Effects of Chronic Absenteeism on Academic Achievement

            Improving school attendance and truancy in elementary schools has become an important goal for districts as they must track and address chronic absenteeism in their accountability plans under California’s Local Control Funding Formula and the federal Every Student Succeeds Act. The data could be among the measures included in the state’s dashboard of student performance measures as soon as the fall of 2018. Inconsistent school attendance and high absence rates are normally a result of multiple factors related to the young person, their family, neighborhood, and the school itself among others (Sugrue, Zuel, LaLiberteand, 2016) becomes a cause for additional difficulties such as poor academic performance, delinquency, school dropout, employment problems, and earlier and increased substance use and abuse (Fowler, 2015). The purpose of this paper is to develop an initial literature review draft on the effects of chronic absenteeism on academic achievement.

Chronic Absenteeism

            Chronic
absence is a sign that a student is in jeopardy for school failure and possibly
early dropout, regardless of the reason.

Definition of Chronic Absenteeism

            According to the California Department of Education (2018), along with a majority of states in the Unites States (Dougherty, 2018), define a chronically absent student as one who misses at least ten percent of the school year. However, the U.S. federal government defines chronic absenteeism as students who have missed 15 days of school in a given school year compared to the state’s definition of students who have been absent ten percent or more of the school days. Chronic absenteeism is a relatively new designation that is still being defined in state and federal educational policy. Truancy, an established designation, focuses on unexcused absences unlike chronic absenteeism which can include absences for any reason. With truancy, all states have a definition and a code addressing it in their education code, a response structure, and a policy in place that can include both students and parents, as well as the criminal justice system. Chronic absenteeism does not have a common definition or a systematic process for handling cases in all states.

Get Help With Your Assignment

If you need assistance with writing your assignment, our professional assignment writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Assignment Writing Service

Significance of the Problem

            Chronic
absenteeism is a complex problem with many factors with recent research calling
it a nationwide crisis (Chang & Davis, 2015). Missing 10% or more of a school year
greatly increases the probability that a student will experience significant
academic problems (e.g., poor grades and test scores) in the short term and
significant social (e.g., incarceration) and socioeconomic (e.g., educational
attainment and employment) challenges in the longer term (Fowler, 2015, Sugrue, Zuel, LaLiberteand, 2016,
Mallett, 2016, Gottfried & Kirksey 2017, Gershenson, Jacknowitz, & Brannegan,
2017, London, Sanchez, & Castrechini, 2016).

            Students who are repeatedly absent from
school, miss important learning and developmental connections can potentially
have negative consequences on future learning and outcomes. In California,
three-quarters of kindergarten and first grade students who had been
chronically absent, failed meeting state reading and math proficiency standards
in third grade (Harris 2016). When
absenteeism reaches high levels in a classroom or school, all students are
affected as it becomes increasingly difficult for teachers to engage all
students and meet their individual needs. In the United States, approximately
10% of all elementary school students are chronically absent increasing to
almost 20% of high school students (US DOE, 2017).

            Furthermore,
across all racial groups, as student’s progress through elementary school and
into middle and high school, the likelihood of absenteeism increases. Although
chronic absenteeism is a universal problem, it is most prevalent among students
of color, students with disabilities, students enrolled in urban school
districts, and students in high-poverty schools regardless of jurisdiction. Many
of these same students have overlapping characteristics such as poverty,
ethnicity, and locale. Educators are challenged with multiple causes that add
to the severity to the already existing problem, and often come with complex (Lara,
Noble, Pelika, Coons, 2018).

Policies Related to Chronic Absenteeism

            The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), increased
accountability for states, school districts, and schools, however provided more
flexibility for states and local agencies in how they use federal education
dollars. NCLB, signed into law in January 2002, held schools accountable for
raising math and reading proficiency as well as high school graduation rates.
The Adequate Yearly Progress measures held elementary and middle schools
accountable for student absenteeism (NCLB, 2001).

            Although
absenteeism is an old problem, there is now a new impetus for addressing it.
The newly enacted Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which replaces the NCLB, mandates
chronic absenteeism to be reported at the school and district levels, thus
allowing the use of federal funds for preventive measures and training to reduce
chronic absence. In addition, chronic absenteeism can be included as a
school-quality indicator in state-level ESSA accountability systems. States
will now have to establish data systems for tracking student absenteeism and
report the information collected. Therefore, school systems are more likely to
intensify efforts at implementing solutions to chronic absenteeism (ESSA, 2015).

            The U.S. Department of Education released data on
chronic absenteeism, revealing that 14 percent of the total student population
were absent at least 15 days during the 2013-2014 school year. In October 2015,
the presidential administration launched the Every Student, Every Day
initiative (2015) to reduce chronic absenteeism by at least ten percent each
year, beginning in 2016. 

            California
has a new way of addressing local school and district progress known as the
California School Dashboard, which looks at multiple measures including school
attendance rates (Bauer, Liu, Schanzenbach, Shambaugh, 2018).

Theoretical Framework

            Literature has established the important roles, with
the application of systems theory, that community, school, family, and individual
factors play in truancy.  Sugrue,
Zuel, and LaLiberte (2016) state that for
elementary school–age children, the most prominent microsystems are the family
and home environment and the school. Other systematic problems between the
school and home have been found to contribute to poor attendance. Such factors
include the communication difficulties between school staff and families, which
result in parents’ lack of understanding of critical school attendance policies
and procedures and contribute to parents’ negative feelings regarding the
school system. However, few studies implicate motivational factors as
contributing to a student’s decision to attend school. Bandura’s motivational theory
(1986) helps in determining what kinds of motivation would improve school
attendance for at-risk youth. Motivation theory is a multifaceted theoretical
strand that concentrates on why and how human behavior is activated and
directed. A motivational factor may be aligned with the ethic of care theory
(Gilligan, 1982; Nodding, 1984), which is about acts of love and establishing
relationships that empower others (Gilligan, 1982). Nodding (1992) argues that
as human beings, we are all capable of caring “for and about” others. It is the
act of caring that enables interpersonal relationships between individuals to
grow and develop. In a recent research review, Ekstrand (2015) found that
students are drawn to school when there are feelings of school success reached
by strengthening core competencies, when bonding with adults is a possibility,
and when the school climate is positive.

Leading Causes of Absenteeism

            Medical
illness continues to be one of the significant causes and the most legitimate
reasons for chronic absenteeism. (Havik, Bru, & Ertesvag, 2015). In fact,
research indicates that among the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students
who are chronically absent, two-thirds of the absences are typically attributed
to student health problems, such as asthma, and transportation (Samuels,
2015).  Other studies look at more severe
medical issues and their contribution to school nonattendance.

            School
environment is another contributing factor to school nonattendance. Bullying,
curriculum, student-teacher relationships, and other peer issues are all
categorized as school environment concerns (Teasely, 2004).  Research by Lannegrand-Willems, Cosnefroy, and Lecigne, 2011), reinforce school
environment concerns by stating that students who are frequently absent often
feel that they have a lack of control over their education. Due to these
feelings, absentee students feel that have limited control of their success,
view the school system as unfair, and turn to absentee behaviors. Research
recommends that students need to feel more connected to the school, teachers,
and faculty so they are less likely to be frequently absent from school than
their disconnected counterparts (Ekstrand, 2015). Ingul, Klockner, Silverman
& Nordahl, (2012) state that in order for students to value school and
attend, they must feel supported and safe. Connectedness to a faculty member is
a preventive factor in all areas of school environment-related absenteeism (Ingul
et al., 2012; Havik et al., 2015).

            Anxiety
is another key factor in school nonattendance. It is linked closely with other
variables such as the school environment and other mental health concerns
(Kearney & Graczyk, 2013). Anxiety felt by a student can interfere in the daily
life of a student, therefore it can also impact school attendance. Test anxiety
and performance anxiety also occur at high frequencies in school settings. For
some students, generally at the elementary level, separation anxiety can cause
students to struggle leaving their parents to attend school. Lastly,
generalized anxiety can cause students to worry constantly about everything all
day (Kearney & Graczyk, 2013).

            Lastly, familial issues can contribute to school nonattendance if there is the presence of hostility, fighting, violence, and abuse in a household. (Havik et al., 2015). When addressing family-related attendance issues, lower
socio-economic status is simply more significantly correlated with school
nonattendance, however, it is not a causing factor (Havik et al., 2015).

Commonly Used Interventions

            Researchers
have pursued implementation of a variety of interventions to address
absenteeism and factors associated with it. Some interventions attempt to target
a particular factor causing absenteeism, and others try and address absenteeism
on a general level. Response to Intervention, also known as RTI, is one model
for addressing student issues on school, community, familial, and individual
levels (Kearney & Graczyk, 2013). There are three tiers of intervention in
the RTI model based on student need. Beginning with the majority of students, tier
one level addresses student absentee issues on a community or school-wide level,
including providing additional information to families. The second tier addresses
students and the families of students who begin to demonstrate potential
behavior concerns (Kearney & Graczyk, 2013). Interventions at the tier two
level are supported more individually with a teacher, administrator, or
counselor to set up a behavior plan. At tier three, the intervention provided
becomes more intense, such as finding alternative school settings or other
extreme solutions (Kearney & Graczyk, 2013).

            Family-based
interventions attempt to address attendance issues at the familial level and
generally fall under tier two or tier three of the RTI model. Some examples of
family-based interventions are parenting skills groups, family therapy,
interdisciplinary team strategizing meetings, criminal prosecution, and
community referrals (Maynard, Kjellstrand, & Thompsonn, 2013). One
suggestion made by researchers toward improving school nonattendance has been family
therapy (Maynard et al., 2013; Pellegrini, 2007). Community-based interventions
are most always used in collaboration with family-based interventions as they
tend to support each other. Despite the frequent simultaneous use of family and
community-based interventions, there are some community-based interventions
that can be effective alone (Maynard et al., 2013; Epstein & Sheldon, 2007;
Teasley, 2004). Community-based interventions are used with higher frequency in
low-income neighborhoods.

            According
to many research, a strong and balanced school-based intervention system addresses
student needs and disciplinary actions equally, thereby improving school attendance
over time (Teasley, 2004; Freeman, Simonsen, McCoach, Sugai, Lombardi & Horner,
2015; Maynard et al., 2013; Pelligrini, 2007). School-wide
interventions are most effective when they are used in partnership with family
and community-based interventions, such as tier one in the RTI model (Teasley,
2004; Maynard et al., 2013; Pelligrini, 2007). School-based programs are most
effective when it educates teachers about school nonattendance and how teachers
can address it within the classroom (Maynard et al., 2013; Kearney &
Graczyk, 2013). Individual interventions for school nonattendance are usually assigned
to school faculty members as part of a comprehensive school-based approach. As
part of the RTI model, individual interventions are generally part of tier two
or tier three.

            Other
studies found that individual counseling, such as Cognitive Behavior Therapy,
was effective in decreasing absence rates (Kearney & Graczyk, 2013). Consequently,
peer or faculty mentors could be an effective intervention aiding in the
decrease of school nonattendance according to some researchers, stating that
individual interventions can help students address the root of their attendance
issues. Becoming aware of the primary issue can assist counselors or other
mentors to provide support for those concerns.  Often, the primary issue is a huge component
to school nonattendance, and when addressed, decreases absenteeism accordingly
(Teasley, 2004).

Future Research

            Currently,
data is lacking regarding individual interventions used in the school settings.
Research does not have much information about individual intervention methods
that can assist absentee students across nonattendance variables. Furthermore,
future research that utilizes student-level data has the potential to identify
the associations between school organizational effectiveness and individual
chronic absenteeism, particularly by controlling for more concrete measures of
student characteristics. Additionally, using longitudinal student-level data
would allow us to more accurately explore causal relationships between school
organizational effectiveness and chronic absenteeism through analysis of change
in student absenteeism over time (Lenhoff & Pogodzinski, 2018). It is
recommended that future research should collect data on school, family, and community
partnership and student attendance for more than two years in order to
investigate the long-term impact partnerships have on students’ attendance
behaviors (Sheldon & Epstein, 2007).

References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Chang, H. N., & Davis, R. (2015). Mapping the early attendance gap. San Francisco, CA: Attendance Works.
• Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., McCoach, B., Sugai, G., Lombardi, A., & Horner, R. (2015). Relationship between school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports and academic, attendance, and behavior outcomes in high schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 1(11), 1-11.
• Fowler, D. (2015). Criminalization of truancy in Texas: Prosecution of “failure to attend school” in adult criminal courts. Austin, TX: Texas Appleseed.
• Gershenson, S., Jacknowitz, A., & Brannegan, A. (2017). Are student absences worth the worry   in US primary schools? Education Finance and Policy, 12, 137–165.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Gottfried, Michael A., and J. Jacob Kirksey. 2017. “‘When’ Students Miss School: The Role of   Timing of Absenteeism on Students’ Test Performance.” Educational Researcher 46 (3): 119–30.
• Harris, Kamala. (2016). In School + On Track 2016. Office of the Attorney General, State of California Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA.
• Havik, T., Bru, E., & Ertesvag, S. (2015). Assessing reasons for school non-attendance. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(3), 316-336.
• Ingul, J., Klockner, C., Silverman, W., & Nordahl, H. (2011). Adolescent school absenteeism:     Modelling social and individual risk factors. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 17(2), 93-100.
• Kearney, C., & Graczyk, P. (2014). A response to intervention model to promote school attendance and decrease school absenteeism. Child Youth Care Forum, 43, 1-25.
• Lannegrand-Willems, L., Cosnefroy, O., & Lecigne, A. (2011). Prediction of various degrees of vocational secondary school absenteeism: Importance of the organization of the educational system. School Psychology International, 33(3), 294-307.
• Lara, J., Noble, K., Pelika, S., Coons, A. (2018). Chronic Absenteeism. NEA Research Brief, 57- 2018, 1-8.
• Lenhoff, S. & Pogodzinski, B. (2018). School Organizational Effectiveness and Chronic             Absenteeism: Implications for Accountability, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 23(1-2), 153-169.
• London, R.A., Sanchez, M., & Castrechini, S. (2016). The dynamics of chronic absence and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(112).
• Mallett, C. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: A comprehensive assessment. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
• Maynard, B., McCrea, K., Pigott, T., & Kelly, M. (2013). Indicated truancy interventions for chronic truant students: A campbell systematic review. Research on Social Work    Practice, 23(1), 5-21.
• Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Pellegrini, D. (2007). School non-attendance: Definitions, meanings, responses, interventions. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(1), 63-77.
• Samuels, C. (2015). Districts work with families to curb pre-K absenteeism. Education Week, 34(24), 7.
• Sugrue, E. P., Zuel, T., & Laliberte, T. (2016). The Ecological Context of Chronic School Absenteeism in the Elementary Grades. Children and Schools, 38(3), 137-145. 
• Teasley, M. (2014). Absenteeism and truancy: Risk, protection, and best practice implications for school social workers. National Association of Social Workers, 26(2), 117-127.