Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Attendance interventions to address chronic absenteeism
(USC Thesis Other)
Attendance interventions to address chronic absenteeism
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Attendance Interventions to Address Chronic Absenteeism
by
Helene Disbrow Morris
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May, 2021
© Copyright by Helene Disbrow Morris 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Helene Disbrow Morris certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Maria Ott
Kathy Stowe
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
Grounded in the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model, this field study applied knowledge,
motivation, and organizational change theories to the problem of chronic absenteeism within the
Rover School District (RSD, a pseudonym), a K-8 public school district. Chronic absenteeism
was important to study because it placed students at risk for poor academic performance, higher
dropout rates, incarceration, and lower earning wages in the workforce. The purpose of this study
was to examine the needs and assets among principals and assistant principals and recommend
solutions so that they could better address chronic absenteeism and implement effective
attendance interventions. Assistant principals and principals were selected for this study based on
their ability to impact attendance interventions and implement reforms. This study applied
qualitative research methodology, through the collection of interview data. Purposeful sampling
was used to recruit study participants and achieve adequate engagement. Analysis of interview
data resulted in several noteworthy findings related to knowledge and training needs, attribution
theory, expectancy value theory, and cultural models and settings. Knowledge, motivation, and
organizational recommendations were offered based on the findings to reduce chronic
absenteeism and support the implementation of systematic attendance interventions within RSD.
Keywords: K-8 public education, attendance, chronic absenteeism, academic
performance, attendance interventions, principals, assistant principals
v
Dedication
To my hero, my husband David, the champion of my heart. For far too long, I let myself believe
that I had to finish my education before getting married. Little did I know how much more
education would await me in marriage and how much support I would find in my loving
husband. He proofread every single paper that I wrote in both my master’s and doctorate
programs, including my entire dissertation. When he finished reading my first chapter, he
genuinely said, “It makes me look forward to reading your next chapter.” Then, many months
later, when he sat at our dining room table and read a draft of my fourth chapter, he told me, “It
was very engaging, like reading a documentary.” He lifted my spirits, prayed over me every
morning, and let me lean on him in more ways than I can name. He believed in me and in the
investment of our time and finances into my education. I am so blessed and grateful to my
husband, who forever believes and professes, “The best is yet to come.”
vi
Acknowledgements
Thank you first and foremost to my Lord and savior. When I was a senior in high school,
I competed in a speech tournament at USC. I immediately fell in love with the campus, but I
thought that my family would never be able to afford the tuition at such a prestigious private
university. I have learned that prayers are everlasting. More than 20 years later, God has
answered my prayers and made my USC dream a reality.
Many people have helped me along the way. When I think about mentorship, my arms
are outstretched, one hand fully extended in front of me and the other hand fully extended behind
me. Countless people have taken ahold of my hand in front and propelled me forward. In the
same way, I have reached my hand back and helped others to advance and achieve their dreams.
It began with my parents, Barbara and Duane Disbrow. My dad always told me that I
would be the first Disbrow to graduate from college. I wish he could see me now because I think
he would be so delighted at how far I have gone in my education. When I was 14, my mom and
dad each wrote letters that were given to me during a church retreat, and I have saved and
cherished these letters all of my life. A portion of my mom’s letter reads, “We get so caught up
in work, school, surviving, getting ahead that we forget that we have another reason for being
here. The important things are not the material things that we can touch, and sometimes the
important things cannot even be described. I can’t even tell you what the important things are
because you’ll have to figure that out for yourself.” Similarly, my dad concluded his letter by
writing, “I want you to go after whatever you want in life, and if all your dreams don’t come true
(which I think they will), then I’ll always be there for you.” I have learned so much from my
mom and dad, most importantly to believe in God and in myself. Through these
acknowledgements, their words of wisdom have now helped to author this dissertation, which is
vii
one the greatest tributes that I have to offer.
I am eternally grateful to so many people. My husband David, to whom this dissertation
is dedicated, is my biggest cheerleader. I love teachers, so much so that I became one, and I will
always remember the influence that Mr. Ristrom and Mrs. Span had on my life. Thank you to my
grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. Aunt Liz, I am especially grateful to you because as a
little girl, I sat at your graduation when you earned your Juris Doctorate degree and opened my
eyes to new possibilities. To my immediate family, Richard, Michelle, Ryan, Kollin, Brenda,
Doug, Lori, Matt, Kristina, Taylor, Gabe, and Hope, thank you for your prayers and love. To
Ramina and Natasha, I could not have asked for two more beautiful or intelligent best friends. To
Martha, your mentorship transformed me into a confident woman. Thank you to my professional
mentors, Jackie, Sue, and Robin, for your guidance over the years. Finally, to my fur babies,
Max, Lilly, and Honey, I could not have written, researched, read, and studied for hours on end
without your constant presence and love.
Last, but certainly not least, thank you to my fellow classmates in Cohort 12 and to all of
the professors in the OCL program who have helped and guided me throughout this journey. I
am especially grateful to my dissertation committee members, Dr. Maria Ott and Dr. Kathy
Stowe, and to my chair, Dr. Courtney Malloy. To Dr. Malloy, I will only have one dissertation
chair in my life, and I am so glad it was you. You are such a special person to me, and you will
forever hold a place in my heart, for the tremendous contribution you have made in my life.
I close by proclaiming my core values: freedom; redemption; the courage of my
convictions; transformation; and surrender. May I be like the Woman of Proverbs and live out
the verse that has been given to me, “She is clothed in strength and dignity. She can
laugh at the days to come” (Proverbs 31:25). In this, may I always fight on!
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 3
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation .......................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................... 10
Chronic Absenteeism Laws, Regulations, Trends, Patterns, and Leadership Roles ......... 10
Causes of Chronic Absenteeism ........................................................................................ 18
Best Practices for Improving Chronic Absenteeism ......................................................... 22
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Factors ........................................................ 27
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 39
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 42
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 44
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 44
Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 44
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 45
ix
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 45
Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 46
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 49
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 50
Ethics ............................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 53
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 53
Results Research Question One ......................................................................................... 54
Results Research Question Two ........................................................................................ 95
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................. 111
Findings ........................................................................................................................... 111
Implications for Practice .................................................................................................. 116
Future Research ............................................................................................................... 131
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 134
References ................................................................................................................................... 136
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 145
x
List of Tables
Table 1: California 2018-19 Chronic Absenteeism Rates by Race and
Significant Subgroups 15
Table 2: Stakeholder Demographics 54
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 41
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Chronic absenteeism is a challenge facing K-12 public schools across the United States.
Compulsory Education Law (1976) applies to children ages 6 to 18, and Chang et al. (2014)
defined chronic absenteeism as missing 10% or more of the school year, or at least 18 days in a
180-day school year. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights points to a
national epidemic with more than 7 million chronically absent students from all 50 states (Bauer,
et al., 2018). The 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) made large-scale changes to how
states are held accountable for student chronic absenteeism data (Gottfried & Hutt, 2019). As a
result of ESSA, California’s K-12 public schools have 3 years of chronic absenteeism data that
are made publicly available via the DataQuest website (California Department of Education,
CDE, 2017). These data points reveal the following trend of increasing chronic absenteeism
rates: 10.8% in 2017; 11.1% in 2018; and 12.1% in 2019 (CDE, 2019). Of further concern, while
California’s chronic absenteeism rates continue to increase, enrollment continues to decrease, as
evidenced by a decline in 76,903 compulsory-aged students since 2017 (CDE, 2019). This means
that California’s chronic absenteeism rates are greater than they appear because the number of
enrolled students is declining while chronic absenteeism rates are climbing. Further analysis of
chronic absenteeism within California’s public schools involves deeper investigation at the
individual county and district levels.
Context and Background of the Problem
Situated in Southern California, the Rover School District (RSD, a pseudonym) is a
preschool through eighth grade public school district that serves over 12,000 students. RSD
comprises 20 school sites at the elementary, junior high, and K-8 levels. Students come from
various socioeconomic backgrounds, and over 50% of RSD’s students qualify for Federal Free
2
and Reduced-Price meals. English Language Learners comprise about one quarter of the student
population, and the three primary languages spoken in the home are English, Spanish, and
Korean. The district’s mission is to work together with the community to provide an innovative,
high-quality education for all students in a safe environment.
Although the overall chronic absenteeism rate in RSD was 4.9% (CDE, 2018), the rate
among significant subgroups, such as homeless and foster youth, was disproportionately high
when compared to other significant subgroups (such as English Language Learners). While this
study was broadly focused on chronic absenteeism, drilling down on RSD’s significant subgroup
data added further value to the importance of this study. For example, RSD’s chronic
absenteeism rates increased for foster youth, from 19% in 2017 to 28.2% in 2018, and for
homeless youth, from 25.9% in 2017 to 31.4% in 2018 (CDE, 2018). Based on RSD’s 2018
chronic absenteeism rates for homeless and foster youth, the local County Office of Education
(COE, a pseudonym) placed RSD on Differentiated Assistance, which required the county
superintendent of schools to ensure that further actions and services were implemented to meet
identified targets. While RSD decreased chronic absenteeism rates during the 2019 school year,
COE continues to monitor RSD’s data for both significant subgroups and as a whole, which
supported the broad nature of this study and a focus on all of RSD’s chronically absent students.
Chronic absenteeism interventions vary widely among school sites at RSD, and the
current district wide intervention impacts fewer than 10% of all chronically absent students. The
School Attendance Review Board (SARB) functions as RSD’s primary district level attendance
intervention and is run by RSD’s department of Child Welfare and Attendance (CWA). Students
are primarily referred to SARB via a principal or assistant principal recommendation, in
communication and collaboration with RSD’s CWA office. During a SARB hearing, the student
3
and parent(s) appear before a panel that consists of district staff along with representatives from
both local law enforcement and truancy court. The school principal or assistant principal presents
information about the student’s attendance. The parent then has the opportunity to make a
statement regarding the student’s absences, while the SARB panel asks questions and puts an
action plan into place to help improve the student’s attendance. This process is time-consuming
and impacts a small percentage of students, those with the most severe attendance. For instance,
in 2018, RSD identified 664 chronically absent students, but only held 43 SARB hearings. This
meant that SARB interventions supported 6% of RSD’s chronically absent students. The other
94% may or may not have received interventions, depending on the programs in place at
individual school sites. As such, the limited capacity of SARB is problematic because, as the
data suggest, far more RSD students need access to systematic attendance interventions.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine the needs and assets among RSD’s principals
and assistant principals and recommend solutions so that they could better address chronic
absenteeism and implement effective interventions. The analysis focused on knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors related to implementing attendance interventions to all
chronically absent students. RSD’s principals and assistant principals have the primary
responsibility for structuring and implementing reforms; thus, this study focused on their
perceptions regarding the unique needs of their students and school sites. With this in mind, the
following research questions guided this study:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of principals and assistant principals related to
providing effective attendance interventions to all chronically absent students?
2. To what extent do RSD’s organizational culture, practices, and resources support or
4
hinder principals and assistant principals in implementing systematic attendance
interventions?
Importance of the Study
It was important to address chronic absenteeism in RSD, as patterns of chronic
absenteeism can be detected early and tend to increase over time. Chang et al. (2014) highlighted
a chronic absenteeism study released by the Baltimore Education Research Consortium that
found a pattern among chronically absent students. Ninety percent of students who miss 5 days
or more in the first month of school will go on to be chronically absent. Additionally, chronic
absenteeism often spreads across multiple years. Rosenkranz et al. (2014) reported the results of
a longitudinal study that followed a sample group of eighth grade students over 2 years. Data
revealed an average increase of 10.5 absences in the eighth grade compared to 27.0 absences in
the 9th grade. Similarly, Balfanz and Byrnes (2012) described how attendance problems are
often persistent with 66% of chronic absenteeism spanning over 2 years, 39% over 3 years, 22%
over 4 years, and 10% over 5 years. As the longitudinal evidence suggests, RSD’s school sites
can use data from the previous school year to identify chronically absent students and intervene.
Moreover, RSD’s lack of attendance interventions precludes chronically absent students from
reaping the benefits of early intervention, detection, and prevention. While SARB can be an
effective intervention for the small percentage of students who participate, it does not occur until
a student has already missed 10% or more of the school year or is considered chronically absent.
Failure to address chronic absenteeism can negatively impact student achievement and
graduation rates, which added further value to the importance of this study. According to the
California Children’s Report Card released by Children Now (2018), attendance is a predictor of
student academic performance, as evidenced by a 25% math proficiency rate among chronically
5
absent third grade students compared to a 42% proficiency rate among those with regular school
attendance. Furthermore, only 17% of chronically absent kindergarten through first grade
students read proficiently by third grade, as compared to 64% of their peers (Chang et al., 2014).
Students who are not reading proficiently by the third grade are 4 times more likely to drop out
of high school (Chang et al., 2014). In fact, in as early as the first grade, attendance patterns can
predict high school graduation rates (Attendance Works, 2015). For example, fewer than 5% of
first grade students with satisfactory attendance will drop out of high school, compared to 20%
of those who are chronically absent (Attendance Works, 2015). While RSD is a K-8 district, the
research shows how chronic absenteeism impacts academics and contributes to high school
graduation rates. As such, although RSD is not accountable to the CDE for high school
graduation rates, RSD faces strong ethical considerations in ensuring that chronic absenteeism is
addressed in the early grades to promote student success later in life.
Success later in life also relates to how chronic absenteeism connects to both workforce
issues and incarceration rates. Ahmad and Miller (2015) reported that “in 2013, those 25 years
and older without a high school diploma had an employment-to-population ratio of 40.1%,
whereas employment prospects improve more than 14% for those with a high school diploma”
(p. 12). Furthermore, “high school dropouts today earn almost 28% less than high school
graduates and earn around $300,000 less over a lifetime” (p. 12). These authors went on to share
societal impacts of up to $800,000 per high school dropout due to decreased taxable income and
an increased reliance on social services and the judicial system. In fact, according to Ahmad and
Miller (2015), chronically absent students suffer higher incarceration rates than students with
regular attendance. The authors also explained that when compared to graduates, high school
dropouts are also more likely to be arrested and that 82% of prison inmates had dropped out of
6
high school. Statistics such as these further propel the importance of this study along with the
strong moral imperative that RSD faces to address chronic absenteeism.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model was the theoretical framework that guided this
study. Clark and Estes (2008) explained that in order to meet organizational goals, the requisite
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors must be present. These authors pointed to
three causes of performance gaps: knowledge and skills; motivation; and organizational barriers.
Knowledge and skills relate to whether or not employees know how to meet the performance
goals or are aware of their areas of weakness. The motivational aspect of the KMO model refers
to deeper internal and psychological approaches in three areas: active choice to work toward a
goal; persistence in achieving the goal; and the mental effort invested in solutions. Finally,
organizational barriers can create performance gaps related to a lack of processes and procedures
or a lack of materials and resources.
The Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model was an appropriate framework for examining
how to improve RSD’s chronic absenteeism rates. First and foremost, RSD has a specific and
measurable performance problem related to the percentage of chronically absent students who
receive interventions. The Clark and Estes (2008) model offered a framework for addressing the
problem based on the following factors for assistant principals and principals: knowledge and
skills related to attendance interventions; motivation to improve attendance for chronically
absent students; and organizational barriers that may be supporting or hindering the
implementation of attendance interventions.
This study used qualitative research methods to gather and analyze data (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Criteria for the sample included current employment within RSD and
7
a job classification as an assistant principal or principal, as these positions work directly with
student attendance and have the ability to impact interventions. Qualitative research was well
suited to this study given the small sample size of 31 principals and assistant principals and the
unique perspectives and experiences they bring to RSD’s 20 school sites. RSD’s current
performance, in relation to providing attendance interventions to students, were assessed using
interviews, literature review, and content analysis. Solutions were recommended and evaluated
in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
Several key concepts were critical to understanding chronic absenteeism in California’s
public schools and within the organization that was the focus of this study.
• ADA: An acronym for Average Daily Attendance, or average number of students who
attend school each day, which relates to state funding (CDE, 2017).
• California School Dashboard: A system, similar to DataQuest, that reports
performance metrics such as chronic absenteeism at the state, district, and school site
levels (Hough, 2019).
• CDE: An abbreviation for the California Department of Education, the government
agency that regulates K-12 public schools in California.
• COE: An acronym and pseudonym for the County Office of Education that regulates
and ensures compliance by RSD.
• Compulsory Education Law: A law enacted in 1976 that mandates compulsory school
attendance for children ages six to 18.
• Chronic absenteeism: Missing 10% or more of the school year, or 18 days in a
standard-length school year (Chang et al., 2014).
8
• DataQuest: A CDE website that reports data, including chronic absenteeism rates, for
schools and districts; data are disaggregated by significant student subgroups (CDE,
2017).
• ESSA: An acronym for the Every Student Succeeds Act that was signed into law in
2015 and makes significant changes to chronic absenteeism accountability (Gottfried
& Hutt, 2019).
• RSD: An acronym and a pseudonym for the Rover School District, a preschool
through eighth grade school district that is the focus of this study.
• SARB: An acronym for School Attendance Review Board, an intervention for
chronically absent students that closely resembles an in-house truancy court process.
• Significant subgroups: A term that describes how DataQuest disaggregates student
data in several ways including ethnicity, homeless youth, students with disabilities,
etc. (CDE, 2017).
Organization of the Dissertation
Five chapters were used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about chronic absenteeism and
information about the lack of an effective intervention system within RSD. The organizational
context, purpose and importance of this project, guiding research questions, and theoretical
framework were provided. Chapter Two presents a review of current literature surrounding the
scope of the study. Topics to be addressed include: chronic absenteeism laws, regulations, trends,
patterns, and leadership roles; causes of chronic absenteeism; best practices for improving
chronic absenteeism; and KMO model factors. Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational elements to be examined along with methodology related to the choice of
9
participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are described and
analyzed. Finally, Chapter Five provides recommendations for practice, based on data and
literature as well as recommendations for implementation.
10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This review covers literature under the following topic areas that emerged from the
review process: chronic absenteeism laws regulations, trends, patterns, and leadership roles;
causes of chronic absenteeism; and best practices for improving chronic absenteeism. Although
the literature presented here has been applied to a variety of contexts, this review focuses
primarily on the literature’s application to the root causes of chronic absenteeism and the lack of
an effective intervention system within the Rover School District (RSD). The literature review
begins with a broad view of chronic absenteeism at the national level, through the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA), followed by a portrait of chronic absenteeism at the California state and
local levels. This section also includes current research on chronic absenteeism data trends and
patterns. Additionally, attention is given to the important leadership roles school site principals
and assistant principals have related to chronic absenteeism. The review then presents in-depth
research on the following causes of chronic absenteeism: lack of a positive school climate; lack
of student engagement; student health issues; and economic hardship. The next section highlights
the best practices for improving chronic absenteeism through the use of the following strategies:
recognition and incentives; relationship-based interventions; attendance monitors; and a multi-
tiered approach to chronic absenteeism. Following the general research literature, the review
focuses on the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model and the influence that knowledge,
motivational, and organization factors have on the implementation of chronic absenteeism
interventions within RSD. The section on the KMO theoretical framework is then followed by a
conceptual framework that served to further guide this research study.
Chronic Absenteeism Laws, Regulations, Trends, Patterns, and Leadership Roles
The following section provides a foundation for understanding the laws surrounding
11
chronic absenteeism at the national level, through ESSA, along with the California state, and
local levels. This part of the paper also presents literature on chronic absenteeism data trends and
patterns. This literature points to reasons for addressing chronic absenteeism and shows how the
data has influenced current laws. Finally, this section concludes by focusing on the leadership
roles of principals and assistant principals.
The Every Student Succeeds Act and Chronic Absenteeism Monitoring
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) made new and substantial changes to how the
federal government now holds states accountable for chronic absenteeism data. As Hough (2019)
explained, ESSA was signed into law in 2015 to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, which was formerly called the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) when it was
updated in 2002. ESSA marks a shift from the negative consequences of NCLB and requires
states to include multiple measures of student achievement. These measures include: English
Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics proficiency; academic growth; high school graduation
rates; English Language Learner (ELL) proficiency; and a fifth indicator called School Quality
or Student Success (SQSS). The fifth indicator “can include measures of student engagement,
educator engagement, student access to and competition of advanced coursework, postsecondary
readiness, or school climate and safety” (Hough, 2019, p. 16). As of 2018, 36 states have chosen
chronic absenteeism as their SQSS indicator, and 32 of these states have defined chronic
absenteeism, as “missing 10% or more of enrolled days” (Hough, 2019, p. 19).
Under ESSA, states must meet specific chronic absenteeism requirements. As detailed by
Jordan and Miller (2017), chronic absenteeism data must apply to all K-12 students without
exclusion. Collected data must also be disaggregated by significant subgroups (such as ELL,
homeless, and foster youth) at all levels: state; district; and school site. Furthermore, chronic
12
absenteeism data need “to be comparable across a state’s school district” (Jordan & Miller, 2017,
p. 4). The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights requires states to use a
standard measure to track and report chronic absenteeism data. For this reason, data need to be
valid in that they measure the actual number of days a student has missed. Additionally, data
must also be reliable, which relates to consistent measures and procedures for collecting and
recording student attendance. Finally, chronic absenteeism must be tied to student academic
outcomes. With this information in mind, it is important to examine how ESSA impacts
education in California at the state level.
Reporting Chronic Absenteeism in California’s Public Schools
The California Department of Education (CDE) has identified chronic absenteeism as a
state performance indicator under ESSA. In 2017, former State Superintendent of Public
Education, Tom Torlakson, announced the first-time availability of chronic absenteeism data for
California’s public schools using the DataQuest website. Hedy Chang, Executive Director of
Attendance Works, described DataQuest as “cutting edge” and further elaborated that the site
“offers the opportunity to identify which schools, districts, and populations are most affected and
in need of prevention and early intervention” (CDE, 2017, p.1). This means that while
regulations and research exist about chronic absenteeism laws and educational outcomes, the
transition to DataQuest marks a new era in data and accountability reporting for California’s
public schools. According to Torlakson, these data help to “determine which schools, districts,
and student groups have the largest concentration of chronic absences, allowing educators and
community members to focus attention and resources and take actions needed to keep those
students in class and back on the path to academic success” (CDE, 2017, p. 1). Tony Thurmond,
California’s current State Superintendent of Public Education, followed in his predecessor’s
13
Footsteps by identifying chronic absenteeism reduction as one of four priority initiatives (CDE,
2019). These priorities then take effect at the local level through goals and resource allocation.
Chronic Absenteeism at the Local Level
Funding formulas and local plans support California’s school districts in addressing
chronic absenteeism at the local level. While chronic absenteeism monitoring and accountability
are new on the educational forefront, Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding is not, as states
are funded by the average number of students who attend school each day (CDE, 2017). In
addition to ADA, California enacted the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013, and at
the time, was one of only two states to build a chronic absenteeism indicator (CDE, 2017). As
explained by Darling-Hammond et al. (2014), LCFF allocates funding based on pupil needs.
Categorical funding is eliminated under this formula, and instead, districts are provided with an
ADA base rate along with additional funding for students who are considered disadvantaged:
low income; foster care child; and so on. This funding increases when at least 55% of a district’s
students are identified as disadvantaged. Within the LCFF, school leaders must specify which
practices will be used to meet identified goals. For example, school districts must provide
transportation services to homeless and foster youth to support regular school attendance.
The Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) accompanies the LCFF and “requires
California districts to develop, adopt, and annually update an accountability plan every 3 years
that includes identifying goals and measuring progress for student subgroups across multiple
performance indicators” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014, p. 23). As part of the LCAP, all
California school districts must track chronic absenteeism data and ensure that goals, action
plans, and resource allocation work to improve chronic absenteeism outcomes (CDE, 2017).
These data are published and accessible on both the DataQuest website and the California School
14
Dashboard. The dashboard uses five colors to code chronic absenteeism data based on
performance level, with red being the lowest and blue being the highest (Hough, 2019).
Performance levels are disaggregated in various ways at the state, district, and school site levels,
including by significant student subgroups. Analysis of these data helps to contribute to
emerging chronic absenteeism trends.
Chronic Absenteeism Data Trends
Chronic absenteeism data reveal trends that can be seen across grade levels and when
disaggregating the data by race or other significant subgroups. According to Bauer et al. (2018),
chronic absenteeism came to light as a national epidemic when the U.S. Department of
Education released the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), showing an increase from 6.3
million chronically absent students during the 2013-14 school year to 7.3 million during the
2015-16 school year. California’s 2015-16 CRDC data revealed a 5% chronic absenteeism rate
among students in Grade 1 through Grade 6, but a 10% to 15% range in kindergarten among the
vast majority of schools. While rates generally dip from kindergarten through the elementary
grades, they increase in the adolescent years. As Hough (2019) explained, chronic absenteeism
patterns tend to persist from year to year and increase over time. For example, a chronically
absent kindergartener has a 0.49 probability of being chronically absent the following year, and
this probability increases to 0.68 between Grade 9 and Grade 10.
Reports revealed a 12.1% chronic absenteeism rate in California (CDE, 2019). Within the
12.1%, the first table shows how the 2018-19 data breakdown by race and significant student
subgroups. The data point to disproportionately high chronic absenteeism rates among specific
student populations such as African American students, students experiencing homeless, and
foster youth, which ultimately impacts student learning.
15
Table 1
California 2018-19 Chronic Absenteeism Rates by Race and Significant Subgroups
Race %
African American 22.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native 21.8%
Asian 4.3%
Filipino 6.2%
Hispanic or Latino 13.4%
Pacific Islander 20.2%
White 9.9%
Two or more races 11%
Not reported 13.5%
Significant Subgroups %
English Learners 12.5%
Foster youth 27.7%
Homeless youth 25.0%
Migrant education 8.9%
Socioeconomically disadvantaged 15.2%
Students with disabilities 19.5%
16
Chronic Absenteeism Patterns
Ginsburg et al. (2014) highlighted an analysis of national testing data based on the 2013
National Assessment of Educational Progress, which compared attendance rates and test scores
for every state and for 21 large urban areas. The study revealed that chronically absent students
consistently scored lower on standardized tests regardless of age, demographics, or location. For
example, chronically absent fourth grade students scored an average of 12 points, or more than a
full grade lower, on the reading assessment as compared to students with no absences. Similarly,
chronically absent eighth grade students scored 18 points lower on the math assessment. Data
also revealed that chronic absenteeism impacted high school dropout rates, as any chronically
absent student between Grade 8 and Grade 12 was 7.4 times more likely to dropout. After high
school, only 11% of chronically absent high school graduates reached their second year of
college as compared to 51% of high school graduates who were not chronically absent.
The problem of disproportionately high chronic absenteeism rates among homeless and
foster youth in California public schools has a direct impact on student learning. Data from the
Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness (2015) revealed the following risks for
chronically absent homeless students: retention; lower passing scores on state assessments; and
higher dropout rates. This institute’s data for chronically absent homeless youth further included
statistics such as: an 80% absenteeism rate; a 12% proficiency rate on statewide achievement
tests; and a 10.5% retention rate. This retention rate was 3 times higher among chronically absent
homeless students versus homeless students who missed fewer than 5 days of school per year,
thus pointing to the importance of addressing chronic absenteeism. The U.S. Department of
Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2016) offered guidance about
the importance of collaboration between schools and child welfare agencies to support foster
17
youth. This guidance highlighted a 65% high school graduation rate among students in foster
care, compared to an 86% rate among non-foster youth. Furthermore, Burton (2018) reported
that by age 26, 4% of foster youth earn a college degree, compared to 36% of the overall
population. Patterns like these must also be understood by school site leadership.
Leadership Roles
Principals and assistant principals play a key leadership role in combating chronic
absenteeism. According to Mac Iver and Sheldon (2019), “the evidence suggests that when
schools operate in a way that views families as assets, they can promote student attendance and
engagement by strengthening communication and partnerships with families” (p. 184). These
authors presented a systematic initiative to help school sites improve family engagement. This
first involved “equipping school leaders through professional development and cycles of inquiry
for planning, implementing, and evaluating family engagement activities” (p. 185). Principals
and assistant principals are the school leaders who drive change initiatives and chronic
absenteeism interventions within their school sites, particularly in districts such as RSD, where
administrators are afforded the autonomy to meet the unique needs of their community.
Attendance Works (2018) provided principals with a school-based leadership framework
and toolkit for increasing attendance and reducing chronic absenteeism. This toolkit focused on
principals’ actions because they “are uniquely positioned to ensure their school adopts a
comprehensive, tiered approach to improving attendance that fits with their overall approach to
promoting academic achievement” (p. 1). Principals are responsible for the following four
overarching actions: cultivating a school culture of attendance; using chronic absenteeism data to
assess need for added support; developing staff capacity to adopt effective attendance practices;
and advocating policies and resources to improve attendance (Attendance Works, 2018). As it
18
pertains to this study, effective leadership entails principals and assistant principals
understanding all facets of chronic absenteeism such as legalities, causes, solutions, and how to
engage their staff and teachers in the process. For example, as later highlighted in this literature
review, administrators must be knowledgeable of a three-tiered process to implement systematic
attendance interventions. This includes engaging staff to serve as mentors and build positive and
trusting relationships with students and families. Therefore, to effect change, including the
landscape of chronic absenteeism, principals and assistant principals must actively be engaged in
leadership. The literature on chronic absenteeism laws, regulations, trends, patterns, and
leadership roles shows the impact of this problem at the national, state, and local levels.
Additionally, the causes of chronic absenteeism are also important to consider.
Causes of Chronic Absenteeism
While a variety of factors contribute to chronic absenteeism, this section focuses on the
following four key causes that emerged during the literature review process: lack of a positive
school climate; lack of student engagement; student health issues; and economic hardship. Each
of these causes is detailed further below.
Lack of a Positive School Climate
The lack of a positive school climate, and the ways in which climate is viewed among
students, can increase chronic absenteeism rates in schools. Van Eck et al. (2016) analyzed
25,776 climate survey responses from middle and high school students at 106 schools and found
a strong correlation between chronic absenteeism and negative perceptions of school climate.
These authors suggested that targeting the behaviors of chronically absent students was not
enough to increase attendance. Schools must also improve the attendance of chronically absent
19
students with interventions such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), as a
lack of physical and emotional safety can hinder a student's motivation to attend school.
Research also pointed to a relationship between student perceptions of school culture and
school-avoidance or refusal behaviors. Lochmiller (2013) showed how chronic absenteeism was
highly correlated among students who were bullied by peers, which was especially true in
schools that did not have a climate that encouraged the role of the bystanders, ways to report
bullying, or victim supports. Additional school climate factors that increased chronic
absenteeism rates among students included: insufficient interest in classes; feeling unsupported
by staff; and discipline issues. Lochmiller (2013) recommended strategies for improving school
climate such as classroom cultures that foster both peer-to-peer and teacher-student relationships.
Passarella (2017) illustrated the strong connection between suspension rates and chronic
absenteeism. As the author suggested, schools can use restorative practices, a systematic and
preventative approach to building relationships and repairing harm, as a preventative measure to
reform school discipline and improve climate. This results in fewer intensive interventions for
chronically absent students and increased attendance in a safe environment that reaffirms
positive relationships and supports students in developing social and emotional skills. In addition
to school climate, student engagement is also important to consider.
Lack of Student Engagement
Lack of engagement among student populations further contributes to increased chronic
absenteeism rates. Garin’s (2012) study interviewed 516 chronically absent students in Grade 8
through Grade 12. Findings showed that 61% of students felt that school was boring or
uninteresting. These students believed that they would be more engaged in school if classes
connected to their lives, interests, and future goals. Interviewed students were largely unaware of
20
the long-term effects school attendance had on future success and stated that school officials
could bolster student attendance by educating students about its importance. As briefly
referenced the first chapter, Rosenkranz et al. (2014) reported the results of a longitudinal study
that followed a sample group of eighth grade students over 2 years. Data revealed an average
increase of 10.5 absences in the Grade 8 compared to 27.0 absences in Grade 9. The authors
suggested that teachers’ emphasis on student responsibility influenced students’ beliefs that
school attendance and participation were voluntary, thereby decreasing student engagement and
motivation to attend school. Mandated engagement, creating environments that make it difficult
for students to disengage, was recommended to help remedy this situation and provide students
with increased structure and relevant learning activities. Likewise, Mac Iver and Mac Iver (2014)
showed how students who participated in a STEAM robotics summer institute experienced a
97% attendance average, compared to a 95.6% average for matched comparison students who
did not participate in the summer program. As the authors indicated, student engagement
increased as a result of program participation because students were able to see the results of
their hard work and transfer elevated beliefs in personal academic performance to other core
subjects. Like disengagement, student health issues can also contribute to chronic absenteeism.
Student Health Issues
Researchers show a relationship between student physical and mental health issues and
increased chronic absenteeism rates. Allison and Attisha (2019) pointed to information from the
American Academy of Pediatrics that connected school attendance to good health. The authors
cited a variety of health conditions associated with chronic absenteeism, including mental health
and substance abuse disorders. Furthermore, the research showed that chronically absent youth
were more likely “to be diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder,
21
depression, and tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana abuse” (Allison & Attisha, 2019, p. 3).
Similarly, a policy brief from the National Center for Homeless Education (2017) indicated a
lack of healthcare access among low-income students, including homeless and foster youth.
Concerns such as housing instability, frequent mobility, change in foster care placements, and
illness were common causes of absenteeism. Moreover, “heath issues, such as colds, the flu,
asthma, dental problems, and mental health challenges due to trauma and toxic stress, are the
foremost causes of all students missing school” (p. 2). A study by Stempel et al. (2017) explored
the relationship between chronic absenteeism and Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). Nine
ACEs exist in total, such as domestic abuse, loss of a parent, substance abuse, and mental illness
of an immediate family member. ACEs are linked to childhood trauma and the mental health of
students. The study found a high connection between chronic absenteeism and the presence of
one or more ACE indicators. As the literature demonstrates, student health issues contribute to
chronic absenteeism. Additionally, economic hardship is an important consideration.
Economic Hardship
Poverty contributes to chronic absenteeism and puts students at risk for becoming
chronically absent. Romero et al. (2007) examined chronic absenteeism among a national sample
of elementary school students. In all grades, chronic absenteeism rates were highest among low-
income families. Additionally, living at the Federal Poverty Level increased a student’s risk of
becoming chronically absent. “In kindergarten, children in poor families were 4 times more
likely to be chronic absentees than their highest income counterparts; this proportion decreased
to 3.6:1 in first grade, and 2.6:1 in third grade, but rose again to 5.3:1 in fifth grade” (Romero et
al., p. 2). In a chronic absenteeism study in Oregon’s public schools, Buehler et al., (2012) found
disproportionately high chronic absenteeism rates among low-income families, particularly at the
22
primary grade levels, where students were twice as likely to miss school. Results revealed that
among all students, those categorized as “poor” were 50% more likely to be chronically absent.
Poverty, combined with homelessness, further perpetuates chronic absenteeism rates.
According to the CDE (2019), chronic absenteeism rates are disproportionately high among
homeless youth, as referenced earlier in this chapter. The evidence may suggest that California
schools are not strictly adhering to the guidelines of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act. Under this act, school districts are required to remove enrollment barriers for homeless and
foster youth, provide resources such as transportation, and designate a staff member to serve as a
homeless liaison (United States Congress, 2015). The law does not specify, for example, the type
of transportation that districts must provide to homeless youth. As a result, a range of options
exist among California’s school districts such as providing parents with gas cards, public
transportation bus passes, or school bus passes for student use. Furthermore, the Institute for
Children, Poverty, and Homelessness (2015) pointed to a relationship between chronic
absenteeism and the type of temporary housing where a student resides. Homeless students living
in a shelter had a 58% chronic absenteeism rate, compared to a 25% rate among homeless
students who were “doubling up,” or living with another family. As the literature suggests,
factors such as school climate, lack of student engagement, heath issues, and economic hardship
all contribute to chronic absenteeism. With these causes in mind, it is important to look at
practices for improving student attendance and reducing chronic absenteeism rates.
Best Practices for Improving Chronic Absenteeism
While multiple solutions exist for improving chronic absenteeism, the literature points to
the following best practices: recognition and incentives; relationship-based interventions;
attendance monitors; and a multi-tiered approach to chronic absenteeism. These strategies are
23
further explained below.
Using Recognition and Incentives to Improve Chronic Absenteeism
Balu and Stacy (2018) offered a four-step framework for identifying, designing, and
using recognition and incentives to improve the attendance of chronically absent students. The
first step was to diagnose the problem. Diagnosis involves looking at each student on an
individual level and assessing the barriers that are keeping the student from coming to school.
These authors suggested a behavioral diagnosis to identify the problem. In this approach,
knowledge, motivation, and action-related challenges are analyzed as being either within or
outside of the locus of control of the school and family. The diagnosis could point to causes of
chronic absenteeism such as student disengagement or economic hardship.
The second step is to match the incentive to the problem. As Balu and Stacy (2018)
further explained, encouragement can be used to reinforce positive school attendance for
chronically absent students and to inform students and families as to how close they are to
reaching their attendance goal. Once the goal is attained, recognition serves as a vehicle to
acknowledging effort and attainment of a goal, such as a 95% attendance rate in a single month.
Rewards should also be tied to goal achievement. The authors recommended that students be
publicly recognized for their efforts at an award ceremony.
The third step, outlined by Balu and Stacy (2018), was the implementation and planning
of incentive-based approaches. Within this step, several factors needed to be considered such as:
designating who will deliver the incentive or reward; does the incentive change behavior; the
appropriate scope of the reward; the frequency with which the reward will be provided; how
comprehensive or easy the reward is to understand. This is an iterative and reflective process.
Balu and Stacy’s (2018) final step was the evaluation and revision of attendance
24
interventions based on student outcomes. The effectiveness of the various incentives needed to
be evaluated among significant student subgroups. For example, a particular incentive may be
effective for students who face economic hardship, but not be effective for disengaged high
school students. The success of the incentive should also be evaluated within the context of the
school or neighborhood community. For example, an incentive that helps to offset transportation
costs, might have a stronger impact in a community that has high rates of poverty but not work
as well in a more affluent school community. If a targeted incentive generally improves the
attendance of a significant subgroup, students within the subgroup who did not improve, warrant
further examination. While recognition and incentives can improve chronic absenteeism,
relationship-based interventions have also proven to be effective.
Relationship-Based Attendance Interventions
Researchers point to effective relationship-based interventions that can be used to address
chronic absenteeism across student populations. As detailed by Chang et al. (2014), the Success
Mentors program was implemented in 100 New York schools, reaching more than 10,000
students. In this program, chronically absent students from the prior year were assigned mentors
who greeted students daily, called home if a student was sick, and supported school activities. As
a result of this program, students with mentors gained 9 days during the school year. In the same
way, Durham and Connolly (2017) showed how attendance coordinators served a similar role to
mentors by building relationships with individual students, identifying enrichment activities, and
recognizing student achievement. The authors’ qualitative interviews with coordinators revealed
increased student motivation to attend school and a far-reaching impact on other student
motivational factors such as engagement and school climate. For example, coordinators met with
students over the summer, got to know their interests, and attended extracurricular activities like
25
sporting events, which raised student engagement and motivation to attend school. Similarly, in
an analysis of over 2,000 truancy interventions, Gandy and Schultz (2007) found a positive
connection between mentorship and improvement in chronic absenteeism. For instance, children
from age 10 to 16 who participated in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program skipped 36% fewer
classes and had 52% fewer absences than those in the control group. While relationship-based
interventions can be broad in nature, attendance monitors take mentorship a step further to
combat chronic absenteeism.
Using a Monitor to Connect Students and Families to Resources
Attendance monitors are recommended to connect chronically absent students and their
families to needed resources. Christenson et al. (2006) showed how schools can improve chronic
absenteeism by designating a monitor, whose role is to serve “as a case manager, mentor, tutor,
problem solver, and coach in some situations, and a listener, friend, and advocate” (p. 2). This is
done through a “Check and Connect” system where the monitor checks the attendance, grades,
and discipline of assigned students and then connects with students via a network of identified
interventions. Monitors work with students for at least 2 years and support students with
attendance, school discipline, behavior issues, and academics. Elements that contribute to the
success of the Check and Connect monitor include: relationship building; monitoring attendance,
grades, and suspensions; and teaching problem solving skills. The authors outlined a specific
Check and Connect model, with five key elements. As a result, the Check and Connect model
provides a clear roadmap that schools and districts can follow to systematically connect families
to resources and improve attendance among chronically absent students. According to Gandy
and Schultz (2007), Check and Connect had notable data outcomes for chronic absenteeism,
which included improving student tardiness by 44% and student attendance by 23% In the same
26
way, Christenson et al. (2006) highlighted “persistence-plus” as another attendance system with
demonstrated success. In this program, attendance monitors are uniquely positioned to
understand the individualized needs of students and their families. These authors suggested using
monitors to make counseling referrals, doctor’s appointments, and provide continued stability
and advocacy for children, like homeless and foster youth, who are often “on the move” (p. 5).
A Multi-Tiered Approach to Chronic Absenteeism
Three Tiers
As detailed in an extensive analysis by Jordan (2019), research is beginning to suggest a
multi-tiered approach to chronic absenteeism. Tier one involves interventions that are provided
to all students. Here, the emphasis is setting expectations and recognizing attendance
improvements. Schools are encouraged to create a welcoming and supportive climate for
students, parents, and staff. Next, tier two interventions are designed to target students who are
on the cusp of missing 10% of the school year. Finally, tier three interventions offer the highest
level of individualized and intensive support for the most challenged students by involving
coordination among schools, health, housing, judicial, law enforcement, and social services.
Evaluation of Interventions
Under ESSA, schools are required to implement research-based practices when using
federal, or LCAP, dollars for student improvement, such as attendance. As a result, Jordan’s
(2019) study coded attendance interventions in each tier, classifying the benefit as strong,
moderate, promising, or emerging. Strong interventions included large-scale samples,
experimental studies using control groups, and were considered to be the gold standard.
Moderate interventions used large samples, compared like groups, and had a significant impact.
Promising interventions included at least one study, but with a small sample. Finally, emerging
27
interventions were too new to show an impact, and more evaluation was needed.
Interventions Rated at Each Tier
Jordan (2019) highlighted the effectiveness of interventions in accordance with the
corresponding tier. For example, tier one interventions were broken down into three categories.
The first level looked at effective messaging and engagement. Nudging parents, with a letter or
phone call about their child’s attendance or academics, was categorized as a strong practice,
ranging from a 6% to 17% improvement in attendance. Next, when it came to removing
attendance barriers, telehealth, or onsite school access to medical professionals and services, also
met the gold standard. The category of improving school climate showed many promising
interventions including one moderate practice: culturally relevant curriculum. This practice
helped students to stay engaged and connect learning to their own lives. Tier two interventions
were broken down into two categories: effective messaging and engagement and removing
barriers to attendance. In the first category, mentoring, promoting student engagement and a
positive self-image, and early messaging about attendance, all had a strong or gold standard
rating. While the second category lacked strong interventions, addressing asthma was one
intervention in this category that the researchers found to be a promising practice. Three
interventions were identified at the tier three level, all scoring in the promising practice range:
truancy court; interagency case management; and housing. In summary, the literature highlights
interventions that help to reduce chronic absenteeism. It is also important to see how the
literature on chronic absenteeism fits into a broader theoretical framework.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Factors
KMO Model and Theoretical Framework
As detailed in the first chapter, the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model was the
28
theoretical framework that guided this study. Clark and Estes (2008) pointed to performance
gaps that related to the following three areas: the knowledge and skills of employees;
motivational factors that influence employee performance; and organizational features. This
model was used to recommend solutions for addressing chronic absenteeism in RSD.
Knowledge Factors
This section addresses knowledge factors, potential knowledge influences, and explains
how these factors relate to the types of knowledge: declarative (factual and conceptual);
procedural; and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). Other knowledge factors explored were the
knowledge needed to choose chronic absenteeism interventions and knowledge of how to
develop a three-tiered system, also referred to as a multi-tiered system.
Declarative, Procedural, and Metacognitive Knowledge
When accomplishing a goal, it is important to understand the different types of
knowledge that may be needed: declarative (factual and conceptual); procedural; and
metacognitive. As Krathwohl (2002) explained, factual knowledge relates to the basic elements
and terminology within an area of study, in this case chronic absenteeism, along with knowledge
about how to solve problems. Conceptual knowledge then builds on these basic elements by
connecting them to the larger systems in which they operate along with the underlying theories
and categories. Both factual and conceptual knowledge are categorized as declarative or having a
“what” focus. Procedural knowledge, on the other hand, relates to the “how,” or quite simply,
how something is done. This involves “methods of inquiry and criteria for using skills,
algorithms, techniques, and methods” (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 214). Finally, metacognitive
knowledge centers on the “self,” which includes both the general knowledge of cognition and
“knowledge of one’s own cognition” (p. 214). This means that individuals are aware of their
29
thinking and able to adapt and apply what they know to various situations.
Different types of knowledge matter when implementing chronic absenteeism
interventions. Principals need declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge in order to
effectively implement attendance interventions. Ambrose et al. (2010) noted that “declarative
and procedural knowledge are not the same, nor do they enable the same kind of performance”
(p. 19). For example, an RSD school principal could possess declarative knowledge and
understand the facts and concepts related to chronic absenteeism interventions. Conversely, this
same principal may not have the procedural knowledge needed to apply those interventions to
their student population or differentiate interventions based on the reasons why individual
students are chronically absent. In the same way, a principal could know the procedure or the
steps to follow when implementing a particular intervention, but not fully understand why that
particular intervention is being utilized or be able to articulate the rationale. In this case, the
principal may have adequate procedural knowledge but lack the declarative knowledge required
to tailor interventions to different situations or specific student needs.
Metacognitive knowledge is also critical because thinking about declarative and
procedural knowledge results in stronger future application of the targeted skills (Sternberg,
2018). With this in mind, “seven metacognitive skills are particularly important: problem
recognition; problem definition; problem representation; strategy formulation; resource
allocation; monitoring of problem solving; and evaluation of problem solving” (Sternberg, 2018,
p. 10). In RSD, a school principal could apply these metacognitive skills to chronic absenteeism
by recognizing the problem, defining it, and knowing who, or which particular students in the
school, are representative of the problem. Next, chronic absenteeism interventions strategies
could be formulated and applied to students based on their individual needs. These students
30
would be monitored, and the interventions would be evaluated based on their level of
effectiveness. As a result, metacognitive knowledge allows school principals and assistant
principals to think through the underlying factors, rationale, and steps needed and then apply
their declarative and procedural knowledge.
Foundational, or prior knowledge, is also relevant. Inappropriate or inaccurate prior
knowledge can lead to application of knowledge to the wrong context or distorted
misconceptions about information (Ambrose et al., 2010). This could create a range of problems
related to chronic absenteeism interventions such as providing a homeless student with an
intervention that is not helpful or misunderstanding how to strategically use interventions to
create a multi-tiered system of support based on the severity of a student’s attendance.
Knowledge Needed to Choose Chronic Absenteeism Interventions
Balu (2019) outlined seven design and decision choices that are helpful in pairing chronic
absenteeism interventions to the appropriate student populations or patterns of attendance. These
decisions all point to knowledge influences, and the first four choices relate to declarative
knowledge. The initial decision involves whether or not the intervention is designed to engage
the parent, student, or both. Next, school principals and assistant principals must consider the
Theory of Change. This means examining if the intervention addresses single or multiple
attendance barriers and if the solution is proactive or reactive. The mode must also be recognized
in terms of how the intervention is delivered. This could include factors such as: a variety of
school programs and partners; targeting specific students; automaticity; and generalizing the
intervention across student populations. Data also warrant examination. Plans must be made for
the frequency with which attendance data will be reviewed. Furthermore, plans should also
include any additional data that are relevant to the problem, such as student discipline data.
31
These first four choices relate to declarative knowledge because they emphasize the factual and
conceptual knowledge needed to focus on “what” is being implemented.
Balu’s (2019) fifth and sixth design choices relate to procedural knowledge and the
seventh and final step to metacognitive knowledge. For example, staff involvement is a key
consideration. Principals and assistant principals need to determine if an intervention involves
staff input, services, or support from specialists. The next step in the process involves timing,
grade span, and duration. This includes whether or not an intervention starts at the beginning of
the year or can be accessed at any point during the school year. It could be a cycle of 6 weeks, an
entire year, or span over the course of multiple school years. These choices require procedural
knowledge of “how” attendance interventions are implemented. Finally, principals and assistant
principals must be reflective and have metacognitive knowledge of student subgroups and
understand if an intervention is likely to be more effective for specific groups of students. School
administrators must ultimately decide if an intervention is a fit or match for the student that it is
intended to target. Here, metacognition comes into play because principals need to understand
underlying factors and the rationale for differentiating chronic absenteeism interventions.
Knowledge of How to Develop a Three-tiered System
Chronic absenteeism interventions need to be designed within a structured school system
that addresses student needs. As previously mentioned, researchers such as Chang et al. (2018)
proposed a three-tiered system of support that requires knowledge and expertise on behalf of
principals and assistant principals. Declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge are
needed at every tier. The first tier focuses on prevention and providing universal support to all
students. Key prevention strategies involve: having an engaging school climate; building positive
relationships with students and families; addressing attendance barriers; monitoring attendance
32
data; and recognizing and rewarding good and improved attendance. The second tier supports
early intervention of students who are already chronically absent and have missed 10% to 19%
of the school year. At this level, students are assigned mentors and receive personalized outreach
and individual action plans to address barriers and increase engagement. The third tier provides
the most individualized support to students who have severe chronic absenteeism and have
missed 20% or more of the school year. At this level, principals and assistant principals work
with other agencies and take legal action with referrals to SARB and the district attorney. At
each of these tiers, administrators need to determine what is happening, how it is happening, and
reflect on their own cognition, which is why all types of knowledge are needed to develop and
implement a multi-tiered support system that is tailored to individual student needs.
Motivational Factors
The following section focuses on motivational factors and the three key descriptors that
help to define motivation. Additionally, RSD’s problem of practice was further explored through
the motivational theories of attribution and expectancy value theory.
Active Choice, Persistence, and Mental Effort
Motivation consists of the following three elements: active choice; persistence; and
mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Active choice relates to one’s intent to actively work toward
and pursue a goal. In RSD, active choice would center on a principal or assistant principal’s aim
to work toward the goal of implementing chronic absenteeism interventions. Persistence is the
dedication a person adheres to while completing the goal. This means that the individual persists
in the face of distractions and does not let less important goals take priority. RSD’s principals
and assistant principals are pulled in many different directions, so persistence might involve the
perseverance and investment in prioritizing chronic absenteeism interventions as a critical school
33
initiative and an integral part of school culture. Finally, mental effort involves having the
confidence and investment of effort needed to accomplish the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). In
RSD, principals and assistant principals must believe in their ability to implement chronic
absenteeism interventions. Moreover, they must also work smarter and look for solutions to
accomplish their goals, such as automated processes to analyze student attendance data. In the
same way, specific motivational theories also contribute to a deeper understanding of
motivational factors.
Attribution Theory
Attribution theory can help to explain why the implementation of chronic absenteeism
interventions look different at each of RSD’s school sites. As illustrated by Perry and Hamm
(2018), Weiner’s (2005) attribution theory helped to explain why people respond differently to
the same environmental factors. “Weiner posits that life experience initiate ‘why’ questions that
trigger casual search processes to identify the causes of events” (p. 62). This means that the way
an individual perceives the cause of an outcome is a critical component in determining a person’s
future motivation to engage in a task. Here, perception does not necessarily match reality.
Furthermore, attributions can be defined by the following three dimensions: locus; stability; and
controllability. Locus refers to conditions that are either internal, and within the individuals’
control, or external, and outside of the behaviors that the individual can control. With this in
mind, successes increase self-worth, whereas failures lower self-esteem. Stability centers on
perception of a cause being fixed or unstable over time and space. Finally, controllability relates
a person’s perception of how much control they have over an outcome. Attributions of
controllability can lead to feelings of guilt, shame, and lack of effort.
Attribution theory can help to explain how RSD principals and assistant principals
34
respond to chronic absenteeism at their school sites. For example, one RSD principal might
attribute chronic absenteeism to unstable external factors that are beyond their control, such as
poverty, transiency among low-income students, and lack of parent participation. As a result, this
principal may feel that chronic absenteeism interventions are ineffective and therefore lack the
motivation needed to implement these interventions. In the same respect, another RSD principal
might be implementing chronic absenteeism interventions with minimal impact. If this principal
perceives chronic absenteeism as an internal dimension outside of their control, then they might
attribute their failure to a lack of ability and be less motivated to continue implementing these
types of interventions. On the other hand, if a school principal attributes the success (or failure)
of chronic absenteeism interventions to their own effort, then they are likely to create conditions
that lead to more adaptations and opportunities for future success. Therefore, when examining
motivational factors, it is important to understand whether or not RSD’s principals and assistant
principals attribute improved attendance to their own efforts in implementing chronic
absenteeism interventions. In addition to attribution theory, expectancy value theory is another
motivational theory that warrants examination.
Expectancy Value Theory
Expectancy value theory (EVT), as described by Wigfield et al. (2018), provides a model
for explaining how motivation increases when one expects to do well on a task and values that
task. Expectancy relates to the foundations for motivation and helps to predict mental effort,
persistence, and performance outcomes. Value, on the other hand, is a strong indicator of active
choice and whether or not an individual wants to engage in a particular task. Task value beliefs
are fueled by the following four components: intrinsic value; attainment value; utility value; and
cost belief. Intrinsic value “is the enjoyment one gains from doing the task” (Wigfield et al.,
35
2019, p. 119). This can lead to deep engagement and long periods of persistence. Attainment
value, on the other hand, relates to the importance of doing well on a particular task. This
connects to a person’s identity, self-expression, and can help to confirm one’s sense of self.
Utility value refers to how useful a task is and whether or not it aligns with and supports an
individual’s future ambitions. Finally, cost belief describes how a person perceives their
investment of energy, time, effort, emotional and psychological costs, and fear of failure.
Expectancy value theory (EVT) can relate to motivational factors that hinder RSD’s
principals and assistant principals from implementing chronic absenteeism interventions. For
example, a principal may dislike the time, effort, process, or even logistical factors of
implementing chronic absenteeism interventions. As a result, that principal may opt to complete
other preferred tasks that they see as having more intrinsic value and never start on the trajectory
of implementing a three-tiered intervention system. Furthermore, a principal could also perceive
the implementation of interventions as not important. Since the monitoring of chronic
absenteeism rates is relatively new to California’s public schools, and RSD lacks an effective
intervention system, principals could see that there is no risk in avoiding the task. Furthermore, if
a principal does not see value in the effectiveness of the interventions, or have appropriate
models for these values (Pintrich, 2003), then motivation is truly lost, as there is no perceived
benefit. As a result, EVT could reveal motivational issues that hinder principals and assistant
principals from implementing chronic absenteeism interventions. The literature demonstrates
how motivational factors can influence the implementation of chronic absenteeism interventions.
In addition to motivation, the KMO model also takes organizational factors into consideration.
Organizational Factors
Organizational features and processes can support or hinder organizations in attaining
36
their goals. In this section, organizational factors will be considered along with influences related
to cultural models and cultural settings. Specific influences include: trust; performance goals and
accountability; mentorship; professional development; and resources.
Organizational Influences
Organizations are influenced by two elements of culture, cultural models and cultural
settings, and these two factors need to be considered when addressing school reform initiatives.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) stated that cultural models could be described as a collective
way of thinking and behaving within a group. These are often the invisible rules, shared among
group members, that help the individuals within that group to better understand how their
organization functions. Cultural models can impact staff attitudes, accountability, perceptions,
response to change initiatives, conflict management, and trust. Cultural settings, on the other
hand, are more definitive and include factors such as: staff members; their tasks and duties;
procedures; reasons for completing tasks; and the social context in which staff members carry
out their work. Rueda (2011) further explained that cultural models and settings are intertwined,
work in concert, and are generally fixed with little movement or change. Together, cultural
models and settings can either help or hinder an organization’s ability to accomplish its goals. As
such, it is important to study cultural models and cultural settings within RSD and the effect that
they have on chronic absenteeism interventions.
Cultural Models: Trust and Performance Goal Accountability
In order to improve chronic absenteeism interventions, RSD needs trust and
accountability related to clear performance goals. These cultural models can best be seen by
studying the Saturday school attendance intervention in RSD. All schools are expected to hold
Saturday school sessions to help students recover absences and time missed from school. This is
37
especially critical for chronically absent students. The attitudes and beliefs of principals is that
their Saturday school attendance is not monitored by executive management or associated with
rewards or consequences based on performance levels. As a result, a lack of accountability has
resulted in a culture where Saturday school attendance recoveries vary widely among school
sites and are left to each principal’s individual discretion. Clark and Estes (2008) highlighted the
significance of clearly defined and articulated performance goals and show how a motivational
climate can increase organizational trust. Goals are most meaningful when they meet the
following criteria: “concrete (clear, easily understandable, and measurable); challenging (doable
but very difficult); and current (short-term daily or weekly goals are more motivating than
longer-term monthly or annual goals)” (p. 26). Furthermore, principals and assistant principals
must perceive the goal to be coming from a person who is trustworthy, visionary, provides
feedback, believes in teams and their autonomy, and has high expectations for all. Additionally,
according to Korsgaard et al., (2002), the supervisor must maintain open lines of communication.
In addition to vague performance goals, a lack of openness about expectations is a trust
factor that has impacted the productivity of principals and assistant principals in implementing
Saturday school attendance recovery interventions. For example, during the 2018-19 school year,
one RSD junior high school recuperated 878 absences, compared to 64 absences at a larger
neighboring junior high. According to Zak (2017), “trust empowers colleagues to meet
objectives in the best way possible while committing them fully to the organization’s goals” (p.
7). As a result, strengthening trust and accountability surrounding performance goals offers
potential for improving chronic absenteeism interventions in RSD.
Cultural Settings: Mentorship, Professional Development, and Resources
Staff mentors, professional development for these mentors, and resources are three of the
38
cultural setting influences needed within RSD. As previously highlighted, researchers such as
Gandy and Schultz (2007) emphasized how relationship-based interventions, like mentorship, are
proven to improve attendance patterns for chronically absent students. In order to implement
these interventions, principals and assistant principals need to have people to serve as mentors,
either from the school staff or community, and provide training to the mentors. According to
Dowd and Bensimon (2014), “the key principle for designing effective professional development
programs is to ensure that effective assistance occurs among peers, among managers and those
they supervise, and between external facilitators and participants in the activity setting” (p. 156).
Clark and Estes (2008) further explained that involvement and commitment from management is
a strong organizational feature found in the KMO model. Additionally, Schraw (2006) and
Schraw and McCrudden (2006), presented the principles of information processing theory and
provided strategies that assist learners during professional development so that they can interact
with the information, construct meaning, and transfer their learning into long-term memory.
Elmore (2002) provided a systematic roadmap for implementing staff professional
development, such as the multifaceted consensus view. “In this view, effective professional
development is focused on the improvement of student learning through the improvement of the
skill and knowledge of educators” (p. 7). Elmore (2007) further illustrated domains of large-scale
improvement, including the need for educators’ knowledge and skills, along with resources and
capacity. This is key, as RSD principals will need a cultural setting that supports their work in
building staff capacity to serve as mentors and connecting with district approved and vetted
community-based mentors. Support will also be needed for professional development efforts so
that mentors are equipped to know what is expected of them, the processes and procedures that
they must follow, and reasons why their work is needed and important.
39
Cultural settings, such as mentors and professional development, can also be defined as
organizational resources, which are needed to address chronic absenteeism in RSD. Other types
of resources can include the materials and supplies needed to help achieve organizational goals.
Clark and Estes (2008) specifically addressed material resources such as knowledge resources,
including “various types of essential and rapidly changing information technology” (p. 105). In
RSD, this would include data systems for monitoring chronic absenteeism and tracking
attendance among significant subgroups, such as homeless and foster youth. The current
attendance system utilized by RSD has features for tracking chronic absenteeism, but it does not
flag students by identification with a particular subgroup. As previously referenced in the
knowledge section, Balu (2019) outlined seven design choices related to chronic absenteeism
interventions, such as timing, grade span and duration. In this example, principals and assistant
principals would need access to technology tools that monitor when students start and exit a
particular intervention. Additionally, schools are in the business of building relationships.
Therefore, principals and assistant principals need access to human resources. This can include a
myriad of supports such as: community partnerships; parent classes and education about chronic
absenteeism; and staff to design and carry out identified interventions.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework functioned as a tool to guide this research study. As the name
implies, the conceptual framework provided a visual representation that captured “the
researcher’s understanding of how the research problem will best be explored, the specific
direction the research will have to take, and the relationship between the different variables in the
study” (Grant and Osanloo, 2014, p.17). According to Maxwell (2013), the following four
sources can be used to construct a conceptual framework: the researcher’s experience and
40
knowledge; current existing theories; pilot or exploratory research; and experiments. With these
considerations in mind, this research study was guided by my personal experiences as an
educator, knowledge gained through the literature review process, and the Clark and Estes
(2008) KMO model. This model served as the theoretical framework that grounded this research
study and helped to connect the concepts embedded within the conceptual framework. In
practical terms, Grant and Osanloo (2014) used the metaphor of a house to describe the
theoretical framework as the blueprint and the conceptual framework as the floor plan.
The conceptual framework that guided this study can be found in Figure 1. Attendance
interventions were at the center of the study and RSD’s problem of practice. As this figure
shows, this problem was nested within the KMO model and the interrelationship among
knowledge, motivation, and organizational features (Clark & Estes, 2008). First, K factors
referred to the knowledge and skills of assistant principals and principals, with particular
attention to the following declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge influences:
chronic absenteeism laws, regulations, trends, and patterns; causes of chronic absenteeism;
developing a three-tiered intervention system; choosing chronic absenteeism interventions; and
thinking about attendance. Next, M factors related to the motivation of assistant principals and
principals. As detailed in the literature review, motivational factors focused on the following two
influences related to active choice, persistence, and mental effort: attribution theory and
expectancy value theory. Finally, O factors connected to organizational features, processes, and
barriers, along with cultural model and setting influences such as trust, performance goal
accountability, mentorship, professional development, and resources. RSD then fits into the
CDE’s larger system context as several structures exist within the CDE that relate to this study.
First, compulsory attendance is required for school-aged children, and school districts must
41
adhere to laws and regulations. Furthermore, districts must ensure the allocation of resources
through LCFF funding and LCAP plans. Next, the DataQuest system is the key metric used for
monitoring RSD’s chronic absenteeism rates among all students, including significant subgroups,
so that vulnerable student population groups, such as homeless or foster youth, are not
overlooked. Finally, RSD must provide early detection, monitoring, and interventions on behalf
of chronically absent students. The CDE’s system context is then nested into the broader national
context, as defined by ESSA.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
42
Summary
Under ESSA, states are subject to new accountability systems for monitoring compulsory
attendance and chronic absenteeism data (Hough, 2019). The CDE has identified chronic
absenteeism as one of four priority initiatives for California’s public schools (Thurmond, 2019).
The CDE’s DataQuest system, which disaggregates student performance data by significant
subgroups, ensures accountability for chronic absenteeism data (CDE, 2017). Additionally,
school districts and school sites must develop LCAP plans that safeguard the allocation of goals,
actions, and resources to support the needs of chronically absent students (Darling-Hammond et
al., 2014; CDE, 2017). Data trends point to a 12.1% chronic absenteeism rate in California’s
public schools along with disproportionately high rates among significant student subgroups
such as homeless and foster youth (CDE, 2019). Patterns like this tend to persist from year to
year and increase over time, ultimately impacting student academic outcomes and high school
graduation rates (Hough, 2019; Ginsberg et al., 2014). School leaders play a critical role in
combating chronic absenteeism and therefore need a deep understanding of this issue along with
the ability to mobilize change initiatives.
Several factors contribute to chronic absenteeism such as the lack of a positive school
climate and student perceptions of their school environment (Lochmiller, 2013). A lack of
student engagement also leads to high chronic absenteeism rates, especially when students feel
that school does not connect to their goals or interests (Garin, 2012; Rosenkrantz et al., 2014).
Researchers also point to physical and mental health disorders that impact student attendance
(Allison & Attisha, 2019; Stempel et al., 2017). Additionally, economic hardship, particularly
when combined with additional factors such as homelessness, further perpetuates high chronic
absenteeism rates (Romero, 2007; Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness, 2015).
43
Best practices are recommended for improving chronic absenteeism rates. Balu and Stacy
(2018) outline a four-step system for using recognition and incentives to bolster student
attendance. Relationship based interventions, such as mentorship, along with the use of
attendance monitors, also have proven to decrease chronic absenteeism rates (Chang et al., 2014;
Christenson et al., 2006). Moreover, current research suggests a multi or three-tiered approach to
chronic absenteeism, along a continuum of universal tier one supports for all students to
intensive tier three interventions for a few students with the greatest needs (Jordan, 2019).
Lastly, the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model serves as the theoretical framework grounding
this study by focusing on the knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors that support or
hinder RSD principals and assistant principals in their implementation of chronic absenteeism
interventions. These factors are further anchored into a conceptual framework that is described
and illustrated in Figure 1.
44
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter presents the research design for this study along with methods for data
collection and analysis. The problem of practice was chronic absenteeism in the Rover School
District (RSD) and a lack of systematic interventions to meet the needs of all chronically absent
students. The purpose of this study was to examine the needs and assets among principals and
assistant principals and recommend solutions so that they could better address chronic
absenteeism and implement effective attendance interventions. The analysis focused on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors related to providing attendance interventions
to all chronically absent students.
This chapter is organized to first share information about the research questions, research
design, the research setting, and the researcher. Next, data sources are introduced and explored in
relationship to participants, instrumentation, and data collection procedures. Finally, the chapter
concludes by examining strategies and considerations related to data analysis, validity,
reliability, and ethics.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of principals and assistant principals related to
providing effective attendance interventions to all chronically absent students?
2. To what extent do RSD’s organizational culture, practices, and resources support or
hinder principals and assistant principals in implementing systematic attendance
interventions?
Overview of Design
This study focused on qualitative research to gather and analyze data. Interviews were
45
used as a form of qualitative research that could aid in understanding social phenomenon and
bring about meaning, context, and processes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews were
appropriate for this study because they allowed for an inductive approach that generated theory
related to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational features that supported or hindered
RSD’s principals and assistant principals in their implementation of chronic absenteeism
interventions. Interviews provided the deep and comprehensive data needed to answer the
research questions that guided this study. As a result, purposeful sampling was used “because
individuals or cases are selected that provide the information needed to address the purpose of
the research” (Johnson & Christensen, 2015, p. 269).
Research Setting
This study took place within the Rover School District (RSD), a medium-sized, preschool
through eighth grade public school district located in Southern California. RSD employs
approximately 1,200 staff including the 31 principals and assistant principals who were the focus
of this study. RSD serves over 12,000 students across 20 elementary, junior high, and K-8 school
sites. Over 50% of RSD’s students qualify for Federal Free and Reduced-Price meal programs.
English, Spanish, and Korean are the three main languages spoken among RSD families, and
about one quarter of students are classified as English Language Learners.
The Researcher
As the researcher, I have worked in K-12 education for almost 17 years having been a
teacher, assistant principal, principal, and district administrator. Thus, I am knowledgeable about
chronic absenteeism and the implementation of effective attendance interventions. I have never
supervised the study participants, their employees, or contributed any information that affects
their performance evaluations. As such, my primary relationship with assistant principals and
46
principals has been collegial and supportive in various areas such as: student discipline; school
safety; attendance; independent study; PBIS; community resources; and so on.
Pragmatism was the paradigm of inquiry that framed this study’s purpose. As related to
this study, pragmatism referred to research that “starts with a problem and aims to contribute
practical solutions to inform future practice” (Saunders, 2019, p. 151). This worldview was
problem centered and oriented in real world practice (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As a
pragmatist, I came into this study valuing multiple chronic absenteeism solutions and
perspectives. Additionally, the existence of this study was framed through my perspective as an
RSD’s department director. In this role, I knew that systematic interventions were provided to
fewer than 10% of chronically absent students, which made this a clear and relevant problem of
practice. Strong knowledge of chronic absenteeism within RSD shaped the way that I saw the
perspectives of school principals and assistant principals and their motivation to implement
attendance interventions. This knowledge was framed by the social, political, and historical
context with a solution driven approach.
Data Sources
Data were gathered by interviewing 15 administrators from RSD. As explained in the
research design overview, interviews were used to develop a deeper understanding of how KMO
factors influenced chronic absenteeism and the implementation of attendance interventions
among RSD’s 20 school sites. This section on data sources includes information about interview
participants, instrumentation, and data collection procedures.
Participants
In order to achieve adequate engagement in data collection, purposeful sampling was
used to recruit the 15 administrators, 11 principals and four assistant principals, who were
47
interviewed as a part of this study. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), “purposeful
sampling is based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain
insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (p. 96). Criteria
for the sample included current employment status within RSD and a job classification as an
administrator. Administrators were selected due to their specialized experiences related to
chronic absenteeism along with the ability to influence attendance interventions.
At the time of the study, RSD employed a total of 31 administrators: 20 principals and 11
assistant principals. While this was a relatively small sample size, Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016)
strategy was used for dividing the sample into subgroups; in this case, subgroups were based on
the type of school where the principal or assistant principal worked. For example, RSD has five
school settings that reflect different and unique student demographics: elementary; elementary
Title I; junior high; junior high Title I; and K-8. At Title I schools, more than 50% of students
live in poverty, based on the number of students who qualify for Federal Free and Reduced-Price
meals. With this in mind, at least one administrator from each of these subgroups was
interviewed to provide a comprehensive perspective of chronic absenteeism interventions within
RSD. Additionally, administrators from the same school site were not interviewed; this resulted
in interviews that represented the perspectives from 15 of RSD’s 20 school sites.
Instrumentation
This study employed a semi-structured interview approach. As explained by Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), interviews could follow a continuum of uniformity from highly standardized
question-driven interviews to unstructured or informal interviews that observe a conversational
format. The semi-structured interview was well suited to this study because it included questions
that I wanted to pursue along with “additional interests and insights that the research participant
48
raises” (Morgan, 2014, p. 9). The Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model guided this research study
and sought to answer specific questions about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
features within RSD that supported or hindered principals and assistant principals in their
implementation of chronic absenteeism interventions. As such, the semi-structured format
allowed for specific information to be gathered from all respondents and for the key protocols to
guide the interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the same respect, each administrator brought
a distinctive perspective to the interview and served a diverse group of students, as the
implementation of systematic chronic absenteeism interventions varied among RSD sites. As a
result, semi-structured interviews enabled administrators to bring up unique topics that were
exclusive to their school sites so that these areas could be further explored.
The interview protocols (see Appendix A) related to the research questions and
conceptual framework that guided this study. The first research question connected to knowledge
and motivational aspects of the KMO model (Clark and Estes, 2008), and the second question
was driven by organizational factors. With this in mind, the interview protocols were designed to
answer one or both of the research questions and address a specific knowledge, motivational,
and/or organizational concept that aligned to this study’s conceptual framework. For example,
one knowledge protocol asked, “describe for me in your own words what multi-tiered attendance
interventions might look like?” This protocol clearly served to discern knowledge related to a
three-tiered system. The conceptual framework also highlighted two motivational theories,
attribution and expectancy value theory, and the protocols asked specific questions that related to
each of these theories. Finally, organizational factors, like the allocation of resources, were
addressed through protocols that asked, “in what ways does your district support you in
addressing the needs of chronically absent students, if at all?” All protocols tied back to specific
49
KMO factors and concepts that emerged in each of these areas.
Data Collection Procedures
Several logistical factors were considered when conducting interviews for this research
study. The first step was seeking permission. As advised by Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
permission must be granted at the school district level and also with the Institutional Review
Board (IRB). This research study was approved by RSD at its conception, and the IRB approval
process was completed in the summer of 2020.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, all data collection occurred remotely, per USC
IRB guidelines. All interviews were conducted via Zoom, an online video conferencing platform.
Recordings were captured via Zoom’s regularly available recording and transcription features.
According to Patton (2002), “some method for recording the verbatim responses of people
interviewed is therefore essential” (p. 380). While all study participants consented to recording,
they were informed that it was optional and if they did not consent, they would have the option
of a phone interview or an interview over Zoom that did not use the recording feature. The date
and time of each interview was determined by what was most convenient and comfortable for
subjects so that they could be relaxed and at ease in the interview setting. One-time interviews
ranged from 40 to 60 minutes in length. As recommended by Weiss (1994), “most survey studies
try to keep interviews to an hour or less” (p. 56).
Data Analysis
This study used comprehensive qualitative data analysis to gain insights and
understanding of the data collected from 15 interviews. Interviews were first evaluated
independently and then collectively to determine the knowledge, motivation, and organization
factors related to principals and assistant principals providing effective attendance interventions
50
to all chronically absent students. Member checks were used to ensure the validity and accuracy
of the data. This meant that emerging findings were presented to a few interview subjects to
ensure that my interpretation was accurate and on-point with the information that research
subjects were trying to convey (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
At the conclusion of each interview, I downloaded the Zoom transcript into document
form and corrected any errors based on standard language conventions and a review of the
recorded audio transcript. Once all interviews were completed and transcribed, document
versions of each transcript were uploaded into ATLAS.ti, a software program for qualitative data
analysis. I then created what Gibbs (2018) described as concept driven, or a priori codes, based
on the key influences that emerged in the theoretical framework, conceptual framework, and
literature review. When coding interviews, I further identified additional data driven codes, also
referred to open or emerging codes (Gibbs, 2018). As described in the next section, I maintained
a research journal and took notes during interviews. A second code book was also created in
Excel, due to my familiarly with this spreadsheet program. The Excel codebook primarily
functioned as a tool to quantify interview data, when possible, in order to analyze the findings of
the qualitative data.
Validity and Reliability
Validity was important to this study in order to maximize the credibility of the qualitative
data collected through the interview process. As explained by Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
“internal validity deals with the question of how research findings match reality” (p. 242). This
was important to consider for the following reasons: data needed to be interpreted; the researcher
could influence their research; and while data presented a snapshot of reality, they do not
represent reality in and of itself. As a result, strategies were used to increase credibility. For
51
example, multiple interviews supported a validity and credibility strategy referred to as
“adequate engagement in data collection” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 246). As previously
explained, principals and assistant principals were divided into subgroups to ensure that subjects
were interviewed from each of RSD’s five types of schools and that no administrators from the
same school were interviewed. Furthermore, this study used member checks, as detailed above in
the data analysis section, along with triangulation, the use of multiple data sources, to bolster the
validity of this study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Reliability was also a key consideration in safeguarding the consistency and
trustworthiness of this qualitative data collection. As illustrated by Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
“reliability refers to the extent to which research findings can be replicated. In other words, if the
study is repeated, will it yield the same results?” (p. 250). While it could be difficult to replicate
the exact results of qualitative research, the trustworthiness of the study was increased through
logs and journals that explained how I arrived at my results. As such, this research study used the
audit trail strategy, as suggested by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). I did this by maintaining a
research journal that “describes in detail how data were collected, how categories were derived,
and how decisions were made throughout the inquiry” (p. 252). Drawing on principles of
reflexivity, I was reflective and thought through their own assumptions and biases. This was
especially important as qualitative research could influence and change both the researcher and
the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
Beneficence was a key ethical principle that applied to this study, as researchers should
not cause harm and should maximize benefits (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). At the beginning of
52
this study, all participants were provided with an informed consent document. Informed consent
helped participants understand the following: participation was voluntary; conversations were
confidential; and they could withdraw without penalty. Study participants were also reminded
that they would not be provided with incentives or compensation so as not to coerce them into
participating. As a token of gratitude, each participant received a thank you note and small gift
card at the end of the study. The IRB process involved direction on when to provide forms to
participants (Glense, 2011). As such, this study followed IRB guidelines and protected
confidentiality by obtaining separate permission to record conversations and secure data via a
passcode.
This research project ultimately served the interests of RSD as student attendance could
impact funding and performance, which was another ethical consideration related to this study.
Nevertheless, this study also had the ability to benefit students and parents who needed support
with attendance, along with teachers who needed their students to be in school learning.
53
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine the needs and assets among the Rover School
District’s (RSD) principals and assistant principals and recommend solutions so that they could
better address chronic absenteeism and implement effective interventions. The Clark and Estes
(2008) KMO model served as the theoretical framework for this study by focusing on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors related to implementing effective attendance
interventions to all chronically absent students. This chapter begins by providing an overview of
participants followed by findings and influences related to this study. The following two research
questions guided this study:
1. What is the knowledge and motivation of principals and assistant principals related to
providing effective attendance interventions to all chronically absent students?
2. To what extent do RSD’s organizational culture, practices, and resources support or
hinder principals and assistant principals in implementing systematic attendance
interventions?
Participants
Fifteen RSD administrators were interviewed for this study. Administrator referred to
either a school site principal or assistant principal. No two interviews were conducted from
administrators at the same school. Since RSD is primarily comprised of elementary schools, the
data were not organized to delineate whether or not the administrator worked at an elementary,
junior high, or K-8 school. This decision was made to protect the confidentiality of participants.
Furthermore, since the vast majority of RSD’s administrators were female, gender neutral
pseudonyms were selected to further protect the identity of study participants, particularly among
any male subjects. The second table provides a general overview of participants.
54
Table 2
Stakeholder Demographics
Administrator Pseudonyms Job Title
Alex Principal
Blake Principal
Charlie Assistant Principal
Dallas Principal
Emerson Principal
Frankie Assistant Principal
Hunter Principal
Jaime Principal
Logan Assistant Principal
Oakley Principal
Parker Principal
Ricky Principal
Skyler Principal
Tanner Assistant Principal
Val Principal
Results Research Question One
The first research question sought to identify the knowledge and motivation influences
related to RSD’s principals and assistant principals providing effective attendance interventions
to all chronically absent students. The information presented in this section tracked the KMO
model and conceptual framework detailed in Chapter Two and was guided by the research
methodology outlined in Chapter Three. The conceptual framework identified five knowledge
influences: knowledge of chronic absenteeism laws, regulations, trends, and patterns; knowledge
of the causes of chronic absenteeism; knowledge of a three-tiered system; knowledge needed to
choose chronic absenteeism interventions; and thinking about attendance, or metacognitive
knowledge. Additional insights on knowledge were also highlighted by administrators and
55
shared in this chapter. Similarly, the conceptual framework pointed to the following two
motivation influences: attribution theory and expectancy value theory (EVT). This section
presents the findings related to each of the knowledge and motivation influences.
Knowledge Results
This section analyzed the knowledge RSD’s administrators had related to implementing
chronic absenteeism interventions. The literature review and conceptual framework for this study
pointed to the following types of knowledge: declarative (factual and conceptual); procedural;
and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). The three declarative knowledge influences included:
knowledge of chronic absenteeism laws, regulations, trends, and patterns; knowledge of the
causes of chronic absenteeism; and knowledge of a three-tiered system. Overall, administrators
demonstrated general knowledge about chronic absenteeism laws and regulations but lacked
knowledge about the causes of chronic absenteeism or how to implement a three-tiered
intervention system. The procedural knowledge influence, related to choosing chronic
absenteeism interventions, was a prominent gap and area of need among most administrators.
Metacognitive knowledge, or thinking about attendance, was a strength for administrators.
Administrators also discussed influences related to additional insights on knowledge. This
section details the findings related to each of these knowledge influences.
Knowledge of Chronic Absenteeism Laws, Regulations, Trends, and Patterns
Administrators demonstrated general foundational knowledge about what chronic
absenteeism is, how it is monitored, and how problems with attendance persist throughout the
school year and span over multiple years. Ninety-three percent of participants indicated that
chronic absenteeism is defined as missing 10% or more of the school year and were able to
articulate patterns that they had observed or monitored at their individual school sites. Specific
56
regulations, such as ESSA, were not mentioned in any of the interviews. Emerson, for example,
spoke in these broad terms and said, “I try to educate parents on the importance of being at
school, and what that means, and why it's important, and what the state laws are, you know,
education code.” Logan acknowledged the complexity of attendance laws by noting, “I feel like
attendance is one of the most difficult things, because there are so many laws and rules.” Alex
shared a representative observation about chronic absenteeism laws and patterns:
Every week, Sunday night, in our weekly bulletin, I list who was chronically absent, who
had already met that 10% threshold, and then we add some PBIS interventions for those
kids and really get to know the reasons why… Each kid who's chronically absent has a
story. So, really, it is just getting to know the families. So, what I know about chronic
absenteeism is the 10% threshold. It seems to be pretty stable. So, we find out pretty soon
in the school year who they're going to be, and it seems that they kind of are the same
ones, the whole year long. And once they're in that chronic absentee status, it is very
difficult to get them out. If we do, they're always so close to coming back in. It's like a
little dance.
Like Alex, other administrators indicated that they, or their office staff, ran reports to monitor
chronic absenteeism rates and that the same children, or families of children, repeatedly appeared
in these reports. The interview data suggested that administrators possessed general knowledge
about chronic absenteeism, but they needed more knowledge about specific laws such as ESSA.
Knowledge of the Causes of Chronic Absenteeism
All administrators acknowledged that chronic absenteeism can be caused by a variety of
factors and that the reasons can vary from student to student. With this in mind, 67% of
administrators detailed one or more of the specific causes of chronic absenteeism that connected
57
to the causes presented in the literature review. The 33% of administrators who did not provide
causes of chronic absenteeism spoke in broad or general terms. Tanner provided a general or
broad-based response and said, “You know, every family has different circumstances.” Tanner
was among the 33% of participants who did not detail specific causes and instead focused on
case-by-case situations. In another example, Emerson said that chronic absenteeism had deeper
root causes, but they did not elaborate on those causes and simply said, “There are some kids
that, you know, they just struggle with that execution of getting up or there's, you know, there's
something bigger going on.” These responses were representative of the 33% of administrators
who did not identify specific causes of chronic absenteeism.
Of the 67% who did identify specific causes, the large majority mentioned the importance
of drilling down on a root cause. For example, Dallas said, “To me it's finding out the root of the
problem, getting down to what's causing that child not to come to school, and then providing the
support those families need.” Title I principals tended to provide reasons related to basic needs
whereas non-Title I principals focused more on student mental health and parents setting clear
expectations, such as waking up on time or not stopping by Starbucks on the way to school.
Responses from the 67% of administrators who identified one or more causes of chronic
absenteeism were analyzed based on the causes that they provided, which were also outlined in
the literature review as follows: positive climate and student engagement; health issues and
mental health; and economic hardship. Administrators also identified an additional cause not
found in the literature review: parents setting clear expectations.
Positive Climate and Student Engagement. Participants talked about the importance of
combating chronic absenteeism by creating a positive school climate that engages students in the
learning environment, which was also noted in the literature review section. Hunter believed that
58
climate and student engagement were the best attendance strategy and said, “Students love
coming to school because they love their teacher, and they love the instruction that is happening.
That's probably the best.” Charlie offered another representative response, “That's what brings
kids to school. Do I like school? Do I like the people I engage with? Do I like my teachers? I do.
So, I'm going to come to school.” Jaime shared the following story of how they engaged two
students in P.E., their least favorite subject, and created a climate where the students went from
feeling disrespected to respected:
It's absolutely listening to the kids and acknowledging why they don't want to come to
school and trying to figure out what it is. We had two girls last year, and they didn't want
to run the mile, both of them. And they felt that their P.E. teacher didn't respect that, and
so, we were able to let them run it at their own pace… But it was as soon as we just heard
them and validated them, those kids came to school, and they were actually amazing the
rest of the year. And their grades went up. So, it's what is the reason and trying to figure
out how to solve it.
It is important to note that climate and student engagement were tethered to several concepts that
emerged during interviews such as the role of the teacher and the importance of creating positive
relationships, which will be detailed later in this paper.
Health Issues and Mental Health. The literature review highlighted health issues,
including mental health, as a cause of chronic absenteeism. During interviews, while other health
issues were touched upon, participants focused specifically on mental health as a cause of
chronic absenteeism. While more prevalent at non-Title I schools, mental health was a chronic
absenteeism cause discussed by both Title I and non-Title I administrators. It is important to note
that 87% of interview participants mentioned mental health when addressing organizational
59
resources and interventions, which will be elaborated upon in more detail later in this analysis.
As Dallas explained,
Of the students that we have who are chronically absent, a lot of it has to do with students
having anxiety… I do reach out to the families and meet with them. I talk to them, trying
to get them some support, whether it be through our Mental Health Associate, Care
Solace, whatever support they need. But the majority of parents tell me that their children
have a perception of either that they don't fit in or they don't like school... I check on
them. I counsel with them. I tell the teacher, so we monitor them just to make sure if
there are any concerns or anything that's happening on campus. I also let the supervision
know. So, we kind of wrap our arms around those kiddos to help them feel that they do
belong. And if there's any concerns, we address it immediately.
While Dallas spoke from a non-Title I perspective, Val, a Title I principal, echoed a similar
sentiment stating that when children do not want to go to school, “Usually there's maybe a
mental health issue, and we need to get them counseling.” Throughout the interview process,
mental health surfaced as an ongoing theme and a cause of chronic absenteeism.
Economic Hardship. Economic hardship and meeting the basic needs of students was
identified as a cause of chronic absenteeism, particularly among Title I principals. Val’s
perspective was shared in the following statement:
Chronic absenteeism seems to be a problem for a lot of the schools that have high poverty
and high mobility… What is the purpose of them being absent? Is it lack of parental
involvement? Is it they're helping with daycare because of the financial situation?
Because a lot of times, when kids are missing school, it's not just because the kid doesn't
want to come to school… Maybe again it’s the poverty coming into play. Maybe they
60
don't have any clean clothes, and they're embarrassed.
Alex, a Title I principal, told a specific story of a student who was living in his car and said it
was difficult to get the child to come to school when the family was in crisis and the student was
thinking, “The kids are going to know I'm wearing the same clothes. I might be stinky today.
Guess what? I didn't really sleep last night because I was cold, or I'm still hungry.” Jaime
mentioned high transiency rates, and like Val, said that older siblings may be staying home to
help with childcare. When looking at economic hardship, basic needs like clothing, food,
housing, and childcare were some of the root causes that administrators identified.
Parents Setting Clear Expectations. Several administrators said that it was critical
for parents to set expectations like a bedtime or a morning routine. Respondents talked about the
importance of students waking up on time, setting an alarm, and not battling their parents to get
out of bed in the morning. Skyler referred to conversations that she has had with parents in this
type of situation:
Much of that meeting or phone call is, what are your challenges? Let me hear what you're
struggling with. Why are you unable to get your child to school? And sometimes it's like
they won't get out of bed or they stayed up too late because they were on their iPad. And
those are things that we can problem solve with the parent. Like, have you started getting
them on a schedule? And you realize that you're the parent, and you can take their iPad
away from them? So, sometimes, it’s just parenting the parent on how to create those
schedules and supports for their kids, but it's a very individualized process.
With older children, Jaime said that they like to meet with the student to learn more about the
morning routine and then use that conversation as a guide to follow-up with parents and offer
support and guidance. Additionally, multiple administrators mentioned the importance of
61
students setting an alarm on their iPad so that they could wake up on time.
Summary Causes of Chronic Absenteeism. Overall, 67% participants were able to
identify one or more of the following main causes of chronic absenteeism: positive climate and
student engagement; health issues and mental health; economic hardship; and parents setting
clear expectations. The remaining 33% of administrators focused on individual cases and non-
specific causes as opposed to specific causes, suggesting the need for more knowledge in this
area. Understanding the causes of chronic absenteeism then related to the knowledge needed of a
three-tiered system.
Knowledge of a Three-Tiered System
During interviews, participants were asked about their implementation of a three-tiered
system to address chronic absenteeism, a strategy recommended by researchers. As detailed in
the literature review (Jordan, 2019), tier one is largely preventative and provides universal
supports, and often incentives, for all students. Next, tier two includes personalized outreach for
students who have missed 10% to 19% of the school year. Finally, tier three involves intensive
supports such as SARB for students who have missed 20% or more of the school year.
All administrators were able to think and talk about attendance in a multi-tiered fashion
and make connections to other multi-tiered interventions that were in place at their school sites,
such as PBIS. For example, Frankie said, “I think it does look a lot like PBIS. And I think it
looks a lot like the triangle. I think in general terms that tier one would start with the teacher in
the classroom.” Only 53% of participants, however, were able to relate their knowledge of a
three-tiered system to what currently existed at their school sites. Hunter provided the following
common response among administrators who were implementing three-tiered interventions:
Really, we endeavor to only have three absences or less throughout the entire school year,
62
excused, unexcused, whatever, just three. And we say that because you know, again,
attendance is the most important thing. So, when a student gets to that three, that's when
we start intervening pretty heavily. So, like for the multi-tiered system of supports, the
teacher will usually intervene first; we always like that for attendance, and for discipline,
for anything. We feel like the teacher has the biggest impact. So, we really want the
teacher to go through the motions first, and our teachers are really on board with that
because they see the results that they get from it…. After the teacher, then the office and I
also get involved.
While Hunter went on to describe the additional levels of intervention, what was notable about
their response was the knowledge of where tier one ended and where tier two began.
Administrators who were not currently implementing a three-tiered system tended to use verbs
such as “would be” or “might be.” They also had difficulty distinguishing what qualified a
student for participation at a specific intervention level along with knowledge of which
interventions fit into each tiered level. For example, one administrator said:
I would say that the second tier is more like if there’s like two to three days of absences,
maybe three to four. You know, and what are we doing for that might be a repeat of tier
one…. Those tiers are something that are still a work in progress. And it could be, you
know, some of those interventions, you might find in all three tiers.
This respondent clearly articulated that developing tiers was a work in progress, but they also
had difficulty explaining absence cut points and matching specific interventions to specific tiers.
Tier One Interventions. Most of the conversations focused on the universal tier one
interventions. Participants described common tier one interventions such as: weekly messages;
student incentives; the SSOAR Saturday School program; and recognition or rewards. For
63
example, Tanner said, “Through assemblies we would acknowledge perfect attendance. We
would do raffles. We would have friendly competitions in the classrooms, you know, just to
show them the positivity of being here and motivate students that way.” Tanner described both
the knowledge and experience of using assemblies, raffles, and class competitions as a process
for implementing universal attendance interventions to all students, which was a tier one strategy
outlined in the literature review (Balu & Stacy, 2018).
Tier Two Interventions. Knowledge of tier two interventions was largely situational,
and as detailed further in the paper, under the choosing interventions section, only 13% of
administrators spoke to a systematic process. Oakley was one of two administrators able to
describe tier two interventions, as evidenced by the following statement:
Tier two was, again, getting together a team. That's going to help with brainstorming,
looking at the families and the situations that we know. How would you categorize this as
being someone at tier two or tier three, and what menu of interventions we provide them?
The same way that we do when there's a behavior issue; the same that we do when there's
an academic issue. Absenteeism is just another domain of what we need to do to think
about and have teams to be able to provide support.
Oakley’s response showed knowledge of an attendance team, descriptions of intervention levels,
and designated interventions at each tier. When speaking about their own lack of knowledge
about three-tiered systems, one administrator candidly revealed, “This is not an area of strength
for me by any means. In fact, if you read my evaluation, I write that I am very honest about this.”
Tier Three Interventions. Administrators also spoke generally to their knowledge of tier
three interventions, such as SARB. All administrators mentioned knowledge of truancy letters
and the cadence of sending letters. Emerson remarked, “So whatever the first day of school was,
64
I think it was the 11
th
, so we’ll run letters on the 11
th
every single month.” Ricky gave a
representative response outlining the knowledge of sending truancy letters and what was
commonly referred to among school site personnel as the Road to SARB:
So, it starts with my teachers because they take attendance every morning. The next
person will be my office manager or office clerk…We have a truancy tracker, so we
document on the tracker that is used for teachers, admin, and our SPED team. I would say
maybe about two or three truancy letters, I think by the second one, we really reach out to
the parents and say let's do a SART contract, and if we are all in agreement, we move
forward. And if that SART contract is in place and the parent is still having difficulty
getting their child to school, then we go for a SARB hearing. And then we get help from
the district, a police officer from the City, our SPED coordinator, and SARB
coordinator… that really helps the school itself to have that hearing, because then the
parent knows, okay, this is serious. I really need to help my child.
Knowledge of tier three interventions was stronger among administrators such as Ricky and
Emerson who were also implementing the process with fidelity.
Summary Knowledge of a Three-Tiered System. As demonstrated in the literature
review section, the knowledge of a three-tiered system was needed for administrators to
implement systematic attendance interventions. While all respondents were able to talk about
multi-tiered systems in place at their school sites, such as PBIS, only 53% of participants were
able to relate their knowledge to a three-tiered attendance intervention system that currently
existed at each of their school sites. This data suggested that more knowledge was needed about
how to implement a three-tiered intervention system along with greater knowledge about what
actions and descriptors were unique to each tier. For example, administrators were generally able
65
to describe universal (tier one) supports along with intensive (tier three) supports like SARB.
Nevertheless, only two of the 15 administrators, Oakley and Hunter, were able to provide
knowledge about tier two interventions, making this a possible need for RSD administrators.
Additionally, administrators offered insights about the knowledge needed to choose chronic
absenteeism interventions.
Knowledge Needed to Choose Chronic Absenteeism Interventions
Procedure to Choose Interventions. The literature review section described, in detail,
the knowledge of the seven design and decision choices needed to effectively choose chronic
absenteeism interventions (Balu, 2019). Of the 15 participants interviewed, Oakley was the only
administrator who spoke about their designated attendance team and demonstrated evidence of
this knowledge, as follows:
When you have this multi-tiered system for absenteeism, then you're able to really get
down to the details of the numbers of the data to see, okay, now where was the student
first trimester, or prior to and after interventions, and where are they now? So, really
looking at that data that is available… And then another piece is not just the attendance
part, but their academic and behavior success…. Are they really succeeding at all the
other areas? Where do we change that intervention to provide that support? But it is
constantly looking back at the data and seeing where they are academically, behaviorally,
and attendance, of course. Where were they last year? Where are they now from before
interventions to post interventions? And, what do we need to do to make sure we
continue that momentum, or improve it, or move them up to another tier if it looks like
whatever we're providing isn't enough?
This is one of many examples that Oakley gave where they spoke to a comprehensive approach
66
that involved ongoing progress monitoring, data analysis, comparing attendance data to behavior
and academic data, and moving students into or out of interventions along a multi-tiered system.
Oakley provided data and insights that aligned with Balu’s (2019) research.
Barriers to Choosing Interventions. The next step in this analysis was to look at the
knowledge gaps related to choosing interventions based on what the other 93% of administrators
talked about during interviews when trying to articulate their knowledge and understanding of
how to choose chronic absenteeism interventions. During interviews, administrators’ responses
pointed to a lack of knowledge in the following two areas: matching interventions to student
needs and a systematic procedure. These two gaps are detailed in the paragraphs that follow.
Lack of Knowledge to Match Interventions to Student Needs. Administrators largely
spoke about their knowledge that chronic absenteeism was a broad problem, thereby highlighting
their knowledge gaps in choosing attendance interventions, based on the complexity of matching
a particular intervention to student needs. As explained earlier in this chapter, 47% of
administrators did not have an established three-tiered system. Those that did, did not have it
implemented with the level of fidelity explained in Balu’s (2019) research. For this reason, one
administrator gave a representative response and said, “There's just so many different
interventions; it's individualized, if that makes sense. I don't know that I could pinpoint like,
these are all of the interventions.” Similarly, another respondent said, “I can't say one
intervention works because it's really very specific to what that family needs… so it's really hard
to articulate one thing when every situation is so unique.” These short pieces of data all serve to
support the finding that administrators generally did not articulate knowledge of a process they
would use to choose interventions based on student needs.
Lack of Knowledge of a Systematic Procedure. Not having knowledge of a systematic
67
procedure in place, such as a designated attendance team, resulted in administrators shouldering
the large responsibility for determining the root cause of each student’s chronic absenteeism
along with the needed interventions. Participants described an iterative process as opposed to a
systematic process. This iterative process could be seen in the following response:
So, it would be, do they have what they need at home to be at school on time? So, is there
a routine? And bring in the counselor to talk; maybe there's something happening at
school that we don't know about… Like, maybe, there's either bullying or someone not
being nice… So, bringing the counselor in, working with the parent on figuring out, is it a
parenting strategy that they need? Maybe they're not able to, you know, follow through.
A lot of parents don't want to take away things like video games, or maybe the parents
are working a lot. Something else that we found that works is getting the kids involved in
clubs or after school programs… or whatever we could do.
The above comment showed a commitment to do whatever is needed, which was common
among respondents. The high level of involvement needed from the administrator, however,
limited the actions that could be taken without a systematic process. As one participant
explained, “I'm by myself, so I have every single job.” Similarly, another administrator reflected,
You know, I get the feeling like I kind of go through the motions and steps. I would say, I
just don't, I guess, I don't know, like I haven't internalized chronic absenteeism in my
mind. It's like we have reports that we track, and you go through the process of sending
attendance letters and the SARB. And you have different meetings with parents and stuff
like that. But I just, I don't know, I just I guess my gap would be just making sure that my
flow chart aligns with what the real flow chart is.
This respondent explained that they knew how to follow the steps in the process, but they
68
acknowledged their need for deeper knowledge about the underlying foundation supporting
chronic absenteeism interventions. In general, administrators spoke to how they were working at
capacity but not to how they were maximizing systems to work for them and their students in
order to choose interventions, suggesting a clear area of need in RSD.
Summary of Knowledge Needed to Choose Chronic Absenteeism Interventions. Of
the 15 respondents, Oakley was the only administrator able to demonstrate the knowledge
needed to choose chronic absenteeism interventions, based on Balu’s (2019) decision and design
choices that were outlined in the literature review section of this paper. The results suggested that
RSD administrators needed knowledge about how to provide systematic attendance interventions
to chronically absent students, such as what criteria was needed for a student to enter into an
intervention cycle and how to monitor the data to determine if the intervention was successful.
While 93% of administrators were not able to explain how to choose interventions, their
responses pointed to a lack of knowledge in the following two areas: matching interventions to
student needs and a systematic procedure.
Thinking About Attendance: Metacognitive Knowledge
A resounding influence throughout the interview process was that administrators thought
about attendance, and 80% reported having these thoughts on a daily basis. As detailed in the
literature review section, metacognition focused on the self and awareness of one’s own thinking
or cognition (Krathwohl, 2002). Findings revealed that administrators’ thoughts were focused on
the individual students who were chronically absent. For example, Logan said, “I'm not super
preoccupied over the vast majority of my kids’ attendance… But what I worry about the most are
those kids who are on my list of lots of extreme absences.” Alex echoed a similar sentiment
shared among administrators:
69
So, I think about it every single day. Because every Sunday night, I run that report. So,
come Monday morning, I know who is chronically absent. And then I'm constantly
thinking of those kids because I'm checking every day to see if they're coming to school.
So, we usually fluctuate between 10 to 18 kids at any one given time.
Care and concern for those individual students and their families was also communicated
through participant’s responses. For example, Ricky said, “You're getting to know the family and
their needs, and you're trying to figure out what is preventing this child from coming to school.”
In most situations, concern for chronically absent students then translated into thoughts about
how to address the attendance. Hunter explained:
So, every day, after teachers take role, I look to see who's absent across the whole school,
and then we formulate a plan… I would say most days include some students that are
chronically absent and that are, you know, big players in that end, and then we, the office
staff and I, strategize about what to do, about how to get them back to class.
With regard to metacognitive knowledge, administrators spoke to an awareness about their
thinking and how to adapt and apply this knowledge to support chronically absent students. In
summary, 80% of administrators demonstrated metacognitive knowledge by saying that they
thought about attendance on a daily basis, which suggested an area of strength for RSD.
Additional Insights on Knowledge
The literature review section and conceptual framework for this study highlighted the
general knowledge influences related to principals and assistant principals implementing chronic
absenteeism interventions. During interviews, administrators revealed additional insights related
to the knowledge that they needed to implement chronic absenteeism interventions. These
insights were shared across 93% of all interviews and broken down into the following three
70
categories: the role of the teacher; knowledge of building positive relationships with students;
and the impact of COVID-19.
Role of the Teacher. Fourteen of 15 participants, or 93%, talked about the role of the
teacher in combating chronic absenteeism and providing that first layer of support between either
the student or the family and the school site. As Blake explained, “The first line of defense is
your teachers having great rapport with families and making sure families know that when we're
asking where their kids are… It's because we care and want to make sure their kids are learning.”
Administrators spoke about how this began by creating awareness among their teachers and
empowering and expecting them to reach out to students and their families. In the following
statement, Logan explained how they worked with teachers to create this paradigm shift:
I'm really working on that with teachers, that if you notice that a kid has missed one or
two days, to shoot him an email or make a phone call, because that might mitigate the
issue before it becomes a chronic problem, and I have to get involved. And that's
something that I think teachers haven't necessarily thought of, that they can contribute to
helping the situation. So, that's something I'm working on, to try to help them understand
that they can sometimes make a huge difference. Just a phone call, hey, I was concerned
with your kid. And, you know, you don't have to come at it from like they're in trouble
perspective. But just like, hey, I'm just curious, how are things going? What can we do to
help? Then, maybe it's something that does not need to get referred to me because…
Sometimes that phone call home from a teacher can make a huge difference.
As seen in Logan’s comment, administrators perceived phone calls from teachers as a reflection
of care and concern for families as opposed to something punitive in nature. Val also explained
how this care needed to extend to students so that they felt valued and said, “It’s important that
71
it's not just you weren't in class. It was, we missed you today. Where were you? It's a positive
thing.” Another element to the teacher’s role was also serving as a liaison between the family
and the school. Oakley shared, “Also with the teacher… They need to start first in creating the
partnership between the office. The attendance clerk and the teacher to know that they need to
work together to contact home to see what's causing the absences.” Overall, administrators said
that teachers could reach out to families, make a difference, acknowledge when a student was
absent, and partner with office staff to provide a stronger coordinated communication approach.
For these reasons, relationship building also emerged as a key theme.
Knowledge of Building Positive Relationships with Students. In the literature review,
relationship-based interventions, such as the Success Mentorship program, were highlighted as
systematic and evidence-based practices that could improve student attendance (Chang et al.,
2014). Mentorship, as an intervention strategy, was specifically analyzed under the second
research question, as related to organizational supports and professional development.
Nevertheless, it was also important to elaborate upon the rich data that administers provided
about their knowledge of how building positive relationships with students supported efforts to
decrease chronic absenteeism. Relationships related to the following: a dedicated person on
campus; any trusted adult; and student choice and voice.
Dedicated Person on Campus. The overarching finding of the relationship piece was that
chronically absent students needed to have a connection with one dedicated person on campus.
Similar to the role of the teacher, 93% of administrators stressed the importance of relationships.
In a representative comment, Frankie said,
I think one of the most effective interventions for chronic absenteeism is for the student
to have a trusted person on campus that they can talk to. I think a lot of our students are
72
going through all kinds of changes, all kinds of things. All kinds of social interactions.
The girls try to hide it, and the boys try to be macho about it. But they truly need a person
on campus that they can go talk to. I think that helps a lot. And I think that if they have
that trusted person, and then they know that person is going to take care of something for
them, then they are more and more likely to feel comfortable coming to school.
Administrators also shared a number of ways to build connections such as relying on school site
mental health staff, facets of the PBIS program (such as check-in-check-out), or specialized
community partners that help to build school site mentorship programs.
Any Trusted Adult. It was common for interviewees to share that relationships could be
with any trusted adult on campus. This could include office staff, a former teacher, or someone
who shared a common interest with the student. For example, Jaime explained that they paired
two students who were interested in MMA fighting with their custodian, also an MMA fighter.
Jaime went on to say, “My custodian, he’s fabulous, and he's perfect for working with kids…
you know, try to pair them up with someone else that's going to be open, honest, and real with
them, but also hold them accountable.” Accountability was another theme in the relationship
building piece in order to create either daily or weekly consistency for students. This was
evidenced in the following representative comment from Oakley:
When there is one adult that is purposefully making time out of their day to make sure
that you're okay, that the child is okay, you see a world of improvement because there's
someone that they look forward to seeing. There's accountability going on, and
relationships are what really, I think, patch up any damage that has been done
emotionally for a child. They want that one-to-one attention, and to give them that is
everything. A lot of absenteeism happens because there's not enough attention to give to
73
this child to bring them to school.
Oakley’s comment also added the layer of giving individualized attention to students, another
relationship piece that was threaded throughout interviews. This was further evidenced when
Charlie said, “I really think that the crux of a lot of issues can be solved if we build relationships.
Students will come if we can get them to build that bond.”
Student Choice and Voice. A final facet of the relationship piece shared by
administrators was for students to have choice and voice as to when they could talk to their
trusted adult. Choice and voice were described as being additional to a weekly or daily check in
with set days and/or times. An example of this was shared by Charlie as follows:
We try and make sure that we show the student… we're here to support you, you know,
anything you need, we're available for you. Or, if you have questions, or if it starts to get
a little bit more difficult throughout the day, like a lot of the times I will say, you know,
it's okay to tell your teacher I need to go see the counselor, or I need to talk. So, we try
and support throughout the day, so the student doesn't feel like they don't have anyone
that can turn to when they're getting those feelings of, like, I don't want to be here.
Administrators shared that the primary purpose of teaching students to ask for help was so that
they could self-regulate and support their own social and emotional health with feedback from a
trusted adult. Oakley further explained that the goal was, “To be able to calm them, give them
coping methods, and to know that, wow, an adult really cares about me. And, I can express
myself, and they can give me ideas on how to handle it.” Participants also talked about the
critical role relationships continued to play during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Impact of COVID-19. COVID-19 has impacted student attendance in a variety of ways.
When schools closed down in March of 2020, students shifted to a distance learning
74
environment. As a technology heavy district with a robust 1:1 iPad program, this transition was
manageable in RSD due to access to devices and teacher training needed to operate in a virtual
learning environment. As such, RSD started the 2020-21 school year by following guidance from
Senate Bill 98, specific to the pandemic, along with the district developed Learning Continuity
Plan, which replaced the LCAP for the 2020-21 school year. This plan outlined the three learning
options available to students and parents: 100% virtual; hybrid (two or three days on campus
combined with virtual learning); and five days on campus. Whether virtual or online, daily
attendance was required, and the minimum number of instructional minutes needed to be met.
Teachers were instructed to maintain records of daily attendance and participation logs, along
with weekly engagement logs. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, attendance was relevant,
regulated, and included a strong accountability piece. Chronic absenteeism needed to be
monitored, and in doing so, administrators spoke to the ways that COVID-19 had affected
chronic absenteeism. The three main ways included: communicating the importance of
attendance; using a solution-oriented approach; and engaging in on-line learning.
Communicating the Importance of Attendance. During the interview process, 93% of
administrators talked about the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact that it has had on attendance
interventions. One of the main components was making sure that students, parents, and staff
understood the importance of attendance. As Ricky explained, “It's always just about being really
mindful of communication right now, even with my own staff… we have to make an effort to
communicate every day and make sure parents know that we are watching and that it counts.”
The majority of administrators also saw their attendance goals as unchanged. Frankie shared,
I think our goal for attendance is that every child has participated in some form or
fashion…. And so, my view is not really changed much in that, you know, everybody
75
needs to participate, and it's on us to figure out how we get that done.
Charlie offered a similar statement, “Our goals really haven't changed. And, I think we're still
meeting our goals. It's just COVID, it has changed the way in which we need to engage kids.”
Using a Solution-Oriented Approach. As a result of COVID-19, administrators said that
engaging kids in the new virtual learning environment sparked creativity and a solution-oriented
approach. Participants talked about how they had worked to mitigate learning loss and increase
attendance in situations where virtual learning posed the greatest challenge. Parker shared a story
indicative of the types of creative solutions described:
I have three of my SDC kindergartners that cannot handle Zoom. They just can't, like
they literally have shattered their iPads, like broken furniture, because they just get
frustrated. And so, what we've talked about now, is we're saying… Can you get them on
for 5 minutes to say good morning to their teacher so that they are starting to establish
those relationships? Then we're providing them with packet work. To at least, you know,
get them like writing their name, tracing their letters, and coloring their colors. They
weren't getting online at all. The parents were like, I just can't deal with it, and I was like,
okay, can we come to terms with you get on for 5 minutes, and then we'll provide you
with paper? And they were like, yes, I can do 5 minutes because they won't throw a
temper tantrum. So, I think I'm really looking outside of the box because every situation
is different, and I’m thinking how can I make this work?
Skyler spoke in broader terms and said that the pandemic was, “A unique situation, so it's more
about being aware of who those kiddos are and then following up to figure out what's preventing
them from coming to school and then starting to chip away at solutions to those barriers.”
Engaging in On-Line Learning. Interviewees said that the primary new responsibility
76
and barrier during the COVID-19 pandemic came from trying to get students online and engaged
in learning. In some cases, this was viewed as an opportunity. For example, Tanner explained:
Now we're saying, oh, it's an internet issue, I have to come to your house… whereas I
think in a normal situation, I wouldn't have that reason to visit. It's like, we call them. We
ask them why you were not showing up, and they'll just say, oh, my child was sick. So,
would you make a home visit for a child that's ill? But if they said, oh, we can’t get on
the internet, then it's easier for me to make that home visit. Yeah, to justify that.
Administrators also spoke to the time-consuming nature of having to help students and parents to
get online. Logan reflected:
I mean, just in the past week alone, I have spent I can't tell you how many hours calling
and tracking down kids and parents… I have already done home visits on all my kids
who didn't show up the first week to find out why they didn't show up, because for me, if
you haven't logged on at all, and you haven't called me with any technical issues, why are
you not in school? So, my safety monitor and I, we already went out to homes to find out
what's going on. Why are you not connected? We've gotten hotspots to kids. So that's
kind of trying to mitigate all of the issues you have with the internet.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, RSD routinely provided hotspots to low-income families.
Resources have since increased to give hotspots and internet access to anyone who has the need.
Overall, administrators identified increased communication, new creative solutions, and internet
access as the primary ways that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted attendance.
Summary Additional Insights on Knowledge. During interviews, administrators shared
additional insights about knowledge factors related to their implementation of chronic
absenteeism interventions. These insights were expressed across three main areas, by 93% of all
77
participants. The first area, the role of the teacher, detailed the important role teachers can play in
combating chronic absenteeism. The second area, knowledge of building positive relationships
with students, related to the knowledge of three main factors: a dedicated person on campus; any
trusted adult; and student choice and voice. The impact of COVID-19 was the third insight.
Respondents said that COVID-19 had impacted chronic absenteeism in the following three ways:
communicating the importance of attendance; using a solution-oriented approach; and engaging
in on-line learning.
Summary of Research Question One - Knowledge Findings
Research question one asked, “What is the knowledge and motivation of principals and
assistant principals related to providing effective attendance interventions to all chronically
absent students?” The findings suggested that RSD administrators demonstrated areas of strength
and need in their knowledge to implement chronic absenteeism interventions. The knowledge
section began by examining awareness of chronic absenteeism laws, regulations, trends, and
patterns. While the vast majority of administrators were able to define chronic absenteeism, none
of the participants referenced specific educational codes or laws, suggesting the need for more
knowledge in this area. The next influence related to knowledge of the four main causes of
chronic absenteeism. Data pointed to more knowledge needed to help administrators understand
larger systematic causes of chronic absenteeism. The third influence was knowledge of a three-
tiered system. Administrators who were not implementing a three-tiered system had difficulty
describing exit and entry criteria for each tier along with corresponding interventions. Only two
respondents accurately portrayed knowledge and understanding of tier two interventions,
suggesting the need for more knowledge about a three-tiered intervention system. Administrators
also needed knowledge to choose chronic absenteeism interventions, which was a clear
78
knowledge gap among all but one administrator. Responses pointed to a lack of knowledge in the
following two areas: matching interventions to student needs and a systematic procedure.
Thinking about attendance, or metacognitive knowledge, was a strength among the majority of
administrators who thought about attendance on a daily basis. Finally, administrators also
revealed the following three additional knowledge insights: the role of the teacher; knowledge of
building positive relationships with students; and the impact of COVID-19.
Motivation Results
This next section analyzed the motivation that RSD’s administrators had related to
implementing chronic absenteeism interventions. As detailed in the literature review, motivation
pertained to active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Interview data
revealed that 100% of administrators had implemented some level of attendance interventions,
suggesting that they were motivated and had made active choices. In order to provide deeper
analysis of participants’ responses and underlying motivations, the KMO model and conceptual
framework were drawn upon, along with influences that emerged during the literature process
and qualitative interviews. These influences included: attribution theory; expectancy value
theory (EVT); and additional insights on motivation. Overall, administrators needed more
positive attributions about how effort, versus ability, could predict outcomes. Regarding EVT,
valuing attendance interventions was a strength for administrators, but motivation for
performance expectations was a general area of need. This section details the findings related to
each of these motivation influences.
Attribution Theory
Attribution theory was used to analyze administrators’ motivations to implement chronic
absenteeism interventions. This theory was detailed in this study’s literature review section and
79
conceptual framework. As described by Weiner (2005), attribution theory can to help to explain
why individuals react differently to the same environmental factors. Relevant to this study were
how administrators’ perceptions of chronic absentee interventions determined motivation for
future task engagement.
Findings revealed that administrators were nearly divided down the middle in their
responses as 47% of administrators generally possessed positive attributions, whereas 53%
possessed negative attributions. For the purpose of this analysis, positive attributions related to
attributing performance outcomes to one’s effort rather than ability. Negative attributions, on the
other hand, highlighted a lack of ability and frustration with factors that participants felt were
beyond their control. Essentially, positive and negative attributions pertained to whether or not
administrators felt that they could control the circumstances with their own actions. As such,
responses were analyzed to compare and contrast positive and negative attributions with
particular attention to the following: influence over circumstances and outcomes; parent
behavior; and impact of interventions.
Influence over Circumstances and Outcomes. With regard to positive and negative
attributions, having general influence over circumstances and outcomes was what was most
addressed by administrators during the interview process. This related to how administrators
perceived their control over chronic absenteeism and corresponding interventions. One
respondent admitted, “I don't know that there's anything that I possess that will actually motivate
them.” Along this same thought process, another participant offered the following:
It's sad to me because so much of it is out of our control. You know, I just wish that we
could somehow find a way to, I don't want to say intervene in the sense of, you know,
like call CPS kind of stuff. I just wish that there were more positive supports that the
80
school could offer and then being able to convince families to take the help. I keep
going back to that because our district does a great job of offering services, whether it's
wraparound services, mental health for the student, we do a great job. But there’s always
that barrier. How do you get beyond that?
Negative responses about circumstances conveyed feelings of hopelessness and frustration,
focusing on the outcomes that administrators did not feel that they could control or influence. In
contrast, positive responses tended to highlight outcomes that could be controlled such as
outreach, resources, and creating a positive and engaging learning environment for students. For
example, Ricky said,
So, when the kids are in school, we're able to control that learning environment and make
it safe and positive… So, it's all about being able to provide a place for them to be happy,
and to learn, and to get them to buy into that, and want to come to school. It's usually one
or two reasons why they're not able to get to school every day, and really making that
change for them can change their whole outlook on learning, as well.
The real contrast with circumstances and outcomes ultimately came down to focus.
Administrators with negative attributions tended to focus on circumstances that they could not
control, even though they generally expressed a desire to do more. Positive attributions, on the
other hand, were about making what could be controlled as desirable and attractive as possible to
both students and parents.
Parent Behavior. Parent behavior was seen as a key external factor that administrators
either positively attributed to their own effort or negatively attributed to a lack of ability or
external factors that were outside of their control. Responses varied, both positively and
negatively among administrators, whether at Title I or non-Title I schools. Hunter provided a
81
representative positive response as follows:
We can do this… So, we kind of took pride in that, and you know, it was kind of
like a community outreach. Honestly, like, you know, look at the schools that are always
on the bottom of the attendance list. It's always, you know, the kids that live along
Juniper Drive [a pseudonym]. It doesn't have to be that way. And we kind of tried to put
emotion to our parents that the way to get out of poverty is by coming to school…
Attendance is another one of those things that we're using to uplift the community.
Positive responses, like Hunter’s, were anchored in the belief that while the parents and
community would always remain an external factor, internal actions and efforts could be applied
to influence parents and create a paradigm shift. On the flip side, another respondent expressed,
I think the biggest hurdle, like I said earlier, was really just parents blowing it off. So, it's
very frustrating to me that parents don't take their kids’ education, seriously, right,
because it's super important to me. That's why I have the job that I, you know, chose this
job. So, when I see that parents don't take it seriously, you know, their child is so far
below grade level… And they’re still not taking it seriously, it just bothers me. There are
so many things, but I think that if you can give your kid anything, it's a good education so
that hopefully they can better themselves later on in life… So, that just irritates me when
we're calling again because their kid’s out, and we woke them.
The above responses illustrated the divide among administrators. In both positive and negative
responses, administrators shared their belief that education was the ticket to a better life, but how
they approached this belief related to their perception of external factors and whether or not the
factors could be controlled through their own efforts and actions.
Impact of Interventions. Administrators also expressed both positive and negative
82
attributions as to whether or not interventions could ultimately impact chronic absenteeism. In
general, positive attributions related to more intensive tier two or tier three interventions, and
negative responses fixated on the inability for tier one interventions to meet the needs of
chronically absent students. For example, one administrator said,
If you're looking at incentivized interventions, no impact. The only time I get a true
impact is if I send them a threatening letter that says I'm taking you to SARB and SART
and make them sign a contract. That is literally the only time that I can change their
behavior.
This administrator went on to say that there was nothing that they could do for an intensive
chronic absenteeism case except to refer the family to SARB. Since administrators do not run
SARB, this type of sentiment essentially pointed to an external intervention, and not an effort or
action on the part of the administrator to improve attendance. Frankie, on the other hand, gave
the following representative positive response, highlighting the benefits of counseling and other
intensive resources and interventions to improve attendance:
Some of our families are in dire straits. And some of our families are too proud to say
that they're in dire straits. So, I think it's our job to decide how to help confidentially,
without stepping on any toes, so to speak… But I think we owe it to our children and our
families to put some interventions in place using the SSAs and using the counselors and
reaching out to find out, you know, what is it that's hindering the students, as well as, the
families because those interventions are crucial.
Similarly, Ricky described the effectiveness of attendance interventions as, “They’re 100%
because I feel like when you're creating these interventions for the students… You're trying to
figure out what is preventing this child from coming to school…. Attendance can be improved.”
83
Generally, perceptions came down to how to help students and families over time. The more
positive responses generally focused on ways to create stability in the lives of families in crisis
whereas negative responses magnified the instability and pointed to an inability to improve the
circumstances.
Summary Attribution Theory. Attribution theory was used to analyze administrators’
responses and motivation to implement chronic absenteeism interventions. Overall, attributions
were influenced by perceptions regarding: influence over circumstances and outcomes; parent
behavior; and impact of interventions. Only 47% of participants expressed positive attributions
related to what administrators could control through their own efforts and actions. The other 53%
expressed negative attributions focused on their ability or external factors. These findings
suggested a need for increased motivation connecting effort to positive outcomes.
Expectancy Value Theory (EVT)
Expectancy Value Theory (EVT) was used to analyze administrators’ motivations to
implement chronic absenteeism interventions. Like attribution theory, EVT was detailed in this
study’s conceptual framework and literature review section. As Wigfield et al. (2018) explained,
motivation increases when one values a task and expects to do well on that task.
Task Value. While at varying degrees, all administrators gave examples as to how they
valued the use of attendance interventions to improve chronic absenteeism rates. Task value
beliefs were broken down into the following four areas: intrinsic value; attainment value; utility
value; and cost belief (Wigfield et al., 2018). Of these values, attainment value was the most
salient. Administrators’ responses were analyzed as they pertained to each of these four areas.
Intrinsic Value (Interest). Intrinsic value related to the interest and enjoyment
administrators experienced when implementing chronic absenteeism interventions.
84
Administrators offered a variety of personalized stories as to how they were interested in making
school a fun place for students to learn. For example, Alex noticed a pattern of declining
attendance for their fifth and sixth graders on Fridays. As a result, they created a dance party
every Friday at the upper grade lunch recess where students could pick songs with clean lyrics,
and Alex would play the DJ. Alex beamed with delight when they said, “I would play their
music, and they would all gravitate towards me… And I was like super cool because I knew the
new Ariana Grande song and Billie Eilish. I was all over that!” Ricky described their enjoyment
in implementing a variety of fun activities to bolster attendance:
The monthly rewards are for students that are there every single day during the month.
After the weekly assembly, we would allow them to stay out for an extra 20 minutes for
recess. And that seemed to really work… They liked being entered into a raffle for lunch
with the principal, or a dance party, or a free book.
Ricky’s example about lunch with the principal was one of the many examples that
administrators shared about how they showed their interest in attendance and got personally
involved in implementing fun and engaging interventions and incentives.
Attainment Value (Importance). Attainment value focused on the importance of doing
well at implementing chronic absenteeism interventions. While at varying degrees of
implementation, all administrators unanimously talked about the importance of attendance and
implementing chronic absenteeism interventions. They were motivated not only to improve
student attendance, but to also improve learning outcomes. This was evidenced in the following
representative response from Tanner:
I think that's like, by far, my top priority, because if they're not here, then they can't
receive the other interventions. They can't receive academic interventions. They can't
85
receive the positive reinforcement of PBIS because, you know, they're not here. I think
it's important to intervene, because if you don't, it's going to set a pattern, which then
affects them later on in their schooling…It just takes one or two days for you to be
absent, and then you are out of the loop… So, I stress that to the parents because I think
sometimes the parents don't realize that if they keep them home for one day, or if their
kid comes late, they have to play catch up. They have to figure out where, you know,
they are in the room, their routine and procedures. So, that kind of is a disadvantage for
them. By them being here, not only are they getting the academics and the interventions,
but also the basic needs, like the nutrition that they may be lacking at home. So, at least if
they're here, we know that they're being fed. Their needs are being met.
While all administrators were able to speak to the importance of attendance and interventions,
Tanner’s statement above echoed the moral imperative shared by many Title I principals, tying
attendance back to nutrition and the general well-being of the child. To this end, all
administrators placed value on attaining the most basic heart of the matter: helping kids.
Utility Value (Extrinsic). Utility value related to the usefulness of implementing chronic
absenteeism interventions and how they connected to administrators’ future ambitions.
Administrators explained the extrinsic or utility value they placed on developing solutions in
order to reach chronically absent students and improve their attendance. Logan shared the
following example:
I mean that's the bottom line; that's the goal, right, to have kids in the seat… I feel like I
am successful if I'm able to mitigate the issue because I learned that… I can often
mitigate the impact to make it as minimal as possible. So sometimes, for me, the success
is that we find a workaround because the kid wants to do well, and in spite of their family
86
circumstances, we're going to try to help them do that.
Logan went on to elaborate that the workaround could involve transportation services, or in the
case of extreme tardy situations, moving core academics to later in the day. In the same way,
Frankie talked about the utility value of implementing interventions and said, “Oh, I firmly
believe that with attendance, if we can put interventions in place, and we can offer resources and
know the families… We will definitely increase attendance.”
Cost Belief (Benefit). Cost belief described how the investment of time, effort, and
energy benefited chronic absenteeism and at what cost, such as emotional factors. An interesting
and perhaps heartfelt finding of the cost belief piece was the importance of making sure an
administrator’s dedication was felt and experienced by students and parents. For administrators,
the true metric of benefit seemed to be the perceptions of those to which their time, energy, and
effort was directed. As Jaime explained, “I think personal success is when the kid knows that
you're not going to give up on them… Just caring about, hey, you're here; you know, we're happy
to see you!” In a representative comment, Charlie shared the following:
Usually, we will make that contact with parents on a weekly basis, if we need to. We'll go
to their home, try and help them that way. Connect them to services if they need it and
just keep in communication. That's, I think, because then they see, oh wow, you're not
giving up… So, I think sometimes some parents need that because there's something in
their life that they're needing to correct. So, we're going to try and help the whole
family to make sure that the child gets to school.
Like Charlie, administrators generally spoke to the cost benefit by highlighting specific
experiences with individual students and families. Meaning, they did not tend to talk about the
benefit of chronic absenteeism interventions as a system or methodical approach. To them, their
87
investment of time and energy was worthwhile because it was attached to a face and a name.
Expectancy Outcome. While 100% of administrators expressed some degree of value
toward promoting attendance and implementing interventions, the divide emerged when
administrators explained how well they expected to do when implementing chronic absenteeism
interventions. Similar to the attribution theory data, EVT was closely split down the middle as
53% of administrators spoke positively to their performance expectations, while the remaining
47% conveyed a negative perception.
Responses were analyzed to compare and contrast positive and negative expectancy or
task performance. Administrators who did not expect to succeed generally spoke about the
limitations that they had experienced and highlighted how they felt overwhelmed and powerless
in certain situations. The following representative response addressed this situation:
When you're already pressed for time and have 1,000 other things you're juggling, and
you have a family that has a lot of excuses, and you offer multiple solutions, and at the
end of the day, they just, I hate to say they don't care because I don't know that, that's the
case, but they have different priorities… That's when it becomes challenging because it's
like you have 1,000 things to do. You're giving this priority, but there's only so much you
can do as an individual, if the other party isn't willing to partner with you and take
ownership and be a parent. Then that becomes challenging because, again, there's only so
much we can do, because we aren't the parents. If the parents aren't going to partner with
us, and push back, and have excuses or reasons to not try to make improvements, it just
makes everything that much more difficult.
This administrator, along with one out of seven participants, indicated that there was a point
where they felt that they had exhausted all options, given up, and essentially accepted defeat. In
88
contrast, eight administrators embraced the expectation that success and responsibility ultimately
fell on their shoulders and was a result of their leadership. As Oakley illustrated:
I'm in the business of educating, so if your child is not here, I need to know why. And it's
not because you're in trouble or anything like that. That automatically establishes a
connection with the families that they understand that it's not coming from a bad place.
It's coming from a very good place. So, we just want to know what's going on that's
making it difficult to bring your child to school… It's so easy to blame absenteeism on
whatever environmental factors or crisis, and this past year, that's been happening, but
you have to dismiss that. You have to let that go and be able to say, I'm still going to
work toward improving it and holding my families accountable and to that same caliber is
something that I learned… You do that as the leader.
Oakley pointed to a firm resolve rooted in the expectancy of successful administrators: they
would overcome the situation, and the situation would not overcome them.
Summary Expectancy Value Theory (EVT). Administrators’ responses and motivation
to implement chronic absenteeism interventions were analyzed using EVT. Motivation was
found to increase when one valued a task and expected to well on the task. All participants spoke
to how they valued attendance and implementing chronic absenteeism interventions, which
suggested that this was an area of strength for RSD. The analysis of task value was broken down
into the following four areas: intrinsic value or interest; attainment value or importance; utility
value or extrinsic; and cost belief or benefit (Wigfield et al., 2018). The gaps in administrators’
responses surfaced when they described how well they expected to do at implementing chronic
absenteeism interventions. Positive performance expectations were expressed by 53% of
administrators, while the remaining 47% had a negative perception, suggesting a need for
89
increased motivation in this area. In analyzing EVT, and administrator responses, respondents
also identified additional motivation insights that emerged during interviews.
Additional Insights on Motivation
The conceptual framework for this study highlighted the general motivation of principals
and assistant principals to implement chronic absenteeism interventions along with the two
motivational theories: attribution theory and EVT. Interviewees revealed additional insights
related to their motivation to implement chronic absenteeism interventions. These insights were
shared across multiple interviews and broken down into the following two categories: motivation
to partner with parents and home visits.
Motivation to Partner with Parents. The motivation to partner with parents to reduce
chronic absenteeism was expressed by 100% of administrators. As explained above with EVT,
not all administrators expected to be successful in all endeavors, but they all expressed the
critical role parents play in reducing chronic absenteeism rates. To this end, the following three
themes emerged as reasons or motivational factors for partnering with parents: relationship
building; absences add up; and a culture that values attendance.
Relationship Building. Relationship building was a key area that administrators
addressed. This was highlighted in the additional insights on knowledge section regarding
knowledge of how to pair students with a trusted adult on campus. With parents, however,
relationship building did not include knowledge of a specific strategy or process to build
relationships, but rather, motivation to connect with parents and show parents that school staff
were on their side. Administrators overwhelmingly conveyed the desire to let parents know that
their goal was not to punish them, but instead, to help their child. As Tanner explained, “It's not
like an I gotcha kind of thing for not showing up, but more, hey, you know, what is it that you
90
need? How can we support you?” Along the same thought process, Charlie commented,
I'm showing the parents that we're not the bad guys. That we're just trying to help them
and help their child, you know, access education and learn so that they can move on to
the next grade level, achieve, and be successful.
Another facet of this partnership was helping parents when their child would not cooperate with
them. Ricky illustrated this type of situation in the following statement:
I would also talk to the student and let them know that as admin, we're working with the
parent. We're on the side of the parent, and we need to bring the child into it. And they
need to take responsibility, depending on the age, but even in the first grade I've said, you
know, you need to be good for your mom. You need to listen when she asks you to put
your shoes on.
Frankie summarized the motivation and benefit for forming relationships with parents by stating,
“It's not straight into business. It's, you know, you form a relationship with parents… Then when
you do call them to check in on their absence or a discipline issue, they're more apt to have that
conversation with you.” Administrators saw the relationship as the building block to parent
communication, resources, and interventions.
Absences Add Up. The literature review section highlighted how absences add up and
impact a child’s academic performance and educational outcomes, such as high school
graduation rates. With this in mind, administrators were motivated to talk to parents about the
impact to learning and to also use data to increase awareness about the accumulation of their own
child’s absences over time. In a representative comment, Val shared:
Seeing the report that shows all the days that they've been late and miss, I think
sometimes it's very shocking. I've seen that. It's one thing to hear your kid’s been absent a
91
lot. But when they see, and I give a percentage. So, I take the amount of days they were
absent and divide it by how many days we have been in school. Your child has missed
33% of the school year, and it's very shocking to hear in those terms.
The type of parent response that Val described was also experienced by administrators at non-
Title I schools, where parents generally achieve higher education levels and live in more affluent
neighborhoods. For example, Parker said, “When I put it in perspective, like they have missed 5
weeks of school or 4 weeks of school, that tends to have like that, wow factor of, oh, I didn't
realize.” With this in mind, Emerson attributed the lack of awareness to assumptions about
parents and said, “I think a lot of times we assume that parents know, and parents don't
necessarily know, or they don't know the long-term effects of having their kid miss all the time.”
Culture that Values Attendance. During interviews, participants shared that they were
motivated to partner with parents in order to create a culture where attendance was valued. In
Title I schools, this was more related to parents understanding future outcomes. Hunter explained
that in conversations with parents, “I say, kids who missed these many days, this is their
trajectory.” In non-Title I schools, administrators talked about creating a culture where parents
rethink taking a long weekend or a vacation during regularly scheduled school days. In a
representative comment, one administrator explained,
When it comes to attendance, we have to be very careful with the families at our school,
because they have a sense of, well, I want to take my child out. My child is getting all
A's. They're doing great in school. And if I want to take my child on Friday or Monday to
go see, you know, Niagara Falls, or whatever, that's a tough one. And so, we have that all
over the place. So, what we do is try to walk a fine line about, we need the kids to be
here, but we also understand how the parents feel about that.
92
Administrators explained that they try to convince families to take vacations on non-school days,
and at minimum, create a culture where parents understand that they need to report their vacation
plans to school site personnel. Parker, along with several other non-Title I principals, talked
about creating independent study contracts for students who will be on vacation for multiple days
and said, “Now there's more awareness…. Parents have said, we're going on a cruise, or we're
doing this. And I'm like, well, then this is what you have to do.” As a result, administrators
shared that they were motivated to partner with parents in order to build relationships, show how
absences add up, and create a culture that values attendance. In addition to partnering with
parents, home visits were also commonly discussed by administrators.
Home Visits. During interviews, 80% of administrators talked about their motivation to
conduct home visits and how they perceived them as an effective intervention strategy for
chronically absent students. Home visits benefitted administrators in some instances when they
could not contact the family because they had moved and did not inform the school site. Val
explained, “I've gone to several home visits, where it's like, they don't even live here anymore.
And it's like, well, where are they, you know, and then trying to find out where they are by
calling their emergency contacts.” By and large, however, home visits served a deeper purpose,
and the key reasons that motivated administrators to conduct home visits included: persistency
and frequency; unraveling excuses; and learning more about student and family needs.
Persistency and Frequency. Administrators demonstrated their persistence in frequently
conducting home visits. This was illustrated in the following example shared by Jaime:
I would probably say that I do anywhere from five to 10 home visits a month depending
on what's going on… Are they eligible for transportation, and they didn't know it? And
that could resolve our issues, things like that…. I think the home visit is probably one of
93
the most effective interventions. And even if I just leave my card tucked in the door jam,
I almost always get a phone call within 24 hours. So, there's something to be said for
showing up at their house.
It was common for administrators to explain that they often conducted home visits after multiple
phone calls to reach the family were unsuccessful. As previously shared by Tanner, the COVID-
19 pandemic has increased the frequency of home visits due to the need to get students online
and accessing the digital classroom.
Unraveling Excuses. Administrators also reported that they were motivated to conduct
home visits as a means to unravel excuses and get the child in school. They said that parents
were more apt to pick up the phone when they knew that if they did not, school personnel would
come to their home. One administrator said, “I have been known to go to a house and get
somebody out of bed and make a parent drive them to school. Like, they need to be here, let's
go.” This concept was perhaps best represented in the following comment by Hunter:
Sometimes, they'll say something like, oh, they're just too tired today, or you know,
something like that. And I'll say, well, they can come to school. Like, I'm tired; I'm not
missing school. And I'll say, unfortunately, you know, we can't miss school because we're
tired or, you know, we're having a little pain or something. And sometimes they'll say,
oh, you know, they just weren't feeling well. I’ll be like, you know, we will come to your
house. We'll bring the thermometer to make sure everything's okay, and then we'll talk.
Like that… We will come from the perspective that education is probably the most
important thing for the child, and you know, we don't really want to make excuses about
whether or not they’re at school… If they don't answer the phone, I will show up anyway.
Respondents also said that unraveling excuses through home visits was a way to make students
94
and families accountable for coming to school. They also said that the very act of visiting a
student’s home conveyed the importance of having the child in school.
Learning More about Student and Family Needs. Administrators were motivated to
conduct home visits because they saw this as an opportunity to learn more about their students.
They said that during home visits they could meet with the family, see the student’s living
conditions, assess needs, and ultimately provide services. Oakley synthesized the home visit
process, as follows:
It's a good intervention to do a home visit, but it's how you go about it, that is extremely
important. So, is your home visit just to verify the address and to check that box off? Or,
is your home visit intentional where you can even so much as plan it? Ask and start off
by inviting yourself to visit the home. If that doesn't work, then yeah, you have to do the
surprise home visit, but be able to know, like, I have a plan. What's your plan in this
home visit? First, introduce yourself. Second, explain why you're there. Third, propose
ideas as to what you think could help, but also be open to saying, can you tell me how I
can best be of support to you? What do you think? Then, have that comfortable
conversation in their home. Of course, it's uncomfortable at times, which is where the
attendance piece comes in. And that's inevitable at times, but if you can shift that from an
uncomfortable to a now comfortable place, then I think that's a success.
Administrators saw home visits as a positive way to help families understand students’
circumstances and attendance barriers. As a result, 12 out of 15 administrators said that they
were motivated to conduct home visits in order to provide a persistent and frequent intervention,
unravel excuses, and better understand the needs of the student and the family.
Summary Additional Insights on Motivation. During interviews, administrators shared
95
two additional insights about their motivation to implement chronic absenteeism interventions.
The first insight, the motivation to partner with parents, was expressed by 100% administrators,
and the motivation for these partnerships related to the following areas: relationship building;
absences add up; and a culture that values attendance. Home visits were the second insight,
highlighted by 80% of administrators. Respondents were motivated to conduct home visits for
the following three reasons: persistency and frequency; unraveling excuses; and learning more
about student and family needs.
Summary of Research Question One - Motivation Findings
Research question one asked, “What is the knowledge and motivation of principals and
assistant principals related to providing effective attendance interventions to all chronically
absent students?” The findings suggested that RSD administrators demonstrated areas of strength
and need in their motivation to implement chronic absenteeism interventions. Attribution theory
was the first motivational theory that guided this study. Positive attributions connected to a belief
that one’s actions and efforts could impact outcomes, whereas negative attributions focused on a
lack of ability to control external circumstances. The data suggested a need for more positive
attributions related to how effort, versus ability, could predict outcomes. Expectancy value
theory (EVT) was the second motivational influence. While all administrators valued chronic
absenteeism interventions, the analysis suggested a need for increased motivation related to
performance expectations. Administrators also offered two additional insights on motivation: the
motivation to partner with parents to reduce chronic absenteeism and the motivation to conduct
home visits, which administrators perceived as an effective intervention strategy.
Results Research Question Two
The second research question sought to identify the organizational influences that
96
supported or hindered administrators in their implementation of chronic absenteeism
interventions. Similar to the knowledge and motivational sections discussed under research
question one, the KMO model and conceptual framework were drawn upon, along with the
influences that emerged during the literature process and qualitative interviews. Cultural model
influences related to performance goal accountability and organizational trust. Administrators
were generally knowledgeable of their goals, but they needed help communicating them to
stakeholders. While trust and openness were generally high among administrators, some
respondents pointed to a need for more growth in this area. Cultural setting influences focused on
the organizational practices of professional development, mentorship training, and organizational
resources. More organizational support was needed for each of the three cultural settings. This
section details the findings related to each of these organizational influences.
Cultural Model Influences
As discussed in the literature review, organizations like RSD can be influenced by
cultural models and settings This section focuses on cultural models, a collective way of thinking
and acting in a group, such as attitudes and perceptions (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). As
detailed in the conceptual framework for this study, the models of performance goal
accountability and trust were analyzed as they related to organizational culture.
Performance Goal Accountability
Interviews revealed that 80% of administrators were able to articulate and reference their
district wide attendance goal. The remaining three respondents, who represented the other 20%
of administrators, did not express a lack of awareness about their goal, but they simply did not
adequately address the target in the interview process. As Emerson and the majority of
administrators expressed, “Our goal pretty much aligns to the district goal in regards to trying to
97
strive to get that 98%.” The 98% district wide goal was in reference to the percentage of present
students, or 2% or less absent, reflected in monthly attendance reports generated at the district
level. In a representative comment, Skyler explained the process as follows:
Every year, when we do our principal evaluations, attendance is one of the buckets we
have. So, there is, on an annual basis, ongoing conversations about that. As I mentioned,
we get presentations and information, and we have conversations around it at GMM
[General Management] meetings and leadership meetings. But as part of our principal
evals, it’s also a goal that we have to write and reflect on. We usually have a middle-of-
the-year reflection and then an end-of-the year-reflection. So, at least, at a minimum,
we're having conversations around that… twice a year.
Beyond knowledge of the 98% performance goal and the accountability process, the
following other two areas emerged around performance goal accountability: involving
students, parents, and staff in goal attainment and challenges meeting the 98% target.
Involving Students, Parents, and Staff in Goal Attainment. Parent communication
about attendance goals tended to involve weekly messages via phone or email, along with
newsletters. For instance, Emerson said, “I even put it in my Sunday message. In every single
Sunday message there is a line about attendance and the importance of it.” In addition to parent
communication, administrators generally shared ways in which attendance was messaged to
students and staff, sometimes in the form of friendly classroom competitions. For example,
Hunter explained:
Every week we have a goal with attendance, as well. And teachers are all a part of that.
And the students know what that goal is, and when the teacher takes attendance in the
morning, they have the percentage up on their board. So, I think that daily school wide
98
focus is really transformative because it's on everybody's mind in the school, not just your
own attendance, but your whole class’ attendance or classmates’ attendance.
Ricky succinctly captured the components of goal attainment by stating, “Our goal is to have
98% of attendance every day… It is something that is communicated at least once a week,
especially in my parent newsletter. We also offer incentives for classrooms to do that.”
Challenges Meeting the 98% Target. While 12 out of 15 administrators talked about
their attendance goals, many expressed challenges or barriers in achieving the 98% target. As
threaded throughout this chapter, the critical role of parent communication resonated with
administrators, which suggested a need for more organizational support for parents. This
included educating parents that if school starts at 8:00 a.m., students needed to be in their seats at
that time and not walking through the welcome gate. Administrators also discussed their
frustration with kindergarten attendance. As one respondent explained, “I would say our hardest
grade level is usually kindergarten, and that one's tricky, because it's not compulsory education…
You're trying to encourage them to come, but at the same time, it's not even a legal requirement.”
In general, Title I administrators spoke to greater challenges in meeting the 98% goal. In a
representative comment, an administrator at a Title I school shared:
My attendance goals are always in line with the district. So, we're always trying to meet
the 98% threshold, which we don't meet. We don't meet it for many reasons… Our at-risk
students tend to be higher in number than other schools who do meet the threshold and
have access to excellent healthcare or to routine healthcare. Health care that is immediate
is lacking in many of our homes. Also, the living situation is very different. So, if you
have a family of 10 or 11 in a one-bedroom apartment, it's very difficult to isolate the
person who is sick. And the space is usually much smaller. So, my goal is always to meet
99
the district goal as best as I can. But really, my goal is always to maintain a pretty high
level of attendance… When I know we're going to be hitting the flu season or a fun
season, where parents would take extra vacation, I'm pretty tough on them.
This comment echoed the frustrations shared by many administrators, particularly at Title I
schools where access to basic needs could be a barrier to attendance. In addition to performance
goal accountability, administrators also talked about organizational trust factors.
Organizational Trust
Organizational trust related to the level of openness administrators felt in meeting their
attendance goals. During interviews, 80% of administrators indicated that they felt trust in
communicating their attendance goals with their supervisor. In analyzing the data, it was
important to look for examples that highlighted the openness, as well as, areas where openness
and trust could be increased. For example, one of the 20% of administrators who felt that trust
with their supervisor could be strengthened, made the following comment:
I think when we have those conversations, it's usually talking about data. Why are they
not performing as well as everyone else? Well, they're not in school or they're homeless,
so like the chronically absent. Usually, when those conversations are had, it's about very
specific students. Well, what are you doing to get them to school? What are you doing to
get their test scores up? You know, and that's usually what it’s about…. When, in my
teacher heart, my principal heart, I'm always thinking of, oh my gosh, this family is
homeless. We need to get them some stability. It's like I'm not about to walk up to a
family living in their car and say, hey, I want to talk to you about your math scores.
Similarly, another administrator also conveyed a need for more trust because from their
perspective, conversations about chronically absent students tended to focus on student academic
100
performance data, pointing to a need for increased openness and trust in RSD. This administrator
explained, “Sometimes I do get the feeling that the percentage is more important than the stories
behind the chronic absenteeism.”
The other 80% of administrators overwhelmingly expressed positive trust factors, even
when addressing similar situations, such as supporting homeless youth. For example, Ricky
shared,
Well, we have attendance as part of our goals for our evaluation, and so it comes up when
he does a visitation, you know, how's the attendance? Or we look at foster youth,
homeless, or low income. What are you doing for attendance? And, you know, he's
always offered like if there's anything I can do to help with that. You know, he's a
problem solver, as well, and he's approachable. I know if there was something that I
needed to help boost attendance, he would be all for it. But I also know that he allows us
the freedom to try different interventions. So, in that, I'm grateful.
When asked to describe a recent conversation that they had with their supervisor about
attendance, Frankie simply stated, “It was more of a hey, let me fill you in on these kiddos…It
wasn't a, hey, can you do this for attendance? It was more of a… Here's what's happening. Here's
what I'm doing.” Positive comments were also expressed by another administrator who said that
their school struggled with attendance:
Attendance is something that [my supervisor and] I have talked about every year…
He'll be like, how's it going, and have we made improvement? Trust me, like, we were in
the 95 %, so we're gradually, like, going up to the 96 %, but he's also very realistic about
my community, which is nice.
Positive trust factors centered on administrator directed conversations, the offer of support
101
and understanding from their supervisor, and administrator autonomy and freedom to try
different interventions.
Summary Cultural Models
Performance goal accountability and trust were two models of organizational culture that
supported or hindered RSD’s administrators in implementing chronic absenteeism interventions.
In total, 80% of administrators spoke to the 98% performance goal target for attendance and how
they were accountable to this target via their own employee evaluation. They also discussed the
importance of involving key stakeholders in goal attainment along with the challenges posed by
meeting RSD’s district wide attendance goal, which showed a need for more organizational
supports for parents. Similarly, 80% of administrators also expressed that they felt trust in openly
communicating attendance goals with their supervisors. The 20% of administrators who
conveyed a need for increased openness and trust felt that their supervisor tended to focus on
academic performance data as opposed to individual situations related to why a particular student
was chronically absent, which could be an area of growth for RSD. Positive trust factors, on the
other hand, showed appreciation for autonomy and support from their supervisor. In addition to
cultural models, cultural settings were another key organizational influence.
Cultural Settings
Cultural settings, as detailed in the literature review and theoretical framework, were the
organizational practices that guided RSD staff in completing their duties. Staff members,
representative duties, and reasons for completing a task could all be defined as cultural settings.
This particular section focuses on the organization practices of professional development,
mentorship training, and resources that supported or hindered administrators in their
implementation of chronic absenteeism interventions.
102
Professional Development
When asked what professional development opportunities were available to train staff in
implementing chronic absenteeism interventions, 93% of administrators were able to speak to
training opportunities that had occurred. Of the 93%, all explained that professional development
sessions were not held exclusively for attendance, but rather, the topic of attendance was
incorporated into trainings connected to PBIS, Restorative Practices, or general staff meetings.
As a result, professional development related specifically to attendance was a need in RSD. In a
representative comment, Logan reflected,
We address it through PBIS. So, we talk about attendance and being involved through
that. So, we do train the teachers… And like I said, we've been focusing on the teachers
making first contact, whether it be for discipline, or for attendance, or things like that.
To add to Logan’s comment, Oakley shared the importance of, “Having PBIS take on
attendance, just as much as they take on behavior, because it is behavior. I would say attendance
falls right in the same umbrella of behavior.” Administrators also spoke to how attendance was
incorporated into Restorative Practices training in order to build safe and caring student
communities, where students wanted to come to school. As Ricky explained,
We did a restorative practice training, which helped our teachers manage morning
meetings because the morning meeting, it starts right when school starts. And a lot of
kids don't want to miss that time because it's the time to share what's going on at home
and connect with their friends… I think making that first part of the morning important,
or something that students don't want to miss, gets them to school… it makes them feel
like, I have a meeting to get to.
Finally, administrators talked about incorporating attendance professional development into
103
general staff meetings and communication. As Emerson shared,
I talk about it a lot with our staff and in regards to what our attendance is every month.
How many kiddos have, you know, missed? What are our two priorities? And what can
we do to kind of bring those kids in, or what have we done as a staff to communicate with
the parents that importance… But as for formal training, I can't think of anything that
they've actually been formally trained on.
Emerson’s statement was reflective of what all administrators shared in that designated or
formalized attendance training had not occurred at the school site level for teachers or other
support staff. Administrators did mention trainings that were provided at the district level, via
management meetings, but with their own staff, attendance professional development was
always tied to another school focus. The focus, however, like Restorative Practices,
supported school attendance and interventions to reduce chronic absenteeism.
Mentorship Training
The next layer of professional development involved examining any mentorship specific
trainings that had been provided to staff at RSD’s school sites. Seventy-three percent of
administrators gave examples of mentorship training. In all situations, like attendance
professional development, mentorship was always tied to another school initiative. This
suggested a need to implement mentorship training at 27% of school sites and provide designated
and explicit mentorship training at all RSD schools.
The PBIS Check-In-Check-Out (CICO) intervention was most commonly discussed; as
the name implies, CICO was described as a quick morning and afternoon check-in with a trusted
adult. Val said, “Our PBIS team gives training to staff. We go over how to be a mentor and use
CICO with students.” Administrators also gave examples of more intensive mentorship practices
104
and staff trainings, such as the following process described by Hunter:
We talk in staff meetings, and we try to have our mentoring happening at least once per
week. And attendance is part of the mentoring process, and so we say, you know, the
mentor is coming at it from a standpoint of loving, caring, and trying to root the student
on, you know, be kind of a cheerleader for the student. But the mentor also will talk to
parents and say, you know, this is our goal. This is why I'm here. We're working on this
target for attendance, or working on this target for academics, or working on this target
for behaviors, and it really gets the parents involved that way.
Along the theme of relationship building, the 11 out of 15 administrators who had provided some
level of mentorship training to staff generally expressed a strong belief in the power of this
intervention. For example, Blake said,
I think the best intervention is a mentor for the students because then they get some
special attention… That’s the thing they look forward to the most. And that gets them to
school or at least gets them to bug their parents to get them to school. You know, having
a pizza party is great, but usually the kids who are chronically absent, that's not what they
care about. So, we try hard to do mentorships or to do special things with those students,
to make them feel valued and validated and to get them excited about being at school…
Because we found that's really the most effective thing out there.
Overall, mentorship training was incorporated into the professional development of other school
initiatives, with a focus on CICO, mentorship processes, and the importance of mentorship.
Organizational Resources
Organizational resources were another cultural setting influence identified in this study’s
conceptual framework that emerged during interviews. Administrators specifically pointed to the
105
following four organizational resources: a dedicated person to support attendance; Social
Services Assistants (SSA); training for parents and staff; and mental health support.
Dedicated Person to Support Attendance. A few administrators indicated their need for
a dedicated person to support attendance. Ideas around who this person would be varied from a
school resource officer to an assistant principal. For example, one principal said, “I have no
money, so there aren't any resources. I don't have an SSA. I don't have an assistant principal. I
don't have anything but myself, my attendance clerk, and my staff. That's it.” While more direct
in their verbiage, this respondent expressed a sentiment common among non-Title I principals
who had a smaller budget (without the supplement of Title I funds) and therefore could not pay
for additional staffing, which was a common practice at Title I schools. Administrators felt the
need for a designated person not only because they felt limited in their capacity as a single
person, but also because they wanted a more connected process with clear ownership of
responsibilities. As another principal explained,
The challenge, honestly, that I've seen more than anything, is everyone trying to pass it
on to somebody else. The teacher is quick to pass it on because they are so overwhelmed.
The office clerk is like, well, I only just confirm attendance. This is the mentality, but this
is something that I see as challenging because everybody gets overwhelmed. Well, my
job is to confirm and to see what's causing it. And what happens after is who has this,
who does that fall on… I've had to work with this, and so everyone is very quick to pass
the buck because you're just so overwhelmed with the behaviors and the incidents that are
happening… As the leader, I am trying to bring that responsibility and ownership back in
a way that doesn't make them feel, you know, unsupported either.
Similar to this comment, administrators shared that attendance and chronic absenteeism
106
responsibilities ultimately fell on their shoulders. One common thread that was seen in many
interviews was the need or importance of having an SSA.
Social Services Assistant (SSA). Ten of 15 participants specifically talked about SSAs
without prompting or an interview protocol specific to this position. Of the 15 participants, four
had an SSA employed at their school site on a part-time basis and two on a full-time basis. Three
administrators who did not have an SSA expressed an awareness that this position existed and a
desire to have an SSA on staff. The focus on SSAs, shared by administrators, suggested a need to
employ a full-time SSA at all RSD school sites. Blake, for example, stated,
I love the idea of having the Social Services Assistant. I know a lot of our Title I schools
have that. But having one dedicated person that we can just go to, to help us when
families are in crisis, and that crisis is leading to chronic absenteeism. You know, I feel
like as a principal, I'm torn in so many different directions. As much as I want to connect
people with resources, having one dedicated person at every school to do something like
that would be really helpful.
Oakley, a principal with an SSA remarked, “I don't know where I'd be if I didn't have an SSA….
In fact, if I could have it my way, she'd be here full time.” Like Oakley, all four administrators
with part-time SSAs said that they wanted this position to be full-time. Val explained,
If I could ask for anything, I think it would be more financial support for our SSA to
work more hours and build her capacity. She works 15 hours a week, so it's hard to be of
assistance when she’s here a couple of days a week…. If we had someone every day that
would be ideal, to have another person to be able to go on home visits.
SSA support connected with concepts presented earlier in this chapter such as home visits and
building positive partnerships with parents, all interventions identified to help to support the
107
needs of chronically absent students.
Training for Parents and Staff. Administrators spoke positively to the chronic
absenteeism training and supports that were provided to them at the district level. Hunter, for
example, said, “This district really supports us, especially compared to my last district.” Some
administrators, however, felt a need for more parent and staff training around attendance. For
example, when asked what additional district support was needed to implement chronic
absenteeism interventions, one administrator gave the following representative response:
I think potentially more professional development for both the teachers and the parents…
Emphasizing the importance of having kids in school and those types of things. But not
only for parents, but for staff to know, what are some other ways that you finesse a
parent? Or help a parent get through trauma, or you know, what are the signs of those
traumas? I know we had trauma informed training, and we brought in some of those
resources, but, you know, more information for parents, more for teachers, more in depth
of what that looks like and what signals to look for.
Administrators also shared a need to have the latest research on chronic absenteeism and more
training about how to sift through the resources to drill down on specific needs. For example,
Blake said, “Our district does a really good job giving us resources and really teaching us about
what chronic absenteeism looks like... We're given an abundance of information, and I'm really
just paring it down to what the family needs.” Often, administrators pointed to mental health
related needs.
Mental Health Support. As briefly detailed in the knowledge section under the causes
of chronic absenteeism, 87% of interview participants mentioned mental health when discussing
chronic absenteeism interventions. Administrators generally referenced one or more of the
108
following mental health supports available to RSD school sites: a psychologist (generally shared
between two sites); a mental health associate (usually part-time); consultation with an SSA at the
district office; and an agency referral system that connects families to outside counseling. This
support was seen as positive and necessary, as stated in the following comment by Charlie:
I do appreciate our district recognizing that social emotional learning is really
important…. Even with chronic absenteeism, a lot of the times it's just, they're trying to
escape everything. And a lot of these children are obviously young, and so they don't
know who to turn to or where they can go…. When it gets to tier three, usually it's
involving the counselor, maybe the mental health associate, or school psychologist
because usually there are trauma induced reasons why this student is not showing up.
In recent years, RSD has increased mental health support, as evidenced when Frankie said, “The
support in schools has increased, which I think is tremendous. That helps in and of itself with
chronic absenteeism.” With regard to mental health supports and chronic absenteeism,
administrators often put a face to the story and spoke about specific students, such as the
following experience shared by Emerson:
So many times, our counselor gets involved, and it's usually with older kids in regards to
like, they just won't get out of bed. We had one student, who, we still have him this year.
He's a sixth grader. He transferred in, and mom is saying that, you know, he’s struggling
with depression, and it's really hard for him to get out of bed. So, you know, that’s a very
delicate conversation… Of introducing counseling, and offering it, and saying it's there,
and it's available if that's something that that family would be interested in. And so, lots
of times, the counselor does get involved.
In general, the theme of mental health was threaded throughout interviews. In this regard,
109
administrators spoke to RSD’s focus on mental health, the provision of resources, and how
mental health connected directly to chronic absenteeism interventions. As a result, the findings
on mental health support revealed that RSD’s increased mental health resources had adequately
addressed the needs and that this support should continue to be sustained or increased.
Summary Cultural Settings
Professional development, mentorship training, and resources were three cultural settings,
or organizational practices, that supported or hindered RSD administrators in their
implementation of chronic absenteeism interventions. While 93% of administrators had provided
attendance related professional development to their staff, the trainings were always connected to
other school initiatives. This suggested a need for focused attendance and chronic absenteeism
trainings in RSD. Mentorship training was implemented at 73% of school sites. Like professional
development, mentorship trainings were always tied to an existing school initiative, which
suggested a need for more formalized training at 27% of schools along with designated
mentorship training at all schools. Administrators identified four organizational resources to
support chronic absenteeism interventions. The first was for a dedicated person to support
attendance, particularly at schools that did not have an assistant principal. Secondly, an SSA was
specifically mentioned by 67% of respondents without prompting, which suggested the need for
a full time SSA at all RSD school sites. The third resource was more attendance and chronic
absenteeism training for parents and staff. Finally, mental health was the fourth resource
addressed by 87% of administrators, and they expressed that this support should continue at the
currently level of implementation.
Summary of Research Question Two - Organizational Findings
Research question two asked, “To what extent do RSD’s organizational culture, practices,
110
and resources support or hinder principals and assistant principals in implementing systematic
attendance interventions?” The findings were categorized as influences related to cultural models
and cultural setting. Performance goal accountability was the first of two cultural models.
Overall, administrators were knowledgeable about their attendance goals, but they discussed
challenges that they had faced and the importance of communicating their goals to all
stakeholders. Trust was the second cultural model, and 20% of administrators felt that trust could
be increased, which indicated a potential area of growth for RSD. Cultural settings focused on
the following three areas: professional development; mentorship training; and resources. While
attendance related professional development had occurred at the vast majority of school sites, it
was always tied to other school initiatives, which demonstrated a need for designated attendance
and chronic absenteeism professional development. Similarly, mentorship specific trainings were
also incorporated into other school wide initiatives, which suggested a need for more formalized
training at several schools along with designated mentorship training at all schools.
Administrators also identified four organizational resources: a dedicated person to support
attendance; Social Services Assistants (SSA); training for parents and staff; and mental health
support. Data suggested the need for a full time SSA at all school sites, attendance training for
parents and staff, and for RSD to continue to fund mental health support at all school sites.
111
Chapter Five: Discussion
This chapter presents the findings and recommendations that resulted from this research
study. The problem of practice was chronic absenteeism in the Rover School District (RSD) and
a lack of systematic interventions to meet the needs of all chronically absent students. The
purpose of this study was to examine the needs and assets among principals and assistant
principals and recommend solutions so that they could better address chronic absenteeism and
implement effective attendance interventions. The Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model served as
the theoretical framework for this study by focusing on knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors related to implementing effective attendance interventions to all
chronically absent students. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit the 15 administrators, 11
principals and four assistant principals, who were interviewed as a part of this study. This
chapter has been organized to present information as follows: summary of findings; implications
for practice (recommendations); future research; and conclusions.
Findings
Two research questions guided this study, and both questions focused on the
implementation of chronic absenteeism interventions. The first question examined the
knowledge and motivation of principals and assistant principals, while the second question
investigated the organizational features that hindered or supported administrators in their efforts.
Findings have been positioned into their respective knowledge, motivation, organizational
sections, along with an additional section dedicated to the limitations of this study.
Knowledge Findings
Ninety-three percent of administrators were able to define chronic absenteeism as
presented in the literature: missing 10% or more of the school year (Chang et al., 2014). While
112
they did reference attendance patterns at their school sites, they did not address trends in
education or specific laws found in the literature review, such as ESSA. The data suggested that
administrators possessed general knowledge about chronic absenteeism, but they needed more
knowledge about foundational laws.
The literature pointed to four main causes of chronic absenteeism related to: school
climate; student engagement; student health; and economic hardship (Allison & Attisha, 2019;
Garin, 2012; Lochmiller, 2013; Romero, 2007; Rosenkrantz et al., 2014; Stempel et al., 2017;).
Overall, 67% of participants were able to identify one or more of the main causes of chronic
absenteeism, with a specific focus on mental health. Parents setting clear expectations was an
additional cause that emerged during interviews. The remaining 33% of administrators discussed
individual cases versus specific causes, suggesting a need for more knowledge in this area.
The knowledge of a three-tiered system, as highlighted in the literature review section,
was needed for administrators to implement systematic attendance interventions (Chang et al.,
2018). While all respondents were able to talk about multi-tiered systems in place at their school
sites, such as PBIS, only 53% of participants were able to relate their knowledge to a three-tiered
attendance intervention system that currently existed at each of their school sites. This data
suggested that more knowledge was needed about how to implement a three-tiered intervention
system, along with greater knowledge about the actions and descriptors unique to each tier.
While administrators were generally able to express knowledge about universal tier one
interventions and intensive tier three interventions, such as SARB, only two administrators were
able to provide knowledge about tier two interventions, which further highlighted this need.
Of the 15 respondents, only one administrator was able to demonstrate knowledge of the
processes and procedures needed to choose chronic absenteeism interventions, based on the
113
seven decision and design choices provided by Balu (2019) and outlined in the literature review
section of this paper. The other 93% of respondents focused on barriers related to choosing
attendance interventions. The results suggested that RSD administrators needed knowledge about
how to provide systematic attendance interventions to chronically absent students, such as what
criteria was needed for a student to enter into an intervention cycle and how to monitor the data
to determine if the intervention was successful. Finally, 80% of administrators revealed
metacognitive knowledge by saying that they thought about attendance on a daily basis.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was an additional knowledge insight expressed
by 93% of administrators. During interviews, administrators identified the following three main
ways that COVID-19 has impacted chronic absenteeism and attendance: communicating the
importance of attendance; using a solution-oriented approach; and engaging in on-line learning.
During the 2020-21 school year, attendance has been regulated by Senate Bill 98, which offers
more broad definitions for attendance than what normally exist during a traditional school year.
For example, if a student accesses asynchronous content and submits an assignment, that student
is considered present. This has resulted in higher attendance rates and lower chronic absenteeism
rates in RSD.
Motivation Findings
Interview data revealed that 100% of administrators had implemented some level of
attendance interventions, suggesting that they were motivated and had made active choices. As
presented in the literature review, Weiner’s (2005) attribution theory was used to analyze
administrators’ responses and motivation to implement chronic absenteeism interventions. Only
47% of participants expressed positive attributions related to what administrators could control
through their own efforts and actions. The other 53% expressed negative attributions focused on
114
ability and external factors. These findings suggested a need for increased motivation connecting
effort to positive outcomes.
Expectancy value theory (EVT), as presented by Wigfield et al. (2018), was a second
motivational theory used to analyze administrators’ responses and motivation to implement
chronic absenteeism interventions. One hundred percent of participants spoke to how they valued
attendance and the implementation of chronic absenteeism interventions, which suggested that
this was an area of strength for RSD. The gaps in administrators’ needs emerged when they
described how well they expected to do at implementing these interventions. Positive
performance expectations were expressed by 53% of administrators, while the remaining 47%
had a negative perception, suggesting a need for increased motivation in this area.
Organizational Findings
Performance goal accountability and trust were two cultural models that related to this
study and were presented in the literature review (Gallimore & Goldberg, 2001). Eighty percent
of administrators talked about meeting RSD’s 98% attendance goal and identified that more
organizational support for parents was needed in order to meet this goal. Similarly, 80% of
administrators also expressed that they felt trust in openly communicating attendance goals with
their supervisors. The 20% of administrators who indicated a need for increased openness and
trust with their supervisor referenced conversations focused on academic performance data as
opposed to individual chronic absenteeism cases, which pointed to an area of growth for RSD.
The literature also highlighted the important role cultural settings play in creating
organizational change (Gallimore & Goldberg, 2001). Professional development and mentorship
training were two settings, or organizational practices, that supported or hindered RSD
administrators in their implementation of chronic absenteeism interventions. While 93% of
115
administrators had provided attendance related professional development to their staff, the
training was never held exclusively for attendance and was always connected to other school
initiatives. This information suggested a need for training focused on attendance and chronic
absenteeism. Mentorship training was implemented at 73% of school sites. Like professional
development, mentorship training was always tied to an existing school initiative, which
suggested a need for more formalized training at 27% of schools along with designated
mentorship training at all schools.
Organizational resources were another cultural setting outlined in the literature review
and conceptual framework and discussed during interviews. Administrators identified the
following four key needs: a dedicated person to support attendance; Social Services Assistants
(SSA); training for parents and staff; and mental health support. Of these four needs, the mental
health support was already in place, and administrators expressed that this resource should
continue. Also, the SSA was perceived as a dedicated person to support attendance. Therefore,
the two primary organizational resources needed were attendance training for parents and non-
administrative staff along with a dedicated and full-time SSA at every school site.
Limitations and Delimitations
Methodologically, the study was limited to the small population of 31 potential
participants. The responses of the 15 administrators who participated in the study were limited
by the following factors: truthfulness; level of experience; and knowledge of chronic
absenteeism interventions. Further limitations included: the number of principals and assistant
principals who were willing to participate in the study; participant availability; and a limited data
collection window. The study was also limited to the elementary and junior high settings, as
RSD does not have a high school. Additionally, while this study made use of member checks, it
116
was limited by the potential for other interpretations of the qualitative interview data that were
collected. Finally, data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, which influenced the
way students attended school along with the remote collection of interview data via Zoom.
Delimitations, choices made that could affect validity, were also relevant
to this study (Creswell, 2014). General delimitations included: the number of interviews
conducted; the types of questions asked during interviews; and the use of the KMO model.
Additionally, while the collected data were useful to understanding chronic absenteeism
interventions in RSD, the study would not be generalizable to other school districts. Furthermore,
while a more comprehensive research study would have included multiple stakeholders, this
study focused exclusively on principals and assistant principals. Therefore, within RSD, the
results may not be as relevant to other stakeholder group, such as teachers or parents.
Implications for Practice
The findings from this study pointed to implications for practice, or recommendations,
for RSD. While the implications for practice could potentially benefit other school districts, they
were intended to specifically address chronic absenteeism in RSD. Recommendations resulted
from the knowledge and motivation needs of principals and assistant principals to implement
chronic absenteeism interventions, along with the organizational features that supported them in
this work. Therefore, this section was organized by knowledge, motivation, and organizational
recommendations and based on the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model.
Knowledge Recommendations
The literature review section and conceptual framework for this study highlighted the
knowledge that principals and assistant principals needed to implement chronic absenteeism. All
knowledge influences related to declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
117
(Krathwohl, 2002). These knowledge influences included: knowledge of chronic absenteeism
laws, regulations, trends, and patterns; knowledge of the causes of chronic absenteeism;
knowledge of a three-tiered system; knowledge needed to choose chronic absenteeism
interventions; and thinking about attendance, or metacognitive knowledge. These knowledge
influences directly related to the knowledge recommendations presented in this section.
Provide Training in Chronic Absenteeism Laws and Regulations
Administrators needed training in chronic absenteeism laws and regulations, which were
referenced by 0% of administrators. As detailed in the literature review and visually depicted in
the conceptual framework, chronic absenteeism laws, regulations, and monitoring were all
framed through ESSA. Then, within this framework, the CDE and DataQuest monitoring system
for chronic absenteeism could be found nested under ESSA (CDE, 2017). In 2017, chronic
absenteeism data were first made available for California’s public schools. As a result, while
regulations and research have long existed about chronic absenteeism laws and educational
outcomes, the transition to DataQuest marked a new era in data and accountability reporting for
RSD and California’s public schools.
In RSD, most of the DataQuest training provided to administrators was focused on
English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics, as those were the metrics that had previously
been monitored and most closely tied with existing school board goals. RSD’s practices aligned
to what administrators discussed in interviews, as 93% were able to define chronic absenteeism,
but none of them referenced ESSA, DataQuest, or progress monitoring. In order to know what to
do to address chronic absenteeism, administrators must first understand why chronic absenteeism
has been placed on the same monitoring and accountability level as ELA and mathematics.
Furthermore, RSD must evaluate and examine external data systems such as DataQuest along
118
with internal systems so that data are analyzed at multiple levels in order to align practices and
assure that students are paired to effective attendance interventions, beyond SARB referrals.
Training in chronic absenteeism laws and regulations must be relevant to administrators.
For example, interview data revealed that administrators truly care about their students.
Therefore, leveraging assets like administrators’ care for students will help to enhance their
strengths, mitigate knowledge gaps, and make the training valuable. Of further importance is that
laws, such as ESSA, are not merely regulations, but they are relevant, research based, and
grounded in best practices. Thus, training should emphasize how laws and regulations are
applicable to decreasing chronic absenteeism and creating a school culture that values attendance
in order to leverage administrators’ value for supporting students, nurturing their growth, and
increasing academic outcomes. Furthermore, it would help to clarify the critical leadership role
held by principals and assistant principals in combating chronic absenteeism (Mac Iver &
Sheldon, 2019).
When implementing training, it is important to plan strategies for evaluating transfer and
determining when and where the training will occur. Clark and Estes (2008) offered guidance to
ensure that the targeted knowledge has transferred to employees. For example, the transfer of
new knowledge can be improved by relating the content of the training to what actually happens
on the job. This would include examples of how to problem solve and intervene on behalf of
students and parents who need intensive attendance interventions. Additionally based on the
research of Schraw and McCrudden (2006), administrators would need time to acquire
knowledge and skills, practice implementing chronic absenteeism interventions, and self-reflect
on their ongoing growth. Clark and Estes (2008) also suggested ways to evaluate transfer such as
interviews and surveys. For example, post-training surveys would generate administrators’
119
perception, confidence, and understanding of how to apply their knowledge to the
implementation of chronic absenteeism interventions.
It is recommended that training delivery occur using RSD’s current and existing systems.
For example, principals and assistant principals usually attend two meetings per month, each
lasting two to four hours. The length and frequency of meetings has continued to occur during
the COVID-19 pandemic, with most meetings taking place via Zoom as opposed to in person.
Training for administrators has continued to be a priority in RSD, even during the COVID-19
pandemic. As a result, a portion of each meeting would be designated for a series of attendance
trainings, with the first part addressing chronic absenteeism laws and regulations, a precursor to
the next recommended training: the causes of chronic absenteeism.
Provide Training in the Causes of Chronic Absenteeism
Administrators needed training in the causes of chronic absenteeism. Seventy-three
percent of respondents were able identify at least one of the following causes of chronic
absenteeism: school climate; student engagement; student health; and economic hardship
(Lochmiller, 2013; Garin, 2012; Rosenkrantz et al., 2014; Allison & Attisha, 2019; Stempel et
al., 2017; Romero, 2007). Data were not tracked to determine which participants could name all
four causes, but the majority addressed one or two main causes at their school sites. The other
33% of respondents did not address these causes.
It was important for administrators to understand the causes of chronic absenteeism
because of their authority related to these causes. For example, bullying was a school climate
factor highlighted by Lochmiller (2013) that administrators could respond to through a variety of
research-based practices, such as restorative practices (Passarella, 2017). The literature provided
examples of administrators' actions related to all four causes. Understanding the causes of
120
chronic absenteeism was also important as it was a prerequisite for matching student needs with
attendance interventions. Therefore, the causes of chronic absenteeism would come second in a
series of trainings delivered to administrators. District personnel generally provide training, but
as seen in the interviews, the level of knowledge varied among administrators. As a result,
knowledgeable principals, such as Oakley and Hunter, could be utilized to help to provide this
training to other administrators so that they could learn from their peers.
Provide Three-Part Training in Choosing Chronic Absenteeism Interventions and
Collaboration Time in Professional Learning Communities
Administrators needed knowledge to choose chronic absenteeism interventions in order
to pair interventions to student needs, a gap identified among 93% of respondents. As presented
in the literature review and conceptual framework, Balu’s (2019) seven-part decision and design
choice model could be taught to administrators. This model would also connect to the types of
knowledge as follows: parts one through four, declarative; parts five and six, procedural; and part
seven metacognitive.
While training in Balu’s (2019) model could come third in the series of recommended
trainings referenced above, it is more robust than what could adequately be presented in a single
meeting. Furthermore, while the trainings in laws and chronic absenteeism causes would be more
passive in nature, with the trainees receiving direct instruction, Balu’s (2019) model would likely
require time for participants to interact with the model along with time to implement the model at
their respective school sites. For example, the step related to timing would require knowledge of
how a student accesses an intervention, the duration of the intervention, and criteria needed to
exit the intervention. For these reasons, it is recommended that Balu’s (2019) model would be
presented in a three-part training series. The first session would provide: an overview of the
121
model; appropriate handouts, resources, and job aides; and an opportunity for questions.
Professional learning communities (PLC) has been a long standing and successful practice in
RSD. As such, the second and third training sessions should be designed to allow administrators
to meet in PLC groups based on school type, such as K-8, Title I, etc. PLC groups would allow
administrators to collaborate on their implementation of the model and receive peer feedback,
along with coaching from district personnel and principal experts. Time for refinement and
reflection would be provided between the second and third training sessions.
Provide Training and Support for Developing a Three-Tiered Intervention System
Administrators needed knowledge and training in developing a three-tiered attendance
intervention system. While all had some knowledge of multi-tiered interventions, only 53% of
administrators had existing intervention tiers, and only two administrators, Oakley and Hunter,
presented knowledge specific to tier two interventions. The entire process would likely need to
span over multiple months, with planning beginning during the current 2020-21 school year and
then implementation beginning at the start of the 2021-22 school year. As with previous
recommendations, a series of trainings would be proposed at regularly scheduled meetings that
have continued during the COVID-19 pandemic along with PLC time to collaborate, practice,
refine the process, and receive feedback. The literature review highlighted Chang et. al’s (2018)
three-tiered attendance intervention system. This system would require training and knowledge
of four key areas: attendance team; team self-assessment; tiered attendance interventions; and
calendar attendance activities. A final piece would be to ensure that the training was effective.
Attendance Team. According to Chang et. al (2018), administrators needed knowledge
of how to develop an attendance team. As a result, knowledge of how to develop an attendance
team would be one of topics covered in the three-tiered intervention system training. Here, the
122
first knowledge piece is the composition of the team. Teams should have three or more people in
membership and may include the following individuals: principal; assistant principal; attendance
clerk; Social Services Assistant (SSA); counselor; mental health staff; teacher(s); nurse or health
clerk; community partners; and parent(s). The second knowledge piece is the purpose of the team
along with knowledge of their roles and responsibilities. The team would primarily function to
do the following: hold meetings, ideally once or twice a month; monitor data trends; examine
causes of chronic absenteeism; coordinate the implementation of the school’s multi-tiered
strategy; and ensure chronically absent students receive needed support.
Team Self-Assessment. The second part of the three-tiered intervention system training
would be knowledge of how to conduct and use a team self-assessment, specific to attendance.
As detailed by Chang et al. (2018), teams would need baseline knowledge of their current
strengths and needs in implementing attendance interventions. It is recommended that teams be
provided with a research-based tool from Attendance Works (2018) that would allow
administrators to gather knowledge from stakeholders in the following areas: accurate data
collection and utilization; functioning attendance team; engaging school climate; culture of
attendance; family engagement; district policy; policy dissemination; staff capacity;
improvement plan; and community partners. Administrators could use the knowledge gained
from this tool as both a starting point and to monitor progress over time.
Tiered Attendance Interventions. The third part of the three-tiered intervention system
training would be knowledge about how to identify and structure interventions at each tier. Each
school site has a variety of attendance interventions and resources. Based on the work of Chang
et al. (2018), the next step would be for administrators to become more systematic and to plan
which interventions were tier one, universal for all students; which were tier two, for students
123
who were on the cusp of becoming chronically absent; and which interventions were tier three,
targeted at students who were already chronically absent. The training would provide step-by-
step instructions, reference documents, and job aides that would reinforce this knowledge and
provide guidance throughout the process.
Calendar Attendance Activities. The fourth part of the three-tiered intervention system
training would be knowledge about how to calendar attendance activities (Chang et al., 2018).
Once attendance interventions were identified at each of the three tiers, attendance teams would
then calendar the attendance interventions and activities that were scheduled to take place
throughout the 2021-22 school year. It is recommended that RSD provide administrators with a
calendar template, sample calendar, and time to work in their collaborative PLC planning groups
to collaborate and process their knowledge and understanding about which interventions would
be most effective at different times of the year. For example, an attendance training at open
house might provide parents with knowledge about how attendance connects to academic
achievement, high school graduation rates, and earning potential later in life.
Ensuring Effective Three-Tiered Intervention System Trainings. It is important to
ensure that the three-tiered intervention system trainings were effective in increasing the
knowledge of administrators to both understand and implement this system at their school sites.
Two strategies explained in greater detail later in this chapter include Elmore’s (2002) consensus
view along with Clark and Estes (2008) recommendation for structuring training with the
following three components: information; guided practice; and corrective feedback. To add to
this, Schraw (2006) and Schraw and McCrudden (2006), presented the principles of information
processing theory and showed that learners need to interact with new knowledge in order to
construct meaning and transfer learning into long-term memory. As a result, the three-tiered
124
intervention trainings should be organized into digestible information chucks and integrated into
RSD’s existing PLC process to allow opportunities for practice, collaboration, and feedback,
which were strategies suggested by Schraw and McCrudden (2006). These authors also
recommended modeling and showing when and how to use the identified strategies.
Motivation Recommendations
Like knowledge recommendations, motivation recommendations also resulted from this
study. The literature review and conceptual framework pointed to the following two motivational
theories that could assist principals and assistant principals in implementing chronic absenteeism
interventions: attribution theory and EVT. The recommendations were designed to increase
motivation based on each of these two theories.
Increasing Positive Attributions for Administrators
RSD’s administrators would benefit from an increase in positive attributions. Weiner’s
(2005) attribution theory was used to understand why administrators responded differently to the
same environmental factors. For RSD’s administrators, positive and negative attributions
connected to whether or not they felt that they could control circumstances with their own
actions. Positive attributions focused on effort, whereas negative attributions related to ability or
external factors. As presented in the findings section, 53% of administrators expressed negative
attributions related to the implementation of chronic absenteeism interventions.
It is recommended that RSD increase positive attributions among administrators through
self-reflection and positive feedback, specific to the impact of effort. As highlighted by Perry and
Hamm (2018), and based on Weiner’s (2005) work, “attribution-based motivation treatments,
referred to as AR, are designed to change maladaptive causal ascriptions and related motivation
and performance outcomes” (p. 71). The scope of RSD’s work and limited resources could pose
125
time constraints and logistical challenges in applying AR treatments, as recommended by Perry
and Hamm (2018), though causal attribution mapping (CAM) technology. Instead, providing
time during management meetings and PLC sessions for principals and assistant principals to
reflect on their efforts would be a reasonable and sustainable method for RSD to increase
positive attributions. During interviews, respondents specifically addressed attributions related to
the following: influence over circumstances and outcomes; parent behavior; and impact of
interventions. As a result, reflections should be designed to focus on efforts related to these three
areas. Furthermore, the benefits of effort, as opposed to ability, could then be reinforced through
supervisor feedback and recognition of specific efforts (in this case, the application of chronic
absenteeism interventions) to improve the attendance.
Increasing Expectancy Outcomes for Administrators
Similar to attribution theory, EVT could be used to increase expectancy outcomes for
RSD’s administrators. The two main components of EVT relate to how motivation increases
when one values a task and expects to do well on that task (Wigfield et al., 2018). As detailed in
the fourth chapter, 100% of administrators valued attendance and the implementation
interventions, but 47% of administrators did not expect to reach the desired outcome when
implementing these interventions. During interviews, these respondents pointed to limitations
that they had experienced along with feeling overwhelmed and powerless in certain situations.
RSD could increase expectancy among administrators by creating small and incremental
opportunities for them to experience feelings of success. According to Wigfield et al. (2018),
“many studies in different domains show that individuals’ expectations for success are (relative
to values) particularly strong predictors of their subsequent performance” (p. 120). In other
words, success begets success. This study included a variety of recommendations for RSD that
126
would be most effective if they were interconnected and worked in concert with one another. As
such, increasing expectancy outcomes could be tied to the knowledge recommendation to
provide training and support for developing a three-tiered system. Four incremental action steps
were described that could increase expectancy value over time, which was another strategy
offered by Wigfield et al. (2018). Coaching, feedback, and positive reinforcement could be then
be provided to administrators at the completion of each action step. Furthermore, the
strengthening or development of a three-tiered system would also increase expectancy outcomes
by shifting the focus from external factors to internal factors that administrators could expect to
influence and thereby experience positive outcomes. These values could also be reinforced using
peer models such as Hunter or Oakley, who “display and model interest and involvement in the
content and activities” (Pintrich, 2003, p. 672). The models could be used at a district training or
even through a visit to another school site where best practices are taught.
Organizational Recommendations
The literature review section and conceptual framework explained that organizations are
influenced by two elements of culture: cultural models and cultural settings (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). The findings of this study generated one cultural model recommendation
related to increasing trust and openness between administrators and their supervisor. Next,
cultural settings recommendations were broken down into the following two categories:
attendance and chronic absenteeism training for various stakeholder groups, along with the staff
resource of a full time Social Services Assistant (SSA) at each school site.
Increasing Trust and Openness Between Administrators and their Supervisor
RSD could improve organizational culture and chronic absenteeism outcomes by
increasing trust and openness. As explained in both Chapter 4 and the findings section, 80% of
127
administrators expressed positive trust factors. Trust and openness empower employees to meet
their organization’s goals (Zak, 2017). The 20% of administrators who expressed a need for
increased openness and trust felt that their supervisor focused more on academic performance
data as opposed to the individual situations, such as homelessness, that resulted in students
experiencing chronic absenteeism. Therefore, when discussing attendance with administrators
during the evaluation process, the supervisor should prioritize the value of decreased chronic
absenteeism rates and the implementation of attendance interventions over the academic
performance data. The supervisor should continue to implement the following positive trust
factors expressed by the vast majority of interviewees: administrator directed conversations; the
offer of support and understanding; and administrator autonomy and freedom to try different
interventions. Furthermore, these conversations should also focus on providing feedback to
administrators. According to Clark and Estes (2008), trust is bolstered when employees receive
feedback from their supervisor and have the opportunity to self-reflect and experience
professional growth. Trust is further increased through open communication between the
manager and the employee (Korsgaard et al., 2002). Open communication could be strengthened
by allowing more opportunities for feedback, beyond performance evaluations, along with
increased opportunities for administrators to share their ideas and concerns with their supervisor.
Offer Training for Various Stakeholder Groups
The findings of this study pointed to the training needs of various stakeholder groups.
These needs were broken down into the following three areas: attendance professional
development for school-site staff; mentorship training for school-site staff; and attendance
training for parents. These three training needs are further detailed in the section that follows.
Attendance Professional Development for School-Site Staff. RSD could increase
128
knowledge about chronic absenteeism and corresponding interventions by providing specific
and formalized training to school-site staff: teachers; paraprofessionals; and office staff. As the
findings revealed, 93% of administrators had given attendance related professional development
to their staff, but it was always tied to another school initiative. The need for more administrator
knowledge related to chronic absenteeism could be a contributing factor to a lack of attendance
specific training. In an effort to connect these recommendations, administrators would be far
more equipped to provide professional development to their school site staff, if they were given
the training, coaching, and collaboration time outlined in the knowledge recommendations
section of this chapter. Addressing the knowledge needs of administrators would essentially have
a cascading effect allowing for consistency and effective professional development design, as
outlined by Dowd and Bensimon (2014) in the literature review. Furthermore, it is recommended
that the staff professional development be designed using Elmore’s (2002) systematic roadmap
and multifaceted consensus view, which is described in the literature review. In the consensus
view, a school wide target would be identified, such as a decrease in chronic absenteeism rates,
along with specific metric to measure growth. The training would then focus on developing
educators’ knowledge and skills in order to improve student outcomes and reduce chronic
absenteeism rates. As Elmore (2002) explained, “this view drives from the assumption that
learning is essentially collaborative, rather than an individual activity – that educators learn more
powerfully in concert with others who are struggling with the same problems – and that the
essential purpose of professional development should be the improvement of schools and
systems, not just the improvement of individuals who work in them” (p. 8).
Mentorship Training for School-Site Staff. In addition to chronic absenteeism
professional development, RSD could also improve attendance outcomes by providing school
129
staff with training specific to mentorship. As detailed in the fourth chapter and the findings
section of this chapter, 27% of administrators had not given mentorship training, and the 73%
who had, wove the training into another school wide initiative such as the PBIS Check-In-
Check-Out (CICO) intervention. The literature pointed to several studies about mentorship as a
research based strategy to improve chronic absenteeism rates (Chang et al., 2014; Gandy &
Schultz, 2007; Christenson et al., 2006). Interviewees described how any trusted adult on
campus, who connected with students, could serve as a mentor; examples were provided about
various mentors such as teachers or custodians. Professional development would support mentors
in knowing their expectations, the processes and procedures to be followed, and reasons why this
important work was needed.
Of all of the interview participants, Hunter expressed the strongest familiarity with
implementing a mentorship program, so their skillset could be used to train other administrators
and possibly create training videos to be shared with other school sites. Like the staff
professional development recommendation above, Elmore’s (2002) model would also be
appropriate for mentorship training. As Elmore explains, training has to involve “professional
developers who, through expert practice, can model what they expect of the people with whom
they are working” (p. 8). An expert principal could help to model effective strategies (Pintrich,
2003) for both implementing a mentorship program and how to work with students in this
capacity. Furthermore, mentors could be provided with job aides that provide them with helpful
strategies such as tips on conversation starters and ways to build rapport with students.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), “job aides can be provided to people who have completed
training and need reminders about how to implement what they have learned” (p. 58).
Attendance Training for Parents. While the conceptual framework and literature
130
review specifically pointed to professional development for staff, parent training was an
additional insight and recommendation that resulted from the interview process. The research
also validated the need to connect with the families of chronically absent students and provide
them with resources based on their needs and attendance barriers (Christenson et al., 2006).
Therefore, resources could be incorporated into the training along with research about the
importance of school attendance. For example, several researchers connected higher chronic
absenteeism rates to lower math and reading proficiency along with higher dropout rates
(Children Now, 2018; Chang et al., 2014; Attendance Works, 2015). Chronic absenteeism also
corresponded to employment rates, earning potential, and incarceration (Ahmad & Miller, 2015).
Delivery for parent training could come in multiple formats. For example, during
interviews, several administrators talked about the importance of meeting individually with the
parents of chronically absent students and presenting them with their child’s attendance data.
RSD could support this work by providing a fact sheet, brochure, and short video about the
reasons why attendance is important, how it connects to academics, and resources for parents. In
person trainings would be made particularly effective by providing information, guided practice,
and feedback, as Clark and Estes (2008) suggested. With this in mind, parents could be given
information about the benefits of good attendance and consequences of poor attendance. They
could then practice and role play solutions to problems such as a child who does not want to get
out of bed or how to access mental health resources. Trainers would then provide feedback to
parents. Beyond the training, ongoing feedback should also be given to parents as a student’s
attendance improves. Parents are often called when their child gets into trouble, but it builds
positive rapport when parents get a praise report call from the school about how their efforts are
getting noticed and appreciated. If attendance is not improving, then feedback should also be
131
provided to the parent along with the provision of needed resources and supports.
Staff Resource of a Full-Time Social Services Assistant (SSA)
RSD could support attendance resources and chronic absenteeism interventions by
employing a full-time Social Services Assistant (SSA) at each school site. Resources, such as
staff to support the achievement of organizational goals, were presented in this study’s
conceptual framework and in the Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO model. Two-thirds of interview
participants mentioned the importance of SSAs regardless of whether or not they currently had
an SSA on staff. Those with a part-time SSA expressed the need for a full-time person.
Having a dedicated person to support attendance was also a general theme shared by
administrators. Social Services Assistants could support attendance by monitoring data,
partnering with parents, removing barriers to attendance, providing resources, checking in with
and mentoring students, and conducting home visits. While job titles vary among organizations,
the duties and responsibilities of an SSA best align to that of an attendance or Check and
Connect monitor, which was a chronic absenteeism intervention strategy presented in the
literature review section (Christenson et al., 2006; Gandy & Schultz, 2007). It is recommended
that the SSA’s roles and responsibilities be built into the three-tiered intervention system, found
in the knowledge recommendations section of this chapter. Integration of these recommendations
would support RSD in creating a cohesive and systematic approach to chronic absenteeism.
Future Research
This study resulted in findings to support attendance and reduce chronic absenteeism in
RSD and connected to a broader body of work related to the problem of chronic absenteeism
throughout California’s K-12 public schools. As a result, future research topics could increase
understanding about chronic absenteeism and the interventions that effectively improve
132
attendance. The following four future research topics offered for consideration include: the
impact of COVID-19; KMO factors related to teachers providing effective attendance
interventions; the role of parents; and the role of district support.
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
This research study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, as referenced in the
knowledge findings and limitations sections of this chapter. In California’s public schools, the
pandemic, along with Senate Bill 98, have changed the way that students attend school, by
widely increasing options for online learning. While RSD schools are open for daily in-person
learning, parents also have the option of online learning via Zoom. The longitudinal impact of
the COVID-19 pandemic on student attendance is largely unknown. As a result, future research
on the impact of the pandemic could benefit attendance efforts within RSD and also throughout
California’s public schools. As referenced in the findings section, administrators also identified
the following three insights related to the pandemic and chronic absenteeism: communicating the
importance of attendance; using a solution-oriented approach; and engaging in on-line learning.
These insights could be further studied within RSD and California’s public schools to compare
and contrast chronic absenteeism before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
KMO Factors Related to Teachers Providing Effective Attendance Interventions
This study pointed to the important role that teachers play in being the first line of
defense against chronic absenteeism and building positive relationships with students. As
detailed in the fourth chapter, 93% of respondents specifically addressed the role of the teacher.
This study, however, solicited input from principals and assistant principals, not teachers, and
was limited to RSD. As a result, future research would study the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors of K-12 teachers throughout California in supporting and intervening on
133
behalf of their chronically absent students. With this in mind, similar to this study, the Clark and
Estes (2008) KMO model would also be appropriate for studying teachers, as needs and
performance gaps fall into one of three areas: the knowledge and skills of employees;
motivational factors that influence employee performance; and organizational features.
The Role of Parents
The role of parents was an area that permeated interviews and research findings. Whether
it was partnering with parents, removing attendance barriers, providing training, etc., parents
were on the forefront of administrators’ minds. The literature presented significant research
about the causes of chronic absenteeism and research-based interventions. The research was
limited on ways to educate parents about chronic absenteeism and support them, particularly at
the very early elementary levels. Future research that studied elementary school parents and the
impact that parent training had in reducing chronic absenteeism rates would contribute greater
understanding about how to support this critical stakeholder group. While studying RSD’s
parents would be an excellent companion study to this project, the recommendation for future
research would be California’s elementary schools so that the generated findings could be
applied to multiple school districts and parent groups.
The Role of District Support
The role of district leaders and the support that they provide would be an area for future
research both within RSD and throughout California’s public schools. This research study
examined two types of administrators, principals and assistant principals, and their
implementation chronic absenteeism interventions. Within RSD, certificated managers are also
represented at district level, including executive management personnel such as assistant
superintendents and a designated superintendent. These leaders also play a role in attendance.
134
Examples of this include: knowledge imparted through trainings; motivation provided through
evaluation, coaching, and feedback; and organizational resources such as staff and materials,
which would all be allocated to principals and assistant principals through executive
management. Additionally, within RSD, a system needs to be in place to evaluate chronic
absenteeism and intervention data at multiple levels. Future research might focus on the role of
executive management in supporting principals, assistant principals, and school efforts to reduce
chronic absenteeism and also be used to identify potential systems for monitoring, tracking, and
evaluation.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to examine the needs and assets among RSD’s principals
and assistant principals and recommend solutions so that they could better address chronic
absenteeism and implement effective interventions. Numerous implications for practice related
to KMO gaps were identified as follows: provide training in chronic absenteeism laws and
regulations; provide training in the causes of chronic absenteeism; provide three-part training in
choosing chronic absenteeism interventions and collaboration time in professional learning
communities; provide training and support for developing a three-tiered intervention system;
increase positive attributions and expectancy outcomes for administrators; increase principal
trust and openness factors; offer training for various stakeholder groups; and the staff resource of
a full-time Social Services Assistant (SSA). Furthermore, the following four recommendations
for future research included: the impact of COVID-19; KMO factors related to teachers
providing effective attendance interventions; the role of parents; and the role of district support.
While RSD’s principals and assistant principals served as the research participants, this
study was really about children. Every year, public schools provide 180 days of instruction, and
135
this was a study about how to intervene when children miss 10% or more of the school year. In
some rare cases, children miss all of the days in the school year, every year. In her memoir,
Educated, author Tara Westover (2018) recounted how she was 17-years-old the first time she
set foot in a classroom. “My life was narrated for me by others. Their voices were forceful,
emphatic, absolute. It had never occurred to me that my voice might be as strong as theirs” (p.
197). An education gave Westover her voice. In the same way, RSD has a moral and ethical
obligation to be a voice for children, when they are yet too young and vulnerable to speak up for
themselves. In doing so, this very action gives rise to the voice that is within every child,
making it audible, brilliant, and powerful…. transforming chronically absent students from grim
statistics to confident agents of change.
136
References
Ahmad, F. Z., & Miller, T. (2015). The high cost of truancy. Center for American Progress.
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/29113012/Truancy-
report4.pdf
Allison, M. A., & Attisha, E. (2019, February). The link between school attendance and good
health. American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics, 143(2).
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Attendance Works and the Healthy Schools Campaign. (2015). Mapping the early attendance
gap: Charting a course for student success. Attendance Works.
https://www.attendanceworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Mapping-the-Early-
Attendance-Gap_Final-4.pdf
Attendance Works. (2018). Leading attendance: A toolkit for principals. Attendance Works.
https://www.attendanceworks.org/resources/toolkits/for-principals-leading-attendance/
Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2017). Meeting the challenge of combating chronic absenteeism.
John Hopkins School of Education Everyone Graduates Center.
https://www.attendanceworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/NYC-Chronic-
Absenteeism-Impact-Report-Nov-2013-1.pdf
Balu, R. (2019). Intervention design choices and evaluation lessons from multisite field trials on
reducing absenteeism. In Gottfried, M. & Hutt, E. (Eds.), Absent from school:
Understanding and addressing student absenteeism (pp. 199-212). Harvard Education
Press.
Balu, R. & Ehrlich, S. (2018). Making sense out of incentives: A framework for considering the
137
design, use, and implementation of incentives to improve attendance. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 23(1-2), 93-106.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2018.1438898
Bauer, L., Liu, P., Schanzenbach, D. W., & Shambaugh, J. (2018). Reducing chronic
absenteeism under the every student succeeds act. Strategy paper for the Hamilton
Project, Brookings Institute, (April 2018). https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/reducing_chronic_absenteeism_under_the_every_student_succe
eds_act2.pdf
Burton, J. (2018). Advocates for youth. https://www.jbaforyouth.org/
California Department of Education. (2017, December). State schools chief Tom Torlakson
announces statewide chronic absenteeism data available for the first time (News Release
No. 17-88).
California Department of Education. (2018). 2017-18 Chronic absenteeism rate state report.
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DQCensus/AttChrAbsRate.aspx?cds=3066506&agglevel
=District&year=2017-18&initrow=Sub&ro=y
California Department of Education. (2019). 2018-19 Chronic absenteeism rate state report.
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DQCensus/AttChrAbsRate.aspx?cds=%2000&agglevel=
State&year=2018-19&initrow=Sub&ro=y
Chang, H. N., Bauer, L., & Byrnes, V. (2018). Data Matters: Using Chronic Absence to
Accelerate Action for Student Success. Executive Summary. Attendance Works.
Chang, H., Gomperts, J, & Boissiere (2014, October). Chronic absenteeism can devastate K-12
learning. Education Week, 34(07), 22-23.
Children Now. (2018). 2018 California Children’s Report Card.
138
https://www.attendanceworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Children_Now_2018_
Report_Card.pdf
Christenson, S. L, Hurley, C. M., Hirsch, J.A, Kau, M., Evelo, D., & Bates, W. (2006). Check
and Connect: The role of monitors in supporting high-risk youth. eJournal of the
International Child and Youth Care Network (CYC-Net), 84, 1605-7406.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Compulsory Education Law, 1010 California Education Code § 48200 (1976).
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career
readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(86), 1.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2014). Engaging the "race question": Accountability and
equity in US higher education. Teachers College Press.
Durham, R.E., Connolly, F. (2017). Strategies for student attendance and school climate
in Baltimore’s community schools. Baltimore Education Research Consortium.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED578884.pdf
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Albert Shanker
Institute. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-betweenstandards-and-
achievement
Gandy, C., & Schultz, J. L. (2007). Increasing school attendance for K-8 students: a review of
139
research examining the effectiveness of truancy prevention programs. Wilder Research.
https://www.wilder.org/sites/default/files/imports/TruancyInterventionLitReview_3-
07.pdf
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36,
45-56.
Garin, G. (2012). Skipping to nowhere: Students share their views about missing school. Hart
Research Group. Retrieved from https://getschooled.com
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
Ginsburg, A., Jordan, P., & Chang, H. (2014, August). Absences add up: How school attendance
influences student success. Attendance Works.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researcher: An introduction. (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Gottfried, M. & Hutt, E. (Eds.). (2019). Absent from school: Understanding and addressing
student absenteeism. Harvard Education Press.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your
“house”. Administrative issues journal: connecting education, practice, and
research, 4(2), 7.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, Spring/Summer, 17– 19.
Hough, H. (2019). Roll call: Describing chronically absent students, the schools they attend, and
implications for accountability. In Gottfried, M. & Hutt, E. (Eds.), Absent from school:
140
Understanding and addressing student absenteeism (pp. 15-35). Harvard Education
Press.
Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness (2015). Empty seats: The epidemic of
absenteeism among homeless elementary students. https://www.attendanceworks.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/ICPH-Policy-Report_Empty-Seats_Chronic-Absenteeism.pdf
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Jordan, P. (2019, July). Attendance playbook: Smart solutions for reducing chronic absenteeism.
FutureEd. Georgetown University. https://www.future-ed.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/Attendance-Playbook.pdf
Jordan, P. W., & Miller, R. (2017). Who’s in: Chronic absenteeism under Every Student
Succeeds Act. FutureEd. Georgetown University.
Korsgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied
Psychology 87(2), 312-319.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lochmiller, C. (2013). Improving attendance in Indiana’s public schools. Center for Evaluation
and Education Policy. https://www.attendanceworks.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/08/Improving-Student-Attendance-in-Indianas-Schools-CEEP-
Indiana-DOE-Oct-2013.pdf
Mac Iver, M., & Mac Iver, D. (2014). If we build it, we will come: Impact of a summer robotics
program on regular year attendance in middle school. Baltimore Education Research
141
Consortium.
Mac Iver, M. & Sheldon S. (2019). Keeping families front and center. In Gottfried, M. & Hutt,
E. (Eds.), Absent from school: Understanding and addressing student absenteeism (pp.
181-197). Harvard Education Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.).
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Chapter 3: Research design and research methods. In Integrating
qualitative and quantitative methods (pp. 45-62). Sage Publications.
National Center for Homeless Education. (2017, September). In school every day: addressing
chronic absenteeism among students experiencing homelessness (Best Practices in
Homeless Education Brief Series). https://www.attendanceworks.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/NCHE-Homeless-Absenteeism.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research and
evaluation methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 339-415). Sage Publications.
Passarella, A., (2017). Restorative practices in schools. John Hopkins School of Education.
https://www.attendanceworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/OSI
RestorativePracticemastheadFINAL-1.pdf
Perry, R., & Hamm, J. (2018). An attribution perspective on competence and motivation. In
Elliot, A., Dweck, C., & Yeager, D. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation
(2nd ed., pp 61-84). Guilford Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
142
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Romero, M., & Lee, Y. S. (2007). A national portrait of chronic absenteeism in the early grades.
National Center for Children in Poverty. Columbia University.
https://www.attendanceworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/A-National-Portrait-of-
Chronic-Absenteeism-in-the-Early-Grades-Oct-2007.pdf
Rosenkranz, T., de la Torre, M., Stevens, D., & Allensworth, E. (2014). Free to fail or on-track
to college: Why grades stop when students enter high school and what adults can do
about it. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/201810/FoF%20Why%20Grades%20
Drop.pdf
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Saunders, M. N. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory
development. In Research Methods for Business Students, 5/e. Pearson Education India.
Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 245–264). Erlbaum.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Stempel, H., Cox-Martin, M., Bronsert, M., Dickinson, M., & Allison, M. (2017, November-
December). Chronic school absenteeism and the role of adverse childhood experiences.
Academic Pediatrics, 17(8).
Sternberg, R. (2018). Intelligence and competence in theory and practice. In Elliot, A., Dweck,
143
C., & Yeager, D. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (2nd ed., pp 9-24).
Guilford Press.
Thurmond, T. (2019). State superintendent Tony Thurmond 2019 priority initiatives
[Infographic]. California Department of Education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/spipriorityinitiatives.pdf
United States Congress (2015). CHAPTER 119, SUBCHAPTER VI, Part B: Education for
Homeless Children and Youths.
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/edhhsfostercarenonregulatorguide.pdf
U.S. Department of Education and U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (2016).
Non-regulatory guidance: Ensuring educational stability for children in
foster care.
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/edhhsfostercarenonregulatorguide.pdf
Van Eck, K., Johnson, S., Bettencourt, A., & Johnson, S. (2016, November.) How school climate
relates to chronic absence: A multi-level latent profile analysis. Journal of School
Psychology, 61, 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/2016.10.001
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attributional perspective and the social psychology of
perceived competence. In A.J. Elliot and C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of Competence
and Motivation (pp. 73-84).
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 3: Preparation for interviewing. In Learning from strangers: The
art and method of qualitative interview studies (pp. 51-59). The Free Press.
Westover, T. (2018). Educated: a memoir. New York: Random House.
Wigfield, A., Rosenzweig, E., & Eccles, J. (2018). Achievement values: Interactions,
interventions, and future directions. In Elliot, A., Dweck, C., & Yeager, D. (Eds.),
144
Handbook of competence and motivation (2nd ed., pp 116-134). Guilford Press.
Zak, P.J. (2017). The trust factor: The science of creating high-performance companies.
AMACOM. Introduction and Chapter 1, pp. 1-29.
145
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
1. Tell me what you know about chronic absenteeism at your school site? (RQ 1;
knowledge: declarative)
2. To what extent do you believe that attendance interventions are likely to improve the
attendance patterns for chronically absent students? (RQ 1; motivation: attribution)
3. How often do you think about chronic absenteeism? What do you tend to think about
and reflect on? (RQ 1; knowledge: metacognitive)
4. Walk me through what you would do if you knew that a student at your school was
chronically absent? (Follow-up: Describe the process you use for identifying
chronically absent students at your school site?) (RQ1; knowledge: procedural and
how to choose interventions)
5. I know that things have changed as a result of COVID-19, but what would you say
your attendance goals were for last year? How about districtwide? How has COVID-
19 changed your view of your goals, if at all? (RQ 2; organizational: performance
goal accountability)
6. This next question addresses roles and responsibilities. Tell me about the employees
at your school site who play a key role in addressing chronic absenteeism and in what
ways? (RQ 1 & 2; knowledge: procedural; organizational: resources)
7. Describe for me in your own words what multi-tiered attendance interventions might
look like? (RQ 1; knowledge: procedural and multi-tiered system)
8. This next question is about chronic absenteeism interventions. Describe the chronic
absenteeism interventions that you feel are the most effective for improving student
attendance? These do not necessarily need to be interventions that you are
146
implementing at your school site. (RQ 1; knowledge: procedural and how to choose
interventions)
9. Now, with your school site in mind, tell me about the attendance interventions that
have been the most helpful in improving the attendance patterns of your chronically
absent students? (Follow-up: What interventions have not worked as well and why?)
(RQ 1; knowledge: procedural and how to choose interventions)
10. How would you know if you were successful in improving the attendance patterns of
your chronically absent students? (RQ 1; knowledge: metacognitive)
11. How important are chronic absenteeism interventions in comparison to other
interventions at your school site? Where do they rank in importance and priority and
why? (RQ 1; motivation: active choice, persistence, mental effort, and EVT)
12. What are the resources that you have dedicated to chronic absenteeism at your school
site? (Follow-up: Tell me about any community partnerships?) (RQ 2;
organizational: resources)
13. In what ways, if any, do you partner with parents to improve the attendance patterns
of chronically absent students? (RQ 2; organizational: resources)
14. What, if any, professional development opportunities have been and are available to
your staff to train them in implementing chronic absenteeism interventions? (Follow-
up: What training, if any, have staff received in mentoring students?) (RQ2;
organizational: mentoring and professional development)
15. In what ways does your district support you in addressing the needs of chronically
absent students, if at all? (RQ 2; organizational: resources)
16. How does district staff or your supervisor communicate to you about attendance
147
priorities? Can you think of a recent time when you talked about attendance with your
supervisor? Tell me how that conversation went. (RQ 2; organization: trust)
17. What challenges have you experienced as you have tried to implement attendance
interventions? (RQ 2; organization: resources)
18. What additional support or resources do you think you will need to implement
attendance interventions? (RQ 2; organization: resources)
19. Do you have anything else to add that I may have missed? (RQ 1 & 2; KMO)
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Grounded in the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model, this field study applied knowledge, motivation, and organizational change theories to the problem of chronic absenteeism within the Rover School District (RSD, a pseudonym), a K-8 public school district. Chronic absenteeism was important to study because it placed students at risk for poor academic performance, higher dropout rates, incarceration, and lower earning wages in the workforce. The purpose of this study was to examine the needs and assets among principals and assistant principals and recommend solutions so that they could better address chronic absenteeism and implement effective attendance interventions. Assistant principals and principals were selected for this study based on their ability to impact attendance interventions and implement reforms. This study applied qualitative research methodology, through the collection of interview data. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit study participants and achieve adequate engagement. Analysis of interview data resulted in several noteworthy findings related to knowledge and training needs, attribution theory, expectancy value theory, and cultural models and settings. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations were offered based on the findings to reduce chronic absenteeism and support the implementation of systematic attendance interventions within RSD.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty
PDF
Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS
PDF
Physical activity interventions to reduce rates of sedentary behavior among university employees: a promising practice study
PDF
Creating a culture of connection: employee engagement at an academic medical system
PDF
Preparing student affairs administrators to support college students of color with mental health needs
PDF
Building leadership capacity to support principal succession
PDF
Multi-tiered system of supports to address significant disproportionality in special education
PDF
Building data use capacity through school leaders: an evaluation study
PDF
Interrupting inequitable systems: evaluating a teacher leadership development program
PDF
Collective Impact: a framework to advance health promotion in higher education
PDF
Implementation of strategies to address the fiscal impacts of declining enrollment on school resources: an evaluation study
PDF
Closing the completion gap for African American students at California community colleges: a research study
PDF
Assessing administrators’ perceptions of implementing trauma-informed care in K−12 schools
PDF
Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices
PDF
Uncovering promising practices for providing vocational opportunities to formerly incarcerated individuals
PDF
Promising practices: building the next generation of effective school principals
PDF
Building the next generation of leaders in K–6 institutions
PDF
Improving conditions for innovation in magnet and charter schools
PDF
Multi-source feedback in the U. S. Army: an improved assessment
PDF
Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Morris, Helene Disbrow
(author)
Core Title
Attendance interventions to address chronic absenteeism
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
03/30/2021
Defense Date
02/26/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic performance,assistant principals,attendance,attendance interventions,chronic absenteeism,K-12 public education,OAI-PMH Harvest,principals
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Malloy, Courtney (
committee chair
), Ott, Maria (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
hdmorris@usc.edu,helene_morris@myfsd.org
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-434048
Unique identifier
UC11667576
Identifier
etd-MorrisHele-9373.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-434048 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MorrisHele-9373.pdf
Dmrecord
434048
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Morris, Helene Disbrow
Type
texts
Source
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 a...
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
Tags
academic performance
assistant principals
attendance
attendance interventions
chronic absenteeism
K-12 public education
principals