup classes, (2) put the student on juvenile court probation, (3) declare the
minor a ward of the court, (4) delay, suspend, or revoke a student’s driving privileges if a student
is between 13 and 18, (Cal. Veh. Code § 13202.7(a)). For parents/guardians of students in
kindergarten to eighth grade, penalties are even more severe. If the SARB believes the student is
being allowed to miss school, it can refer the case to the district attorney. (Cal. Penal Code §
270.1.) Parents/guardians can be charged with failing to supervise their child’s school attendance
(Cal. PC 270.1a) or with contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Cal. PC 272). These charges
can result in a misdemeanor conviction that can result in a year in county jail and up to $2500 in
fines. State legislators claim that these penalties are meant to focus on getting a minor to attend
school and that they are not designed to punish students.
While California state guidelines attempt to offer various circumstances that could result
in the need to be absent from school, researchers have alerted policy makers and educators to the
inconsistent and discriminatory ways that state legislation is applied to students who fall into the
unexcused absence categories (Weathers et al., 2021). The problem of subjectivity in how
legislation is enforced and the actual application of consequences and remedies subsequently fuel
racial disparities in school discipline (Gregory et al, 2010) for Black and latinx students.
Researchers have found that Black and Latinx students are more likely to be truant than white
students (Anderson et al, 2019; Easton et al, 2008; Hong et al, 2020; Weathers et al, 2021).
Nonetheless, strategies for addressing such disparities are not always pursued (Weathers et al,
2021). Researchers are tracing the criminalization of truancy as another avenue for the school to
prison pipeline (Weathers et al., 2021; Zhang et al, 2010). As exclusionary discipline increases as

30
a response to truancy, Black and latinx students are being driven out of school as policies are
unevenly implemented among white students and students of color (Anderson, 2018; Anderson
2020; Flannery et al, 2012; Lacoe & Steinberg, 2019; Weathers et al., 2021).
Researchers are thus calling for interventions that focus on root causes of chronic absence
and for educators to recognize how policies may be contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline.
Weathers et al., (2021) systematic review of truancy found that such interventions focus on
specific needs within learning communities. These can look like focusing on improving district
attendance policies (Lenhoff et al., 2022); promoting ecological approaches (Lenhoff and Singer,
2022; Mills et al., 2021); actively promoting cultures and climate of positive attendance
(Allensworth & Evans, 2016); effective instructional engagement (Gase et al., 2016); improving
relationships between teachers and students (Gase et al., 2016); strengthening a sense of
belonging at school (Guryan et al., 2020); fostering positive peer friendships (Kirksey &
Gottfried, 2018), enrichment activities (Cuffe et al., 2017; Marvul, 2012); developing
social-emotional skills (Wroblewski et al., 2019); providing mental health support (Burton et al.,
2014); and partnerships with communities (Childs & Grooms, 2022; Fantuzzo et al., 2005;
Rodriguez & Conchas, 2009; Sinha, 2007). The common factor in these interventions is an
emphasis on identifying the needs of students and their families rather than on relying on law
enforcement-led policies and practices (Weathers et al., 2021).
How We See “Chronically Absent Youth” Matters
Building on the concept of an education debt (Ladson-Billings, 2006) in order to
understand an attendance debt instead of an attendance gap will require both a shift in thinking
and the active desire to pursue other ways of knowing and being (Tuck, 2009). By reframing
disparities in education as debts to be owed, this study aims to examine how these debts are

31
magnified as a consequence of believing in the causal power of chronic absenteeism. Frydenlund
(2022) argues that the responses to chronic absenteeism may actually be the perpetrator of the
negative life outcomes many researchers allude to—rather than chronic absenteeism itself. As
evidence of the consequences of responses to chronic absenteeism that are categorized as truancy
(unexcused absences), the distinction made between excused and unexcused absences is
determined by deficit thinking that focuses on what is wrong rather than what is right (McClure
& Reed, 2022).
The power of deficit-thinking and the labels that follow
McClure and Reed (2022) speak of the power of deficit thinking and the biases that guide
how educational leaders approach educational “problems'' and specific populations of students.
Deficit thinking is present in how pre-service educators and in-service educators are trained to
identify and respond to what is wrong with students rather than what is right (Delpit, 1995;
Garcia & Guerra, 2004; McClure & Reed, 2022). It is not a new phenomenon that students
labeled as English learners (ELs), students with disabilities (SWD), students who are
economically disadvantaged (SED), students with individual education plans (IEPs), etc. are all
framed as being without, not following a norm, or in need of intervention (Garcia & Guerra,
2004). This framing perpetuates othering and the systemic marginalization of people throughout
American society (McClure & Reed, 2022; Spring, 2016).
Beginning with the deculturalization of native, indigenous peoples, American schooling
has consistently systemized the policing and subjugation of students and their families who are
caught in the crossfires of white social stratification (Spring, 2016; Patel, 2016; Wilkerson,
2020). The history of a hegemonic social stratification is built on deficit approaches to
subjugated people groups due to biased beliefs about European “linguistic and cultural

32
superiority” (Spring, 2016, p.1). The known phenomenon of deficit thinking informing deep
beliefs and values among vulnerable and often systematically marginalized people groups
naturally relates to how chronically absent are also labeled in educational spaces. Through a
familiar deficit lens, the student labeled chronically absent is categorized because individuals in
power view the student’s physical absence as a failure to meet expectations of being at school.
This negative way of viewing absence is then correlated to negative later in life outcomes. The
deficit way of viewing CAY directly feeds and influences unchecked biases that are justified
through popularity and common practices (Palmer & Witanapatirana, 2020). Labels become
containers of deficit thinking that influence students’ experiences at school.
Labels are often determined by the gathering of specific data and the disaggregating of
this data (Bertrand and Marsh, 2021). The selection of evidence gathering; however, is
compromised when the core of the data collection is determined by a deficit lens. As a result, the
temptation to transfer blame from factors such as instruction, the classroom environment, school
leadership, etc. to an aspect of the student’s identity works to further inequities in a complex
educational system (Bertrand and Marsh, 2021). The premise of being data-informed is not
inherently misguided; however, the types of data, the manner in which the data is collected, the
purpose for which the data will be collected all work to influence interpretation and application
of conclusions of the data (Bertrand and Marsh, 2021; Dodman et al., 2019; Marsh & Farrell,
2015).
Some researchers argue that inequities are fueled by data, and we have been trained to
accept data as irrefutable evidence that the interpretation of the data cannot be challenged
(Bertrand & Marsh, 2021; Safir and Dugan, 2021). Many believe that the act of using data to
then label and track students inadvertently places limits on students rather than provides support

33
and opportunities (Bradley et al. 2007; Shifrer, 2013; Wagner et al. 2007). Bertrand and Marsh
(2021) go as far as to refer to data-driven deficit thinking as a danger. Gleason and Dynarski
(2002) challenge educators to consider the issues in using specific risk factors to identify
students at risk of not achieving a high school diploma. A critical shift in how students are
assessed and evaluated has challenged and inspired educators to humanize data, to value the
experiences that students bring to their educational contexts rather than focusing on what they do
not have (Dugan and Safir, 2021; McClure & Reed, 2022).
In considering how traditional data sources are derived from western systems of knowing
(Safir and Dugan, 2021), “scholar Stuart Hall (1992) breaks down “White” research into four
components:
1. Allowing researchers to characterize and classify societies into categories
2. Condensing complex images of other societies through a system of representation
3. Providing a standard model of comparison
4. Providing criteria of evaluation against which other societies can be ranked” (as
cited by Safir and Dugan, 2021, p. 14-15).
The familiarity of the italicized words above (classify, system of representation, model of
comparison, criteria of evaluation) prevents the possibility to reimagine how we come to know
and how we come to share meaning and connect with the world around us. Western ways of
knowing are commonly deficit-based and are pathways for justifying biased, deficit-based
systems such as eugenics, racism, classism, etc. The National Indian Child Welfare Association
(NICWA) (1997) stated that there are two worldviews that most groups of people ascribe to: a
linear (Eurocentric epistemology) and relational (indigenous and afrocentric epistemology).
A relational epistemology works to integrate a holistic approach to one’s humanity,

34
incorporating the emotional, spiritual, cognitive, and physical (Safir and Dugan, 2021).
Knowledge is passed down through generations and preserved. There is an emphasis on
well-being, and the four elements listed above are not separated. Safir and Dugan (2021) disrupt
western systems of data collection and application by pointing to data that is “humanizing,”
“liberatory,” and “healing” (p. 19). Connecting a relational worldview with what Safir and
Dugan (2021) refer to as “street data” aligns with the rejection of deficit thinking.
McClure and Reed (2022) use the verb “hack” to describe the approach to deficit
thinking. The Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.) defines “hacking” as the act of “[cutting] into pieces
in a rough and violent way, often without aiming exactly”. The justification of applying this idea
of “rough[ly]” or “violent[ly]” cutting into school absence responses lies in consideration of the
harmful consequences for chronically absent youth who are met with punitive, exclusionary
practices that funnel their involvement with the legal system (Weathers et al., 2021). Safir and
Dugan (2021) argue that educators should “embrace street data and develop a culture that values
it, [that we commit] to listening, observing, and seeking answers that identify root causes rather
than assuming we know what’s best” (p. 65).
Researching for Desire: Re-Humanizing Interactions and Interventions
Combating the inequity of further exclusion and marginalization of those labeled as
chronically absent is the willingness and prioritization of humanizing interactions among all
members of a learning community, specifically interactions with the chronically absent student
and their guardians. The first step in shifting from inequity to equity is viewing the attendance
problem as an attendance opportunity (Tim Runge, as cited by McClure & Reed, 2022). Viewing
chronic absence as an attendance opportunity depends on what researchers Tuck (2009) refers to
as a “moratorium on damage-centered research” (Sullivan, 2020; Tuck, 2009; Tuck & Yang,

35
2014). Damage-centered research, similar to concepts of deficit-thinking, emphasizes focus on
effects of oppression and the consequences of viewing the oppressed as “broken” (Tuck, 2009, p.
409). Damage-centered research is “research that operates, even benevolently, from a theory of
change that establishes harm or injury in order to achieve reparation” (Tuck, 2009, p. 413). In
focusing on the needs of CAY, I do so with the caution to not focus on simply how CAY are
broken or on broken attendance systems; but instead to focus on how systems can be transformed
so that the CAY are empowered to be their authentic selves and thrive (Tuck, 2009).
This shift in focus is what Tuck (2009) refers to as desire-based research that focuses on
“understanding complexity, contradiction, and the self-determination of lived lives” (p. 416). It is
an act of radical power and rehumanization to emphasize that in light of the negative realities
commonly connected to CAY, these youth remain more capable and worthy than how
researchers, policymakers, and educators have come to know them and understand how to
include them in learning spaces. This way of framing how CAY are viewed by educators allows
for
closely match[ing] the experiences of people who, at different points in a single day,
reproduce, resist, are complicit in, rage against, celebrate, throw up hands/fists/towels,
and withdraw and participate in uneven social structures—that is everybody. . . it is an
assemblage of experiences, ideas, and ideologies, both subversive and dominant,
necessarily complicates our understanding of human agency, implicitly, and resistance
(Tuck, 2009, p. 420).
Brain-Based, Cultural Responsiveness
Revolutionizing the American education system can begin with a culture that values a
brain-based, cultural responsive disposition towards education policy and practice (Hammond,

36
2015; Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2017; Sanchez, 2017). Rather than forcing assimilation of
hegemonic White cultural norms, educators can evolve their practice to address the educational
debts owed to historically marginalized students and communities by using “brain principles
from neuroscience to mediate learning effectively” for all learners (Hammond, 2015, p. 20).
While debates of what it means to solve systemic inequity endure, there are cultural norms and
values that educators can foster (McClure & Reed, 2022) — norms and values that are
brain-based and culturally responsive.
A brain-based understanding is substantiated by neuroscientific research which informs
educators of the ways that human emotion and cognitive systems are interconnected
(Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2017). Researchers and educators can come to understand that “it
is biologically impossible to learn without emotion because emotion drives our attention system”
(Sanchez, 2017, p.16) in order to improve their practice and the learning experiences of students.
For example, researcher Kristy Cooper (2018) argues that schooling environments influence and
create perceptions, emotions, feelings, moods, and attitudes among students. Therefore, Cooper
(2018) advocates for the use of affective data from students that intentionally addresses the social
and emotional needs of students in order to improve positive, learning conditions.
In addition to the promotion of brain-based educational practice, educator and researcher
Zaretta Hammond (2015) challenges the separation of brain-based learning and culturally
responsive teaching. Alluding to the beliefs of researchers Geneva Gay and Gloria
Ladson-Billings, Hammond (2015) highlights that culturally responsive pedagogy encompasses
the “social-emotional, relational, and cognitive aspects of teaching culturally and linguistically
diverse students” (p.4). Hammond (2015) defines culturally responsive teaching as
an educator’s ability to recognize students’ cultural displays of learning and meaning

37
making and respond positively and constructively with teaching moves that use cultural
knowledge as a scaffold to connect what the student knows to new concepts and content
in order to promote information processing. All the while, the educator understands the
importance of being in a relationship and having a social-emotional connection to the
student in order to create a safe space for learning (p.15).
Hammond (2015) argument that brain-based education is cultural responsiveness is not a new
suggestion. According to researcher Eric Jensen (2008), brain-based education is about the
“professionalism of knowing why one strategy is used instead of another” (p. 410). In efforts of
not treating research within silos of one another, synthesizing what is known about neurobiology
with what psychology teaches about human behavior is imperative to the work of educator
professionals. Therefore, understanding these principles is essential to truly meeting students and
communities where they are. As Jensen (2008) argues, “the brain is involved in everything we do
at school. To ignore it is irresponsible” (p. 414). Therefore, what is the responsibility of I, policy
maker, and practitioner who engages in supporting the educational experience of students of the
US public school system.
This section aims to consider how to view chronic absenteeism through a more
comprehensive perspective that includes brain-based, culturally responsive efforts that move
towards humanizing chronically absent youth. Considering a range of factors that influence and
impact school presence is the responsibility of researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners, the
difficulty of this work is not to be minimized or disregarded. Yet the difficulty of the science of
learning must exist alongside the necessity to address all of its complexities. Framing educational
practices through holistic approaches is critical for understanding and supporting the success of
each student. How we see chronically absent youth matters.

38
Liberation at the the Intersections of Love and Power:
The unheard have always seen themselves as strangers [. . .] We have accepted the world’s
definition of us. The world is neutral: it is we who give things value. We could change the value
we place on ourselves. We should always remember that it takes a certain natural genius to
survive the depredations of history. We should reconnect that genius, for if we do not place the
highest value on ourselves we cannot achieve the highest good in the world (Okri, 1997, p.101).
Because true belonging only happens when we present our authentic, imperfect selves to the
world, our sense of belonging can never be greater than our level of self-acceptance. (Brown,
2012, p. 188).
California Education Code is very specific about what types of absences are considered
excused and unexcused. There is also significant discretion awarded to administrators for
excusing an absence. Whether intentional or not, attendance monitoring has become another
educational enclosure and another channel in the school to prison pipeline for students and their
families/guardians who fall short of attendance policies and guidelines. Failing to meet
expectations set by the state of California, local school districts, and individual administrators
can result in significant consequences on the lives of students and their families/guardians as
described in the previous sections. I review these truths again to point out that embedded in
attendance monitoring and accountability is significant power over individuals who are
mandated to participate in an educational program. Rather than focusing on the injustices within
systems of harm that are designed to disproportionately impact marginalized groups of people, I
wish to consider ways in which attendance monitoring and accountability can be an opportunity
for system analysis, an opportunity for empowerment and humanization.
Love and power
Paolo Freire (1970) believed that love is “an act of courage, not of fear, love is a
commitment to others” (p. 89). Revolution, for Freire (1970), is an act of love as it is driven by
people who desire to achieve their “humanization” (p. 89). According to bell hooks (2000), “to

39
begin by always thinking of love as an action rather than a feeling is one way in which anyone
using the word in this manner automatically assumes accountability and responsibility (p.13).
hooks (2000) further “emphasizes commitment, recognition, respect, trust, and communication”
and the ways, together, they point to truthfulness (Monahan, 2011, p. 107). For hooks (1994),
love is the practice of freedom. Freedom and love are activities that can be engaged in, not
simply states of being (hooks, 1994; Monahan, 2011). Viewing love as hooks (2000) does require
the belief that everyone deserves to live freely, fully, and well (Monahan, 2011).
Power, while an intuitive concept that typically involves the ability to make others do
what someone else wants them to do, plays a critical role in the ability for love to enter school
climates and cultures (Dahl, 1957; Weber, 1922). Power, then, is instrumental in the
establishment of the kinds of spaces that are created in schools. Noguera (2009) writes that
“school officials serve as both legal and symbolic representatives of state authority. With the
power vested in their position, they are expected to control the behavior of those in their charge”
(p. 96, emphasis mine). Power and control intersect in educational spaces as adults work to
develop and implement systems and policies that enforce compliance at the cost of the liberation
and investment of all educational partners—especially educational partners from marginalized
groups (Noguera, 2009).
Noguera (2009) further reminds educators that “both structural and cultural forces
influence choices and actions,” (p. 25). Understanding how power works to influence choices
and actions must also come with the acceptance that influence does not guarantee or should
guarantee compliance when it comes to the liberating nature of an educational program.
Structure and cultural forces “neither [have] the power to act as the sole determinant of behavior
because human beings also have the ability to produce cultural forms that can counter these

40
pressures” (Noguera, 2009, p. 25). There is an unpredictability to working with human beings
that cannot be fully controlled. Rather than using resources on compliance, educators must focus
on the parameters of influence that are necessary for sustaining learning environments that
preserve the dignity and growth of its community. It is this study’s contention that the parameters
of influence intersect and remain where power and love meet equally.
Together, power and love manifest what Freire (1970) and hooks (1994, 2000) describe
as liberation. Kahane (2010) writes of power and love having two sides. Each possessing a
generative and a degenerative side (Kahane, 2010). “Our power is generative and amplifying
when we realize ourselves while loving and uniting with others. Our power is degenerative and
constrain-ing—reckless and abusive, or worse—when we overlook or deny or cut off our love
and unity” (Kahane, 2010, p. 11). Generative love empowers us and others as it moves us to
becoming more complete in our humanity (Freire, 1970; Kahane, 2010). Love is degenerative
“when it overlooks or denies or suffocates power” (Kahane, 2010, p. 50). When power is shared
through the giving of care and belonging, students and communities are strengthened to be self
determined and to have self-actualized lives (Kahane, 2010; Yuval-Davis, 2011). As Carey et al
(2018) contend that schools are “sites of power” that reproduce the same power constructs that
operate outside of schools (p.118), I wish to expand schools even further by suggesting that
schools can also be sites of love and empowerment.
The Power to Transform School Climates with Cultures of Caring and Radical Belonging
The education field has gained understanding of the relationship between human
emotion, culture, and learning from a neural perspective (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007;
Immordino-Yang et al., 2018). In fact, we know now that “the quality of a person’s relationships
and social interactions shapes their development and health, both of the body and of the brain”

41
(Immordino-Yang et al., 2018, p. 3). Specifically, we know that emotional well-being, social
relationships, safety/belonging, and cultural well-being are important factors that impact learning
and must be attended to by policymakers and practitioners (Immordino-Yang et al., 2018). A
resulting spectrum of responses range from educators believing that well-meaning love and care
is sufficient for meeting these needs (Noddings, 1992, 1984; Valenzuela, 1999) to an emphasis
on the political and ideological domains of love and care (Bartolome, 2008a). Researcher
Bartolome (2008) argues that:
despite teachers’ good intentions, love and caring can be racist, limiting and oppressive ...
[if not] an ‘armed love’ (Freire, 1998) that is authentic, based on respect, and focused on
providing students with both an academically rigorous and a liberatory education (p.3).
Cultures are defined by the collection of values, beliefs, and traditions of a community. Cultures
can be imposed or created, tolerated or expunged, elevated or minimized. Schools have cultures
that communicate each person’s place in the learning spaces. From teachers, support staff,
students, and even substitutes, schools contain intersections of caring and belonging
(Yuval-Davis, 2011). School environments are spaces that contribute to an overall culture and
climate for an institution. Students, who are legally required to spend nine months of a school
year in a particular school for about seven and a half hours a day, are inevitably victims or
thriving members of a school’s culture and climate. For it is in schools that all students come to
know and define their sense of belonging (DeNicolo et al, 2017). School is also a “site through
which the cultural politics of power and hegemony play out in daily practice” (DeNicolo et al,
2017, p. 518).
Yuval-Davis (2011) argues that “the point… is not whether one belongs or not, but rather
how” (p. 3). The politics of belonging have always transcended into educational spaces

42
(Yuval-Davis, 2011). Yet, accountability measures have only recently been extended to include
indicators such as school climate and perceptions of safety (Noguera, 2009). Historically,
progress has been measured by “individual outcome measures such as grades, test scores, or
graduation rates” (Noguera, 2009, p. 228). Extended indicators to measure how students
experience schools work to preserve what researchers argue are the safety nets that public
schools are to people who are socio-economically disadvantaged in the United States (Fischer et
al., 2006, as cited in Noguera, 2009, p. 231). Some researchers go as far to describe the
possibility of schools being sanctuaries that prioritize the psychological, social, and moral safety
of students (Antrop-Gonzalez, 2006; Bloom 1995; Goldfarb, 1998). Antrop-Gonzalez (2006)
contends that the following components are essential for successful school cultures:
“high-quality, interpersonal relationships between teachers and students; culturally relevant
curricula that honor students’ first language and culture; a place where students are not subjects
to psychological or physical abuse by peers or teachers” (p. 297). The concept of schools being a
place of refuge should not stay in the imagination of policymakers, researchers, or practitioners.
Instead, the power is available to enable the ability for the most marginalized groups to access
services and opportunities available through American public schools (Freire, 1970, Noguera,
2009). Rather than operating as gatekeepers, policymakers and practitioners can function as
groundskeepers who build up the communities they are supposed to serve.
Maslow (1970) has long informed educators that belonging is a basic human need. True
belonging, involving the strongest of human emotions (Baumeister, 1995; Gere & MacDonald,
2010), has been understood as feelings of being in community with others and as a relational
construct that contributes to shared identity (DeNicolo et al, 2017; Drolet & Arcand, 2013; Levitt
& Schiller, 2004). DeNicolo et al (2017) speak of cariño conscientizado, a pedagogy of

43
“critically conscious and authentic care,” in order to reimagine concepts of belonging (p. 502).
Significant factors in reimagining belonging must involve caring that challenges any inequities
found within American public schools and the full involvement and participation of all
stakeholders (DeNicolo et al, 2017).
Structural policies and practices have long alienated marginalized groups who do not
assimilate to Eurocentric culture (Isik-Erkan, 2015; Nieto, 1998, Rolón-Dow, 2005; Sabry &
Bruna, 2007; Winn & Bezidah, 2012; Yosso, 2005). Some researchers believe that the concepts
of belonging can serve to preserve white supremacy and hegemonic power (Souto-Manning et
al., 2021). Combatting further barriers and exclusion, true belonging must also resist relying on
what some researchers refer to as “aesthetic caring” which focuses on deficit thinking that
emphasizes academic achievement, school-based practices and behaviors, and not on the
personal form of care that students desire (Nodding, 1984; Rolón-Dow, 2005). Understanding
belonging in schools must involve “not only constructions of boundaries but also the inclusion or
exclusion of particular people, social categories, and groupings within these boundaries by those
who have the power to do so” (Yuval-Davis, 2011, p.18).
DeNicolo et al. (2017) argue that a focus on the “cultural politics of belonging” by
strengthening stakeholder collaboration has the “potential to disrupt inequitable practices'' (p.
520). Marginalized people cannot ever truly belong if the systems that keep them marginalized
are preserved and protected. That is not true belonging. As Freire (1970) and DeNicolo et al
(2017) contend, inequities must be identified and replaced with systems that aim to elevate and
include all stakeholders as they are and for them—without compromising or sacrificing the
sociocultural wealth each individual holds. Authentic caring must resist color-blind lenses that
fail to recognize the structural and systemic contexts of vulnerable populations (Rolón-Dow,

44
2005; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Radical belonging cannot be neutral–it is political
(Souto-Manning et al., 2021; Yuval-Davis, 2016). Radical belonging can only be achieved
through the disruption and challenge of belonging that excludes and/or harms others
(Souto-Manning et al., 2021).
Student Engagement and the Power of Self Determination
Attendance is an indicator of Student Engagement within ESSA’s framework (ESEA
section 1111(c)(4)(B)). The California State Department of Education states that “All LEAs,
schools, and student groups with 30 or more students who were enrolled in kindergarten through
grade eight (K–8) for at least 31 instructional days will be held accountable for this indicator.
“Accountable” means that the data will be used to determine LEAs and schools eligible for
support” (CDE, 2022, p. 3). As a result of LEAs using attendance as an indicator for student
engagement, it is necessary to explore the connection between student engagement and
attendance. Researchers have long explored the ways that school climates influence student
motivation (Burton et al., 2006; Deci et al., 1981; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Koestner et al., 1984;
Niemic & Ryan, 2009; Ryan & Brown, 2005; Tsai et al., 2008). Student motivation viewed
through the lens of self-determination theory provides possibilities for understanding how
students are influenced and supported to pursue their interests.
Leo et al. (2022) measured the bright and dark sides of motivation to discover the
complexity of the self-determination theory. While there have been more studies that look at the
“bright side of motivation,” there is value in considering how control, frustration, unmet
psychological needs, and “amotivation” exists in tension with support, met psychological needs,
and “self-determined motivation” (Leo et al., 2022, p. 73). The reality of supporting diverse
individuals within a learning community must always make room for the complexity of the

45
human condition in order to truly create pathways for complete dehumanization (Freire, 1970).
Damon (2004) also advocates for youth to be viewed through lenses of self-determination.
Digging into self-determination theory in schools
Self-determination theory (SDT) argues that “people are innately curious, interested
creatures who possess a natural love of learning and who desire to internalize the knowledge,
customs, and values that surround them” (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000b; Niemic &
Ryan, 2009, p. 133). This generalized theory applies even to the chronically absent student.
Chronic absence does not eliminate any person’s innate need to know, to learn, and to engage
with the world around them:
A macro-theory of human motivation and wellness that focuses largely on how
environments support or thwart people’s basic psychological needs for autonomy
(experiencing volition and self-endorsement), competence (feeling effective and capable)
and relatedness (having a sense of social connection and belongingness). When people’s
basic psychological needs are satisfied rather than frustrated, SDT predicts that people
will display enhanced motivation, performance and well-being” (Jeno et al., 2019, p.
670-671).
Autonomy “concerns a sense of initiative and ownership in one’s conditions” (Ryan & Deci,
2020, p.1). Competence “concerns the feeling of mastery, a sense that one can succeed and
grow” (Ryan & Deci, 2020, p.1). Relatedness “concerns a sense of belonging and connection”
(Ryan & Deci, 2020, p.1). SDT research studies suggest that students respond to “autonomy
supportive” tasks as it draws on intrinsic motivation (Benware & Deci, 1984; Burton et al., 2006;
Deci et al., 1981; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Koestner et al., 1984; Niemic & Ryan, 2009; Ryan &
Grolnick, 1986; Tsai et al., 2008; Standage et al., 2006).

46
Ryan & Deci (2000a) posit that extrinsic motivation can be necessary when students do
not find a learning opportunity as interesting or worth their time. Nonetheless, they suggest that
there are varying degrees of extrinsic motivation that remain influenced by levels of autonomy
for students. Critical to the four levels that Ryan & Deci (2000a) propose is the role that
“autonomous regulation” plays in a learning opportunity. Extrinsic motivation can be necessary
to initiate a willingness to learn but it will not sustain learning alone (Neimic & Ryan, 2009).
Neimic & Ryan (2009) conclude that “understanding how to facilitate internalization becomes a
critical educational agenda” (p.139).
Engaging the disengaged through their mind and heart, as we should
The three key basic psychological needs that SDT emphasizes are autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Neimic & Ryan, 2009). This study considers
relatedness as a sense of belonging as the word “belong” carries a deeper sense of community
than to “relate” which implies a connection but falls short of existing in harmony with others.
Neimic & Ryan (2009) contend that “People tend to internalize and accept as their own the
values and practices of those to whom they feel, or want to feel, connected, and from contexts in
which they experience a sense of belonging” (p. 139). Ryan & Deci (2020) further explain that
these tendencies require “supportive conditions” and are necessary for “healthy development to
unfold” (p.1).
Supportive conditions means that teaching behaviors “promote autonomy and
relatedness” (Ryan & Deci, 2020, p. 3). Promoting autonomy will require teachers to value the
need for students to have meaningful choices and space to have their own opinions, and for
teachers to know their students and understand their perspectives (Assor et al., 2002; Bao &
Lam, 2008; Moller et al., 2006; Murayama et al., 2015; Patall et al., 2013; Reeve et al., 2003;

47
Schutte & Malouff, 2009). Without this understanding, teachers will not be equipped to develop
meaningful learning opportunities for their students and they will compromise their relationship
with their students (Jang et al., 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2020; Ryan & Deci, 2017). The
consequences of controlling behavior from teachers has shown to lower student autonomy (Assor
et al., 2005) and increase student frustration throughout a school year causing “greater fear of
failure, contingent self-worth, and avoidance of challenges” (Liu et al., 2017).
Researchers have made efforts to clearly distinguish between control and structure
(Grolnick et al., 2014; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Jang et al., 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2020). “Whereas
controlling behaviors pressure students to behave or achieve, structure entails setting clear
expectations and goals, having consistency in rules and guidelines, and providing informational
support for engagement and rich efficacy feedback” (Ryan & Deci, 2020, p. 4). Studies on the
impact of support have shown “greater use of self-regulated learning strategies and lower
anxiety” (Hardre & Reeve, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2020, p.4; Vansteenkiste et al., 2012). Balancing
the concept of structure and control is a challenge but a necessary skill to practice as educators
(Ryan & Deci, 2020).
Ryan & Deci (2020) argue that “the functional support of autonomy is universal” (p.5);
however other researchers posit that autonomy is not important across cultures (Markus et al.,
1996). Researchers across the world have studied how SDT influences teacher and student
learning and well-being (Chirkov & Ryan, 2001; Hayamizu et al., 1997; Jang et al., 2009;
Sheldon et al., 2009; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005; Yu et al., 2018). Nonetheless, Ryan & Deci
(2020) concede that it is “important to appreciate cultural differences in both how people
perceive contexts and in how basic needs are fulfilled” (p. 5). In fact, Ryan & Deci (2020) stress
that SDT recognizes the importance of differences in people, and that supporting autonomy is a

48
“central element in cultural competency” (p. 5). Ryan & Deci (2020) contend that when teachers
support the autonomy of their students, “the culture of a school can change to become more
accepting and tolerant” (p.5).
A relationship between school climate and school attendance
School climate as a concept is complex and difficult to define uniformly (Hamlin, 2021;
Rudasill et al., 2018) as there are many ways of knowing which can influence how human beings
perceive and understand the world. It is understandable that positionalities and epistemologies
impact how school climate is defined and understood (Rukasill et al., 2017). While the
California Healthy Kids survey recognizes within the School Climate domain issues common to
marginalized populations relate to how a student or staff perceive and understand school climate,
this study extends an understanding of school climate through Rudasill et al.’s (2017) Systems
View of School Climate theoretical framework which is guided by Bronfennbrenner’s (1989)
ecological systems theory. Rudasill et al. (2017) define school climate as “composed of the
affective and cognitive perceptions regarding social interactions, relationships, safety, values,
and beliefs held by students, teachers, administrators and staff within a school” (p. 46). Rather
than exploring the varying perceptions of what school climate is, this study wishes to
acknowledge that school climate is a construct influenced by assumptions and often
heteronormative constructs. This study also aims to explore what is known about the relationship
between school climate and school attendance (de Oliveira, 2015; Rudsill et al., 2017).
As there are variations in how school climates are defined and understood, as is the
consensus of how school climates influence school attendance. While Van Eck et al. (2017)
suggest that there is an association between school climate and chronic absence, a middle and
high school study found that positive school climate and high satisfaction with school reduced

49
school absenteeism (Daily et al., 2020). A study that controlled for a specific context of students
referred for “problematic absenteeism” found that older students were more likely to accurately
perceive school climate than younger students (Hendron & Kearney, 2016, p. 113). Additionally,
this study viewed school climate to be a domain for intentional truancy intervention (Hendron &
Kearney, 2016).
Despite beliefs that positive school climates promote school attendance, there is limited
empirical research that tests the relationship between climate and chronic absenteeism (Hamlin,
2021; Kostyo et al., 2018; Maxwell, 2016; Van Eck et al., 2017). Hamlin (2021) further argues
that school climate seems to have stronger effects on academic achievement, student behavior,
and the efficacy of school improvement strategies than school attendance (Hopson & Lee, 2011;
Thapa et al., 2013). Rather than combining the multidimensional factors that make up school
climate, Hamlin (2021) argues that “perceived school safety seems to have the strongest
consistent relationship with student attendance” (p. 331-332). Hamlin (2021) also indicates that
this relationship between safety and attendance was not as significant as anticipated.
While the relationship between climate and student attendance requires additional
empirical research, there are consistent findings that transforming how schools operate can
positively influence outcomes. For example, intentional school-community collaboration on
school absenteeism has had positive effects that can overlap to school attendance patterns
(Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Kim & Gentle-Genitty, 2020; Sheldon, 2007; Zyngier, 2011; ). These
findings suggest that there are interconnected factors that influence school climate and can also
influence school attendance, especially for historically, marginalized students (Pampati et al.,
2020; Sabry & Bruna, 2007). The imagination of policymakers and practitioners must be
involved to consider how these interconnected factors are manifested. For example, creating

50
authentic sense of belonging that can be manifested through parental/guardian/community
engagement (Goodall, 2018). According to Freire (1970), the goal of education is liberation so
that individuals have the opportunity to become “fully human” (p.57). Part of becoming fully
human involves a sense of belonging. When a student has a learning community that they belong
to without fear or any kind of oppression, the student is then able to freely explore their humanity
(Freire, 1970, Libbey, 2004; Love, 2023).
There is more to school climate and school culture than what is historically documented
in research and understanding. It lies in the unspoken, in the realm of what Sakir and Dugan
(2021) call street data. Safir & Dugan (2021) contend that street data is “a next generation
paradigm that roots equity, pedagogy, and school transformation in what matters most: human
experience” (p.12). “Some community-level absence interventions and youth programs have
shown small positive effects on student attendance in the study setting of New York City”
(Balfanz & Byrnes, 2018; Balu et al., 2016; as cited in Hamlin, 2021, pp. 332-333). Cornell et al.
(2016) further supports the relationship between school climate and academic outcomes.
Because school attendance is based on a student’s compliance which is documented
through their physical presence at an expected location and time, viewing chronic absenteeism
through concepts of belonging and the theory of self-determination are foundational to the
premises of this study’s research questions—premises which argue that to belong and to believe
in one’s worth and capacity for growth on the basis of the dignity inherent in one’s humanity is
essential for becoming fully human (Freire, 1970). It is through concepts of school climate and
culture that researchers and practitioners can examine how chronically absent students
experience their school contexts. DeNicolo et al (2017) view “school-relationships and student
agentive engagement within schools as mechanisms that provide pathways for belonging in

51
schools” (p. 501). Researchers continue to explore the impact that practices have on school
cultures and climates, and the factors that are necessary for exploring the significance of
understanding a person’s place during their formative years as a student in the educational
system. Researchers also continue to explore how these experiences influence the trajectory of a
person’s life after they exit an educational institution.
If the importance of school attendance can supersede ADA compliance and the belief in
the causal power of physical presence with attention to the conditions and purposes of learning
spaces, attendance can become a meaningful dimension of an educational program. Because
“student attendance, may be predominantly driven by factors that are beyond the control of
schools” (Hamlin, 2021, p. 333), viewing attendance as an indicator of engagement and
self-actualization can allow educators to divert attention to the ways that learning environments
either foster or stifle the development and liberation of students. It is my contention that
prioritizing the development and liberation of students will require radical change to how
education is understood and done. Therefore, this study seeks to meet at the intersection of
power and love as true belonging and self-determination is explored.
Perceptions, Principal Leaders, and Power
“Our perception dictates so much of how we interact with the world”
McClure & Reed, 2022, p. 219.
“As is the principal, so is the school”
Ellwood Cubberley, 1916, p. 15.
Research on student absenteeism has largely focused on teachers (Bartanen, 2020).
However, as there is significant research on the impact that principal leadership has on various
school factors, attention ought to broaden to also consider how principals influence chronic
absenteeism. For example, there is abundant literature on how principals affect academic
achievement (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012;

52
Witziers et al., 2003). Bridging the discussion of how principals affect academic achievement to
how principals affect school attendance is warranted. The possibility of principal leadership
affecting various aspects of how students experience learning in schools lends to the reality that
principals also influence how chronically absent students experience school (Bartanen, 2020;
Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012).
What Does Leadership Have to Do With It?: The Principal Leader’s Mindset
A school principal carries within herself the ability to influence school cultures, academic
goals, and every individual that walks through a school environment through the mindset she has
(Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006; Nadelson et al., 2019). A mindset is “reflective of the identity of
individuals—how they perceive themselves—which in turn influences how they interact with
others, and how they perceive their environment and responsibilities” (Nadelson et al., 2019, p.
1; Taylor & Gollwitzer, 1995). Researchers have consistently demonstrated the ways that
effective principal leadership mindsets influence a school’s success (Hoy et al., 1991; Louis et
al., 2010; Marzano et al., 2005; Moore, 2009; Turan & Bektas, 2013). Nadelson et al. (2019)
argue that “because of the association between success for all and organizational culture and
climate, there is justification for including the consideration and actions of principals associated
with school culture and climate as part of an educational equity mindset” (p. 3).
Okun (2010) wrote that “the culture of an organization is often a reflection of the leaders’
assumptions about the way to do things” (p. 76). Researchers have concluded that a principal’s
mindset on the academic climate at a school relates to the practices meant to create learning
spaces that are safe and inclusive of all students (Major & O’Brien, 2005; Pyo, 2020, p. 594;
Shifrer, 2013). Pyo (2020) further argues that “principals’ perceptions of school climate reflect
their beliefs about creating a successful school climate” (p. 596). This is what is called the

53
“labeling perspective” in education and can work to raise or lower expectations for students and
influences the way staff treat certain students (Major & O’Brien, 2005; Pyo, 2020, p. 596;
Shifrer, 2013; Thornicroft et al., 2007). When educators consider the impact that lowered
expectations have on already marginalized students (Jack, 2009; McGhee, 2021; Thiem &
Dasgupta, 2022), the labeling perspective that principals bring with them is a critical concept to
examine and build capacity towards (Pyo, 2020).
The Relationship between Leader Perceptions, Practices, and Outcomes
Johnson et al. (2022) posit that what leaders think, impacts what they feel, which can
shape what they can do. Johnson et al. (2022) further contend that “leaders’ beliefs about the
bidirectional aspects of engagement and its importance to cultural competence, school climate,
and educational achievement are important” (p. 341). Their 2022 study found that when leaders
“engage with and provide genuine, culturally relevant support for students, they are contributing
to the success of the school, and ultimately the success of the whole school” (Johnson et al., p.
345). Several researchers have also suggested the influence that principal perceptions of students
have on students and other staff members (Brown, 2006; Kose, 2009; Moolenaar et al., 2010;
Moore, 2009; Preston et al., 2016; Szalacha, 2003) and that school leaders must be “able to
recognize and resist personal biases (Bishop & McClellan, 2016, p.147). Bishop & McClellan
(2016) concluded that until school leaders can “recognize and resist… creating a school climate
geared toward the just treatment of all students is unlikely” (p. 147). The implications of these
findings is that researchers and practitioners must also consider the thoughts and feelings that
correlate with a leader’s actions (Bishop & McClellan, 2016; Preston et al., 2017; Rici, 2013).
Ginwright (2022) explains that without an awareness of our own limitations our perspectives will
remain limited. If a leader’s perspective is left unexamined, research suggests that a leader’s

54
practices will also go unexamined. This lack of awareness is reckless at best and a danger to
others at worst.
Connecting principal perspectives and attendance practices
Principals hold significant power to influence how attendance is understood and
responded to and how students are welcomed back into their learning environment (Attendance
Works, 2017; Bartanen, 2020). A principal’s influence can look like building the capacity of staff
with intentional and effective attendance practice coaching and development to assessing a
school’s entire educational program on a macro and micro level. A robust study in Tennessee
found that a single path for reducing absenteeism does not exist but that effective principals are
instrumental in addressing the factors that impact specific student groups and their attendance
(Bartanen, 2020). Some of these factors include the hiring and training of teaching and
attendance intervention staff, targeting students’ social/emotional skills, school climate and
culture, socioeconomic barriers, etc. (Attwood & Croll, 2006; Bartanen, 2019; Bartanen, 2020;
Blazar & Kraft, 2017; Childs & Grooms, 2018; Coelli & Green, 2012; Gershenson, 2016;
Heckman & Kautz, 2013; Liebowitz & Porter, 2019). In addition to the reality that school
principals influence school attendance, research shows that leadership is a key mediating factor
for a sense of belonging and self-determination among youth (Espinoza-Herold &
Gonzalez-Carriedo, 2017; Gannouni and Ramboarison-Lalao, 2018).
Connecting principal perspectives and school culture and climate practices
Espinoza-Herold & Gonzalez-Carriedo (2017) suggest that “school authorities needed to
carefully examine the academic and psychological consequences of school rules and procedures”
(p. 185). In fact, there are studies that demonstrate the existence of educational spaces that
students feel safe and comfortable with both teachers and administrators (Casanova, 2010).

55
Espinoza-Herold & Gonzalez-Carriedo’s (2017) findings indicate that marginalized students
want to be engaged in school. Lucas et al (1990) conducted a study on schools that demonstrated
attitudes and practices that seemed to promote Latinx student success. The researchers described
school environments that showed:
Respect for students' languages and cultures communicated through support programs as
well as academic programs. In some schools, special programs provided tutorial and
counseling assistance. Teachers and Latino students were paired with mentoring and
advocacy activities, thus increasing the sense of community and creating personal
connections with the students. In regular “bailes” [dances], they learned and performed
dances from different regions of mexico. In another, a student-run group published a
monthly newspaper in Spanish (p. 326).
The Intersection of Liberatory Leadership and School Culture
Erasing cultural conflict counters belonging and community because the erasure of some
is inevitable (del Carmen Salazar, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 1995). When schools are spaces for
“cultural cohesion,” empowerment of all students is possible (Fraise & Brooks, 2015).
Researchers Fraise & Brooks (2015) have identified assumptions that influence the spaces where
leadership and culture meet:
1. Schools exist as something disconnected from society
2. Culture is a difference-blind construct (characteristics and dynamics such as race,
class, gender, and sexual orientation do not matter or are not part of concept of
culture (Capper, 1993; Larson & Murtadha, 2002)
3. Cultural diversity is detrimental to the work of a school, since success is often
defined as a normative construct frame through male whiteness (Scheurich &

56
Young, 1997; Young & Laible, 2000)
4. There is some kind of monolithic “school culture” that means the same thing to all
participants (Brooks & Normore, 2010; Brooks & Jean-Marie, 2007)
5. Culturally relevant leadership is a general disposition rather than a paradigm of
practice that demands certain non-traditional out-of-school behaviors that include
building bridges and crossing borders between school and community (Brooks,
2009; Ladson-Billings, 1995a; Marshall & Oliva, 2006; Merchant & Soho, 2006)
(as cited in Fraise & Brooks, 2015, p. 7)
Resisting these assumptions in order to liberate students and educators who are constrained by
these assumptions will require a humanizing pedagogy (del Carmen Salazar, 2013; Freire, 1970;
Huerta, 2011). “Humanization is the process of becoming more fully human as a social,
historical, thinking, communicating, transformative, creative persons who participate in and with
the world (Freire, 1972, 1984)” (as cited in del Carmen Salazar, p. 126). Implicit in the quest for
the humanization of others is the importance of inclusion. In other words, participating in and
with the world means that space must be available for everyone.
We belong through societal action and shared intentionality
Felder (2018) makes a distinction between the “realization” of inclusion and the
“grounds” for inclusion in that the realization of inclusion emphasizes the political struggle and
implementation and the grounds for inclusion focuses on “normative implications” (p. 54). Terzi
(2010) posits that what inclusion means in educational contexts is not agreed upon. For some,
inclusion means access yet for others inclusion means active participation, shared experiences,
and belonging (Felder, 2018). As a result, many educators immediately connect the word
inclusion with issues surrounding special education and access to general education (Bakken &

57
Festus, 2016; Koutsouris et al., 2020; Qvortrup & Qvortrup, 2018). However, inclusion expands
to communal and societal forms of inclusion which often overlaps (Felder, 2018). Felder (2018)
argues that inclusion “ultimately refers to social inclusion” and therefore requires “shared
intentionality and social action to some degree” because physical proximity, or “togetherness” is
not inclusion (p. 58; Koutsouris et al., 2020; Kutz, 2000; ).
The value of inclusion is connected to recognition and freedom (Felder, 2018; Terzi,
2005, 2014). Related to identity formation and human development, recognition requires
acceptance and safety (Felder, 2018). “People must enjoy the love and care, rights and social
esteem that they wish to enjoy” (Felder, 2018, p. 61; Honneth, 1995; Gilbert, 1991; Ikäheimo,
2009). Fraser & Honneth (2003) argue that issues of recognition are issues of status; and
therefore, opens the possibility for cultural normative expectations to bring in and prevent
individuals from participating as equals. Felder (2018) contends that “people must already be
integrated in a cooperative communal or societal context in order to use their freedoms and basic
rights” (p. 63) because “people’s individual capabilities are only partly responsible for
determining the freedom they can actually realize” (p. 65) (Terzi, 2008). Slee (2010) contends
that inclusive education is a “radical and creative enterprise. It is simultaneously a tactic and an
inspiration. It is also a statement of value” (p. 108).
The outcome of Inclusion: A statement of value about chronically absent youth
To belong is to matter. A concept of inclusion that is intentional and provides
participation for all members of a community warrants the reality that each member carries
worth and value. Fink & Hummel (2015) present 5 core practices of inclusive learning
communities that are guided by:
● population-specific theory and research to inform practice;

58
● fostering students’ bond to each other and sense of belonging to the Institution;
● engaging students as active learners in the campus community;
● and creating a positive message of achievement and change;
● and advocating on behalf of the student constituency toward systemic improvement
throughout the institution (p.32).
Fink & Hummel’s (2015) core strategies reflect the importance of how chronically absent
students experience their learning communities and the intentionality that educational institutions
put towards creating environments that honor the dignity and inherent value of marginalized
communities. This study aims to highlight the need for chronically absent youth to have theory
and research that focuses on the conditions related to their personalities and the systemic realities
they exist in (Hipólito-Delgado & Zion, 2017; Koutsouris et al., 2020); to highlight the need to
create community and a sense of belonging for chronically absent youth–specifically (Felder,
2018; Koutsouris et al., 2020); to highlight the need to engage chronically absent youth towards
their own self-determination (Baxter Magolda, 2004; Quaye & Chang, 2012; ); to highlight the
need to consider how perceptions of students are communicated through policy and practice
(Hipólito-Delgado & Zion, 2017); and to highlight the need to move beyond immediate solutions
to present needs of students towards addressing the social and political conditions that create the
needs among vulnerable communities (Felder, 2018; Koutsouris et al., 2020).
Leadership That Empowers
Viewing schooling through Freire’s (1970) banking model could help explain why school
absence is viewed as such a detrimental action (Goodall, 2018). A banking model limits what
students know and do and implies that they cannot gain what they need outside of the institution.
Koutsouris et al. (2020) argue that “education is about relationships at different levels…

59
legislation and policies can promote and safeguard inclusion only to [a certain] extent… people
have to negotiate their relationships with others, and this is when other influences gain more
importance” (p. 191). Hipólito-Delgado & Zion (2017) explain that “empowerment is a
significant construct for marginalized youth” (p. 699) as it relates to psychological well-being
(Molix & Bettencourt, 2010; Tamanas, 2010) and contributes to academic engagement and
academic performance (Ozer & Schotland, 2011). Zimmerman (1995) argues that psychological
empowerment involves “perception of personal control, a proactive approach to life, and a
critical understanding of one’s socio-political environment” (p. 581). It is reasonable to connect
the importance of psychological safety with psychological empowerment when considering how
self-determination is manifested in chronically absent youth—this study suggests that resistance
through absence is untapped strength and a sign that learning conditions require examination and
potential change.
Empowering resistance to Whiteness and liberation as a leader
Temper et al. (2018) view conflict and resistance as productive and necessary for
addressing root causes of conflict. Resistance can be an opportunity for visibility and challenging
hegemonic power structures (Temper et al., 2018) that aim to dominate rather than liberate.
Hegemonic power structures present both explicitly and implicitly (Foucault, 1971; Gaventa,
1980; Lukes, 1974). Freire (1970) believed that educators played a critical role in resisting the
oppression of a dominating class that holds power over most through the access of teaching
communities. Educational spaces provide marginalized individuals to resist their oppression
through recognizing the systemic power of the elite, this cognitive awareness is referred to as
conscientizacao (Freire, 1970). However, a banking model of education continues to withhold
power and agency from the masses (Bhattacharya, 2020; Freire, 1970), and it is essential for

60
students and communities to develop the ability to know themselves, their communities, and how
they are “impacted by institutions of unjust power” (Bhattacharya, 2020, p. 404). For Freire
(1970), learning outcomes should liberate individuals from hegemonic oppression and
dominance by building their capacity to counter and resist oppression and dominance. It is not
enough to know you are oppressed, a complete education equips you with the capacity to resist
and overcome your own oppression with lasting freedom. This is the task of the liberatory
educator.
Fraise & Brooks (2015) argue that “white culture is overrepresented in the schools and is
therefore the dominant culture depicted in the books and demonstrated in curriculum. Many
White teachers do not acknowledge a culture of their own, further perpetuating cultural racism in
the schools” (p. 12). Foucault (1980) speaks of White dominance in both seen and unseen
curriculum and in the culture of schooling. Collins & Jun (2017) refer to the white architecture of
the mind as “the individual actions, choices, behaviors, and attitudes that are guided by a socially
constructed group that predisposes these attitudes and grants privileges and accessibilities to the
core members of a dominant group” (p.6). The importance of identifying what influences a
person is that decisions can be interpreted as “individual volition for the rational mind” (Collins
& Jun, 2017, p. 6). Acknowledging that Whiteness dominates how the American educational
system is designed is necessary for the humanization that should occur within schools (del
Carmen Salazar, 2013; Freire, 1972, 1984; Collins & Jun, 2017). A single reality is one of white
dominance (Bartolomé, 1994; Collins & Jun, 2017; Huerta, 2011; Roberts, 2000; Salazar, 2010).
Du Bois (1903), del Carmen Salazar (2013), and Huerta (2011) all speak of a consciousness of
multiple realities due to the intersectional positionalities that many within American
communities hold. The liberatory leader challenges the white architecture of the mind that

61
explicitly and implicitly encloses the experiences of marginalized voices.
Reframing Chronic Absenteeism: In Spite of it all: Survivance
Survivance is understood as “an intergenerational connection to an individual and
collective sense of presence and resistance in personal experience and the word, or language,
made particularly through stories (Vizenor et al., 2014). Addressing increasing absenteeism rates
among chronically absent youth requires understanding the influence educational leaders have on
fostering the school climates that students experience and how school climates align with school
attendance. Researchers continue to explore school districts that have chosen to take a different
approach to chronic absenteeism/truancy as they collaborate with their local legal systems, social
service and community agencies, school staff, and families to address and prevent truancy
(Trujillo, 2006). Favoring restorative strategies, schools are partnering with schools social
workers (Newsome et al., 2008), community organizations are connected with students and
families to identify and resolve barriers (Fantuzzo et al., 2005; Rodriguez & Conchas, 2009;
Sinha, 2007), and inclusionary efforts to engage students in enrichment opportunities are
implemented (Marvul, 2012). These practices reflect a desire for reparations amidst an
educational debt (Ladson-Billings, 1996) and what this studies further posits as attendance debts,
sense of belonging debts, and self-determination debts. Survivance emphasizes presence through
resistance. Resistance can be through language and the stories being told, resistance can also be
through presence or the lack of presence (Vizenor et al., 2014). Reframing chronic absenteeism
is an effort of reclaiming a narrative of what it means to be chronically absent by elevating the
strength of resistance as a manifestation of survivance.

62
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Guided by my belief that any representation of my problem of practice could not be
linear or confined by traditional ways of knowing (Tuck & Yang, 2014), this framework
represents paths of perceptions of chronic absenteeism that either ignore or examine the impacts
of practices and structural inequities in order to distort or honor the resistance and survivance of
chronically absent students. This framework aims to connect how leaders manifest their
perspectives through the practices and responses they implement to the climate and cultures of
schools and the direct messages delivered to CAY. Perceptions of school climate must matter if
their attendance matters.

63
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Statement of Problem
Education researchers and the US Department of Education interpret chronic absentee
data as supporting a causal relationship between absenteeism and negative outcomes later in life
(Berkowitz et al., 2017; DOE, 2019; Frydenlund, 2022; Hopson & Lee, 2011; Thapa et al.,
2013). The response to absences are often based on the primary assumption that students are not
where they are supposed to be and need to be protected from themselves (Frydenlund, 2022). As
a result, an attendance system that wants students in school because of the assumption that the
physical act of being in school will eliminate poverty, criminalization, drug use, etc. may actually
perpetuate conditions that lead to more absences (Frydenlund, 2022) as students’ sense of
belonging and self-determination is compromised through attendance intervention practices that
are justified by compulsory attendance legislation (Baskerville, 2021). As research studies
suggest that school climate and attendance factors are interrelated (Basile & Thomas, 2022;
Daily et al, 2020; Hamlin, 2021; Hendron & Kearney, 2016; Kim & Gentle-Genitty, 2020;
Pampatti et al, 2020; Van Eck et al, 2016), it is imperative for educators to further consider how
absence response practices are designed to communicate a youths' place and position at school
once the student breaks attendance expectations (Frydenlund, 2022).
Purpose of the Study
As chronic absenteeism rates and societal disparities climb higher, questions of how
practitioners view chronically absent youth and their responsibility to reintegrate them to their
learning communities; questions of what practitioners are doing to facilitate a student’s return to
school; and questions of why practices and policies are selected and implemented arise for
practitioners to answer. Yoking these questions together can open conversation for innovation

64
and transformative action. Rather than solely focusing on the perceived issue of chronic absence
as a canary in a coal mine, perhaps the real canaries are the chronically absent students who have
been alerting us that the coal mines, or their learning environments, are not safe. This study
wished to investigate absence policies and practices that transform how student absences are
interpreted and responded to with acts of healing, restoration and authentic community. The
following questions guided the study:
RQ1:What do site leaders identify as the influences on their attendance intervention
practices for reintegrating chronically absent youth into their learning communities?
RQ2: How do site leaders describe their practices towards chronically absent youth?
RQ3: What role do site leaders believe they play in creating a sense of belonging and self
determination among chronically absent youth?
Sample and Population
The participants of this study are K-8th grade site leaders who have the authority and
power to develop, implement, and evaluate attendance prevention and intervention policies and
practices within a California central coast school district. As principal effects on student
absences have been found to be comparable in magnitude to effects on student achievement
(Bartanen, 2020), this study focused on the response of school leadership towards chronic
absenteeism. The district’s attendance intervention system includes district program specialists
and truancy mentors from a community program called Check, Connect, and Respect.
Interviewing these leaders allowed for further consideration of how responses to chronic
absenteeism can create conditions that bring students and families back into a learning
community with care and understanding without needing to use tactics of fear, intimidation, or
shame.

65
To conduct this study, I used purposive sampling (; Johnson & Christensen, 2017;
Lochmiller & Lester, 2017) as I explored leadership practices that intentionally work to create
and establish supportive responses to chronically absent youth. As a result, I did not pursue site
leaders from districts that do not have a comprehensive plan for addressing historically
disproportionate rates of chronic absenteeism, a budget, intervention staff, or a specific
attendance intervention program. Two specific criteria guided the selection and recruitment of
the site leaders and support staff interviewed for this study.
Criterion 1: The participant must be actively involved in the development,
implementation, or evaluation of prevention or intervention policies or practices.
Criterion 2: The participant must be employed or contracted to be in a K-8 school.
As I searched through Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) throughout
several districts in search of chronic absentee initiatives, I came across an intentional program at
a K-8 school district in California that I refer to as Central Coast School District (CCSD) to
protect the confidentiality of my participants. This district developed a budget for targeting their
chronically absent population and program specialists employed to locate and support truant
students. In addition, intentional community partnerships are established in order to bring in
truancy mentors to also support students throughout the district. With a strong district disposition
that approaches chronic absenteeism with a culture of caring, I planned to research how the
district policy is implemented by site leaders at their respective buildings. Studying a successful
district would produce findings that answer the research questions.
To determine participants for recruitment, I reviewed district and school websites to gain
information on the site leaders and the program development in place. Since the study is focusing
on the beliefs and behaviors of K8 site leaders, the screening process was streamlined through
public information on school and district websites. Participants were recruited through email

66
communication. I contacted the superintendent to seek approval to conduct this study with the
district’s school-site leaders. Once I gained approval, I emailed an introductory letter to school
leadership followed by the study information sheet in order to answer any questions. Participant
understanding of me and my research helped address the ethical nature of how I proceed forward
with them (Maxwell, 2013).
Design Summary
Maxwell (2013) speaks of the researchers as the primary instrument in a qualitative study
and advocates for the motivation within selecting research topics based on personal experience.
Therefore, part of choosing this methodology is to defy past experiences that tried to convince
me that my ways of knowing were invalid or irrelevant in educational spaces. My presence in
this study as the primary investigator, as a member among educational researchers, is an act of
defiance as I make space for myself and others like me. In addition to my positionality in this
study, I am drawn to the flexible orientation towards development and progress that characterizes
qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I am personally motivated by the liberation of
the most silenced spaces through valuing emergent ways of knowing. Patton (1985) claims that
qualitative research “is an effort to understand…the nature of [a] setting—what it means for
participants to be in that setting, what their lives are like, what’s going on for them, what their
meanings are, what the world looks like in that particular setting—” (p.1). Because I take these
perceptions “seriously” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 53), this study was conducted as a qualitative study
that investigates what influences and guides site leaders’ responses and practices for restoring
chronically absent youth to their school community.

67
Methodology
This study followed a qualitative methodology, with data collected primarily from
semi-structured interviews with district administrators, site leaders, and attendance intervention
staff. An introductory survey meant to collect demographic information and to ask for the
participant to identify and rate frequency of practices implemented at their current sites was sent
prior to the interview. This rating was not quantified and was solely used to provide context
about participant practices prior to a semi-structured interview. A semi-structured interview
approach allowed for a flexible interview guide that asked open-ended questions in hopes of
gaining specific data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As a new investigator, I utilized a structured
interview format in order to devote my attention to listening to a participant and understanding
their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Table 1 outlines the methods of data collection used to investigate each research question.
Table 1
Research Questions and Method of Data Collection
Research Question Method of Data Collection
RQ1:What do site leaders identify as the influences on their
attendance intervention practices for reintegrating chronically
absent youth into their learning communities?
RQ2: How do site leaders describe their practices towards
chronically absent youth?
RQ3: What role do site leaders believe they play in creating a
sense of belonging and self determination among chronically
absent youth?
Interview Document Analysis
Questionnaire, Interview Document Analysis
Interview Document Analysis
Instrumentation
Prior to conducting interviews, a qualitative interview preparation questionnaire
(Appendix A) was employed as a first strategy for understanding who my participants are and
what kinds of experiences they may have had as youth and now as practitioners. After consent

68
for participating in the study was attained, the questionnaire was sent electronically in order to
collect basic demographic information as well as data on specific practices at each site identified
by the site administrator themselves. Questions #1 and #2 are close-ended, nominal questions.
Question #1 asked participants to select from a list of educational contexts they had experience
in as a K12 student. Question #2 asked a similar question but involved experience as an educator,
in any capacity. The options for these questions are urban, rural, suburban, elementary school,
middle school/junior high, high school, alternative education, home hospital, home school. My
goal for these questions was to have a frame of reference during the interview when I asked
questions related to influences that inform their current practices. Question #3 is an open-ended
question that asked participants to list any absence prevention or absence intervention practices
that are implemented at their site. The purpose of this question was to know what specific
practices are implemented so that I could devote time during the interview to exploring the why
behind these practices instead of spending time asking the participant to remember all that they
do.
Maxwell (2013) argues that research questions indicate what I want to know, and
interview questions are what helps gain that understanding. Therefore, the questions within my
interview protocol (Appendix B) were designed to seek information that my participants can
provide (Maxwell, 2013). The beginning of the interview addressed the participant’s background
and leadership style. Questions #1 through #3 referred to what influences inform their leadership
practices and how they support vulnerable youth at their sites. The next section focused on how
chronic absenteeism manifests at their site. Questions #4 and #5 focused on general and daily
practice. Questions #6 to #9 built on the information gathered from the introductory survey.
These questions were designed to allow for the participant to describe their practices for

69
addressing chronic absenteeism that they self-identified and self-rated previously. The final half
of the interview sought to explore how the participant views their role in supporting a sense of
belonging and self-determination among chronically absent youth. Questions #10 through #13
were meant to gather rich descriptions as well as provide opportunity for additional practices that
are used that may not fall under traditional attendance intervention systems. These interview
questions were drafted using a combination of generalized, present tense and specific, past-tense
questions in hopes of collecting multiple perspectives (Maxwell, 2013).
Data Collection
Maxwell (2013) speaks of a primary ethical obligation that focuses on understanding how
participants will perceive every step of mine during this study. This understanding is dependent
on what I learned about my participants and my commitment to take the time to build a
relationship with each of my participants, especially the ones who come from different
backgrounds/ experiences than me. The goal of an introductory questionnaire is a first step in
getting to know my participants and fostering a relationship with them. This questionnaire is also
designed to gather data that will inform and tailor the probing questions I planned on using
during the interview with a particular participant. Participants were contacted after I have gained
approval from the district superintendent and other proper channels. Once I received consent to
participate, I provided participants with a range of possible dates for an interview and asked them
to offer times that I may not have provided. Interviews were conducted via zoom. After a day
and time were confirmed, I sent my participants a calendar invite with the zoom link and I asked
my participants to complete the brief introductory questionnaire. This information was referred
to before the scheduled interview and referred to throughout the interview process.
At the beginning of each interview, I reviewed my protocol, thanked the participant for

70
participating, and asked permission to record the interview. The goal was to listen and take field
notes, with the majority of speaking coming from the participants. I also journaled immediately
after the interview to jot down anything else I observed, felt, or found important to note. After I
completed interviews, I transcribed recordings and reviewed the transcription to catch anything I
may have missed or want to follow up on. After a transcript was prepared, I followed up with
participants in order to ask follow up questions as needed; to offer copies of transcripts; and to
remind participants that they are welcome to reach out during the study.
In addition to the interview data I collected, I also examined researcher-generated
documents to gain further context into the school district’s attendance intervention system
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These included district documents such as School Plans for Student
Achievement (SPSA), Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs), and district feedback
surveys (Panorama). The analysis of these additional documents and my own notes and journal
entries allowed me to triangulate the interview data that I collected from participants (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Data Analysis
Rather than waiting until the end of my data collection, my data analysis was treated as
an ongoing process that began as soon as I began collecting my documents, the first
questionnaire, and conducted my first interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). After an interview
was conducted, I journaled my thoughts and perceptions of the interaction. Then I transcribed the
audio recording of the interview. After the transcription was completed, a transcript was read
through multiple times. I sent this transcript to each of my participants to gather any comments
or amend statements before information was thoroughly coded thematically, analyzed
narratively, and saved using Atlas.ti software. This process allowed me to produce memos

71
throughout each step of my data analysis so that I had a comprehensive record to refer to as I
developed the findings for my study. Findings were developed through content analysis to
determine how data collected tied to the study’s research questions.
Trustworthiness and Credibility
The credibility and trustworthiness of my study and my role as researcher was influenced
by how I developed the protocol of my study, my sincerity in viewing my study as a
collaborative inquiry in how to improve school climates and cultures for chronically absent
youth, and my humility towards the difficulty of educational leadership. I frequently reminded
myself that my primary goal is to understand (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) as I exercised a balance
between honoring how I make sense of the world and how others make sense of the world.
Thick, rich descriptions were essential to honoring these ways of knowing accurately (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
Merriam & Tisdell (2016) argue that the direct observations and interviews bring the
researcher “‘closer’ to reality than if a data collection instrument had been interjected between
[them] and the participants” (p. 243-244). In an effort to assure internal validity, this study aimed
to apply the concept of triangulation of multiple sources of data (interview preparation
questionnaires, interviews, and district documents) from various levels of leaders and the
merging of several theories to aid in the interpretation of findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I
wanted to engage in respondent validation by circling back to my participants with my findings
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I also wanted to ensure my interpretation honored and preserved the
words and experiences of my participants as they understand them, especially because I view this
study as a collaborative opportunity to understand and synthesize efforts for addressing rising
chronic absenteeism rates.

72
My biases became evident to me early in the process of writing my research questions
and when I practiced my interview protocol. I actively monitored and interrogated myself every
step of the way in this process, especially as I collected data and came across data that either
disproved my hypothesis or contradicted my assumptions on certain sites. My self-awareness, or
reflexivity, as I engaged in data collection helped with my goal of transparency and integrity in
my study. I kept a journal to document critical self-reflection and any additional insights and
summaries of data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). My strengths lay in meticulous
attention to detail and a concern with protecting the humanity of my participants and the students
I aimed to lift up.
Role of the Researcher
The idea of being a researcher still rests clumsily on me, even now. The dissertation
process, especially identifying a problem of practice, was difficult because I battled an inner
voice that wants to warn me that I am stepping out of the bounds of my place in society. Yet,
Maxwell (2013) speaks of the power of personal experiences to assist in identifying a problem of
practice and committing to a study. The significance of my study connects to my journey in
understanding and accepting my own positionality. Villaverde (2008) describes positionality as
“how one is situated through the intersection of power and the politics of gender, race, class,
sexuality, ethnicity, culture, language, and other social factors” (p. 10). Within a hierarchical
caste system that functions in the United States, I exist as a mother of two multiracial boys, a
partner to a white man, and as a biracial, first-generation daughter of immigrants. My American
experience involves being “othered” and understanding my place in society on the margins. I am
acutely aware that my gender, my smaller stature, my ethnic ambiguity, the darker complexion of
my skin, and even the clarity in my speaking of English could have created a barrier or a reflex

73
of suspicion with my participants (Maxwell, 2013). Nevertheless, my positionality
simultaneously compelled me onward into uncomfortable spaces to ask questions and to continue
to learn how to navigate them as an educational leader and change agent.
My personal experiences of never quite belonging to any group; of having my abilities,
intentions, and personhood questioned or misrepresented; and my experiences as a female
teacher of color who works with chronically absent students all motivated this study. My study
aimed to investigate the correlation between how chronically absent students are to experience
their place and success at school through attendance intervention policies and practices; how
educational leaders perceive chronic absence and absent youth; and how these leaders respond to
chronic school absence. Since I do not hold institutional power, the perceived power I may have
came from being a doctoral student at the University of Southern California.
While the concept of my power as a researcher remains theoretical, developing my
research questions and my interview protocol taught me that integrating my positionality into my
study also comes with significant responsibility and the need for ongoing introspection. I had to
actively work against transferring past experiences or interactions onto my interactions with
participants that identify as white persons. Completing this study involved the work of grounding
myself in my values of honoring the complexity of my humanity and the humanity of others at
the start of each day. This grounding drove me to prioritize finding common ground with
participants, even when I perceived some of their comments as harmful. I aimed to build rapport
with my participants on the shared belief that education is a pivotal societal responsibility. I also
knew it was important to establish my credibility as a thoughtful, prepared, and professional
researcher.
These values and beliefs also drove the healing-centered, liberatory leadership emphasis

74
of my study which is influenced by the work of Paolo Freire. Freire (1970) speaks of the
oppressor and the oppressed both needing liberation. This perspective disarmed me and also
equipped me with the understanding that we are all on our own personal journeys of knowing
ourselves and how we exist in community with other complex human beings (Freire, 1970;
Ginwright, 2022). My focus was on rebuilding what community means after dismantling
oppressive and isolating systems that exist today. This study is presented from the site of
marginalization rather than about the site of marginalization (Causevic et al., 2020).
Summary
This study used a qualitative approach with qualitative data from an interview preparation
questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The data collected from site leaders and
intervention staff in the Central Coast School District was analyzed to answer the three research
questions that guided this study. Data collected was triangulated with the analysis of
researcher-generated documents, participant interviews, and my own memos and journal entries
throughout the study. Findings will be presented in chapter four, with a discussion of the findings
in chapter five.

75
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
Part of survival as a human being is the fight/flight/freeze response that is triggered when
faced with a perceived fear of harm. Viewing absence as a response for survival challenges and
holds educational leaders responsible for the consequences of their responses—whether they are
liberating or oppressive. I wanted to understand how the actions of leaders are connected to the
root causes that lead to the need to remove oneself from an environment. This study aimed to
understand how practicing leaders approach chronic absenteeism as an educational problem and
the students and families who “create” the problem of absenteeism, and how they work with the
students who are identified as chronically absent and their families.
This qualitative study explored Central Coast School District’s attendance intervention
system that involves a collaboration with community partners, school site leaders, and district
office leaders. The objectives of this study were to understand how educational leaders perceive
chronic absence, the chronically absent student, and the CCSD attendance intervention system.
The second objective was to explore how leaders understand the role that their responses to
chronic school absence have on school climate and culture at their sites. The research questions
that guided this qualitative study were:
RQ1: What do site leaders identify as the influences on their attendance
intervention policies/ practices for reintegrating chronically absent youth into
their learning communities?
RQ 2: How do site leaders describe their practices and responses towards
chronically absent youth on school climate and culture?
RQ 3: What role do site leaders believe they play in creating a sense of belonging
and self determination among chronically absent youth?

76
Qualitative data through interviews, internal, and external documents were collected and
analyzed to form an understanding of the beliefs and practices that inform the actions and
leadership of individuals tasked with supporting Central Coast School District’s attendance
intervention system.
The study began with document analysis of CCSD’s Local Control and Accountability
Plan document that explained the development and implementation of the Check, Connect,
Respect program and additional community partnerships designed to support attendance among
their students. After receiving IRB approval, I engaged in informal, context- building
conversations with Student and Family Services and Instructional Services, Teaching and
Learning, and Supplemental Programs district leaders before participant recruitment. The goal of
these conversations was to better understand the intended facilitation of attendance interventions
and the system of support that was created at the Central Coast district office. As this study is
focusing on the influences on implementation and not the development of these attendance
interventions, these conversations did not follow the interview protocol developed for interview
participants. These informal conversations allowed me the ability to target and narrow the
interview questions with the participants without needing to take time to understand what the
intervention system is at Central Coast School District.
A conversation with the Director of Student and Family Services helped me to
understand the “truancy process steps” and what was described as “safeguards in place for
students that are chronically absent” (informal conversation, 2023). The DSFS described how the
process is designed to identify barriers that prevent students from attending school such as
medical needs. Identification of intervention begins with students who have three unexcused
absences and the family is sent a letter. At six unexcused absences, families are required to have

77
a meeting with an administrator and the CCSD attorney representative is also present. At this
meeting, a plan is created. The DSFS (2023) describes this meeting as being more than an
inquiry into what the barriers to attendance are, but also what social, emotional gaps that are
missing. The family is given six weeks to utilize support provided and make a positive change in
attendance. At twelve or more unexcused absences, the family is required to attend a Student
Attendance Review Board (SARB) meeting that the DSFS (2023) described as an
“interdisciplinary team” meeting that documents the district’s attempt to meet the needs of the
student and families. If the student’s attendance does not improve, the family is then subject to
litigation.
The DSFS (2023) described a recent change to the CCSD system as they have worked to
centralize their attendance intervention system to add oversight and support to school sites that
are struggling to utilize the resources available. The DSFS (2023) also provided insight into how
the district office is tracking which outside contractors are being utilized at specific school sites
and the role they play in coming alongside school principals when they are not taking advantage
of the support that the CCSD district is providing for the school sites. Their final comments
emphasized that cultures and climates on campus are a significant factor in creating
environments that students want to be in (DSFS, informal conversation, 2023).
I had a conversation with the Director of Instructional Services, Teaching and Learning,
and Supplemental Programs (DISTLSP) in order to understand how CCSD is monitoring
attendance data and the district is measuring school climates and student engagement. The
DISTLSP explained how Panorama survey data helps to monitor targeted initiatives such as
truancy mentors. While attendance became an issue during the height of the COVID-19
pandemic, the DISTLSP stated that the attendance rate at CCSD has been historically high and

78
that the district has not engaged in conversations about initiatives at the site level. The DISTLSP
was not aware of any School Plan for Achievement (SPSA) documents reflecting attendance
goals. The DISTLSP provided data reports on social/emotional survey data through the
Panorama platform as well as daily attendance data from the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school
year. These datasets were not used to support or detract from the interview evidence that was
collected and analyzed. Rather these datasets were used to provide context into how the district
manages and oversees the implementation of their attendance intervention systems. These
datasets showed that CCSD is interested in understanding how students and families are
experiencing the climate and culture at their sites, teachers, administrators, and support staff. The
surveys also revealed how school site staff experience their school’s climate and culture. I used
these datasets to understand a deeper context into how the district leaders are monitoring the
implementation of their intervention system and how they are connecting these efforts with the
LCAP goals. I did not connect the data from the surveys with the data collected from the
recruited participants that were interviewed for this study.
A conversation with the Student and Family Services Program Specialist (SFSP)
provided insight into how the district’s oversight and support in the implementation of the
intervention system is facilitated through the role of the program specialist. The SFSP (2023)
described their role as making families feel welcome, helping figure out what are the barriers and
what supports best fit to provide a bridge to those barriers so that then sites can implement the
plan (informal conversation, 2023). The SFSP shared an Agency Resource, Referrals, and Staff
Links document that is provided for school site leaders. Within this sixteen page document, each
outside contractor/agency is listed as well as what services each agency provides with a clear
description of what the service is designed to address and the intended outcomes. For example,

79
the Check, Connect, Respect program is a supportive service for students experiencing truancy
and the outcomes are “improved attendance, improved behavior, improved school involvement.”
This document was provided along with explicit training to site leaders at the beginning of the
school year. This document is also used to support ongoing intervention needs and meetings that
are held. I referenced this document during the coding and analysis process to better understand
which services participants were referring to during an interview.
Together, these conversations and document analysis guided the interviews with the
recruited participants. Otter.ai was used to prepare and edit transcripts for coding after the
interviews. Atlas.ti was used to code interviews. The Atlas.ti software allowed me to manage the
number of coded texts within each of the documents. By grouping codes by specific clusters that
were relevant to the study, I was able to determine potential themes during the analysis process. I
explored grouping documents by participant title (principal, assistant principal, truancy mentor,
and support leader), by type of school (elementary, junior high), and by CCSD clusters. This
approach allowed me to consider similarities and differences in data based on title or work
context.
In order to identify themes, I read over the interview transcripts several times, annotating
by hand what was said and what was not being said, what I perceived as possible contradictions,
and to explore the words and phrases each participant used as they spoke. I then extracted what I
perceived to be relevant to the research questions (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). Focusing on
relevant text allowed me to make connections among codes. Within these connections, themes
emerged. Ultimately, the themes that emerged through this coding and analysis approach
supported the influence of interconnected organizational cultures vs. hierarchical organizational
cultures on leader practices; the influence of one’s positionality and understanding of educational

80
equity on how leaders view the chronically absent youth; and the influence that a white
architecture of the mind (Collins & Jun, 2017) has on moving leaders to action or complacency
in engaging the chronically absent youth through school cultures and climates.
This chapter opens with a description of the recruited participants in this study. Following
are the findings for each research question. I considered the perceptions, descriptions, and
influences of each participant that arose from the data collected. Components of the conceptual
framework related to brain-based cultural responsiveness vs. deficit thinking connect to the
findings and the role these concepts play in the findings. Each research question section will
provide a discussion of specific findings. The chapter will conclude with a final summary of
findings.
Recruited Participants
I expanded the definition of who is a leader because of the belief that leadership is more
than a title or position. Leadership involves the courage to act and advocate for the possibility of
an equitable world for everyone. A leader is someone who moves themselves and others towards
justice and love. I recruited 17 participants who met the study’s participant criteria within the
Central Coast School District. The participants represent 47% of schools within the CCSD
school district. A range of years of experience as an administrator, experience as an administrator
at CCSD, and experience as a teacher in CCSD is represented in the participant recruitment.
Each participant plays a leadership role in implementing CCSD’s attendance intervention system.
All participants participated in a one to two hour semi-structured interview that was
recorded via zoom. Most of the participants completed the pre-interview questionnaire, however,
there were three participants who did not complete the questionnaire. The completion of the
questionnaire did not influence or impact the data collection within the interview process. Each

81
participant was provided with an edited copy of the transcribed interview before I began the data
analysis process. Only one participant asked for revisions of misspelled words and I
misunderstood a phrase they said. I made the requested corrections before beginning the coding
phase of the data analysis process.
Pseudonyms were assigned to each participant to protect confidentiality. Quotes are
followed by assigned pseudonyms unless providing a name could compromise confidentiality. Of
the 17 participants, 13 individuals identify as women and four individuals identify as men. 9 of
the participants identify as white and 8 of the participants identify with a racially marginalized
identity group. The participants include: 5 elementary school principals, 3 elementary school
assistant principals, 3 junior high school principals, 1 area administrator who serves 2 elementary
schools, 1 district administrator who was a recent site administrator at an CCSD school, and 4
truancy mentors from a local community nonprofit. In order to protect identities, additional
descriptions of the participants are not included.
Table 2
Interview Participants
______________________________________________________________________________
Pseudonym Role in the District
______________________________________________________________________________
Leader A Elementary Principal
Leader B Elementary Principal
Leader C Elementary Principal
Leader D Elementary Principal
Leader E Elementary Principal
Leader F Elementary Assistant Principal
Leader G Elementary Assistant Principal
Leader H Elementary Assistant Principal
Leader I Junior High Principal
Leader J Junior High Principal
Leader K Junior High Principal
Leader L Administrator
Leader M Administrator
Leader N Truancy Mentor
Leader O Truancy Mentor
Leader P Truancy Mentor
Leader Q Truancy Mentor
______________________________________________________________________________

82
Findings for RQ 1: What do site leaders identify as the influences on their attendance
intervention policies/ practices for reintegrating chronically absent youth into their
learning communities?
The human condition consists of lived experiences, perceptions, and efforts to know and
connect with others. Each participant came to an interview with personal and professional
experiences that implicitly and explicitly influence the way they interpret the world around them;
and in the case of this study, specifically how they perceive and respond to chronically absent
youth and their families as educational leaders. With the exception of truancy mentors, the
general perception of the participants' practice with chronically absent youth was comprehensive
and not differentiated by student group. The participants emphasized that they treat chronically
absent youth the same way they treat all students. Each participant emphasized the importance of
specific influences on their overall practice as leaders that ranged from personal background, to
educational experiences as youth, to professional experiences as an educator, to the
influence/mentorship of others, and to external factors such as the CCSD attendance intervention
system of resources, attendance policies, and the school community. Participants implicitly
identified their view of leadership and their view of chronically absent students and absences. I
also heard generalized assumptions from several participants that reflected a combination of
brain-based, culturally responsive and deficit-based perceptions of others.
The participants that shared a perceived connection to the lived experiences of the
students they served within the CCSD school sites were more aware of how their personal
backgrounds and experiences influenced their work with chronically absent youth (Leaders A, B,
H, N, O, P, and Q). The participants who experienced academic success and had access to
academic resources leaned more on their professional experiences in the classroom when they

83
were teachers and as administrators working with families who are chronically absent (Leaders
C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, L and M). All participants emphasized a reliance on the CCSD attendance
interventions system and resources. However, some participants described their experiences from
a transactional perspective in that students or families either accepted the resources and changed
their behavior or did not accept resources or change their behavior. There was an emphasis on
outcomes. Other participants described their experiences through a collectivistic perspective that
considered systemic inequities that limit the effectiveness of interventions. Outcomes were
important to these participants, but participants indicated that outcomes were secondary to the
humanity of the students and families that these participants work with.
At the beginning of each interview, I perceived that participants came prepared to talk
specifically about chronically absent youth. The participants were initially disoriented by
generalized questions about their overall practice as leaders at the beginning of the interview.
However, each participant referred to a variety of influences on their practices for attendance
intervention and interactions with chronically absent youth. Several shared their perceptions of
factors that they can control. Others emphasized factors they cannot control and the limitations
they perceive on reintegrating CAY. Each participant shared their own personal beliefs about
school attendance and truancy, as well as their “why” as an educator, as a driving force behind
the initiatives they propel and the interventions they implement. There were many participants
who discussed recent changes in perception of truancy or their own personal or professional
development as leaders. The themes that emerged from participant data emphasize the role that
an interconnected or a hierarchical organizational culture plays in how participants lead and what
influences their practices.

84
Interconnected Organizational Culture
Participants who viewed their role in an interconnected attendance intervention system
emphasized the specific areas that they had control to influence. They considered their ability to
directly impact the experiences of students and staff at their sites. Rather than focusing on the
success or failures of outcomes, they identified the satisfaction of rebuilding relationships with
community members or working to connect individuals with the resources they need—regardless
of why these resources were needed. Rather than making judgements, the participants described
having a disposition towards curiosity and listening to understand the stories of others in order to
support them.
Leading Together with Resilience, Empathy, and Forward-Facing Advocacy
When participants described factors that they cannot control, there was a sense that
despite limitations, they focused more on how they can overcome these barriers. Factors that
participants cannot control are viewed more through the role that others within the organization
play to fill gaps that the participants cannot fill themselves. For example, many participants
identified the role of parents/guardians and the role of access to transportation both have on
attendance. Despite naming barriers, many participants chose to focus on what they can do when
students are at school and building relationships with the student and their families. Leader B
shares that “listening is something I do a lot more now. I ask a lot more questions. And then I
think about how I can use my onus of control. How can I do what I need to do to help people?”
Many participants emphasized the assets that others on their team are to the organization.
Leader C spoke of “shared responsibility” at their site. This perception was shared through the
description of the Coordination of Services Team (COST) meetings that several participants
referred to as they described the selection and implementation interventions. For example,

85
Leader C describes “ it's more just like everyone comes together and thinks, ‘Okay, this kid
needs,’ you know, and then we pair [them] with [that].” Leader C reflected on the importance of
meeting with others as a team. Leader E described the importance of systemizing the
coordination of services through a digital form that automatically distributes referrals to specific
individuals based on specific needs. Leader Q spoke of tailoring her intervention plan to the
specific needs of a student. They stated “it depends a lot on the situation in terms of why the
student was out to begin with.”
Leader Q describes a change in how they understand truancy now as a truancy mentor. Leader Q
reflects that:
There's this almost like stereotype of when you think of truancy, you think of a student
just not liking school. ‘I just hate school, school is not for me.’ But I think being in the
field….I think there’s more than just that they don’t like school. There’s always
something deeper to them not wanting to go to school.
Leader Q further explains that they have learned to keep an open mind to everyone’s situation
and every student.
Each of these participants shared stories of their interventions not being successful, but
they reflected on a desire to persist and to continue improving their practices. Leader G was the
sole participant to acknowledge that they do not actually know if their efforts are successful.
They stated that they measure success of an intervention with the connections that are made with
students and families. Leader G shared “I’m already thinking about, well, how would I go deeper
to know what’s really the impact of what we’re doing?” Other participants separated the
perception of an “unsuccessful” intervention and the desire to persist—to grow and develop their
practice of pursuing and supporting the needs of students and families.

86
Leading to Humanize
All participants were asked to consider their leadership style and their role in supporting
their sites. Each participant’s sense of responsibility as a leader, their perception of themselves
and others, and their commitment to understand others emphasized the importance of learning
and development as leaders who are collaborative, reflective, and humanizing. Requiring
individuals to share about their approach to their leadership required vulnerability and
transparency with me. Leader B emphasized the impact of the pandemic on their leadership.
They shared that:
the pandemic gave [them] an opportunity to just stop in life and figure out: why am I
here? I’m here to make connections with others. And do what I do best: I teach. And
teaching means that you start where people are at, and you work with them, not for them,
but with them.
Leader E shared their progression in understanding from being a teacher who focused on
academic growth when a student was absent, to being an assistant principal and shifting to
knowing families and helping vulnerable students. Leader E reflects gaining “a new perspective
that I had to learn: why are students chronically absent?” Leader E describes their passion as
helping “the students that need us most.” And as a result, Leader E chooses to be a part of all
COST meetings, all MTSS meetings, and all IEP meetings. They emphasize the importance of
“hav[ing] your finger on the pulse of what students need you the most.”
Participants who consistently viewed their role within an interconnected system viewed
attendance and school absence with empathy, a commitment to understand and build connections
with students, a connection to the community as a whole, and a strong desire to identify root

87
causes of absence rather than focusing on the absence itself. Leader A shared that they empathize
with their students who are struggling. They said that their past upbringing:
gives [them] that empathy to know that it’s not so easy. It’s not just as easy as ‘Hey, get
up and go to school.’ Sometimes getting up means, ‘Oh, crap, I remember what happened
last night, and I have to relive it again.’ For others, it’s ‘I can’t wait for school, because
it’s my escape. It’s my distraction. It’s my food, it’s my entertainment, my friends, the
people I care about, and I don’t have to think about the rest.
Leader C described communicating to families: “we’re here to support you” and “what
[resources] can [we] offer” based on “individual kids or family need.” Leader N explains that
working with individual families, often in their homes, can be unpredictable and as a truancy
mentor, they must think quickly. They shared that their supervisor told them to “follow [their]
gut, follow [their] perspective, and aim to do what is right by the student and their family.”
Participants emphasized the importance of wanting to make a positive impact on the students
they are working with at a particular site—regardless of outcomes.
Hierarchical Organizational Culture
Participants, who described their site and their role in the CCSD organization as within a
hierarchy, focused on their individual role in implementing CCSD’s attendance intervention
system; implicitly, separating their efforts from the efforts of the district, staff, students and
families. Participants identified their perceptions of their positions as leaders, their assumptions
of the chronically absent youth and the problem with truancy, and their beliefs of education as
driving influences on their practices. As they described anecdotal experiences or generalized
descriptions of truancy interactions at their sites, participants described several factors that they
felt they cannot control or influence. Participants described a strong desire to solve truancy

88
problems and a belief that they are limited by the perceptions and actions of parents, students,
themselves or other staff members based on the outcomes of their efforts. Some participants
emphasized the limitations of their own role in facing specific truancy challenges because they
did not see their ability to do anything about certain situations. Other participants shifted blame
on misconceptions or ignorance of parents/guardians and the value of education and school
attendance.
“They Just. . . I just . . . If only”: The Conditions that Qualify, Empower or Limit Leadership
Representing elementary, junior high, and truancy mentor leaders, Leader H, I, J, L and Q
described situational leadership that is informed by varying perceptions of truancy, their specific
contexts, their power as leaders, and of their purpose as an educator which could explain the
inconsistent responses throughout their responses. Leaders J and L viewed their role as leaders to
be one of building trust among their school staff in order to foster a school climate and culture
that invests in students. Leader L spoke of their special education background and their desire to
reframe the strengths and abilities of students with special educational needs. Leader L’s
background in special education moves them to focus on prevention and diagnosing if the
physical and emotional needs of students are “really being met.” Leader L was more critical of
general education teachers and their frustration with the challenges that inclusion can bring to
classrooms. Leader L emphasized finding a balance in prioritizing academic and nonacademic
goals in order to create spaces that students want to participate in.
Leader J reflected on a long career of working with junior high students and explained
that they view their overall mission to:
grow brains, we’re here to grow humans. And the way we do that is by providing
structure, support, and building on those by helping kids understand that they have

89
talents. As we help them develop their talents, they will have more options in the future.
Leader J also described the intentional support and guidance they receive from the district office
but still shared that they were not confident in their ability to select the support that is “really
best for the family.” They also said that “there’s people in this district who know that better than
I, and I just need to, I want to get up to speed faster.” Leader J aims to be a supportive leader but
can, inadvertently, limit themselves with their own imagination of what is possible or why
circumstances come to be.
Building on their lived experiences and personal beliefs, Leader H spoke altruistically
about the role that education plays in upward mobility and positive later in life outcomes, as well
as their goal to better inform chronically absent families. Leader H identified connections with
their own upbringing and national origin background and the backgrounds of many families in
CCSD before suggesting that non-educated families, non-English speaking families, or families
who are socioeconomically disadvantaged needed them to emphasize the importance of
education.
Leader I explicitly identified their higher education attainment and variety of professional
experiences as significant influences on their leadership. Because of an early education
background, Leader I believes that educators have the power to “set the conditions for learning in
a classroom space or in a school level.” With a desire to create meaningful learning conditions at
their site, Leader I gave examples of their leadership such as a standardized approach to
managing unfavorable behaviors such as truancy and fighting on campus with “consequences
which are a natural part of the learning process and life.” They also equated attendance problems
with drug use problems before referring to a menu of intervention programs that are available for
students.

90
Leader I described his leadership as a facilitator providing access to better understandings
of how to be productive and successful members in their communities. Leader I discussed the
importance of a connection with families and their efforts in welcoming and engaging the
community with relevant topics that support the current needs of students at the site. Leader I
separated the building of this connection from the support of a truancy mentor. They described
their assigned truancy mentor like a member on a tactical deployment rather than a collaborative
partner. The use of data monitoring was another influence that Leader I emphasized. Leader I
stated that the use of data collection through specific data systems allow them to track and
organize “all systems of support. . . it all affects attendance.”
Despite explaining beliefs in a collaborative leadership style and reliance on team
members, deficit-based beliefs about truancy and school attendance were critical influences on
the practices of some of the participants. In regards to chronic absenteeism, Leader J seemed to
suggest that the solutions to the barriers that students experience are available to them if students
“just show up.” Leader J understandings of truancy come from past professional experiences in
comprehensive and alternative education settings. Their perceptions of truancy varied depending
on which past experience was informing their thoughts. For example, Leader J described his
strong belief in the importance of physically being at school based on his experience at a
residential alternative high school program. “You just gotta show up” (Leader J). However,
considering their current site, Leader J connected school attendance with student perceptions of
safety. They emphasized the developmental stage of middle school students with the added
challenge of additional areas of need as significant barriers to experiencing safety. They
described their “biggest hurdle is taking the time to figure that out for each kid and then
providing situations to help them feel comfortable on this campus.”

91
While all truancy mentors viewed themselves in partnership and equal with the
communities they are serving, half of the truancy mentors also viewed themselves at the bottom
of a CCSD hierarchy. Some of the site administrators seemed to support this distinction. For
example, Leader I compared their currently assigned truancy mentor to past truancy mentors who
Leader I perceived to have been more proactive than the current truancy mentor. Several
participants mentioned the irregular availability of the truancy mentor compared to the outreach
mentor who is at their site all week. These participants viewed the availability of truancy mentors
through a deficit lens. For example, Leader C stated:
I think . . . more effective than the truancy mentor [is the outreach mentor] because they
see them all of the time. And they have all these other opportunities to interact with them
besides their weekly time that they have [with the truancy mentor].
The result of viewing CCSD’s attendance intervention system through a hierarchical perspective
was that participants emphasized their sole role implementing CCSD attendance interventions
and their perceptions of the intervention system itself.
Leader J reflected on their role within the organization and at their site before as they
described the culture at CCSD as “much more focused on providing students and families what
they really need than anywhere else [they’ve] worked.” They identified that their understanding
of what resources CCSD has and how to support specific needs to be their own barrier to
facilitating the services that are available. They then concluded that their job “as the
administrator is to help people work with what they’re actually seeing. And help them
understand that they do have the resources to do it.” Leader I states that “a core belief of [theirs]
is that positive adult presence makes a difference in our kids’ lives. And it could be anybody.”

92
Leader I further explains that the “greatest access for the most number of students is through tier
one instructional practices. So the widest, most impactful place for that would be there.”
Discussion Research Question #1
Participants primarily identified their own personal or professional lived experiences and
core values as driving influences on their attendance intervention practices. Secondary to
personal or professional experiences are beliefs about school attendance and beliefs about
chronically absent youth and their families. A participant's trust in CCSD’s intervention system
and in the individuals who support the system also influenced the practice of the participant.
Some participants expressed a fear of the consequences of truancy on the lives of students while
also adamantly supporting punitive consequences such as fines and other legal consequences.
Leader I stated, “I want the district attorney to follow through with what they said. I’ve gotten to
SARB [and said] I want you to finally buck up and press charges against this family.” However,
Leader I repeatedly acknowledged “our kids have needs and barriers” and explained their task of
“how can we get kids what they need?”
Many participants perpetuated the assumption that school is the only safe space for
students or that school is the only place to learn how to be productive, contributing members of
society. Leader D and Leader K emphasized gang activity in their community and their belief
that school is the safest place for them. Leader K emphasized how school can help students to
“choose a different path.” Leader B and E spoke of the role that education played in their lives
and their access to upward mobility through their educational achievements. Several participants
also insisted that the rigidity of attendance policies and truancy intervention systems are
necessary and just. Leader I rhetorically asked “if the district attorney will not follow through
with their messages, then why are they doing all of the meetings with the families?” Leader J

93
repeatedly stressed the belief that “showing up” is enough to change the educational experiences
and lives of chronically absent students. Leader K emphasized the need to follow the district
wide attendance policies and procedures and also “try to identify…why is the kid not coming to
school. And then work with them in a variety of ways.”
Participants who focused on what they can control, rather than the limitations of
situations or other people, spoke of the lessons they have learned as a result of being members of
a marginalized group themselves. Leader Q stated:
I think admin see our roles very differently. I have some admin [who] genuinely care
about me meeting with students, and they ask ‘How is this student doing?’ But then I
have admin who think I’m there to get signatures for them. They never ask how I’m
doing… sometimes I want to remind them [of what my role is], what I do, and who I am.
These participants spoke of their own self-determination as advocates and protectors of
inequities that many chronically absent youth face. Leader Q emphasized that “truancy looks
very different for every student. The way we navigate every case is different…the biggest
priority [is that have] someone they can trust, someone who sees them and someone who hears
them.” Leader N explained the importance of stressing to families the potential consequences of
persistent truancy. “We [try] to express [to parents] we don’t want you to get fined as parents
because it’s a lot of money.”
There was also a stronger sense of belonging within their sites and CCSD community
among the participants who viewed themselves leaders of an interconnected, collectivistic
culture. These participants suggested that hierarchies were not necessary or relevant to
supporting and reintegrating chronically absent youth into their learning communities. Leader M
emphasized that “it takes a village.” Leader C described the importance of working on a team

94
because they do not have experience teaching in an elementary school. They said “I do use my
leadership team to ask lots and lots of questions…I get a lot of feedback… there’s a lot for me to
learn.” Participants described problem solving as opportunities to learn. Leader M stated that
they have “learned to work with a team” and they have learned about communicating with
parents.
Participants who emphasized collaboration, community, and courage to act on core
values that honored chronically absent youth and their families by meeting them where they are
explicitly spoke of a refusal to shame or guilt families into meeting attendance expectations.
Leader Q explained that the support of a truancy mentor is “actually addressing the whole
person.” Leader A spoke of their role in facilitating the contexts that chronically absent students
come back to at school by asking their team “so what do we do to rally around the student when
the student returns?” These participants focused on the work of pursuing their students and
families through humanizing them because they are equal members of their community and
because of a belief that even the chronically absent youth inherently deserves a disposition of
unconditional dignity and support from their educational community. Leader M stressed that they
learned that “there’s a range of reasons out there. I’ve just learned to be sensitive to that, to listen
and work with the families and not against them… It’s really about [the families].”
Findings for RQ 2: How do site leaders describe their practices towards chronically absent
youth?
This study’s second research question sought to explore how leaders perceive chronic
absence and the chronically absent youth through the descriptions of their own practices. As the
findings of research question #1 suggest, a participant's view of school attendance influenced
their practices. Where a participant positions themselves influences the way they position the

95
chronically absent youth. Participants that viewed themselves within an interconnected
organizational culture tended to focus on the humanization of others through brain-based,
culturally responsive lenses. Participants that viewed themselves within a hierarchical
organizational culture tended to interpret their behavior and the behavior of others through
deficit-based lenses. However, regardless of the lens that a participant interprets their leadership
or chronic absence, all participants described themselves as advocates. Participants who viewed
attendance as a symptom of deeper needs tended to focus less on changes in the behavior of
students or families and more on the relationship between the school and the student and their
family. All participants advocated for some idea or belief about school attendance and the
chronically absent youth. The themes that emerged from participant data emphasize the influence
that deficit thinking and brain-based, culturally responsive perceptions play in how participants
describe their practices towards chronically absent youth.
“Forgive them, for they know not what they do”
Several participants were aware of the varying factors that impact school attendance and
they were able to identify the factors that lead to their students at their sites being chronically
absent. Participants emphasized the importance of other individuals to carry out tiered
interventions and their role as being more of a facilitator. Overall, participants whose
descriptions presented deficit-based perceptions of CAY students and their families repeated the
idea that being at school was the primary intended outcome of attendance intervention practices
and therefore the majority of interventions are focused on getting students to school.
The junior high principal participants (Leaders I, J, K) emphasized attendance as having
causative power to impact students’ academic and social development and later in life outcomes
as they considered their students transitioning to high school. Leader B shared that they wish to

96
present data on attendance to parents that connects dropout rates, graduation rates, early literacy
in order to persuade parents of their role in helping get their students to school. Leader D, K, and
M connected attendance with access to students and spoke of wanting to influence cultural
change in their community. Leader D explained their leadership team is actively trying to:
work on what [their] families, [their] community, and even some of [their] staff believe
[their] students are capable of doing…if the expectation is low, then the self-expectation
is low. And that’s a big one right now because it has become so ingrained in our part of
the community.
Leader D described convincing parents in the community that students should not come to school
in baggy clothing that “looks like they’re about to join a gang… We want them to actually dress
like students.” As mentioned in the discussion for RQ1, Leader K also spoke of concerns with
gang culture in the community and the danger of recruiting more students in the community to
“go down that path.” For Leader K, school attendance is a reliable way for escaping the harm of
associating in gangs in the community. .
The Advocate Who “Knows” What is Best for Others: School IS Important
Participants who described paternalistic practices towards chronically absent youth
emphasized desires to intervene and correct behavior. In the case of the CAY, the goal was for
students to physically be present at school—this idea was a consistent belief that was generalized
without any concessions for how simply being at school is not enough for academic success for
all students. Some of the participants viewed their practices as sympathetic to the difficulties and
challenges that CAY often experienced, yet remained critical and transactional. As Leader K
stated: “one of the first things that we definitely have to do is get them to school” before
describing the way their school site support team functions:

97
[in] our support team… we identify the students that are basically 20% or more, and from
there drill down specifically to what the student needs now. Who's going to adopt this
student need and work on it specifically?
There is an assumption that simply meeting the needs of CAY through a systematic approach
will be enough to solve the issue of chronic absenteeism. Leader K gave an example of a system
of varying accountability measures that are designed to “provide for positive interactions. Things
like: a behavior contract, goal setting, grade checks, things like that.” Leader K described a
concern of not wanting to “[throw] a lot of programs” on students who come back to school after
lengthy absences. Leader K generalized that chronically absent students are overwhelmed and
that they do not want to “automatically [sign them up] for a lot of things” because doing so does
not “help the sense of overwhelm.” Other participants implied similar sentiments that they knew
what was best for students and families and it was their role to hold students accountable—for
their own good.
Furthering the assumption that being at school is pivotal, participants described their
practices as transactional as they emphasized the input they devote to attendance intervention
and in guiding CAY and their families towards meeting attendance expectations. Leader B stated
that “as an administrator, it became glaringly evident to me that attendance was directly tied to
student achievement.” This perception motivated Leader B to focus on getting students to be at
school. Leader B teetered between having clear expectations for students and families about
attendance and stating that they “try to be flexible with the families.” Leader L described their
role in facilitating attendance meetings to “capture what’s preventing them from being at school”
so that they can address whatever barrier is being experienced. Leader H described collaborating
with parents who ask for support, but they described a more directive approach with students and

98
families that do not meet attendance expectations and are reluctant to comply with the school’s
policies and practices. Leader C described the importance of not accepting excuses and instead
focusing on identifying barriers and remedying them. They said “I can work directly with a
student on getting them here through sort of like strictness or rewards—it kind of depends on
what works for the kid. And then if it’s more of a family issue, then, what service can we pair
them with?” Leader C says that this is their approach so that they “know that [attendance] is
important” (emphasis mine).
The Traditional, Well-Meaning Advocate: For Their Own Good
There were participants who described their practices through a traditional tiered
intervention system, some referred to the multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) concept but
others described their role of shepherding students and families to meet the expectations of their
sites. After discussing what attendance interventions are used within a three-tier approach,
Leader B emphasized the role of prevention through re-educating families on attendance
guidelines after the COVID-19 pandemic and the temporary changes in attendance policies.
Leader K described the importance of schoolwide agreements for behavior expectations through
the example of what it means to be tardy. They spoke of the need to make sure that being tardy
means the same thing in each classroom; an issue of consistency that was presented as an issue
of fairness. They viewed the process of creating common language and common expectations to
be a collaborative endeavor. Leader I referred to their standardized approach to managing
unfavorable behaviors such as fighting on campus with “consequences which are a natural part
of the learning process and life.” They then connected fighting, attendance, and the use of drugs
before explaining how they use a menu of intervention programs. The menu of intervention
programs was viewed as a benefit to Leader I.

99
Leader H and Leader J both described their practices with a hybrid of empathy and
sympathy for CAY. Despite sharing explicit and implicit judgments on CAY and their families,
both participants described their desire to support and advocate for bringing students back to
school. Both participants did not explore ways that conditions can be reimagined and improved,
and instead focused on helping CAY and families understand how to meet expectations. Leader J
spoke of the development in their own perception of “where our resources really live, and what
our job as a school system is.” They credited the CCSD district as “putting their money where
their mouths are,” “getting things done,” and “reaching out to our families and our kids.” Leader
J shared their desire to facilitate these resources and help students have access to what they need.
Leader H explained that they see their role as being “key in helping students [and] how their
futures are going to be shaped.” They said, “I’m living proof” of the importance of supporting
families and being role models for the community.
A Fuller Lens, A Clearer View
The clearest distinction between participants and their roles was evident through
answering research question #2 as participants described their personal upbringing and how they
described their attendance intervention practices. In addition to a deficit-based lens, participants
who viewed attendance problems as being the result of outside factors did not describe any
problems within schools that could contribute to school absence. Participants who described their
practices with a brain-based, culturally responsive lens shared knowing what needs a family has
because of a relationship between the family and the school.
The Advocate Who “Comes Full Circle”
Participants who viewed themselves as an equal member of the CCSD community
described their practices towards CAY as advocacy and opportunities to redeem their own pasts

100
as marginalized individuals in their communities. Their practices were presented as reflective,
collaborative, empathetic, and humanizing. Leader Q tells her students when she first meets
them, “I’m like you…we’re even.” Leader L emphasized “I just really want to figure out what is
motivating the kids to be here.” Leader N shared the importance in letting their students know
that “I have been through the same path, I know how it feels, I understand why they feel a certain
way.” Leader N’s personal journey with anxiety has helped them to normalize mental health
support with many of their students who avoid school because of social anxiety. Leader C spoke
of the reality that some students’ adult family members also carry “educational trauma'' that has
taught them that “school is not safe or that they’re not welcome,” and it’s on them to “stick with
a family” to overcome past harm. The theme of the advocate who positioned themselves as an
equal with students, families, and staff was nuanced among participant job titles. Truancy
mentors emphasized their partnership with students/families and their sites. Site leaders
emphasized more of their common background or lived experiences that led them to feel
connected with the students and their families.
As a result of their lived experiences and first-hand experience with the same struggles as
their students, Leader A reflected that they want to “meet students where they are and really truly
give them an experience of school” that opens up opportunities for a better “path.” Leader A
reflected on the importance of building trust with the community by meeting them where they
are. They described seeking to understand what is happening and not pushing families too much
because, often, people are coming from “a place of hurt.” Leader A also recognized that the
“entry points are not ever going to be the same” and that the task is great for the educator. For
Leader A, they were more concerned with overcoming barriers and providing students with the
opportunities and access to other pathways that are typically withheld from them than their

101
compliance with attendance expectations. For Leader A, N, O, P, and Q, they were more
concerned with preserving the opportunities within the education system than enforcing
compliance with arbitrary policies such as excused and unexcused absences.
Leader N’s first sentence in the interview was to clarify that “most of the kids [they] work
with have gone through a lot from [their] own experience.” Leader N states:
I understand the goal is to get them to school, but it’s also understanding why they’re not
going to school. Most of these kids don’t have access to food, clothes, or shoes. They’re
embarrassed of the clothes they wear everyday. Some are embarrassed of their
background. Some are getting bullied. Sometimes these kids have a hostile parent or are
being neglected.
The ability to understand the impact of not having your basic needs met led Leader N to
emphasize the importance of listening and recognizing that supporting CAY involves more than
getting students to school. They stated “students’ perspectives are different from their parents’...
a lot of kids, especially elementary kids don’t understand what’s going on… so I listen to see
how they’re perceiving things and see how I can better assist them.” Leader N’s descriptions of
their practices towards CAY seems to suggest that truancy mentors are more interested in
addressing root causes of why students are not at school.
Leaders O, P, and Q shared similar desires to advocate for the students they work with.
Leader O’s first response in the interview was to also clarify that “[they] basically grew up in this
community.” They share many similarities with the students and families they work with at their
sites. This deep connection and understanding leads Leader O to want to “make a difference.” As
truancy mentors, these participants spoke of intervening with teachers, administrators,
counselors, and even parents on behalf of their students. There were also examples of truancy

102
mentors advocating on behalf of parents and families against CCSD staff. Language barriers
typically drove these examples of advocacy on behalf of families from the truancy mentors. All
of the truancy mentors spoke of the importance of pairing students with the right resources but
they also spoke of the importance of their students feeling seen, heard, and valued. Leader Q
spoke of feeling that coming back to the CCSD community as a former student felt like coming
back full circle. There was a real sense of pride and also invested commitment to support CAY as
a truancy mentor. All of the truancy mentors emphasized the importance of creating a safe space
for their students—a priority that was different from the other participants.
The Advocate Who Wants to Empower
Participants B, D, E, F, G, and M emphasized the importance of focusing on creating
conditions that CAY can find community and purpose. These participants described their
practices with a similar humanistic approach as the participants in the section The Advocate Who
“Comes Full Circle”; however, they lead from the personal and professional development that
challenged how they understand educational inequities whereas Leaders A, N, O, P, Q lead from
having personally experienced educational inequities.
Leader B and F were the only principal and assistant principal team that I was able to
recruit. Together with Leader B, Leader F described the intentional collaboration and shared
commitment to be aware of every student and their needs. Through their MTSS work, Leader B
and F are able to streamline and connect students and families with appropriate resources. Leader
B stated that unless families “know that you truly, honestly, care about them” they will take your
help as “condescending, and they won’t want to participate.” This sentiment is supported by
Leader F’s description of treating each student’s attendance needs on an individual case by case
basis. Leader B and F utilize services available to the student and put their energy towards

103
engaging with the student and families and determining with them what support will look like.
Both leaders spoke of changing their approaches due to a belief in honoring the humanity of their
school community. For example, Leader F spoke of rewriting punitive attendance letters and
rewriting them to communicate that the school wants to help—an intentional deviation from
CCSD practice but a change that was soon adopted by CCSD.
Leader C, D, and M focused on adapting to the needs of their sites and investing in
knowing who their community is. Leader C described their role in determining whether it is
“competence, relatedness, or autonomy” that was at the root of disconnection among students
and staff at their site. Diagnosing the driving force behind a student’s disconnection allows for
connecting that student with the resources that are needed. Leader C came the closest of these
participants to look at factors of school engagement and a belief in the importance of school
attendance with outside systemic inequities. They spoke of the impact of educational trauma that
parents/guardians experienced as students on the ways that they interact on behalf of their
students. Leader D emphasized the importance of sitting down with students and their families.
For them, it’s critical that each student knows they can come to the office and say “this is what I
need” and know that they will get what they need.
Leader M consistently emphasized the learning that they have gained throughout their
career. They stated that they must “take into account [a student/family’s] life because each of
them must have different and their reasons for why they.... allow the chronic absenteeism.”
Leader M contended that “it’s worth the investment to get to know them, to hear their story. You
got to meet them where they’re at.” They shared an example with a specific mother as they
reflected at the start of the interview that “it’s hard not to judge, but we have put so much in
place and offered [her] so much.” Leader M concludes this example by stating that “[the mother]

104
doesn’t know how to trust” and shared past trauma that has impacted this mother’s beliefs about
the world around her. Leader M was a key factor in leading I to consider a spectrum of
perceptions and beliefs. Despite describing a separation between leaders and the Central Coast
community, Leader M consistently described a desire to empathize and liberate. They state that
“communicating with parents about their children’s chronic absenteeism is such a relationship
building opportunity.”
While Leader M emphasizes the need to develop a meaningful relationship with parents,
they also stated “[parents] refuse to abide by our rules. I guess, you know, [they] tell you to your
face, like, how dare you tell me what I need to do with my child.” Leader M described the
development of their practices the more that they interacted with families and students who were
identified as chronically absent with a helpful contradiction. They said:
I learned to be more systematic about my approach. In that, first, I would just listen, I
learned that I just needed to start by listening to the story. And then I have my list. Okay,
we're gonna go this route, or we're gonna go this route, we're gonna go this route. So I
was able to be more systematic based on the different categories of like, situations that
just when the experiences I gained more and more stories.
Discussion Research Question #2
There were participants who were proud of the interventions they implemented on behalf
of their neediest families. However, what separated the first section of participants who leaned
on deficit-based perceptions from the second section of participants who leaned on brain-based,
culturally responsive perceptions was that the first group of participants did not identify with the
CCSD community regardless of their desire to champion and advocate on their behalf. This
finding lifts up the significance of shared connections among historically marginalized peoples

105
and the existence of educational inequities. In the case of this study’s findings, participants that
demonstrated a brain-based, culturally responsive perception of their school communities were
also members of the same, if not similar communities, or the participants had engaged with
educational equity principles and practices. Participants who discussed educational problems
such as chronic absenteeism without exploring the root causes of the problems described their
practices more systemically and deficit-based.
Participants who adopted a brain-based, culturally responsive lens towards their practices
shared a nuanced perception of the world and educational inequities. In fact, these participants
shared wanting to do more as a public institution. Leader B said that:
if it was up to me, we’d have a clinic right here, we’d have a food bank right here… so
parents could come in and shop for clothing or get the things they needed, get laundry
detergent so they can wash their kid’s clothes.”
Leader E states that “improved attendance is a bonus of the cultural work that we are doing.” For
these participants, positive school attendance was not in and of itself the main priority. These
participants emphasized the importance of communicating to their students and their families
that their safety and sense of belonging is central to their efforts as leaders in their community.
The difference in being able to meet students where they are is seen between Leader A
and Leader M. Leader A’s personal experience strengthens their professional capacity without
the delay of having to learn about the significance of a marginalized experience. This difference
is sustained in the difference in emphasis and focus between participants who are administrators
and participants who are community leaders (truancy mentors.) In addition, participants who
shared that they do not directly work with CAY were more likely to view chronic absence

106
through a deficit lens and focus on students back in their seats than on why students are not in
school or why they do not want to be in school.
Findings for RQ 3: What role do site leaders believe they play in creating a sense of
belonging and self determination among chronically absent youth?
Each participant recognized the importance for all students to experience a sense of
belonging. They also confirmed that there is a connection between school attendance and a sense
of belonging. However, not all participants felt that they could or should play an active role in
the creation of an inclusive school climate and culture that focuses on bringing the chronically
absent student back into the community. Rather, they emphasized that the reintegration of the
chronically absent student was embedded in tier one efforts that are designed to impact all
students at a school. The data collected to answer this question revealed that the positionality of
the participant influenced how participants understood belonging, a sense of belonging, and
self-determination. Two themes emerged that both reflect the ways that whiteness, as a system
(Collins & Jun, 2017), limits understanding of inclusivity, safety, and the freedom necessary for
self-determination among chronically absent youth.
What Does it Mean to Belong?
Belonging seemed to have different meanings based on how participants identify and
position themselves in their communities. The data collected from the truancy mentors
highlighted this difference the most. Without the intentional collaboration with site
administrators, truancy mentors felt limited in their ability to contribute to a sense of belonging
or self-determination for chronically absent students because they are only on site once a week.
However, they remain committed to showing their students how much they are cared for and
how much they can do to succeed as they see, hear, and engage with students on their level. For

107
the students on their caseload, the truancy mentor is often viewed as a vital lifeline for CAY. The
role of the truancy mentor as a leader should not be overlooked or dismissed.
When The Ability to See and Hear is Clouded By What We Know
Street data “emerges from human interaction, taking us to the ground level to see, hear,
and engage with the children and adults in our school communities—particularly those at the
margins” (p.19). Getting to the ground level for CCSD will involve a more intimate collaboration
with truancy mentors. Truancy mentor data revealed consistent variations in communication and
collaboration experiences with different sites that they serve. As a result, another type of range
emerged between participants and what it means to belong in a school community. Among
truancy mentors, consistent communication with administrative leaders arose as a critical conduit
for accessing a sense of belonging, especially for students, their families, and the truancy
mentors. Administrative leaders spoke of communication with their team on their sites but did
not mention their collaboration with truancy mentors other than assigning them students to their
caseload.
Leader Q explained that not all sites are receptive to working as a team and there are
some administrators who stop at blaming parents for absences, and administrators do not do
more to bring students back to school. Truancy mentors viewed the inability to work
collaboratively as a cultural behavior to blame and ostracize people who do not conform or
comply. Leader Q shared that the “junior high is not a welcoming environment, you have
security and cameras all over you” and it “doesn’t really give a friendly environment.” Yet three
of the four junior high principals at CCSD spoke of a different experience at their sites. For
example, Leader I viewed school climate and culture as a simple factor to manage. They describe
this effort as “relational pieces that don’t cost us anything… a sense of belonging comes from

108
individual connections, and the approach to how we acknowledge and welcome them…It doesn’t
cost anything to say, ‘Good morning. I’m glad you’re here today.’”
For principal leaders, they viewed belonging as a solution to attendance problems and to
creating connections as a community. Leader I explained that the foundation for attendance is to
consider that a school environment “is not just about the students. It’s all about the adults and our
impact on students.” Leader K admitted that “ there’s always work to be done with students’
sense of belonging, especially at a junior high” before discussing the developmental needs of
junior high school students. While Leader K emphasized giving students opportunities to
develop a sense of belonging, they did not discuss what their role is when a student rejects an
opportunity. Leader K mentioned Panorama survey data but did not talk about what their site is
actively doing to foster belonging other than having a kind tone and greeting everyone. The
conclusion of Leader K’s responses to belonging at their site focused on the amount of gang
activity in the community and how gang affiliations are related to belonging. Leader K said
“that’s what [students] know, because that’s what they have seen their family members and their
community gravitate towards.” Leader K believes that telling students that there is a “better
path” is their role in meeting students who need to belong to a community.
Leader E viewed school culture systematically and therefore viewed their role is to create
and manage efficient systems and cultures of care. They stated that, while not directly tied to
attendance, their site is prioritizing “being a restorative community and building relationships…
holistically as a site, the Culture and Climate team is really working on [what is] important:
every student has a relationship with someone on campus so that everyone feels welcome.”
Leader C also emphasized the importance of restorative practices at their site and their school’s
number one goal is creating a culture of belonging. Supporting these goals, Leader C highlighted

109
the role of providing staff with a flow chart of resources to reinforce a positive behavior
intervention system.
What Really Matters to Chronically Absent Youth
During my analysis, the following response from Leader N indicated that although some
participants desire fuller knowledge, they may not know their chronically absent students outside
of their truancy. Leader N stated:
I want to say—maybe in the most respectful way— I feel like there's sometimes not
enough consideration in regards to students' backgrounds. And I think it's a little difficult
for school admins, sometimes to give suggestions without having a full knowledge of
what a student or the family is going through.
Leader N spoke of an interaction with one of the assistant principals at an elementary school in
CCSD who told the truancy mentor that they do not believe in the attendance intervention
program. This experience left Leader N feeling intimidated and that they cannot ask for
assistance with students at this particular site. Leader N further shared that many of the students
that they work with do not come to school because they feel they do not belong at school.
Authentic care was a consistent concept that arose in the discussion about belonging.
Leader G stated that “schools should be the safest space in a community” and is a space that the
adults get to control and create. Leader G spoke of their role in supporting their site principal and
their collective mission to change school rules that are not important to them or the school
community. As a result, punitive systems such as dress code, referrals, and suspensions were
stopped. Leader G spoke of their role as being willing to slowly shift and adapt to the needs of
the community rather than complying with how things have always been done in schools. For

110
Leader G, their work is propelled by a love for the humanity and dignity of the learning
community they serve.
Truancy mentors were eager to discuss belonging at their sites. Each of them described
the use of an intake form that asks students about their experiences at school and how their
experiences relate to their school attendance. Leader Q claimed that:
you’d be surprised how many times a lot of students say no to feeling cared about by
adults at school… when a student feels like they belong there, and they’re welcome,
they’re cared for, you’ll be surprised at how many more students actually would go to
school.
Leader Q said that a sense of belonging looks like “schools showing and telling students that
they care, they actually care about them, not just about them being there [at school]. It’s about
[the school] caring about their well-being and them being successful in school and outside of
school.”
Some of the participants spoke of the way they use incentives to engage students. Leader
Q shared they “like to [use] incentives,” and “one thing [they have] noticed is that incentives
don’t work for all students. Some students just don’t care for it.” For these students, Leader Q
offers them a meeting where they don’t talk about attendance, instead they will play a game or
they will paint. Students even enjoy bringing their lunch to eat lunch with the truancy mentor.
Some students are even motivated by the offer to have the truancy mentor help them with their
homework. Leader O spoke of incentives like small gift cards and how students look forward to
earning them. However, Leader O uses the incentive to continue the opportunity to have students
set goals, accomplish their goals, and learn that they have the agency to accomplish goals
themselves. Leader A spoke of using incentives so that students “feel good about being in school

111
and coming at a good rate…we’re celebrating attendance quite a bit.” Leader D shared that they
“try to stay away from any of those types of incentives [for] the whole class that has perfect
attendance…because a majority of the time, that absenteeism isn’t at the fault of the student.”
Leader D explained that they want to focus on building a “positive relationship with the parent
[so that] they feel supported rather than judged or criticized—that they know we’re here actually
to help.”
Competing Parameters of Self-Determination for Marginalized Youth
Exploring the role that participants believe they play in creating school climates that
foster self-determination among chronically absent youth revealed deep feelings among
institutionally created boundaries that give power to certain people within hierarchical systems.
Some participants emphasized the difficulty of engaging students on a broad level and the greater
challenge of fostering the type of autonomy, competence, and motivation they want from their
students. For example, Leader J shared that “a lot of our chronically absent youth believe that
they are super capable in their daily life… many would score themselves very high on thinking
they were independent, thinking that they were self-actualized.” Leader J described
disappointment in how students sometimes chose to manifest their self-determination. Other
participants also equated self-determination with traditional academic success or schooling
compliance. In giving an example of a self-determined youth at their site, Leader K described a
young teen who showed so much growth because she no longer gives her opinion with “vinegar,
so that it doesn’t get seen as being defian[ce].” Leader I also spoke of their inability to redirect
what they referred to as “very self-aware” youth who choose school avoidance and mistake their
own actions as independence.
Other participants viewed self-determination as a trait that is contrary to defiance and

112
non-compliance. They delineated between what is acceptable autonomous, competence,
self-motivated behavior from what they see from students they see as not meeting expectations.
Leader H spoke of self-determination as something to be given to students by teachers through
opportunities to be independent and make their own choices. Yet, Leader H also spoke of the role
of the educator to convert defiance into ownership before describing compliance as the intended
outcome.
“How Do You Engage the Ones Who Don’t Want to be Engaged?”
Leader C was another participant who viewed self-determination as a fundamental need
to protect among their learning community. Leader C described their role as one of equipping all
students with the confidence that they are “good at things, people care about them, and they
belong at school.” Leader C also made connections between social culture and academic culture
at their site. Leader C “But you know, I guess it’s probably more . . . [that someone was] paying
attention to him” that causes a change in “engagement or excitement.” Leader C demonstrated
vulnerability as they admitted that their site’s curriculum could be more “accessible, and more
engaging overall.” Leader G prefaced their role in supporting self-determination among students
with their core beliefs about students: all want to learn, some are easier to engage but they can
still be engaged, multi-language learners have amazing brains, there is more to the lives of
students than school. Therefore, Leader G believes that their role is to help students find
themselves in a setting that welcomes them, values them, and makes space for them to play an
important role. Leader G emphasized the role of security in establishing self-determination
among a learning community. Leader M also spoke of the impact safety can have on opening a
student’s motivation and willingness to be self-determined. Leader J shared that students need to

113
be able to believe that they are worth it, and therefore concluded that relationships are paramount
for helping students see their own self-worth.
Similarly, truancy mentors also connected self-determination with a sense of belonging.
Sense of belonging took on a deeper meaning for truancy mentors as they reflected on their role
in supporting students who have valid and reasonable reasons for avoiding school. Leader Q
described a separation between how they and families view an excused absence and what the
school district views as an excused absence. Leader Q states:
It's really interesting in terms of what the school district considers truant and what’s
possible and what’s not possible. What is considered an illness and what is not considered
an illness; or what’s a valid excuse and what isn’t a valid excuse to miss school.
Leader N emphasized the importance of communicating to their students that they are not there
to judge them or push them away because of what they look like, what they wear, or what their
needs are. Rather, Leader N explained that all truancy mentors view their role as advocates on
behalf of the students placed on their caseloads. Their advocacy is a way to redeem experiences
of exclusion, shame, and judgment that many chronically absent students are used to happening
when they are at school. To counteract these experiences, truancy mentors stressed their role in
addressing the mental, physical, and emotional needs of students by showing up and listening to
their stories. The act of sharing stories, sharing their humanity with their students creates safety
and the opportunity for students to be themselves. All of the truancy members emphasized that
the chronically absent youth has the same needs as the student who shows up to school everyday.
Truancy mentors spoke of the limitations of school culture and climates that impact their
ability to fulfill their roles in supporting students' sense of belonging and self-determination.
Leader O shared that the support of an administrator is key to being successful as a truancy

114
mentor, but that all truancy mentors are committed to making connections with their students.
They know that their impact on their students on their caseload is an important role. Leader P
shared that connecting students with clubs, sports, or activities that they belong to is an important
part of their role. Essentially, the presence of a truancy mentor is a vital intervention that not only
provides the street data for assessing climate and culture of a site, but the truancy mentor is often
the chronically absent student’s only lifeline at school. According to Leader N, “junior high kids
don’t want to come to school because they don’t see themselves as being successful in the future,
so [for them] what’s the point.”
In speaking about engaging junior high students, Leader Q contended that “just because
they’re getting older doesn’t mean they don’t appreciate the little praises, or, you know, being
told good job—you did good.” Leader P also spoke of the importance of acknowledging
chronically absent students and offering praise when they show improvement. Leader O shared
the impact on students who notice that the administrators are more focused on discipline than on
being proactive and building relationships with students. Chronically absent students also notice
when administrators care about the issues they face. Leader N shared that many of their students
avoid school because they are bullied at school or they do not feel that school is going to benefit
them at all. They shared that students believe that “if [administrators] don’t care about me being
bullied then they [won’t] care if I’m at school.”
Liberating the Non-Compliant, Self-Determined Youth
The following participants emphasized the role of equipping students with the skill and
understanding to set both academic and nonacademic goals as ways of authentically engaging
students. Part of the truancy mentor program is for students to develop goals to work on within
the 9 week cycle they are in with their truancy mentor. Leaders N, O, P, and Q emphasized the

115
positive impact that setting and meeting goals has on students who are chronically absent. If
students meet their goal before the 9 week cycle ends, “[they’ll] create one more goal with them
until the ninth week to keep [them] pushing to improve their attendance” (Leader P). Even
though there are instances where students do not meet their goals within the 9 week cycle, the
truancy mentors focused on the opportunity to keep trying in a new cycle. Leader O stated that
“setting goals with them [reminds] them that they matter.” As long as students are willing to
engage, the truancy mentor continues to work with the students. Two principals (Leader C, E)
emphasized the role that goal setting has in their sites among staff and how goal setting trickles
down to students in their classrooms. Leader C described the impact of an adult working with
students to monitor their achievement of academic and nonacademic goals. They described this
as a “support” and a way to “create a culture of belonging” at their site. Leader E described their
role in walking into classrooms and asking students “what's our goal for what we’re learning
today?” and hearing a “cacophony of [what] they were going to do.” Leader E explained, “to me,
that’s fabulous in a fourth grade classroom… [for them] to articulate before they’ve even done
the lesson… It was pretty amazing.” For Leader E, there is power in goal setting and explaining
to parents and students what they are working towards by giving students access to their own
data so they can track and monitor their own progress.
Participants who are in other types of leadership positions also spoke of the role that goal
setting plays in engaging students. Assistant principals (Leader F, H) spoke of their site's culture
of students setting learning goals with their teachers. “Sometimes teachers post them or
sometimes they just work with the students so that they are a learning team.” Leader L (a site
administrator) described their role of helping teachers recognize that students meeting their
non-academic goals should be celebrated just as much as academic goals are—especially for

116
students who have IEPs or behavioral plans. Leader L explained that it is imperative for all
students to experience success because “a lot of students experience failure again and again.”
Remembering that students should have academic and nonacademic goals is how Leader L
“really meets the needs of the whole child and not be so focused just on academic performance.”
We Believe For Them Until They Can Too
The findings from Leader A’s interview was significant in that they revealed an
humanistic approach to self-determination that is influenced by personal experiences as a
marginalized youth. These experiences led to deeply-held beliefs that meeting students where
they are can only happen when the leader accepts that “entry points are not ever going to be the
same.” Leader A acknowledged the real frustration that can come with not knowing what the
entry point is for some students, but explained that they believe “every student’s got
something…every student can be reached and every family can be helped. It’s just a matter of
finding those pieces.” Leader A described a change in self-determination among students as
being like “switch going off” when they gain purpose and can see a path forward.
Leader A compared this observation with their personal lived experience of realizing that
“I could do this” and it felt like a reset button on having agency and an achievable goal to work
towards. Therefore, Leader A explained that their role in fostering self-determination among
their students is through meeting students where they are. Leader A is dedicated to coming
alongside students to “get an idea of what [they] can do and where [they] want to go” so that
Leader A can support their path. A key point that Leader A emphasized was that
self-determination is going to be different for each individual student and it is important to meet
students where they are. As a result, Leader A believes their role is to provide students with
access to diverse pathways so that students can envision more for themselves and decide what it

117
is they want to do. Leader J also spoke of the role of the educator to have enough belief for the
students who do not believe in themselves yet.
Discussion Research Question# 3
Each participant recognized an interconnected relationship between academic and
nonacademic learning opportunities and a student’s experience at school. For example, Leader E
explained that CCSD uses attendance to measure student engagement. Most participants spoke of
how students' perceptions of their place at school and their ability to succeed deeply influences
what happens inside and outside of the classroom. However, there is a distinction between the
depth of what it means to belong and what it means to be self-determined that separated the
participants who self-identified with privileged, affluent backgrounds and the participants who
self-identified with marginalized backgrounds. For example, responses about self-determination
triggered differing versions of the American Dream. While several participants referred to their
past and their ability to rise above their backgrounds, there were participants who applied a “pull
yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality to chronically absent students. Other participants took
a more intrinsic, humanistic approach and spoke of the inherent worth of every chronically
absent student that they work with at their site, and their desire to help students unlock their
potential and agency in their lives.
Truancy mentors view their role as limited in being able to help create a sense of
belonging and self determination at their assigned school sites because of the limitations of their
roles within the CCSD intervention hierarchy. The power and control lies among site
administrators and the cultures they sustain at each school. Nonetheless, truancy mentors came
alive when discussing belonging and student engagement because they view these factors as
being critical to meeting the deeper needs of students and how they understand themselves and

118
their place in their schools. Participants who either shared similar stories with students or they
had grown to understand how social inequities trickle into the education system spoke of
belonging as a basic need on the same level as food, housing, and physical safety. Individuals
who had experienced the impact of not belonging were apt to prioritize and defend the
importance of belonging, especially for the chronically absent student. For others who have not
had the opportunity to experience being marginalized, they viewed belonging as another
educational initiative that could be addressed through systemic programming and good
intentions.
Summary
The findings of this study reveal the need for leaders to consider the perceptions they
have of chronically absent youth who fail to meet attendance expectations. The result of these
perceptions can either repair or strengthen wedges between marginalized communities and the
educational institution through their practices to reintegrate CAY and through the school cultures
and climates they create and sustain as leaders. The driving factors for chronic absenteeism are
complex and involve what occurs inside and outside of school. How these factors are interpreted
and acted upon differs based on a participant’s positionality. A leader's own sense of belonging
and self-determination as a leader in their community, regardless of their role at CCSD, greatly
influences their sense of responsibility in fostering belonging and self-determination among
chronically absent youth at their sites. A discussion and implications of key findings,
recommendations for practice and future research, summary of limitations and delimitations, and
implications for equity and connection to the USC Rossier Mission follows in Chapter 5.

119
CHAPTER FIVE:
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
This study focused on a single school district that implements an intentional attendance
intervention system that involves a community partnership and cycles of mentoring intervention
for students who are recommended due to chronic absences. Seventeen participants were
recruited from the Central Coast School District in California. Principals, assistant principals, a
district office/site-based leaders, and truancy mentors represent the recruited participants that
were interviewed once or twice for 60 to 90 minutes throughout the 2023-2024 school year.
Through qualitative, semi-structured interviews, I aimed to investigate how absence response
practices communicate a student’s place and position at school once they break attendance
expectations, and how leaders understand the ways their responses to chronic school absence
contribute to school climate and culture at their sites.
This chapter begins with a discussion and the implications of key findings; followed by
recommendations for practice and future research; a summary of limitations and delimitations;
and implications for equity and connection to the USC Rossier Mission follows in Chapter 5.
The chapter concludes with a final concluding statement.
Discussion of Findings
This study addressed three research questions focused on investigating how leaders
develop perceptions of the chronically absent and practices for attendance intervention (RQ1),
how site leader describe their practices towards chronically absent youth (RQ2), and the role that
site leaders believe they place in creating a sense of belonging and self-determination among
chronically absent youth (RQ3). The following discussion highlights findings from the study that
are divided into three sections that explore the role of an organizational culture on leader

120
practices, the power of perceptions to liberate or oppress, and the ways that leaders’ perceptions
of a sense of belonging obfuscates the manifestation of self-determination among chronically
absent youth.
Culture Matters (Research Question #1)
The conceptual framework theorized that responding to chronic absenteeism through
deficit-based thinking would lead to ignoring “the impact of [educator] practices and broader
structural inequities” (McClure & Reed, 2022, p. 10). The result would be a distortion of the
manifestation of chronically absent youth’s survivance and this distortion would manifest
through the responses and practices of leaders. The conceptual framework theorized that
responses and practices would be characterized by judgment, enclosures, and punitive
dominance. Respectively, the conceptual framework also theorized that responding to CA and
CAY through brain-based, cultural responsiveness would lead to examining the “the impact of
[educator] practices and broader structural inequities” (McClure & Reed, 2022, p. 10) and thus
honoring the survivance of chronically absent youth through responses and practices
characterized by love, liberation, healing, and reconciliation.
Applying the conceptual framework to the influences on their practices for reintegrating
chronically absent students, participants identified the CCSD organization’s cultural values,
beliefs, and practices helped to explain the ways that participants understand their practices for
supporting chronically absent students and families at their sites. Based on the findings for
RQ#1, the deficit or brain-based, culturally responsive lens through which participants apply to
the organizational culture they perceive from CCSD was the strongest influence on participants
intervention practices; their beliefs about chronic absenteeism and the chronically absent student;
and their sense of leadership in their community.

121
Participants presented a variety of leadership beliefs and values that ranged from viewing
their role as part of an interconnected CCSD intervention system and community to being an
isolated actor in a linear and hierarchical CCSD intervention system. Viewing themselves within
an interconnected organizational system motivated participants to lead with others and to create
partnerships with their colleagues, students, parents, and community members. These
participants spoke of a disposition to withstand setbacks and disappointment through optimism
and belief that their students are worth their time and efforts.
The themes of the findings for RQ1 suggest that the privilege that a person holds is used
as a standard to measure the abilities or deficiencies of others. The remedy for the tendency to
place standards on others seemed to be the inner work of each individual person and their
acceptance of systemic inequities in social and economic realities. The participants who engage
in understanding the ways that privilege has influenced the trajectory of their lives are equipped
to withhold blame and judgment as they interact with chronically absent youth and their families.
To Liberate or Oppress—How You See Matters (Research Question #2)
The majority of participants were not consistent in how they described their practices.
What could be viewed as discrepancies or contradictions should instead be understood through
the reality that human beings are complex individuals. The variations from the participants
represent an honest representation of how human beings make sense of the world, themselves,
and others. The influences on intervention practices that a participant identified carried into the
ways a participant described their practices. The evidence shows that every participant that was
recruited from the Central Coast School District spoke of a commitment to their students and
their school sites.

122
The educational system in the United States is mainly led by people who uphold white,
hegemonic ways of being (Spring, 2016; del Carmen Salazar; Safir & Dugan, 2021;
Hannah-Jones, 2019). Several participants described characteristics of white dominant culture as
they described their fears, one right way thinking, individualism, and worship of the written
word (Okun & Jones, 2021) as either impacting their practice or the practice of others. These
white cultural characteristics drove deficit perceptions about students or others who failed to
comply or meet expectations of either the participant or the CCSD attendance intervention
system.
The findings seem to suggest that participants who were more aligned with white culture
also spoke of attendance as having causative effects that they felt a calling to prevent. They
believe that their intervention is focused on meeting immediate needs and saving students from
the harm that school absence brings. For example, many participants spoke of the idea of gaining
stories about vulnerable students and families over their years in the field. The idea of gaining
the stories of others stood out to me because of the hints of colonial ways of engaging with
marginalized groups. I believe that this was not the participants’ intention; however, it is worth
noting that deep cultural roots linger unknowingly and appear through the words we use. These
participants also view their role as the leader is to enforce a way of being that produces
hegemonic and paternalistic outcomes (de Oliveira, 2012). These outcomes are being present at
school and complying with any schooling expectation in order to be qualified as successful. I
believe that the influence of an individualistic, deficit-based way of thinking limited some of the
participants' ability to understand that the issues that chronically absent students face are not
self-induced.

123
The limitations of empathy when there is not a shared experience or an experience of
marginalization became apparent during data analysis. This is a reality that ought to be
considered but not held against someone’s capacity to humanize others. While varying factors
influence whether site leaders describe their practices through a deficit or brain-based, culturally
responsive lens, all of the responses suggest that deficit-based biases are still within all
participants—even the participants who would disagree with themselves philosophically still
held deficit-based lenses that impact their interpretations of their work with students and families
in their community. As I pondered the implications of this finding, I considered that if the
individuals who I would consider educational equity warriors, who are open to defying
oppressive systems, still succumb to stereotypes and deficits with people who do not comply
with institutional expectations, then that means that the ones who do not speak of equity or do it
superficially, also can have deficit-based biases. The white architecture of the mind can still
permeate the minds despite a desire to be culturally responsive (Collins & Jun, 2017). And if that
is the case, then we should all be looking at our systems and finding ways to establish cultures
that want to examine and disrupt unfair bias that sustain inequities.
I wish to suggest that our humanity will not allow us to be all one way, we are complex
and contradictory. We have to acknowledge this within ourselves if we are going to have the
capacity and creativity to disrupt and co-construct educational systems that liberate all people.
Perhaps equity work is not about one vision versus the other. Perhaps it is about having the
courage to have uncomfortable conversations and valuing a culture that can critique a system and
change it as needed. Freire (1970) contends that the work of liberation must involve both the
oppressor and the oppressed.

124
As I choose to believe that oppressors have the capacity to change, I consider the impact
of a deep stain of white dominance that still leaves its mark on liberatory views of the world
when people who do not meet the expectations of others who are in power. Exploring how
delicately fragile this socially constructed way of being is, I contend that failure to comply does
not give anyone the justification to dehumanize the self-determined individual. If people are not
expendable based on their compliance or usefulness, perhaps choosing to sustain this belief as a
core value would further influence how leaders interpret and describe chronic absenteeism and
the chronically absent student to themselves and their learning community. As bell hooks (1989)
wrote,
When liberal whites fail to understand how they can and/or do embody white supremacist
values and beliefs even though they may not embrace racism…they cannot recognize the
ways their actions support and affirm the very structure or racist domination and
oppression that they wish to see eradicated (p.113).
It is imperative that all educators build their capacity to recognize when their actions support and
affirm oppression, which implies that the possibility cannot be removed. The possibility is
present for all (Freire, 1970), and preserving the reality that whiteness permeates all spaces is
critical to challenging White dominance (Collins & June, 2017).
They Belong Here and They Are Resisting (Research Question #3)
Niemic and Ryan (2009) contend that “people are innately curious, interested creatures
who possess a natural love of learning and who desire to internalize the knowledge, customs, and
values that surround them” (p.133). In fact, Niemic and Ryan believe that curiosity, interest, and
the need to make sense of one’s knowledge are resources. However, educators have moved away
from tapping into the resources within students and instead over rely on external pressures to

125
control students and the learning environment (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Grolnick et al., 2014;
Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Jang et al., 2010). When students do not fall in line and allow
themselves to be controlled by teacher expectations or educator programs, teachers and
administrators begin to view this behavior through a deficit lens and also rely on punitive and
exclusionary policies and practices to force obedience and submission from students.
Collins and Jun’s (2017) concept of the architecture of the white mind and how it
dominates what reality is within a community seems to help explain differences in how
participants understand their role in creating a sense of belonging and self-determination among
chronically absent youth. While truancy mentors “don’t have the privilege of functioning in a
single reality driven by White dominance” (Collins & June, 2017, p. 9), their ability to hold and
navigate plural realities that acknowledge the complexities of social inequities that impact their
lives and the lives of their students. This ability is also a privilege to know and understand the
issue of chronic absenteeism more comprehensively. This privilege could allow site leaders to
work together with community partners and gain from what Safir & Dugan (2021) argue is the
“most valuable source of data in [buildings]: human experience” (xi). Leader Q described the
interview process as an opportunity to “vent. . . pour it all out.” The understanding that truancy
mentors have of chronically absent students is untapped data. The experiences of truancy
mentors within CCSD schools is untapped data. Including all voices, such as truancy mentors,
within the CCSD community could help combat epistemic blindness (Causevic et al., 2020; de
Oliveira, 2012) that misleads leaders towards equity traps that lose sight of the systemic
manifestations of oppression.
From a neural perspective, how students feel is critical for thinking and meaning-making
(Immordino-Yang, 2007). Students deserve and require learning environments that are relevant

126
to their lives, environments that meet them where they are, and environments that empower them
to be self-directed learners. I found that truancy mentors demonstrated a greater empathy and
even understanding of why students choose to avoid school. Reconciling what administrators say
about a sense of belonging at their sites (ie. the distribution of resources) with what truancy
mentors experience (i.e. collaboration and othering) and what students share with truancy
mentors (i.e. lack of care, inaccessible curriculum, bullying, etc) was a challenge. The findings
suggest that an individual’s experience with belonging or not belonging influences the
importance of school culture and climate. An individual’s experience with being engaged and
experiencing autonomy, competence and belonging influences the priority that self-determination
is for marginalized youth who resist or reject institutional expectations and practices.
Implications for Practice
Shifting interventions from fixing problems to restoring community through principles of
inclusion for chronically absent students, a marginalized category of students, is dependent on
the continued resistance of youth and co-conspirators who are reframing strengths, success, and
liberation as they exist and function within American schooling systems (Friere, 1970; Hiller et
al, 2017; Love, 2019). If we know that how we feel in social spaces will impact learning, how
will we take better responsibility for the school environment—especially for those who are kept
alongside the margins of the educational system? A belief in the importance of outcomes to
measure the effectiveness or equity of an intervention was a consistent delineating influence
between the themes that emerged from research question #1. This is not to say that participants
who did not explicitly speak of humanizing chronically absent youth do not believe in the
importance of humanizing them. It also does not mean that any of the participants are actively
trying to or wanting to dehumanize anyone. Rather, I propose that these participants are not

127
accustomed to or have had the need to consider the dehumanization of others through systemic
inequities. This is an opportunity to grow and develop. As DEI writer, speaker, and activist Kim
(2021) writes:
we are just people, engaging in different behaviors and actions, causing different impacts
to different communities, making decisions that either benefit or deter the movement
toward social justice. We are not, and cannot be, one-dimensionally absolutely good or
bad. Good is an adjective, not an identity, that changes with our daily actions and
impacts. So rather than asking, ‘Am I a good person?’ ask yourself, ‘Do my actions have
a good impact?’
There is a disconnect between how most site administrators view the chronically absent
youth and their place at school and how truancy mentors understand the CAY. There is so much
available to educators in the human beings that occupy the spaces we call schools. Students in
fact have what they need on an intrinsic level to learn, and when we believe that they are not
curious, uninterested, and do not care about what they do not know—another pathway for
marginalization is forged. Yet, when leaders focus more on having a good impact than whether
they are good or right, they are more inclined to work alongside others, to work for others, and to
release transactional ways of being and doing. When leaders focus more on positively impacting
the lives of others, the need to sustain hierarchies or to work independently fades because the
work of humanizing others becomes paramount. The work of humanizing others requires root
cause analysis and limits the ability for people to be satisfied with immediate, short-term
solutions.

128
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendation 1: Culture of Collaboration and Fidelity Among Leaders
Safir and Dugan (2020) argue that power-sharing is the antidote to power-hoarding. This
can look like “expanding [planning] and decision-making tables to include students, parents,
paraprofessional staff, community elders, and other marginalized voices” (Safir & Dugan, 2020,
p. 188). Improving the equity of learning conditions at CCSD will require the involvement and
equal participation and input of the CCSD community. The existence of inequitable equity work
is the consequence of the limitations of hierarchies. “Leading for equity is inherently emotional
work, we must cultivate our capacity to sit with and honor people’s feelings. Otherwise, we risk
erasing their experience” (Safir & Dugan, 2020, p. 205). There are important cultural
implications to determine as a community that can be designed to humanize and honor one
another in a brain-based, culturally responsive way.
Ginwright (2022) argues that leaders can gain vision “beyond simply improv[ing] their
community [by] transforming how [we] show up for [one another] and cultiva[ting] a sense of
freedom to work together differently” (p.184). Removing the limitations in how individuals in an
organization interact and communicate with each other could open up and teach leaders the value
of street data and collecting it from all levels of an organization (Safir & Dugan, 2021).
Guaranteeing feedback loops within the organization and especially an intervention system such
as CCSD’s could also ensure that the program is operating as it was designed. Truancy mentors
would be included on every site’s Coordination of Services Team.
Educators often state that academics take precedence over everything, but perhaps we
should approach meeting the needs of students from a balanced, holistic approach and resist
hierarchical categories that distort our ability to see others as they are without judgment or

129
preconceived notions. Chronically absent students need spaces to share how they are feeling
because the needs of the students must take precedence during the intervention process. Site
leaders can lead change based on the feedback they receive from the students, not just their
district office, with an authentic care for the well-being of students and their families.
Recommendation 2: Culture of Examining Ways of Being, Knowing, and Seeing
“We believe that our version of the truth is the version of the world”
(Ginwright, 2022, p. 153).
Ginwright (2022) suggests that the ability to overcome the tendency to immediately trust
and accept our own perspective requires us to “pivot in our perspective [which] means that we
become more aware of those things that obstruct and obscure how we see the world and act
within it” (p.155). The findings in this study suggest that guarding against incomplete or harmful
perspectives, that all people are susceptible to and limited by, is a necessary and effective
measure for providing schools with the leadership skills that are vital to dismantling educational
inequities within schools, repairing past ways of being that harm, and co-constructing what it
means to be a community. Creating a different culture at CCSD that actively examines itself as a
system will allow all members of a learning community the opportunity to have a more complete
picture of itself. Ginwright (2022) views perspective as “an awareness of our and other
viewpoints, and it means that we bear witness to other potential interpretations without
judgment” (p.167). Developing this awareness will require individuals to push past simply
responding to events and instead to explore patterns, structures, and mental models that are being
responded to (Ginwright, 2022).
Exploring patterns, structures, and mental models will require a forfeiture of hierarchies
that limit access and engagement for individuals who typically are placed at the bottom of a

130
hierarchy through sustained marginalization. In the case of the attendance intervention system at
CCSD, an intentional organizational culture that is accountable to all members could help bring
the community together in meaningful ways through deep listening and the collecting of data that
provides leaders a fuller perspective of how the organization is experienced by all. Adding deep
listening as an organizational practice for collecting data from all members of the CCSD
community would strengthen relationships and empower all partners as a “sense of power and
control over one’s life” has been shown to be a “significant factor in restoring well-being for
marginalized groups” (Safir & Dugan, 2020, p.104). Together as a community, CCSD can
reexamine: What does it mean to be absent? How does an absence impact the way we work with
students and families? Noguera (2009) argues for the “adoption of strategies that give greater
power in site decision making to parents, and thereby provide them with the means to hold
schools more accountable” (p. 239). Shifting how an organization’s effect is measured to
consider the well-being and place within the community would humanize all members of CCSD
(Freire, 1970; Ginwright, 2022; Safir & Dugan, 2020).
Recommendation 3: Prioritize the the well-being and the survivance of CAY
The role of how site leaders perceive their role in creating learning spaces that
chronically absent students want to be in is essential. Heise & Nance (2021) suggest that when
“administrative discretion reigns, principals’ perceptions can matter” (p. 507; Heise & Nance,
2021b). Until CCSD’s organizational culture shifts to share power among all educational
partners, how leaders at CCSD perceive their role will matter because “people tend to internalize
and accept as their own the values and practices of those to whom they feel, or want to feel,
connected, and from contexts in which they experience a sense of belonging” (Niemic & Ryan,
2009, p. 139). While Central Coast School District has devoted significant financial resources to

131
engage the chronically absent through their attendance intervention system, their efforts can be
strengthened by tapping into their greatest resource–their students and the CCSD community. In
fact, Niemic and Ryan (2009) argue that developing the self-determination of students:
is of much import in the domain of education, in which students’ natural tendencies to
learn represent perhaps the greatest resource educators can tap. Yet it is also a domain in
which external controls are regularly imposed, often with the well-intended belief that
such contingencies promote students’ learning (p.134).
Co-generative dialogues, or cogens, developed by educator and scholar Christopher
Emdin (2017), are “simple, informal conversations between a teacher and a small group of
students with the goal of providing feedback and co-generating a plan of action” (Safir & Dugan,
2020, p.178). This is another listening strategy that CCSD could implement between carrying
levels of individuals.
Lucas et al. (1990) noted eight characteristics of attitudes and practices that promote
student success:
1. Value placed on students’ language and culture
2. High expectations of language minority students
3. Education of language minority students a priority
4. Staff development designed to help teachers and staff to serve minority language
effectively
5. Variety of specially designed courses and programs for language minority
students
6. School’s counseling program giving special attention to the needs of language
minority students

132
7. Parents encouraged to become involved in their children’s education
8. School staff share the strong conviction to empower language minority students
through their education (as cited in Espinoza-Herold & Gonzalez-Carriedo, 2017,
p.191).
These characteristics emphasize school cultures and climates that promote a sense of belonging
and empowerment for marginalized students. “As educators, we must listen with open hearts and
minds and allow students to become architects of their own learning so that they can utilize what
they learn in productive and critical ways” (Espinoza-Herold & Gonzalez-Carriedo, 2017,
p.192). Educators do not have to rely on the perspectives of leaders alone, students and
communities are capable and interested in co-creating learning spaces that they can see
themselves in and participate in freely.
Reimagining Reintegration and Restoration
Moving past compliance factors or the reality that there are compulsory laws regarding
attendance, would give educational leaders the open space to decide what school means for the
community and why individuals aged 5 to age 18 are required to spend 9 months of their year in
a building with other individuals in their community. Removing the punitive and deficit
impulsion to judge or criticize the chronically absent can allow the educational leader to focus on
meeting needs, on building relationships, and in serving the community by opening access to
preparing the whole child for life after high school. For Vizenor et al. (2014) “survivance is an
intergenerational connection to an individual and collective sense of presence and resistance in
personal experience and the word, or language, made particularly through stories” (p. 107). For
chronically absent students at CCSD, chronic absence can be a means of survivance (Gutierrez,
2023). It would be worth exploring if participant practice with chronically absent students would

133
shift if they understood attendance to be a conduit for resistance and self-determination. Traits
that are potentially untapped characteristics to be celebrated and engaged through the learning
process at CCSD.
Limitations and Delimitations
The qualitative nature of this study comes with inherent limitations. First, I could not
control the veracity of the responses I gained from educational leaders who participated in this
study. In addition, as the sole researcher, the inability to approach this study through a
collaborative process limits the contribution of additional interpretations during the coding and
analysis process. Additionally, the willingness of participants to participate was out of my
control. Had I had the opportunity to hear from every site principal and assistant principal, I
would have gained a fuller picture of how a particular school district engages with chronically
absent students through leadership and an intervention system. I also would have been able to
disaggregate the data and see if there are distinctions to be made based on how participants
identify. Time was another limitation as the study was constrained by a lengthy recruitment
process as well as university timelines. Additional time analyzing an extensive amount of data
could have also enriched and strengthened the data analysis phase of the study.
The delimitations of this study involve the intentional selection of the participants (i.e.
principal, assistant principals, district office leaders, and attendance intervention team leaders) at
the exclusion of teachers, other types of support staff, chronically absent youth, and their
families. Another delimitation is in the decision to not observe how participant perceptual beliefs
align with everyday practices as school leaders. I also chose not to observe specific classrooms to
add descriptions of my perceptions of community and relatedness at school sites. Additionally, a
focus on chronic absenteeism and school climate and culture is at the exclusion of graduation

134
rates, grades, academic achievement, college or career readiness, and extracurricular activities.
Recommendations for Future Research
First and foremost, removing the causative power of school absence to existing
attendance and chronic absence literature could possibly reveal perspectives and practices that
inadvertently perpetuate more school absence. Reexamining what is known about attendance by
incapacitating a traditional, deficit-based framework of school absence could also result in
eliminating an attendance debt that compulsory and punitive policies have created. Further
exploration of how refusal to follow and measure a community by a system that is designed to
further marginalize and exclude people could shed additional light in how leaders position
themselves as liberators or oppressors and in the practices they implement and sustain within
their communities. While CCSD measures their intervention system through the quantitative
Panorama survey, additional research through the collection of “street data” that reveals “student
learning experience rather than just achievement level, [could provide] the opportunity to check
assumptions about student learning against what is actually happening in the data” (Safir &
Dugan, 2020, p. 58). Digging into this data could help educators reframe what chronic absence
means and then influence the responses through expectations, policies, and practices.
Social interactions, in general, have long been considered at the center of traditional
school effectiveness research (Bouckenooghe, 2009; Coleman, 1961; Coleman & Hoffer, 1987;
Devos & Price et al., 2015). Further research of the manifestation of self-determination among
chronically absent youth through chronic absence despite institutional interventions could
continue to explore what occurs between students, families, and educators who function as
attendance enforcers. Knowing that fleeing from environments that threaten the safety of oneself
is a basic human instinct, further research could interview students to capture data from their

135
experiences and perspectives. More research is needed in understanding the connection between
school cultures and climates and chronic absenteeism.
The following topics also came up as significant during data collection and could be
further explored through additional research:
1. Many participants indicated an increase in mental health needs from students due
to anxiety after the COVID-19 pandemic and the fear of another health crisis. The
following consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on school attendance is a
relevant focus to consider.
a. Several participants also spoke briefly of the impact of COVID on
attendance perceptions, specifically views of truancy and school
attendance for parents and students.
2. The place for incentives and reconciling behavior modification and motivation
with chronically absent students.
3. The impact of goal/progress monitoring on school attendance, does it matter
between elementary and secondary levels?
Implications for Equity and Connection to the Rossier Mission
This study was an effort to lift up the chronically absent student and the ways they
manifest their self-determination as they find spaces where they belong. This study was designed
to bring value and respect to the chronically absent student and to interrogate the influence that
deficit-based lenses have on how educators respond to students who are not at school when they
are required to be there. Inspired by Jonas Hojgaard Frydenlund’s (2022) conceptual framework
of school absences not holding any causative power and my belief in a liberatory educational
system, this study endeavored to consider how marginalization is perpetuated through

136
compulsory legislation, policies, and practices embedded within American society and sustained
through the educators that are charged with monitoring students’ daily presence and compliance.
I knew I wanted to highlight the survivance of the chronically absent student—even if they are
not at school, their presence in their community matters. I also wanted to present evidence that
educational leaders have the capacity to examine school environments and to restore
relationships and trust with the chronically absent student and their families. Inspired by Freire
(1970) and Tuck (2009), this study aims to interrogate a “system of power within schools” that
reimagines what it means to belong and to be successful even when a student is not at school.
Conclusion
Understanding chronic absenteeism under blanket assumptions can, inadvertently, drive
disparities rather than mitigate and liberate vulnerable populations from the actual problems that
lead to negative academic and later in life outcomes for students (Gee, 2018). In the system of
school attendance, site leaders play a role in liberating punitive and deficit frameworks that target
chronically absent youth and compromise their sense of belonging and self-determination (Slee,
2019; Habib & Ward, 2019; Farini & Scollan, 2019; Shogren & Raley, 2022; Niemiec & Ryan,
2009). Rather than writing off the student who does not comply with attendance expectations,
educators could interpret their resistance as strength and an alarm for a deeper problem occurring
within schools or the community. Perhaps then, the adults will gain the clarity they need to
evolve and liberate their practices in order to improve the learning and development of all
students—especially the ones who resist through their absence. Bringing students back into their
school environments without challenging or changing the environments that students are leaving
is to further enclose students. Bringing students back into their school environments through
recreating inclusive spaces that allow students to be empowered, find community and belonging,

137
and offer culturally relevant learning opportunities that they care about is an act of resistance, an
act of agency to do life on their own terms. The ways that we, educators, often limit our own
work is through the perspectives we take, the interpretations we make, and the lack of
imagination of how much worth a student has. We must evolve the message of “students need to
be in school. School is important” to “I see you. I believe in you. You should believe in yourself,
too. You matter. You belong here. We are here for you.”

138
References
Academic Engagement: Chronic Absenteeism (2022).
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/ca/2022/academic-engagement#chronicAbsenteeism. California School Dashboard.
Aguilar, P., Correia, I., Vries, J., & Tortora, L. (2022). Cognitive dissonance induction as an
“inoculator” against negative attitudes towards victims. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 16(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12715
Allen, C. W., Diamond-Myrsten, S., & Rollins, L. K. (2018). School absenteeism in children and
adolescents. American Family Physician, 98(12), 738–744.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30525360/
Ansari, Hofkens, T. L., & Pianta, R. C. (2020). Absenteeism in the first decade of education
forecasts civic engagement and educational and socioeconomic prospects in young
adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(9), 1835–1848.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01272-4
Attwood, & Croll, P. (2006). Truancy in secondary school pupils: prevalence, trajectories and
pupil perspectives. Research Papers in Education, 21(4), 467–484.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520600942446
Bakken, J. P., & Obiakor, F. E. (Eds.). (2016). General and special education inclusion in an age
of change : impact on students with disabilities (First edition.). Emerald.
Balfanz R., Byrnes V. (2018). Using data and the human touch: Evaluating the NYC inter-agency
campaign to reduce chronic absenteeism. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 23(1-2), 107–121. Crossref
Bartolomé, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard

139
Educational Review, 64, 173–195.
Basile, V. & Bryan Thomas Jr. (2022). Pity y’all don’t see me: differential racialization,
resistance, and the persistent erasure of invisible boys of color in science classrooms.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 33:2, 154–169,
DOI: 10.1080/1046560X.2021.2008097.
Bauer, L., Liu, P., Schanzenbach, D. W., & Shambaugh, J. (2018). Reducing chronic absenteeism
under the Every Student Succeeds Act. The Hamilton Project.
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Learning partnerships model: A framework for promoting
self-authorship. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships:
Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 37–62).
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Bertrand, & Marsh, J. (2021). How data-driven reform can drive deficit thinking. Phi Delta
Kappan, 102(8), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217211013936
Berkowitz R., Moore H., Astor R. A., Benbenishty R. (2017). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 425–469.
Bhattacharya, S. (2020). Education as empowerment. Journal of Political Science Education,
16(3), 403–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2019.1632715
Bishop, H. & McClellan, R. L. (2016). Resisting social justice: rural school principals’
perceptions of LGBTQ students. Journal of School Leadership, 26(1), 124–.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461602600105

140
Bloom, S. L. (1995). Creating sanctuary in the school. Journal for a Just and Caring Education,
1(4), 403–433.
Bonilla-Silva E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial
inequality in the United States (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bradley, R, Danielson, L, and Doolittle, J. 2007. “Responsiveness to Intervention:
1997 to 2007.” Teaching Exceptional Children 39(5):8–12
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Brown, B. (2017). Braving the wilderness: The Quest for True Belonging and the courage to
stand alone. Random House.
Buckley, J., & Park, J. J. (2019). “When you don’t really focus on it”: Campus climate for social
class diversity and identity awareness. Journal of College Student Development, 60(3),
271–289. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0026
Burton, K.D., Lydon, J.E., D’Alessandro, D.U. and Koestner, R. (2006) ‘The differential
effects of intrinsic and identified motivation on well-being and performance:
Prospective, experimental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory’,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91: 750–62.
CSCA. (2022). Supporting school attendance: nearly all student groups showed increased
absenteeism in the 2021-2022 school year. California School Boards Association.
California School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys. (2022). Mapped County Results.
https://calschls.org/reports-data/public-dashboards/secondary-student/.
California Department of Education (2022). 2022 dashboard technical guide: chronic

141
absenteeism indicator, a kindergarten through grade eight indicator. California School
Dashboard.
Carey, Y. (2018). Power, penalty, and critical praxis: employing intersectionality in educator
practices to achieve school equity. The Educational Forum (West Lafayette, Ind.), 82(1),
111–130.
Carpenter, C. (2019). Cognitive dissonance, ego-involvement, and motivated reasoning. Annals
of the International Communication Association, 43(1), 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2018.1564881
Causevic, Philip, K., Zwick-Maitreyi, M., Lewis, P. H., Bouterse, S., & Sengupta, A. (2020).
Centering knowledge from the margins: our embodied practices of epistemic resistance
and revolution. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 22(1), 6–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2019.1701515
Chronic Absenteeism Calculation (2022). California Department of Education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/chronabscal.asp.
Chronic absenteeism in the nation’s schools: a hidden educational crisis. (2019) U.S.
Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/datastory/chronicabsenteeism.html
Coates, T. (2014). The Case for Reparations. The Atlantic, June Issue. https://www.theatlantic.
com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
Coleman, J.S. (1961), The Adolescent Society: The Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on
Education, Free Press of Glencoe, New York, NY.
Coleman, J.S. and Hoffer, T. (1987), Public and Private High Schools: The Impact of
Communities, Basic Books, New York, NY.

142
Cooper, J. (2019). Cognitive Dissonance: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going.
International Review of Social Psychology, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.277
Cooper, K. (2018). Using affective data in urban high schools: can we equalize the graduation
rate? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(1), 104–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1151941
Corcoran S. P., Elbel B., Schwartz A. E. (2016). The effect of breakfast in the classroom on
obesity and academic performance: Evidence from New York City. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 35(3), 509–532.
Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Konold, T. R. (2016). Authoritative School Climate and Student
Academic Engagement, Grades, and Aspirations in Middle and High Schools. AERA
Open, 2(2), 233285841663318–. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416633184
Cubberley, E. (1916). Public school administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Culver, Swanson, E., Hallett, R. E., & Kezar, A. (2021). Identity-conscious strategies to engage
at-promise students in a learning community: shared courses in a comprehensive
college transition program. Teachers College Record (1970), 123(8), 146–175.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681211048655.
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2, 201–215.
Daily, Smith, M. L., Lilly, C. L., Davidov, D. M., Mann, M. J., & Kristjansson, A. L. (2020).
Using school climate to improve attendance and grades: understanding the importance of
school satisfaction among middle and high school students. The Journal of School
Health, 90(9), 683–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12929.
Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 591(13), 13-24. http://dx.doi.org/

143
10.1177/0002716203260092
Data & Statistics (CALPADS). (2020). FAQs: COVID-19 and CALPADS Data Collection.
California Department of Education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sp/cl/covid19calpadsfaqs.asp.
Data from the California Department of Education, retrieved from Ed-Data.org on 19 February
2023. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/ dataquest/DQCensus/AttChrAbsRateLevels.aspx?cds=
40&agglevel=County&year=2021-22.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, 11: 227–68
Deci, E.L., Schwartz, A.J., Sheinman, L. and Ryan, R.M. (1981) ‘An instrument to assess
adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on
intrinsic motivation and perceived competence’, Journal of Educational Psychology,
73: 642–50
del Carmen Salazar, M. (2013). A humanizing pedagogy: reinventing the principles and
practice of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in Education,
37(1), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12464032
Devos, G. and Bouckenooghe, D. (2009), “An exploratory study on principals’ conceptions
about their role as school leaders”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp.
173-196.
De Nicolo, C., Yu, M., Crowley, C., & Gabel, S. (2017). Reimagining critical care and
problematizing sense of school belonging as a response to inequality for immigrants and
children of immigrants. Review of Research in Education, 41, 500–530.

144
de Oliveira Andreotti, V. (2021). The task of education as we confront the potential for social
and ecological collapse. Ethics and Education, 16(2), 143–158.
de Oliveira Andreotti, V. (2014). Conflicting Epistemic Demands in Poststructuralist and
Postcolonial Engagements With Questions of Complicity in Systemic Harm. Educational
Studies (Ames), 50(4), 378–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2014.924940
de Oliveira, V. (2012). Education, knowledge and the righting of wrongs. Other Education, 1(1),
19-31
Dodman S.L., DeMulder E.K., View J.L., Swalwell K., Stribling S., Ra S., Dallman L. (2019).
Equity audits as a tool of critical data-driven decision making: Preparing teachers to see
beyond achievement gaps and bubbles. Action in Teacher Education, 41 (1), 4–22.
Crossref
Douglas, T. R., & Nganga, C. (2015). What’s Radical Love Got to Do with It: Navigating
Identity, Pedagogy, and Positionality in Pre-Service Education. International Journal of
Critical Pedagogy, 6(1), 58-82.
Drolet, M., & Arcand, I. (2013). Positive development, sense of belonging, and support of peers
among early adolescents: Perspectives of different actors. International Education
Studies, 6(4), 29–38.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of Black folk. Chicago, IL: McClurg.
EdData Express. (2023). Data Builder: Data download tool. U.S. Department of Education.
EC Section 48263.6. Definition of Truant (2013). California Department of Education.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=48260.
&lawCode=EDC.

145
Eddy, P. L., & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2006). Emerging definitions of leadership in higher
education: New visions of leadership or same old “hero” leader? Community College
Review, 34(1), 5-26.
Elliott, J. G., & Place, M. (2019). Practitioner review: School refusal: Developments in
conceptualisation and treat- ment since 2000. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 60(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12848
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance
through family and community involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(5),
308–318.
Espinoza-Herold, M. & González-Carriedo, R. (2017). Toward a Self-Definition of Success. In
Issues in Latino Education (2nd ed., pp. 164–182). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315392264-8.
Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (2019). Children’s Self-Determination in the Context of Early
Childhood Education and Services: Discourses, Policies and Practices (Vol. 25). Springer
International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14556-9
Finning, K., Ukoumunne, O. C., Ford, T., Danielsson-Waters, E., Shaw, L., Romero De Jager, I.,
& Stentiford, L.,Moore, D. A. (2019). The association between child and adolescent
depression and poor attendance at school: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal
of Affective Disorders, 245, 928–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jad.2018.11.055
Fraise, N.J. & Brooks, J. S. (2015). Toward a theory of culturally relevant leadership for
school-community culture. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 6–21.
https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v17i1.983

146
Freire, Paolo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum International Publishing Group
Inc.
Felder, F. (2018). The value of inclusion. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(1), 54–70.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12280.
Fink J. E., Hummel M. L. (2015). With educational benefits for all: Campus inclusion through
learning communities designed for underserved student populations. New Directions for
Student Services, 2015 (149), 29–40.
Flint, T. (2022). California school dashboard release marks a new starting point for
improvement. California School Board Association. https://www.csba.org/Newsroom/
PressReleases/2022/California-School-Dashboard-release.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings by Michel
Foucault, 1972-1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon.
Fraser, N. and Honneth, A. (2003) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical
Exchange (London, Verso Books).
Gannouni, K., & Ramboarison-Lalao, L. (2018). Leadership and students’ academic success:
mediating effects of self-efficacy and self-determination. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 21(1), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1123300
García, S. B. & Guerra, P. L. (2004) Deconstructing deficit thinking: working with educators to
create more equitable learning environments, Education and Urban Society, 36(2),
150–168.
Gardiner, M. E., & Enomoto, E. K. (2006). Urban school principals and their role as
multicultural leaders. Urban Education, 41(6), 560–584.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906294504

147
Gee, K. (2018). Minding the Gaps in Absenteeism: Disparities in Absenteeism by
Race/Ethnicity, Poverty and Disability. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,
23(1-2), 204–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2018.1428610
Gere, J., & MacDonald, G. (2010). An update of the empirical case for the need to belong.
Journal of Individual Psychology, 66(1), 93–115.
Gilbert, P. (1991) Human Relationships. A Philosophical Introduction (Oxford, Blackwell)
Ginwright, Shawn. (2022). The four pivots: reimagining justice, reimagining ourselves. North
Atlantic Books.
Gleason, & Dynarski, M. (2002). Do we know whom to serve? issues in using risk factors to
identify dropouts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(1), 25–41.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327671ESPR0701_3.
Gottfried, & Gee, K. A. (2017). Identifying the determinants of chronic absenteeism: A
bioecological systems approach. Teachers College Record (1970), 119(7), 1–34.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900704.
Gramsci, A. (2000). On hegemony and direct rule. In Orientalism (p. 39–). Edinburgh University
Press. https://doi.org/10.3366/j.ctvxcrbwv.11.
Grolnick, W.S. and Ryan, R.M. (1987) ‘Autonomy in children’s learning: An
experimental and individual difference investigation’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 52: 890–98
Gupta, A., & Blumhardt, H. (2018). Poverty, exclusion and child protection practice: the
contribution of “the politics of recognition & respect.” European Journal of Social Work,
21(2), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1287669

148
Gutiérrez, L. (2023). Educación in Our Own Terms: Survivance Amongst Latinx Migrant and
Seasonal Farmworkers in K-12 Schools and Beyond. Journal of Latinos and Education,
22(5), 1991–2007. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2022.2080679
Hall, S. (1992). The West and the rest: Discourse and power. In S. Hall and B. Gieben (Eds.),
The formations of modernity (pp. 276-320). Cambridge, MA: Polity and Open University.
Habib, S. & Ward, M. R. M. (2019). Youth, Place and Theories of Belonging. Routledge.
Hamlin, D. (2021). Can a positive school Climate promote student attendance? evidence from
New York city. American Educational Research Journal, 58(2), 315–342.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220924037.
Hannah-Jones, N. (2019). The 1619 project.The New York Times Magazine, New York Times
Company.
Heise, & Nance, J. P. (2021). Do Perceptions Become Reality? Exploring Principals’
Perceptions, Schools’ SRO/Police Presence, and Student Discipline Reporting Policies.
Journal of School Violence, 20(4), 499–510.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2021.1956507
Heise, M., & Nance, J. P. (2021b). To report or not to report: Data on school law enforcement,
student discipline, and the school-to-prison pipeline. University of California, Davis Law
Review, 55(1).
Hendron, & Kearney, C. A. (2016). School climate and student absenteeism and internalizing
and externalizing behavioral problems. Children & Schools, 38(2), 109–116.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdw009.
Hipolito-Delgado, & Zion, S. (2017). Igniting the Fire within marginalized youth: the role of
critical civic inquiry in fostering ethnic identity and civic self-efficacy. Urban

149
Education, 52(6), 699–717.https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915574524.
Honneth, A. (1995) The Struggle for Recognition: Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts
(Cambridge, Polity Press).
hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: thinking feminist, thinking black. South End Press, 113.
hooks, b. (1994). Outlaw culture, New York: Routledge.
hooks, b. (2000). All about love: new visions, New York, William Morrow and Company.
hooks, b. (2014). Teaching to transgress. Routledge.
Hopson L. M., Lee E. (2011). Mitigating the effect of family poverty on academic and behavioral
outcomes: The role of school climate in middle and high school. Children and Youth
Services Review, 33(11), 2221–2229. Crossref
Hoy, W., Tarter, C., & Kottkamp, P. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications
Huerta, T. M. (2011). Humanizing pedagogy: Beliefs and practices on the teaching of Latino
children. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(1), 38–57
Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We Feel, Therefore We Learn: The Relevance
of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education. Mind, Brain and Education, 1(1),
3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x
Immordino-Yang, M. H., Darling-Hammond, L. & Krone, C. (2018). The brain basis for
integrated social, emotional, and academic development: How emotions and social
relationships drive learning. The Aspen Institute National Commission on Social,
Emotional, and Academic Development.
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Aspen_research_FINAL_we
b.pdf

150
Isik-Erkan, Z. (2015). Being Muslim and American: Turkish-American children negotiating their
religious identities in school settings. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 18, 225-–250.
Jensen, E. (2008). A fresh look at brain-based education. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(6), 408–417.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808900605
Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L.B. (2017). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Johnson, D., Hooper, L. M., Spikes, D. D., Carpenter, B. W., Bowers, A., & Jean-Marie, G.
(2022). Examining urban school principals’ perceptions and insights on the
bidirectionality of engagement: a case study of school district leaders. School Leadership
& Management, 42(4), 334–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2022.2098266
Kahane, A. (2009). Power and love : A theory and practice of social change. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Incorporated.
Kearney, C. A. (2008). School absenteeism and school refusal behavior in youth: A
contemporary review. ClinicalPsychology Review, 28(3), 451–471.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.07.012
Kearney, C. A. (2022).
Kendi, I. (2016). Stamped from the beginning: The definitive history of racist ideas in America.
Bold Type Books.
Kendi, I. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One World.
Kim, & Gentle‐Genitty, C. (2020). Transformative school–community collaboration as a
positive
school climate to prevent school absenteeism. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(8),
2678–2691. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22444.

151
Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M., Bernieri, F. and Holt, K. (1984) ‘Setting limits on children’s
behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on intrinsic
motivation and creativity’, Journal of Personality 52: 233–48
Koutsouris, Anglin-Jaffe, H., & Stentiford, L. (2020). How well do we understand social
inclusion in education? British Journal of Educational Studies, 68(2), 179–196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2019.1658861
Kose, B. W. (2009). The principal’s role in professional development for social jus-tice. Urban
Education, 44(6), 628–663
Kostyo, S., Cardichon, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018).Making ESSA’s equity promise real:
State strategies to close the opportunity gap. Learning PolicyInstitute.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together
the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher
Education Report (Vol. 32, No. 5). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Lewis, K., & Morland, E., (2022). The pandemic has had devastating
impacts on learning. What will it take to help students catch up? Brown Center
Chalkboard, The Brookings Institution.
Kutz, C. (2000) Acting Together, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 61.1, pp. 1–31.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding
Achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999) Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical
race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education. 24, 211–247.

152
Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). We need to do a better job talking about race. The Journal of Staff
Development, 42 (5), 11–12.
Leo, Mouratidis, A., Pulido, J. J., López-Gajardo, M. A., & Sánchez-Oliva, D. (2022). Perceived
teachers’ behavior and students’ engagement in physical education: the mediating role of
basic psychological needs and self-determined motivation. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 27(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1850667
Lenhoff, S. & Singer, J. (2022) Promoting ecological approaches to educational issues:
evidence from a partnership around chronic absenteeism in detroit, Peabody Journal of
Education, 97:1, 87-97, DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2022.2026723
Levitt, P., & Schiller, N. G. (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field
perspective on society. International Migration Review, 38, 1002–1039
Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationship to school: Attachment, bonding,
connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 274-283.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020942
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider : essays and speeches. Crossing Press.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Learning from leadership:
Investigating the links to improved student learning. New York: Final report of Research,
The Wallace Foundation.
Lucas, T., Henze, R.,& Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino
language-minority students: An exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard

153
Educational Review, 60(30), 315–337.
Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56(1), 393–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137
Marsh J.A., Farrell C.C. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision
making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 43 (2), 269–289. Crossref. ISI.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Developm
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Matus, C., & Riberi, V. (2022). The Agency of Difference in Chilean School Policies and
Practices: A BioSocioCultural Way-Out Perspective. Social Sciences (Basel), 11(7),
313–. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11070313
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Conceptual framework: What do you think is going on? In Qualitative
research design: An interactive approach. 3rd ed. Sage Publications.
Maxwell, L. E. (2016). School building condition, social climate, student attendance and
academic achievement: A mediation model.Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology,46,
206–216.
Maynard, B. R., Heyne, D., Brendel, K. E., Bulanda, J. J., Thompson, A. M., & Pigott, T. D.
(2015). Treatment for school refusal among children and adolescents: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731515598619
McGhee, H. (2021)The sum of us: What racism costs everyone and how we can prosper together.
New York: Penguin Random House.

154
Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal
position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network
position, and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administra-tion Quarterly, 46(5),
623–670
Moore, B. (2009). Emotional Intelligence for School Administrators: A Priority for School
Reform? American Secondary Education, 37(3), 20–28.
Moricca M. L., Grasska M. A., BMarthaler M., Morphew T., Weismuller P. C., Galant S. P.
(2013). School asthma screening and case management: Attendance and learning
outcomes. Journal of School Nursing, 29(2), 104–112. Crossref
Murphy M., Destin M. (2016). Promoting inclusion and identity safety to support college
success. The Century Foundation.
https://tcf.org/content/report/promoting-inclusion-identity-safety-support-college-success
Museus, S. D. (2020). Humanizing scholarly resistance: Toward greater solidarity in social
justice advocacy within the neoliberal academy. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 33(2), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839 8.2019.1681544
Nadelson, Albritton, S., Couture, V. G., Green, C., Loyless, S. D., & Shaw, E. O. (2019).
Principals’ Perceptions of Education Equity: A Mindset for Practice. Journal of
Education and Learning, 9(1), 1–. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v9n1p1
Niemiec, C., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom:
Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in
Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318.
Nieto, S. (1998). Fact and fiction: Stories of Puerto Ricans in U.S. schools. Harvard

155
Educational Review, 68, 133–163.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethnics and moral education. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Noguera, P. (2009). Foreword. New Directions for Youth Development (123), 15–18. https://
doi.org/10.1002/yd.311
Nygreen, Lazdowski, K. A., & Bialostok, S. (2017). Educational Anthropologists Respond to the
2016 U.S. Presidential Election: Rupture, Continuity, and Resistance. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 48(4), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12225
Palmer, P.J. (2000). Let Your Life Speak: Listening for the Voice of Vocation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. pp 73-94
Pampati, A., J., Sheremenko, G., Johns, M., Lesesne, C. A., & Rasberry, C. N. (2020).
School climate among transgender high school students: an exploration of school
connectedness, perceived safety, bullying, and absenteeism. The Journal of School
Nursing, 36(4), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840518818259.
Patton, M. Q. (1985). Quality in qualitative research: methodological principles and recent
developments. Invited address to Division J of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.
Preston, J., Claypool, T. R., Rowluck, W., & Green, B. (2017). Perceptions and practices of
principals: supporting positive educational experiences for Aboriginal learners.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(3), 328–344.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1124926

156
Pyo, J. (2020). School principals’ perceptions of crime risk and academic climate: Links to
school safety practices. Journal of School Violence, 19(4), 594–609.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2020.1783671
Quaye S. J., Chang S. H. (2012). Fostering cultures of inclusion in the classroom. In Museus S.
D., Jayajumar U. M. (Eds.), Creating campus cultures: Fostering success among racially
diverse student populations (pp. 88–105). Routledge.
Quaye S. J., Griffin K. A., Museus S. D. (2015). Engaging students of color. In Quaye S. J.,
Harper S. R. (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives
and practical approaches for diverse populations (2nd ed., pp. 15–35). Routledge.
Qvortrup, A. & Qvortrup, L. (2018). Inclusion: Dimensions of inclusion in education.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(7), 803–817.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1412506
Reimers, F. (2021). Primary and secondary education during covid-19: disruptions to
educational opportunity during a pandemic, Springer.
Rici, M. C. (2013). Mindsets in the classroom: Building a culture of success and student
achievement in school. Waco: Prufrock Press
Rocque, M., Snellings, Q. (2018). The new disciplinology: Research, theory, and remaining
puzzles on the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal of Criminal Justice, 59 (Nov-Dec), 3-11.
http://doi.org/110.1016/j.jrcimjus.2017.05.002.
Rolón-Dow, R. (2005). Critical care: A color(full) analysis of care narratives in the schooling
experiences of Puerto Rican girls. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 77–111.
Rudasill, K., Snyder, K. E., Levinson, H., & Adelson, J. L. (2018). Systems view of school

157
climate: a theoretical framework for research. educational psychology review, 30(1),
35–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9401-y
Ryan, R.M. and Brown, K.W. (2005) ‘Legislating competence: High-stakes testing policies
and their relations with psychological theories and research’, in A.J. Elliot and C.S.
Dweck (eds), Handbook of Competence and Motivation, pp. 354–72. New York:
Guilford Publications.
Ryan, & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory
perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 61, 101860–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000b) ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist55:
68–78.
Sabry N. S., Bruna K. R. (2007). Learning from the experiences of Muslim students in American
schools: Towards a proactive model of school-community cooperation. Multicultural
Perspectives, 9, 44–50.
Said, E. (1979). Orientalism (First Vintage books edition.). Vintage Books.
Salazar, M. (2010). Pedagogical stances of high school ESL teachers: “Huelgas” in high school
ESL classrooms. Bilingual Research Journal, 33, 111–124
Santibañez, L., & Guarino, C. M. (2021). The effects of absenteeism on academic and
social-emotional outcomes: lessons for covid-19. Educational Researcher, 50(6),
392–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X21994488
Sapiro, B. & Ward, A. (2020). Marginalized youth, mental health, and connection with others: a
review of the literature. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 37(4), 343–357.

158
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-019-00628-5.
Scheper-Hughes, N. 1995. The Primacy of the Ethical: Propositions for a Militant Anthropology.
Current Anthropology, 36 (3), 409–40.
Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community
partnerships. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 267–275.
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.
Shifrer, D. (2013). Stigma of a Label: Educational Expectations for High School Students
Labeled with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(4),
462–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146513503346
Szalacha, L. A. (2003). Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons learned from an
evaluation of Massachusetts Safe Schools program for gay and lesbian stu-dents.
American Journal of Education, 110(1). Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1209275
Shogren, K., & Raley, S. K. (2022). Self-Determination and Causal Agency Theory: Integrating
Research into Practice. Springer International Publishing AG.
Slee, R. (2019). Belonging in an age of exclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
23(9), 909–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1
Slee, R. (2010) The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive Education (London,
Routledge).
Sosa-Provencio, S. Sheahan, A., Desai, S., & Secatero, S. (2020). Tenets of Body-Soul Rooted
Pedagogy: teaching for critical consciousness, nourished resistance, and healing. Critical
Studies in Education, 61(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2018.1445653

159
Souto-Manning, Malik, K., Martell, J., & Pión, P. (2021). Troubling belonging: the
racialized exclusion of young immigrants and migrants of color. International Journal
of Early Childhood, 53(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-021-00286-8.
Southwell, N. (2006). Truants on truancy - a badness or a valuable indicator of unmet special
educational needs?. British Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 91-97.
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the
education of dominated cultures in the United States (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Supporting School Attendance. (2022). California School Boards Association Newsletter.
https://publications.csba.org/california-school-news/september-2022/supporting-school-at
tendance/
Swadener B. B., Lubeck S. (Eds.). (1995). Children and families “at promise”: Deconstructing
the discourse of risk. SUNY Press.
Taylor, S. E., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1995). Effects of mindset on positive illusions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 213.
Terzi, L. (2005) Beyond the Dilemma of Difference: The Capability Approach to Disability and
Special Educational Needs, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39.3, pp. 443–459.
Terzi, L. (2008) Justice and Equality in Education: A Capability Perspective on Disability and
Special Educational Needs (London, Continuum).
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.213
Terzi, L. (2010) Introduction, in L. Terzi (ed.) Special Educational Needs: A New Look (London,
Continuum).

160
Tesemma, S., & Coetzee, S. (2022). Manifestations of spatial exclusion and inclusion of people
with disabilities in Africa. Disability & Society, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2022.2065463
Thapa A., Cohen J., Guffey S., Higgins-D’Alessandro A. (2013). A review of school climate
research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385.
Thornicroft, G., Rose, D., Kassam, A., & Sartorius, N. (2007). Stigma: Ignorance, prejudice or
discrimination? The British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(3), 192–193.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.106.025791
Turan, S., & Bektas, F. (2013). The relationship between school culture and leadership practices.
Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 155–168.
Tsai, Y., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U. and Ryan, R. M. (2008) ‘What makes lessons
interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects’,
Journal of Educational Psychology 100: 460–72
Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review,
79(3), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.3.n0016675661t3n15.
Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler futurity.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 72-89.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.),
Humanizing research: decolonizing qualitative inquiry for youth and communities (pp.
223– 247). Sage Publications.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and Labor. (2020). Budget cuts and lost
learning: assessing the impact of COVID-19 on public education : hearing before the

161
Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred
Sixteenth Congress, second session, hearing held in Washington, DC, June 15, 2020.
(2022). U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Van Eck, Johnson, S. R., Bettencourt, A., & Johnson, S. L. (2017). How school climate relates to
chronic absence: a multi–level latent profile analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 61,
89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.10.001.
Villaverde, L. (2008). Feminist primer. New York: Peter Lang.
Vizenor, G. R. (1998). Fugitive poses : Native American Indian scenes of absence and presence.
University of Nebraska Press.
Vizenor, G., Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). Resistance in the blood. In E. Tuck & K. W. Yang
(Eds.), Youth resistance research and theories of change (pp. 107–117). Routledge.
Wagner, M., Newman, K., Cameto, R., Levine, P., and Camille Marder. 2007.
“Perceptions and Expectations of Youth with Disabilities: A Special Topic Report of
Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)” (NCSER
2007-3006). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Wayman, T. (1993). Did I Miss Anything?: Selected Poems (1973-1993). Harbour Publishing.
West, C. in Adams et al (2013). Courage. In Readings for Diversity and Social Justice.
Routledge, pp 625-627
Wilkerson, I. (2020). Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents. Random House.
Wilkins, J. (2008). School characteristics that influence student attendance: experiences of
students in a school avoidance program. The High School Journal, 91(3), 12–24.

162
https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2008.0005.
Winn, M. T., & Behizadeh, N. (2012). Right to be literate: Literacy, education, and the
school-to-prison pipeline. Review of Research in Education, 35, 147–173.
Yeom, Caraballo, L., Tsang, G., Larkin, J., & Comrie, J. (2020). Reimagining impact: Storying
youth research, arts, and activism. The Review of Education/pedagogy/cultural Studies,
42(5), 482–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2021.1874850
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8, 69–91.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2011). The Politics of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations. In The Politics
of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations. SAGE Publications, Limited.
11(3), 56–79. https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs113202019700
Yuval-Davis, N. (2016). Power, intersectionality and the politics of belonging. In W. Harcourt
(Ed.), Palgrave handbook of gender and development (pp. 367–381). Palgrave.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581-599.
Zyngier, D. (2011). Raising engagement and enhancing learning: School community partnerships
that work for students at promise. Creative Education, 2(04), 375–380.

163

164

165

166
I. Introduction
Thank you again for your willingness to participate in my study. I greatly appreciate the
initial survey you submitted, and I’m thankful to be doing this interview with you today. Our
time together will take about an hour, does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to review the Study Information Sheet you were given, and I
want to answer any questions you might have about participating in this study.
I am a student at USC and I am conducting a study on leadership practices for reintegrating
chronically absent youth. I am interested in the ways leadership influences learning
conditions, and how leaders perceive and act on their roles in fostering inclusive school
climates that chronically absent youth want to attend.
The nature of this interview is not evaluative. I will not be making judgments on your
leadership perceptions, practices, or experiences. My goal is to understand your perspective.
I want to reiterate that this interview is confidential. Your name will not be shared with
anyone outside of my research team. I will not share your responses with other teachers or
leaders. The data gathered for this study will be compiled into a report; however, none of this
data will be directly attributed to you. I will use a pseudonym to protect your confidentiality,
and I will carefully de-identify any of the data I gather from you to the best of my abilities. In
addition, the data I collect from you will be kept in a password-protected computer. All data
will be destroyed after three years.
Are there any questions about the study that you would like to ask before we get started?
At this time, I would like to ask your permission to record our conversation. While I will be
taking notes, I want to be sure that I record your words with fidelity.
II. Questions (with transitions)
Introductory Questions: I would like to begin our time by learning more about you as an
educational leader at your site.
1. How does your background in education as a student and now as an educational leader
influence your work with chronically absent youth? (CF: Leadership; Q. Background)
a. How would you describe your leadership style at your site?
b. How do you determine the priorities you will have in a given school year?
c. Can you walk me through a time you started, implemented, and evaluated an
initiative?
2. Describe the support system or network of leaders that you lean on as you develop policies
and practices at your school. (CF: Leadership; Q. Background)
3. How do you manage your responsibility to support the learning of vulnerable students at your
site? (CF: Leadership; Q. Behavior)
a. Tell me about specific instances or practices, if any, that demonstrate your support.

167
Heart of the Interview
Chronic absenteeism rates are rising across California. Santa Maria-Bonita is facing rates that
are slightly higher than the state average (total of 7%).
4. As you consider your school community: what are the driving factors of chronic absenteeism
at your school? (CF: Chronic Absenteeism; Q. Knowledge)
a. How do these factors differ among student groups?
b. Which population of students are chronically absent at your site?
5. A 2021 study found that “although all students experience the negative effects of absenteeism
on academic outcomes, certain vulnerable subgroups of students—particularly low-income
students, students with disabilities, and homeless and foster youth— are more subject to
learning loss than other students” (Santibañez & Guarino, 2021, p.399). How do chronic
absentee rates at your site influence your daily practice with students who are chronically
absent? (CF: Chronic Absenteeism; Q. Experience and Behavior)
a. What practices does your site employ when engaging students who are absent?
b. What are the outcomes of these practices?
c. Tell me about specific instances or interactions you have had with students who are
chronically absent or truant when they return to school.
I’d like to ask you about the practices that you identified in the survey.
6. You rated your intervention practices in the following order of effectiveness
_______________. Can you explain how you rated the interventions at your site?
7. What determines the success of an intervention practice?
a. Can you walk me through a recent intervention situation with a student and their
guardians that you feel was successful?
b. What about a time when your efforts weren’t as successful?
c. What do you think leads to a difference between both situations?
8. Walk me through what happens when a chronically absent student is brought back to school.
What is the plan?
a. Who is involved in welcoming them back in? Who checks in with them throughout
the day? What about the end of the day?
b. How are teachers part of this plan? Counselors?
9. Can you describe what type of professional development or coaching you have done to
support your intervention staff in their efforts to promote positive school attendance?
a. What about your teaching staff?

168
This study specifically explores the importance of school climates that promote a sense of
belonging among chronically absent youth. By school climates, I mean “the [moods, feelings, and
attitudes] and [intellectual] perceptions regarding social interactions, relationships, safety, values,
and beliefs held by students, teachers, administrators and staf within a school” (Rudasill et al.,
2017, p. 46). I would like to explore your perspective and experience in fostering this factor at your
site, if at all.
10. Some people might say that a focus on a sense of belonging in schools shouldn’t be a primary
goal for educators. What are your thoughts about this perspective? (CF: School Climate/
Sense of Belonging & Inclusion; Q. Devil’s Advocate)
11. If someone were to ask you what a sense of belonging looks like for chronically absent or
truant youth at your site, what would you say to them? (CF: Sense of Belonging & Inclusion;
Q: Hypothetical)
a. What would you say are the key factors in experiencing belonging in a school
community? What about your school community?
b. Think about a recent time when you actively supported a sense of belonging among
these youth at your site, if at all. Tell me about it.
I’d like to move to asking you about student engagement. By student engagement, I understand
two levels of engagement. The first involves “the amount of time and ef ort students put into their
studies and other educationally purposeful activities. . . The second component of student
engagement is how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum, other
learning opportunities, and support services to induce students to participate in activities that lead
to the experiences and desired outcomes such as persistence, satisfaction, learning, and
graduation” (Kuh et al., 2007, p.44). This study will focus on the second component of student
engagement.
12. How would you describe your role, if any, in supporting student engagement among
chronically absent or truant youth? (CF: Student engagement & Inclusion; Q. Behavior)
a. Tell me about specific practices.
b. Who do you bring in to support you? What resources do you believe are needed?
c. Can you describe a time when you led or supported an initiative to promote inclusion
among students?
This study also focuses on the importance of self-determination as evidence of student engagement
for chronically absent youth. The theory of self-determination is that “when people’s basic
psychological needs are satisfied rather than frustrated, [this theory] predicts that people will
display enhanced motivation, performance and well-being” (Jeno et al., 2019; Ryan and Deci,
2020; Leo et al., 2022). I would like to explore your perspective and experience in fostering this
factor at your site, if at all.
13. What do you believe is necessary for a chronically absent or truant youth to be
self-determined? (CF: Self Determination & Inclusion; Q. Opinion and value)
a. How is self-determination identified? Are there specific factors that come to mind?
14. How is self-determination among chronically absent or truant youth encouraged at your
school, if at all? (CF: Self Determination & Inclusion; Q. Knowledge)
a. Think about a recent time when you witnessed a self determined youth who is
chronically absent or truant. Tell me about it.

169
Closing Question
What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about your perceptions or
practices for creating a sense of belonging and self-determined youth who are chronically absent or
truant today that I might not have covered, if any?
III. Closing
I want to express my gratitude for your time today. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and
experiences with me. Everything we discussed will be very helpful to my study. If any follow up
questions come up, may I contact you? If so, is an email okay? I appreciate your participation in my
study. As a thank you, please accept this small token of my appreciation.

170
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
Study Title: “Going Up the River”: The Consequence of Response & the Assumptions that
Underlie, Support, and Justify the Practices of Educational Leaders for Chronically Absent
Youth
Principal Investigator: Jacqueline Loew
Department: Rossier School of Education Faculty Advisor: Dr. Maria Ott
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to investigate how absence response practices communicate a
youths’ place and position at school once they break attendance expectations; and to understand
how leaders understand the ways their responses to chronic school absence contributes to school
climate and culture at their sites. I hope to learn how reframing chronic absenteeism can
transform practices that are oriented towards inclusionary healing, restoration, and liberation.
You are invited as a possible participant because you are a site leader in a K-8 district with an
intentional chronic absenteeism intervention program. About 8-10 participants will take part in
the study.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participants will receive an interview preparation questionnaire via email. This questionnaire will
take no more than ten minutes. The primary investigator will reach out via email to schedule an
in-person or virtual appointment to conduct a 45 to 60 minute semi-structured interview. This
interview will be recorded with the participant’s permission. After the interview, a transcript will
be prepared and shared with the participant. Participants may be contacted for clarifications or
follow up questions.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
The data gathered for the study will be compiled into a report; however, none of the data will be
directly attributed to participants. Pseudonyms will be used to protect participant confidentiality.
The data collected will be kept on a password-protected external hard drive. All data would be
destroyed three years after the study's publication.
When the results of the research are published or discussed at conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

171
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Jackie Loew, jloew@usc.edu, or Dr.
Maria Ott, mariaott@rossier.usc.edu.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Education researchers and the US Department of Education interpret chronic absentee data as supporting a causal relationship between absenteeism and negative outcomes later in life (Frydenlund, 2022; Berkowitz et al., 2017; Hopson & Lee, 2011; Thapa et al., 2013). As school absence rates continue to reflect disparities among students of color and students who are economically disadvantaged (Kearney et al., 2022), the response to absences are often based on deficit-based assumptions that are supported by compulsory attendance laws: students are not where they are required to be (Frydenlund, 2022). This study addressed three research questions focused on investigating how leaders develop perceptions of the chronically absent and practices for attendance intervention (RQ1), how site leader describe their practices towards chronically absent youth (RQ2), and the role that site leaders believe they place in creating a sense of belonging and self-determination among chronically absent youth (RQ3). This is a qualitative study that involved semi-structured interviews with 17 site leaders from a central coast school district in California with an intentional attendance intervention system, community partnerships, and significant resources allocated for supporting positive attendance. Key findings include: (1) organizational culture is critical to creating conditions that humanize students or perpetuate enclosures and judgments on students and families who do not comply with institutional expectations, (2) deficit-based perceptions of chronically absent students guide leaders to focus on outcomes and changes in behavior as they assess the effectiveness of their practices and interventions, (3) brain-based, culturally responsive perceptions of chronically absent students guide leaders to humanize their students and to focus on repairing relationships between the family and the school, (4) leaders who have experienced the impact of not belonging prioritized and defended the importance of belonging, especially for the chronically absent student, (5) leaders who have not had the opportunity to experience being marginalized viewed belonging as another educational initiative that could be addressed through systemic programming and good intentions. The findings of this study reveal the influence of leaders’ positionalities and perceptions on their practice and the areas of opportunities to focus on well-being and the survivance of marginalized learning community members. The findings of this study offer recommendations for creating conditions that support a brain-based, culturally responsive approach to supporting students who are identified as chronically absent.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty

PDF

Middle school counselors’ perceptions of their role supporting LGBTQ+ youths’ belonging

PDF

The art of leadership: investigating the decision-making process of how charter school leaders utilize the arts

PDF

Teacher well-being matters: an explorative study of early childhood teacher well-being, their experiences, and perspectives

PDF

A comparative case study on the impact of Black male teachers on implementing inclusive and antiracist practices in elementary-middle education

PDF

Teachers' classroom pedagogy and perception: In schools with high rates of exclusionary discipline practices for African American students

PDF

Analyzing middle school teachers’ implementation and sustainability of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

Mentoring new teachers of color: how induction mentors characterize their preparation and practices that support new teachers of color

PDF

The role of the principal in schools that effectively implement restorative practices

PDF

Success in the sticky: exploring the professional learning and instructional practices that are sticky for distinguished secondary STEM educators of students historically…

PDF

Special education grading practices and challenges to implementing equitable grading practices

PDF

Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows

PDF

Academic, social, and emotional supports for high school students in online schools

PDF

The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging

PDF

Equity-enhancing strategies for African American students in higher education

PDF

Leadership matters: the role of urban school principals as transformational leaders in influencing parent engagement to disrupt educational inequities

PDF

Their voices: middle school girls of color and their perceptions of themselves as leaders

PDF

Understanding the perceptions of Latine undocumented students' sense of belonging in higher education

PDF

Belonging matters: exploring the impact of social connectedness on the academic success of immigrant and refugee children in the American school system

Asset Metadata

Creator Loew, Jacqueline (author)

Core Title “Going up the river”: the consequence of response & the assumptions that underlie, support, and justify the practices of educational leaders for chronically absent youth

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/30/2024

Defense Date 04/16/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag attendance,chronically absent youth,humanization,Leader,Love,OAI-PMH Harvest,perceptions,Power,practices,resistance,school climate,school culture,self-determination,sense of belonging,street data,survivance

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor (Cash, David), Ott, Maria (committee chair), Madding, Elisabeth (committee member), (Ermeling, Bradley)

Creator Email jloew@usc.edu,jloew1096@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113911962

Unique identifier UC113911962

Identifier etd-LoewJacque-12833.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-LoewJacque-12833

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Loew, Jacqueline

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240503-usctheses-batch-1145 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu