Absenteeism: A Descriptive Study of Student and Staff Perceptions

By L. Sullivan

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Education

July 2018

Graduate Programs in Education

Goucher College
 Table of Contents

List of Tables i

Abstract ii

I. Introduction 1

Overview 1

Statement of Problem 2

Hypothesis 2

Operational Definitions 2

II. Review of the Literature 4

Introduction 4

Absenteeism 4

Research on Absenteeism 6

Disproportionality between special education students and non-disabled peers 8

Factors Related to Absenteeism 10

Consequences of Absenteeism 11

Interventions 12

Summary 16

III. Methods 17

Design 17

Participants 17

Instrument 18

Procedure 18

IV. Results 20
 Survey Results 20

V. Discussion 26

Implications of Results 26

Theoretical Consequences 27

Threats to Validity 28

Connections to Previous Studies/Existing Literature 29

Implications for Future Research 30

Summary 32

References 33

Appendices 35

Appendix A: Student and Staff Surveys 35

 List of Tables

Table 1 Student Survey Results, Questions 3-4 20

Table 2 Student Survey Results, Question 7 21

Table 3 Student Survey Results, Question 9 22

Table 4 Student Survey Results, Questions 10-13 22

Table 5 Student Survey Results, Questions 18 24

i
 Abstract

The purpose of this descriptive study was to determine the perceptions of students and staff

participating in a self-paced blended-learning environment on the topic of absenteeism. The

research and its findings examine the similarities and differences between the perceptions of

students who receive special education services and their non-disabled peers. In addition, the

research and its findings determine similarities and differences between the perceptions of

students and staff. The reviewed literature examines the disproportionality in absenteeism rates

between special education students and non-disabled peers, factors related to absenteeism,

consequences of absenteeism, and interventions. Derived from the literature, survey questions

were created and posed to voluntary and anonymous participants. The results revealed that there

are more similarities than differences between student perceptions but some significant

differences between staff and student perceptions. Implications of the study reveal the need for

an increase in systemic interventions to help decrease overall absenteeism rates with a focus on

aligning staff efforts with student needs.

ii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Overview

Students with Individual Education Programs (IEPs), and 504 plans have a

disproportionate amount of missed days in comparison to their non-disabled peers. In the school

year 2013-14, 24.6% of high school students with disabilities were chronically absent in

comparison to 18.1% of non-disabled peers. Overall, fourteen percent of the student population

or approximately six million students missed fifteen or more days of school (Chronic

Absenteeism, 2016). Absenteeism is a complex issue within our public school system. It

interferes with the delivery of academic services, impacts student progress, and often contributes

to at-risk behaviors. A variety of factors contribute to the reasons for absenteeism including

family, peer, and community influences. According to Mahoney (2015), students who are

frequently absent often feel as if school is boring or chaotic. They feel as if they are not valued as

individuals and often display signs of depression and anxiety. Students who are chronically

absent often drop out of school. Parents contribute to an increase in absenteeism due to work

schedules, family conflicts, mental and physical health issues, and uncertain living situations.

Overall family influences can contribute to absenteeism such as language barriers, values toward

education, child care issues, and social-economic status. Community influences such as tension

in the community, unsafe neighborhoods, diverse cultural values, and lack of community support

at the school level, can also contribute to student absenteeism.

When faced with the challenge of changing absenteeism rates, developing meaningful

programs or interventions that prove to be successful are often as challenging as the problem

itself. Efforts to build relationships with students who are chronically absent have proven to be

1
successful. Educators need to listen to the students in reference to why they are absent. They

need to build connections that establish trust and demonstrate a willingness to provide ongoing

support. When students feel valued and participate in meaningful connections, they are more

willing to participate in instruction and school-based activities (Strand & Cedersund, 2013).

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study is to examine the perceptions of both students and staff

concerning the topic of absenteeism. Students with IEPs, 504 plans, and non-disabled students

were surveyed to gather information on their perceptions of why students are absent, including

questions that pertained to them individually. Educators and support staff were surveyed to

gather information concerning their perceptions of why students in general are absent.

Hypothesis

The study is a descriptive study that utilizes two surveys on the topic of absenteeism as

the methodology. One survey is a student survey on the topic of absenteeism. The other is

geared toward the staff’s perspective on student absenteeism. There is no hypothesis as such in

this study. The following research question was examined: What are the staff and student

perceptions on absenteeism for students enrolled in a self-paced, blended learning environment?

Operational Definitions

The EDLP, Extended Day Learning Program, is defined as a program designed to

provide students with an opportunity to complete high school credits within a self-paced

blended-learning environment. The EDLP consists of five different high school centers within

Baltimore County Public Schools, located in Baltimore County, Maryland. The five EDLP

centers are strategically placed to provide opportunities to students in each county demographic

area: Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Central. Each EDLP center operates

2
outside of the typical school timeframe. The majority of the centers operate in the evenings

during the timeframe of 6:00 P.M. to 9:45 P.M. on various weekdays. One center operates

during Saturday mornings.

Student perceptions is defined as data collected from the student surveys given at each

EDLP center. The student data was organized into two categories: students receiving services

and non-disabled students. Students receiving services include students with IEPs and 504 plans.

Data concerning individual disability type was not collected. All student data was collected in a

voluntary manner with anonymity.

Staff perceptions is defined as data collected from the staff surveys given at each EDLP

center. The staff is defined as a collection of educators, related service providers, and support

staff consisting of administrative assistants and para-educators. The following staff participated

in the survey in a voluntary manner with anonymity: administration, general educators, special

educators, pupil personnel workers, school counselors, and support staff.

Any descriptive study involving surveys is limited in constraints imposed upon the study.

Limitations from this type of study are discussed in more detail in the findings.

3
 Chapter II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Absenteeism is complex problem that is influenced by many factors involving the child,

parent, family, peers, school, and the community. In order to understand the impact absenteeism

has on our children, one must look at the problem with a social, psychological, economic, and

political perspective. Within this literature review, the term “absenteeism” is defined. Research

and data concerning the scope of absenteeism is explored. Additionally, the research in this

literature review will reflect data on the disproportionality between absenteeism in the special

education population in comparison to non-disabled peers. “Students with disabilities are nearly

50% more likely to be chronically absent than students without disabilities” (Chronic

Absenteeism, 2016, para 10). This literature review explores this disproportionality as well as

factors that influence absenteeism, the short and long-term consequences of absenteeism, and

interventions.

Absenteeism

“Absenteeism in schools is a community, city, district, state, and nation’s problem”

(Mahoney, 2015, p. 127). Absenteeism has both short and long term consequences on student

achievement. School attendance for all students is critical. Students who are not engaged in

school miss instruction and are at risk of dropping out of school. In addition, students who miss

school potentially engage in risky behaviors (McConnell & Kubina, 2014). When considering

the impact of absenteeism on student progress, one needs to differentiate between truancy and

chronic absenteeism. “Truancy applies only to unexcused absences, whereas chronic

absenteeism can include absences for any reasons” (London, Sanchez, & Castrechini, 2016, p.

3). According to Lyon and Cotler, 2007 (as cited in Kearney, 2008), excessive or chronic

4
absenteeism is defined by 10-40% missed days. Data on truancy has been collected for many

decades. Data on chronic absenteeism is just starting to become available (London et al., 2016).

It is important to note that most data surrounding absenteeism only includes students who miss a

whole day of instruction. The data does not include information on students who miss a partial

day, skip classes, or miss school without detection (Kearney, 2008).

“According to the USA Department of Education, over 6 million students missed 15 or

more days of school in 2013-14. That’s 14% of the student population or 1 in 7 students”

(Chronic Absenteeism, 2016, para. 6). According to the data in the 2013-14 Civil Rights Data

Collection, chronic absenteeism is more prevalent in high school with almost 20 percent of

students absent. Twelve percent of middle school students were absent and eleven percent of

elementary school students were absent. Gender was not a significant factor in chronic

absenteeism (Chronic Absenteeism, 2016). Chronic absenteeism is very high in minority

students. “The disparities are striking. Consider the relative differences: compared to their white

peers, the groups with the highest rates of chronic absenteeism — American Indian and Pacific

Islander students — are each over 65 percent more likely to lose three weeks of school or more,

black students 36 percent more likely, and Hispanic students 11 percent more likely” (Chronic

Absenteeism, 2016, para. 9). Students with special needs have a disproportionate amount of

missed days. “It is well established that children receiving special education services will attend

school at lower rates than their general education counterparts” (Redmond & Hosp, 2008, p. 99).

5
 Research on Absenteeism

Research on absenteeism is often focused on the following three areas: psychology,

social/criminal justice, and education. The three areas are very different and often cause a lack

of consensus regarding key terminology and strategies for intervention (Kearney, 2008).

Research on the psychological approach to absenteeism concentrates on cognitive-

behavioral techniques such as psychoeducation regarding anxiety, relaxation, cognitive therapy,

and parent involvement. In addition, the psychological interventions are given in conjunction

with antidepressant medication and are often associated with a formal diagnosis of child anxiety

disorder or emotional disorders. Research on the psychological influence on absenteeism often

excludes family or cultural factors and school climate concerns (Kearney, 2008).

Research on the social/criminal justice approach to absenteeism concentrates on systemic

and legal interventions and negative student behavior. In addition, research in this area includes

homelessness, pregnancy, poverty, family disconnect and chaos, and student association with

delinquent peer groups (Kearney, 2008). According to Chapman, 2003 (as cited in Kearney,

2008), there is a correlation between unsafe and disorganized communities and lack of

responsiveness to chronic absenteeism. Interventions include early educational programs, health

services, family counseling and outreach, legal interventions, and court referrals (Kearney,

2008). According to Reynolds et al., 2001 (as cited in Kearney, 2008), at-risk families benefit

from family outreach that mobilize resources, contribute to the overall health and nutrition of

students, and provide screening for speech, cognitive, or medical disorders. Students who are at-

risk benefit from early interventions for language and math development, full-day kindergarten,

low ratios for students and teachers, and highly structured small group instruction. In addition,

according to White et al., 2001 (as cited in Kearney, 2008), programs that involve community

6
law enforcement agencies have been effective in finding truant students, providing a linkage with

mentors or administrative teams to address truancy, and when necessary, referring students to the

juvenile justice system. Research on the social/criminal justice approach to chronic absenteeism

typically focuses on broad systemic factors but often excludes parental attitudes toward

education and school-based variables such as school culture and climate, school-based violence,

bullying, student boredom, student-teacher conflict, language and cultural differences, and

efforts to involve parents and increase communication.

Research on the educational approach to absenteeism concentrates on a blend of both the

psychological and social/criminal justice approach. According to James and Freeze, 2006 (as

cited in Kearney, 2008), school funding is often dependent upon student attendance data.

According to Zhang, 2004 (as cited in Kearney, 2008), school policy toward absenteeism stems

from the legal definitions of truancy and associated referrals to juvenile justice systems. In

addition, research on the educational approach focuses on the school-based variables that

contribute to excessive absenteeism. According to Stone, 2006 and Worrell and Hale , 2001 (as

cited in Kearney, 2008), interventions regarding school variables include flexible scheduling,

clearly stated expectations and consequences, programs that match student ability and needs,

student engagement in extracurricular activities, and implementation of activities that increase

school pride or promote school traditions.

“Research on the relationship between school refusal and learning difficulties or special

education needs and school refusal is sparse and rather dated” (Havik, Bru, & Ertesvåg, 2015, p.

319). School refusal is linked with anxiety and a variety of emotional problems. Students with

learning difficulties often display a variety of emotional problems. According to Berg &

Nursten, 1996 (as cited in Havik et al., 2015), students who are absent are often students with

7
special needs who experience academic difficulty and poor performance. Academic stress and

perceived difficulty with learning are associated with subjective health complaints and resulting

absenteeism.

Disproportionality between Special Education Students and Non-Disabled Peers

According to Chiland & Young, 1990 (as cited in Redmond & Hosp, 2008),

“[e]stablished risk factors for attendance difficulties include English language learner status,

eligibility for free or reduced lunch, and the receipt of special education services” (p. 98). A

disproportionality between special education students and non-disabled peers exists in data

concerning chronic absenteeism. According to the USA Department of Education data for 2013-

14, 15.6 % of elementary school students with disabilities were chronically absent in comparison

to 10.1% of non-disabled peers. 17.9% of middle school students with disabilities were

chronically absent in comparison to 11.8% of non-disabled peers. 24.6% of high school students

with disabilities were chronically absent in comparison to 18.1% of non-disabled peers (Chronic

Absenteeism, 2016).

“Students with disabilities … are almost 1.5 times more likely to be chronically absent than

students without disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is intended

to ensure all students with disabilities have access to a free, appropriate education, yet chronic

absenteeism is a barrier that gets in the way of achieving that goal” (Chronic Absenteeism, 2016,

para. 12 ). Absenteeism interferes in the delivery of academic services. 15 to 20 percent of

instructional time is missed by students with disabilities due to absenteeism (Spencer, 2009).

Besides a decrease in academic services, students with special education services have a

reduction in the benefits from therapeutic services when absent (Redmond & Hosp, 2008).

8
According to Sullivan and McDaniel, 2001 (as cited in Redmond & Hosp, 2008), absenteeism in

the special education population impacts practice and the IEP team process. Special education

teams design IEPs to reflect the amount of time each student requires for specific services.

When the student demonstrates chronic absenteeism, IEPS should be adjusted to reflect the

anticipated amount of student attendance.

There is also a disproportionality within the attendance rates of special education students

based on their disability. Redmond and Hosp (2008), conducted a research study involving

students with communicative disorders (CD), learning disabilities (LD), and students with

emotional disturbances (ED) in kindergarten through ninth grade. They concluded that students

with LD and ED were absent more frequently than students with CD. Within their study,

Redmond and Hosp also determined that students with LD and ED had an increased level of

absenteeism during the transition year between 8th and 9th grade in comparison to students with

CD and those in general education.

Many reasons for chronic absenteeism exist for a student with a disability including

medical needs, anxiety, school refusal and avoidance. According to Teaseley, 2004 (as cited in

Spencer, 2009), increased absenteeism is a result of teachers’ neglect in attending to the diverse

needs of students. Teachers may require more intensive training and access to resources to assist

special education students to be academically and socially successful. “Feelings of failure in

school could push some students toward truancy” (Havik et al., 2015, p. 330).

9
 Factors Related to Absenteeism

According to Kearney (2008), there are six factors that influence absenteeism: child,

parent, family, peer, school, and community. Poor health, both physical and psychological, poor

academic performance, low-school commitment, employment, and problems with authority

figures are factors that directly influence the child. Many students feel as if there are little to no

consequences for absenteeism. They feel as if the classroom is boring or chaotic and often feel

invisible to the teacher. This contributes to their lack of interest in learning and an increase in

absenteeism (Mahoney, 2015). “Parents are equally to blame when students are chronically

truant from school” (p. 127). Parent factors include: low expectations of school performance,

parenting styles, parent history of dropout or school withdrawal, language barriers, cultural

differences, and maltreatment (Kearney, 2008). Parents often contribute to frequent absenteeism

both directly and indirectly. Parental anxiety, mental health issues, separation or divorce, family

dynamics, family conflict, single parent status, and child-parent relationships are contributing

factors toward absenteeism (Mahoney, 2015). “Family characteristics are strong determining

factors in students’ school attendance” (McConnell & Kubina, 2014, p. 249). Homelessness,

chaos and conflict, poverty, single parent status, divorce, unemployment, illness, and any

stressful family situation are considered family factors. Peers have a great influence on school

attendance. Gangs or gang related activity, bullying, lack of extracurricular activities, peer

pressure, and the influence of low performing peers or peers that participate in illegal activities

are peer factors. School factors would include a negative school climate or culture, school

violence, intolerance to diversity, poor student-teacher relationships, lack of Positive Behavior

Intervention and Support programs, grade retention, punitive measures for absenteeism, and

irrelevant or inadequate curriculum. An unsafe neighborhood, diverse cultural values, tension

10
between community members, gang activity, lack of community supports, and low social-

economic status are some community factors that contribute to absenteeism (Kearney, 2008).

“ Understanding when students are most at risk will help schools and advocates better target

interventions to improve student outcomes” (Chronic Absenteeism, 2016, para. 14).

Consequences of Absenteeism

The consequences of absenteeism are far-reaching and detrimental to an individual’s

personal, educational, and employment outcomes. According to Almeida et al., 2006, (as cited

in Kearney, 2008), violence, suicide, risky sexual behavior, drug use, teenage pregnancy, and

injury are linked with chronic absenteeism. According to Borrego et al., 2005 (as cited in

Kearney, 2008), students who demonstrate chronic absenteeism also experience an increase in

both physical and psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, asthma, and a variety of

disruptive behavior disorders. In addition, according to Hibbett and Fogelman, 1990 (as cited in

Kearney, 2008), economic deprivation, social problems in adulthood, and an increase in risk for

dropout from school are associated with chronic absenteeism.

“Teachers cannot teach students who are not in attendance” (Mahoney, 2015, p. 125).

Instruction today is fast paced and time-sensitive. Students who are absent frequently have

difficulty making up missed assignments. Absenteeism can contribute to a student’s retention or

even social promotion. Social promotion without adequate skill development can lead to an

increase in dropout rates and absenteeism (Smink & Heilbrunn, 2006). Absenteeism is also

linked with future employment outcomes. Students who are frequently absent are at risk of

dropping out of high school and have difficulty finding employment without a diploma

(Mahoney, 2015).

11
 The increase in dropout rate associated with chronic absenteeism has consequences on

school and public funding streams. Often, enrollment determines a school’s level of funding

(Smink & Heilbrunn, 2006). Standardized testing indirectly impedes progress in decreasing

absenteeism. Schools are held accountable for the test data and funding is often dependent upon

performance. “Administrators are generally held more strictly accountable for raising

standardized test scores than for retaining low-performing students on their enrollment lists or

tracking down truants. Although most district policies require schools to take action to correct

truancy after only a few absences, in practice schools may let many absences accumulate before

they intervene with a particular student” (Smink & Heilbrunn, 2006, p. 18). According to Smink

& Heilbrunn (2006), the costs associated with educational failure or dropout rates include the

following: loss in income taxes to federal and state government, increase in cost of funding for

social services programs, higher unemployment rates, high juvenile and adult criminal justice

costs, increase in crime and loss of monetary property for victims.

Smink & Heilbrunn (2006), recommend expanding data reporting regulations and laws,

investing in truancy reduction and prevention programs, eliminating push-out practices,

developing school incentives, developing regulations and programs for students supervised by

the court systems, and taking a social service approach to truancy.

Interventions

Developing meaningful interventions for chronic absenteeism is almost as complex as the

problem itself. Each factor that influences absenteeism such as the child, parent, family, peers,

school, and the community should be considered when developing new interventions or

evaluating existing interventions.

12
 Possible student interventions to increase attendance may include addressing anxiety or

fear based concerns through counseling efforts, cognitive behavioral therapy techniques, and

group interventions that include the parent (Mahoney, 2015). External bullying in the form of

cyber-bullying and in-school bullying is a major factor in absenteeism. Programs that help to

combat bullying need to be incorporated in all schools (Reid, 2012).

“One program that reduces chronic absenteeism and truancy is linking the school-to-

home connection, having parent involvement activities on a regular basis, and communication”

(Mahoney, 2015, p. 126). According to Broussard, 2003 (as cited in Kearney, 2008),

interventions to improve parent involvement may incorporate the use of translators, programs

that support child care, parent participation in classroom activities, reduction in transportation

barriers, increase in parent-teacher communication including home visits, and an emphasis on

hiring school staff that understand the needs of the community including language and cultural

considerations. Parental punishment for absenteeism should be re-evaluated. An increase in

mandatory parenting classes and a decrease in fines would be more effective (Reid, 2012).

“Direct parent contact on a daily basis appears to have the most promising results”

(McConnell & Kubina, 2014, p. 254). Attendance can be improved with direct interventions

such as phone calls home to parents from teachers, principals, and support staff (McConnell &

Kubina, 2014). “Telephone contact did improve attendance, staff members praising parents when

their student attended school appeared to improve attendance more than negative calls, family

meetings, class visits, or home visits. Students who were praised maintained a 70% attendance

rate as compared with their peers with a 30% attendance rate, while receiving negative calls” (p.

253). “Studies using indirect parent interventions, addressing other issues beyond attendance,

appeared to have little to no effect on attendance outcomes” (p. 254).

13
 Programs that involve social workers who work directly with families to identify and

prevent problems related to absenteeism are also very effective in decreasing absenteeism and

increasing a positive school culture (Mallett, 2016). “School-based mental health services to

promote all students’ mental health and social-emotional learning could also improve

attendance” (Kearney & Graczyk, 2014, p. 7). According to Miller et al. 2008, (as cited in

Kearney & Graczyk) character education that promotes social competence, life skills, values, and

learning enhance attendance.

“Changing absenteeism issues takes school improvements in structures, teacher

instructional quality, interpersonal relationships with students, and collaboration between

teachers and parents to ensure that students feel welcomed and important in school classrooms”

(Mahoney, 2015, p.126). Intensive training is needed for all school personnel in reference to

interventions to improve attendance. Early intervention strategies and monitoring of identified at-

risk students should be part of every school’s approach to decreasing absenteeism (Reid, 2012).

One positive intervention to improve attendance would be the introduction of an

attendance chart. The chart’s intention is to track student attendance and reward students for their

efforts to increase or maintain regular attendance. The chart can be displayed in a prominent

area of the school in order to reinforce a positive approach to change and align with

corresponding school vision and mission statements (Mahoney, 2015).

According to Mallett (2016), Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a

strong intervention focused on teaching positive student behaviors and behavior management.

PBIS programs often involve student centered teaching strategies, improved tolerance, mentoring

programs, group discussions, and family involvement. PBIS programs have been found to

improve attendance rates, lower suspension rates, improve student and family involvement, and

14
decrease school-based incidents. Another positive approach to school climate change is the

concept of restorative practices. Restorative practices involve student-focused interventions.

These interventions may include the following: peer juries, peer mediation, and peace circles that

allow student dialogue and collective decision making. The focus of restorative practices is

conflict resolution instead of traditional forms of punishment for school-based infractions.

Alternative educational programs or a “school within a school” are considered effective for

increasing attendance rates, graduation rates, academic achievement, and decreasing dropout

rates for at-risk students (Kearney & Graczyk, 2014). Alternative education programs often

include mentoring programs, small group instruction, decreased class size, lower teacher to

student ration, PBIS programs, cooperative learning strategies, community based instruction,

services learning activities, and a more student-centered approach to learning.

Interventions involving a collaborative approach to problem solving may be more

successful in the long term. When schools work with parents to problem solve for solutions to

absenteeism, the root causes are often discovered and addressed. If there is a collaborative

approach, educators can learn more about the specific needs of the students and assist in the

process of identifying needs and monitoring progress (Vanneste, Loo, Feron, Rots, & Goor,

2016). Students who have participated in interventions for absenteeism benefit from long-term

and on-going interventions. When the interventions are no longer available, at-risk students will

no longer experience positive gains even if the initial intervention was considered comprehensive

(Licht, Gard, & Guardino, 1991).

15
 Summary

“Attendance rates, and by inference students’ overall levels of physical and mental

health, can be affected by the presences of environmental, social, and psychological stressors”

(Redmond & Hosp 2008, p. 97). According to Fallis and Opotow, 2003 (as cited in Strand &

Cedersund, 2013), high levels of absenteeism can be effectively addressed by listening to

students, taking student concerns seriously, working collaboratively, and looking inward to

scrutinize school and district based programs or initiatives. Efforts to build relationships and

engage students who are chronically absent have proven to be effective. In order to decrease

chronic absenteeism, teachers need to engage students and demonstrate a consistent willingness

to provide support. Teachers need to listen to the students in reference to reasons why they are

absent. When schools build connections that establish trust and foster on-going relationships

between students and teachers, students feel more connected to the school environment and are

more willing to participate in instruction and school-based activities. “Truancy is a problem for

many students, but disproportionately impacts vulnerable and already at-risk children and

adolescents” (Mallett, 2016, p. 337). Further research is needed for the at-risk populations,

especially the special education population, in order to fully understand the educational, social,

psychological, political, and economic impacts including the short and long-term consequences

for this population.

16
 CHAPTER III

METHODS

The descriptive study was conducted to determine the reasons for student absenteeism

and to compare those reasons with staff perceptions of student absenteeism. Because the

purpose of the descriptive study was to glean information, there was no hypothesis.

Design

The researcher met with small groups of students at each EDLP center. Each student in

the small groups were given an anonymous survey on absenteeism. Students with IEPs, 504

Plans, and non-disabled status were identified prior to the survey and given a survey with a

specific code. The researcher also met individually with staff members at each EDLP center and

asked each staff member to complete an anonymous survey. This kind of study is defined as a

descriptive research. Descriptive research does not involve the use of controls, treatments, or pre-

post assessments. The purpose is to glean information from a specific group or groups of

individuals. It does not have an independent variable. However, there are dependent variables in

this descriptive study. The dependent variable is the difference in each student’s status as

students receiving services or non-disabled students. The other dependent variable is the overall

status of student or staff.

Participants

Five demographic areas were included in this study. The demographic areas were the

EDLP centers within the Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Central areas of

Baltimore County Public Schools. Within those five demographic areas, the researcher surveyed

students with IEPs, 504 Plans, and non-disabled status. The researcher also surveyed staff from

each of the five centers. To qualify for the study, the participants had the following in common:

17
participation in the EDLP for their individual center, participation in grades 9-12, and the status

of students receiving services or non-disabled students. The gender or age of the students did not

have a significant role in their qualifying status. In addition, to qualify for the study, the staff

participants had to be currently employed at their assigned EDLP center and fall under the

defined definition of staff.

Instrument

The researcher and her design advisor created twenty questions to pose to student

participants and ten questions to pose to staff participants. Those questions in the form of surveys

can be found in Appendix A.

Procedure

There were eight steps in the process: create survey questions for both students and staff,

obtain permission from the program supervisor and each EDLP center’s principal, acquire email

addresses, message participants, visit EDLP centers, identify students with IEPs and 504 plans,

conduct surveys, and transcribe information from the surveys into a database for analysis. The

procedure began with the researcher and her design advisor creating the surveys for both the

students and the staff. Next, the researcher met with the IEP chair of one EDLP center to review

the survey and gain insight into how to reach out to the other centers. The researcher also met

with the program supervisor and the principal of another high school’s EDLP to describe the

opportunity, review the surveys, and obtain permission for the study. Over the course of the next

month, the researcher visited each EDLP center and administered both surveys. The data from

each EDLP center was transcribed from the surveys and organized into an Excel file. Specific

Excel formulas were utilized to determine frequency and percentage for each survey question. In

addition, the data was analyzed for patterns of results within the demographic areas and within

18
each category of participants: students receiving services, non-disabled students, and staff. The

data was then transferred into charts that are included in the next chapter.

19
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Data was collected from surveying five different centers throughout Baltimore County

Public Schools. Within those centers, staff, students receiving services, and non-disabled

students were surveyed. A total of 48 staff members, 61 special education students, and 50 non-

disabled students were surveyed. The overall results indicate some similarities and differences

within each category. When compared closely, student and staff perceptions varied greatly

which may indicate a disconnect between what staff believe students need and what students

actually need in reference to school programing and interventions. Tables 1-5 display the results

of the student survey. Each survey question is clearly stated with corresponding results organized

by the response item, frequency of answer and percent. Narrative describing the data follow each

table. Connections to the staff survey are included when applicable.

Table 1

Student Survey Results, Questions 3-4

Question 3: Do you think it is important to attend school regularly?

Students Receiving Services Non-disabled Students
Response Item Frequency Percent Response Item Frequency Percent
Yes 56 92% Yes 49 98%
No 5 8% No 1 2%

Question 4: Does your family think it is important to attend school regularly?

Students Receiving Services Non-disabled Students
Response Item Frequency Percent Response Item Frequency Percent
Yes 60 98% Yes 50 100%
No 1 2% No 0 0%

When asked if students thought attending school regularly was important, slightly more

non-disabled students responded yes in comparison to students receiving services. Eight percent
20
of students receiving services responded no. One hundred percent of non-disabled students

responded yes when asked if their families thought it was important to attend school regularly.

Slightly fewer students receiving services responded yes with two percent responding no (See

Table 1).

Table 2

Student Survey Results, Question 7

Question 7: When you are absent, what is your most common reason for being absent?
Students Receiving Services Non-disabled Students
Response Item Frequency Percent Response Item Frequency Percent
Illness 23 38% Illness 15 30%
Family/Personal Family/Personal
Reasons 17 28% Reasons 14 28%
Personal
Motivation 9 15% Personal Motivation 9 18%

Students were asked about their own most common reason for being absent. Illness,

family/personal reasons, and personal motivation were the top three common reasons for both

the non-disabled students and students receiving services. Slightly more students receiving

services reported illness in comparison to the non-disabled students. Twenty-eight percent of

students in both categories reported family/personal reasons as the second most common reason

for absences. Slightly more non-disabled students reported personal motivation as the third most

common reason for absence. (See Table 2). The staff reported the most common reasons for

students being absent as personal motivation, transportation, and family/personal reasons. It is

interesting to note that the staff did not see illness as a main reason for absence. The staff

focused on personal motivation as the main reason for absence. Transportation to the EDLP

centers was the second reason for student absences. Most students rely on parents and family

members to transport them to the EDLP centers.

21
Table 3

Student Survey Results, Question 9

Question 9: What are the most common concerns that contribute to your absenteeism?
Students Receiving Services Non-disabled Students
Response Item Frequency Percent Response Item Frequency Percent
Too stressed 32 26% Too stressed 27 28%
School - too
challenging 14 11% Easily make up work 16 17%
Not worried about
consequences for
Not accepted at school 11 9% absence 12 13%

Students were asked about their most common concerns that contribute to their absences.

Both the students receiving services and the non-disabled students reported being too stressed as

their number one concern. Slightly more non-disabled students reported being too stressed in

comparison to the students receiving services. Eleven percent of students receiving services

reported that school is too challenging while nine percent reported that they do not feel accepted

at school. Seventeen percent of non-disabled students feel as if it is easy to make up missed work

while thirteen percent are not worried about the consequences for being absent (See Table 3).

The staff reported the most common student concern that contributes to absenteeism as not being

worried about consequences. Being too stressed, and feeling as if school is too challenging were

the second and third reasons.

22
Table 4

Student Survey Results, Questions 10-13

Question 10: What are the most common family influences on your absenteeism?
Students Receiving Services Non-disabled Students
Response Item Frequency Percent Response Item Frequency Percent
Access to Conflict or stressful
transportation 24 22% family situations 14 16%
Conflict or stressful Access to
family situations 15 14% transportation 13 15%
Caring for younger
siblings 13 12% Family values 9 10%

Question 11: What are the most common peer influences on your absenteeism?
Students Receiving Services Non-disabled Students
Response Item Frequency Percent Response Item Frequency Percent
Need for positive
relationships 15 21% Peer Pressure 13 25%
Need for Positive
Peer Pressure 13 18% Relationships 11 21%
Bullying 10 14% Bullying 1 2%

Question 12: What are the most common school-based influences on your absenteeism?
Students Receiving Services Non-disabled Students
Response Item Frequency Percent Response Item Frequency Percent
Student-teacher Student-teacher
relationships 21 24% relationships 11 16%
School culture 14 16% Course content 11 16%
School environment 8 9% School culture 10 14%
School environment 8 11%

Question 13: What are the most common community-based influences on your absenteeism?
Students Receiving Services Non-disabled Students
Response Item Frequency Percent Response Item Frequency Percent
Tension in the
Difficult bus routes 14 20% community 10 17%
Tension in the
community 10 14% Difficult bus routes 10 17%
Concern over policies 5 7% Unsafe neighborhood 5 8%
Concern over policies 4 7%

23
 Family, peer, school-based, and community-based influences often play an important role

in understanding the reasons for absenteeism. Students receiving services reported the most

common family influence as access to transportation and the most common community-based

influence as difficult bus routes. Non-disabled students reported the most common family

influence as conflict or stressful family situations and the most common community-based

influence as tension in the community. Twenty-five percent of the non-disabled students and

eighteen percent of the students receiving services reported peer pressure as the most common

peer influence. Twenty-four percent of students receiving services and sixteen percent of non-

disabled students reported student-teacher relationships as the most common school-based

influence (See Table 4). The staff reported the most common family influences on absenteeism

as access to transportation, family work schedules, and family values. The most common peer

influences on absenteeism were reported as peer pressure, need for more positive relationships,

and bullying. The most common school-based influences on absenteeism were reported as course

content, school culture, and student-teacher relationships. The most common community-based

influences on absenteeism were reported as difficult bus routes, unsafe neighborhood, and

concern over school policies concerning absenteeism.

Table 5

Student Survey Results, Questions 18

Question 18: Which school-based programs or activities encourage you to attend school?
Students Receiving Services Non-disabled Students
Response Item Frequency Percent Response Item Frequency Percent
Graduation 48 58% Graduation 41 62%
Phone calls home from Phone calls home
school 13 16% from school 13 20%
Peer-to peer
PBIS 6 7% mentoring 6 9%
Peer-to peer mentoring 6 7%

24
 Overall, both students receiving services (58%) and non-disabled students (62%) reported

graduation as the most important school-based program or activity that encourages them to

attend school. Phone calls home from school are the second most important activity. Students

receiving services reported Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS) programs as

their third most important activity while non-disabled students reported peer-to-peer mentoring

as their third most important activity (See Table 5). In contrast, the staff reported PBIS as the

most effective school-based program or activity that encourages students to attend school. Adult-

to-student mentoring and graduation were also reported by the staff as effective programs or

activities.

25
 CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The research and results within this study were descriptive in nature and therefore do not

have a hypothesis. The following research question was examined: What are the staff and

student perceptions on absenteeism for students enrolled in a self-paced, blended learning

environment? The research method and instrument supported the question and produced results

that encourage dialogue and further research concerning the reasons for student absenteeism and

the development of effective student-centered interventions.

Implications of Results

Overall student perceptions of the reasons students are most often absent seem to center

around family, community, and school-based influences. Students reported being too stressed,

having difficulty with conflict and stressful family situations, poor student-teacher relationships,

awareness of tension in the community and a negative school culture/environment. Staff seemed

to be aware of some of the same influences but often focused on course content, the impression

that students are not worried about absences and consequences, and access to transportation.

The results of the questions given to both the students and staff reveal areas of need in

terms of further study, student-centered interventions, and the need for more direct services from

school counselors, social workers, and other applicable related service providers. The results

point out the need for further study into interventions that support the whole child in terms of

wellness, ability to manage and understand emotions, the ability to recognize stressful situations

and apply strategies for self-management. The results point out the need for more positive

student-teacher relationships, increased parent-teacher communication and community outreach.

26
 Theoretical Consequences

Interventions should align with the specific needs of a given population. A typical

school-based intervention is a Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) program that

often has a focus on increasing positive school-based behaviors including attendance. The results

from this research study indicate a disconnect between what the students feel contributes to

change in their behavior toward attending school and what the staff perceives. Sixteen percent of

the students receiving services and twenty percent of the non-disabled students responded that

phone calls home concerning attendance encouraged them to come to school. Peer-to-peer

mentoring was also expressed as an effective program or activity. PBIS was not a significant

response for the non-disabled students and only seven percent of the students receiving services

responded that PBIS encouraged them to attend school. In contrast, the staff reported PBIS as

the most effective program or activity along with adult-to-peer mentoring. Phone calls home and

peer-to-peer mentoring were not significant responses for the staff. In theory, educators should

align their interventions with data or input that directly supports the population they serve. The

population represented in this study expressed different needs. Direct and indirect consequences

concerning absenteeism may result from misaligned goals and resources. In the short term, if the

results of this study were considered, the staff would need to re-evaluate their approach to

interventions in order to align their focus with the student’s needs. This would require funding to

develop, implement, and monitor professional learning within the targeted areas such as peer-to-

peer mentoring programs, positive student-teacher relationships, and increased parent

communication. In addition, the resources required to increase social worker, school counselor

and other applicable related service provider’s involvement in the process of providing more

outreach to the families and community would be significant. Many different stakeholders would

27
need to be involved in the planning and implementation process. In the long term, resources will

need to be allocated to the process of determining the effectiveness of new interventions and the

responsiveness to an ever changing population.

Threats to Validity

Many variables exist when determining validity within a descriptive study. A variable

that may pose a threat to the validity of this research study would be the sample itself. The

student participants were not selected at random but identified within the categories of students

receiving services (IEP and 504 Plans) and non-disabled students. However, even though the

students were identified prior to participating in the survey, their participation was still voluntary

and anonymous. The number of participants was not pre-determined. The sample size was

restricted to participation within the EDLP centers throughout Baltimore County Public Schools

and restricted to the voluntary status. Forty-eight staff members, sixty-one students receiving

services, and fifty non-disabled students were surveyed. This represents a moderate amount of

participants as compared to those enrolled in or employed by the program. A larger sample size

may prove to be stronger statistically. Even though the intent of the study was to compare the

different group responses, the groups themselves are unequal which may represent a bias or

internal validity threat. The survey itself was not validated or tested statistically prior to

administration. The design of the survey does not provide a connection between cause and effect

but rather reports on perceptions.

Connections to Previous Studies/Existing Literature

Chronic absenteeism interferes with student progress and the delivery of academic services

and often contributes to at-risk behaviors and increased drop-out rates. This is a known fact and

28
proven many times over within various research studies on absenteeism. When faced with the

challenge of changing this fact, it is imperative to understand the root causes of absenteeism in

order to develop meaningful student-centered interventions for various student populations. It is

also a known fact as demonstrated in the findings of Redmond & Hosp (2008) and Spencer

(2009) that students with disabilities are absent more frequently than students without

disabilities. Because of this connection to existing research, the researcher included the two

different categories of students: students receiving services (IEP and 504 Plans) and non-disabled

students within the research methodology and data analysis. The research results indicated some

differences and similarities between the two different populations as reported in Chapter IV.

Both student and staff survey questions were built around the following categories: overall

reason for student absence; top three reasons for student absences; student concerns regarding

absence; and family, peer, community, and school-based factors that influence absenteeism.

Kearney (2008) determined six reasons for student absenteeism including child, parent, family,

peer, school, and community. Research by Mahoney (2015) and McConnell and Kubina (2014)

support the connection between family influences and absenteeism. By deciding to focus on a

similar categories, the researcher lends support to the findings of Kearney, Mahoney, and

McConnell & Kubina.

The findings of Strand & Cedersund (2013) support the need to develop interventions based

on student input, collaboration with families, and an introspective approach to change. By

conducting the research study and surveying students and staff, the researcher attempted to

understand student concerns and influences on absenteeism. Understanding the reasons why

different student populations are absent may help develop future interventions. Interventions

require time and resources which often have consequences on school and public funding streams.

29
By considering the connection between interventions and funding, the researcher supports

findings by Smink & Heilbrun (2006). The results of the research study indicate that students

respond to interventions that include phone calls home concerning absenteeism. This supports

findings by McConnell & Kubina (2014) who indicated that direct parent contact produced the

most promising results concerning a decrease in absenteeism. Mahoney (2015) also reported on

the importance of developing strong family connections and on-going communication between

parents and school staff. The results of the research study indicate a need for more services

related to health and well-being due to the influence of student stress, family conflict, student-

teacher relationships, and tension in the community on absenteeism. The services may include

an increase in support from social workers, school counselors, and other applicable related

service providers. This supports findings by Mallett (2016) who reported on the importance of

programs that involved social workers’ ability to be proactive in establishing positive

relationships between families and school staff resulting in a decrease in absenteeism and an

increase in positive school culture.

Implications for Future Research

The topic of student absenteeism is far reaching and applicable to today’s concerns

regarding student achievement and post-secondary college and career readiness. In order to

prepare students for the future, they need to be present in schools today. Further research into the

reasons why students are absent from school may include a closer look into the specific reasons

within each of the following categories: peer, family, school-based, and community influences.

Special focus should be given to the topic of personal motivation and individual goal-setting for

all populations. The research study focused on one small population within a large suburban

30
school system. It may be beneficial to consider student and staff perceptions concerning

absenteeism at other schools and various programs throughout Baltimore County Public Schools

in order to compare and contrast perceptions and the level of effectiveness of existing

interventions on a systemic level.

The results from this research study indicate a need for more intervention and collaboration

with social workers, school counselors, and other applicable related service providers. Illness is

a main reason for student absenteeism, but personal motivation, being too stressed to attend

school, family conflict and stressful situations, school culture, and community influences

contribute to the overall problem. Future research may include implementing a new program

specifically designed to address the social and family issues contributing to absenteeism. This

would include studying existing attendance data prior to, during, and after the implementation of

the program to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.

The results also indicate a need for more professional development concerning school

culture and the development of positive student-teacher relationships. Multiple studies can be

conducted to determine if professional development in a variety of applicable topics contributes

to a decrease in overall student absenteeism.

There is a known disproportionality between the levels of absenteeism within the two

groups: students receiving services such as an IEP or a 504 Plan and non-disabled students.

Further research may include a study that strives to understand the influences of individual

disabilities as they relate to absenteeism and corresponding interventions for each population. It

is imperative to understand the barriers to school attendance for the special education population.

Community outreach including health and wellness services along with specialized tutoring may

make a difference. An increase in disability awareness within the community and school

31
environment may also contribute to a decrease in student absenteeism. Absenteeism is an

ongoing problem for many school systems. The topic itself is rich in opportunity and ideas for

future research and study.

Summary

Students and staff were given the opportunity to express their opinions and concerns

through the research method and instrument. The survey was voluntary and anonymous

contributing to a level of honesty and openness in response. The results indicate a need for

dialogue concerning the difference in perceptions between students and staff on the topic of

absenteeism. School-based professional development should be created to address the social and

emotional issues centered on absenteeism such as conflict and stressful family situations,

personal motivation, and feeling too stressed to come to school. Community outreach addressing

tension in the community, school safety, and transportation options may help decrease

absenteeism. Overall, the results indicate a need for more student-centered interventions that are

created with student input and reflection. In order to encourage effective and positive change

toward a decrease in student absenteeism, it is imperative to listen to the student voices and

develop programs, incentives, and interventions that address their immediate concerns.

32
 References

Chronic absenteeism in the nation's schools (2016). (Updated October 27, 2016. ed.).

Washington, D.C.: United States of America Department of Education.

Havik, T., Bru, E., & Ertesvåg, S. K. (2015). Assessing reasons for school non-

attendance. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(3), 316-336.

doi:10.1080/00313831.2014.904424

Kearney, C. (2008). An interdisciplinary model of school absenteeism in youth to inform

professional practice and public policy. Educational Psychology Review, 20(3), 257-282.

doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9078-3

Kearney, C., & Graczyk, P. (2014). A response to intervention model to promote school

attendance and decrease school absenteeism. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43(1), 1-25.

doi:10.1007/s10566-013-9222-1

Licht, B. G., Gard, T., & Guardino, C. (1991). Modifying school attendance of special education

high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 84(6), 368.

London, R. A., Sanchez, M., & Castrechini, S. (2016). The dynamics of chronic absence and

student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(112) 1-28.

Mahoney, J. (2015). Daily, monthly, yearly attendance data charts: Improved attendance equals

improved achievement scores. Children & Schools, 37(2), 125-128. doi:10.1093/cs/cdv002

Mallett, C. (2016). Truancy: It's not about skipping school. Child & Adolescent Social Work

Journal, 33(4), 337-347. doi:10.1007/s10560-015-0433-1

33
McConnell, B. M., & Kubina, R. M. (2014). Connecting with families to improve students

school attendance: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure, 58(4), 249-256.

doi:10.1080/1045988X.2013.821649

Redmond, S. M., & Hosp, J. L. (2008). Absenteeism rates in students receiving services for CDs,

LDs, and EDs: A macroscopic view of the consequences of disability. Language, Speech &

Hearing Services in Schools, 39(1), 97-103.

Reid, K. (2012). The strategic management of truancy and school absenteeism: Finding solutions

from a national perspective. Educational Review, 64(2), 211-222.

doi:10.1080/00131911.2011.598918

Smink, J., & Heilbrunn, J. Z. (2006). Legal and economic implications of truancy. Truancy

prevention in action.

Spencer, A. M. (2009). School attendance patterns, unmet educational needs, and

truancy. Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 309-319. doi:10.1177/0741932508321017

Strand, A. M., & Cedersund, E. (2013). School staffs reflections on truant students: A

positioning analysis. Pastoral Care in Education, 31(4), 337-353.

doi:10.1080/02643944.2013.835858

Vanneste, Y., Loo, M. v. d., Feron, F., Rots, d. V., & Goor, I. v. d. (2016). Attitudes towards

addressing medical absenteeism of students: A qualitative study among principals and

special education needs coordinators in Dutch secondary schools. PLoS ONE, 11(2), 1-18.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148427

34
 Appendices

Appendix A: Student and Staff Survey

Student Survey

35
36
37
38
Staff Survey

39
40