Literature Review

I - Literally, the term “tardiness” implies a situation where an individual is late in happening or
arriving “(Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary ,2010)”. The term tardiness is synonymous
with “lateness” which implies arriving after the expected, arranged or usual time “(Oxford
Advanced Learners Dictionary, 2010)”. Besides, Tardiness as coming, occurring or remaining
after correct, usual or expected time. Therefore, the term “class tardiness” has been viewed as
students coming late, not attending lecture on time, missing out initial time from the first period
and primarily not being present on time.”( Malik et al., n.d.)”. Many researchers have developed
checklists of “deviant” school behaviors which are associated with poor school performance.
Tardiness and excessive absences as part of criteria which predict the like dropping out of school
“(Mizell1987)”.excessive absences and tardiness constituted the 3rd most common reason for
student failure in school. “(Ligon and Jackson 1988)”. Low attendance and habitual tardiness
were among the common characteristics of low-achieving high school students.”(Cuellar,
1992)”.Low achievement correlated with chronic absenteeism in high school students.
“(Estcourt1986)”. Many school interventions to improve student performance use tardiness and
absences as indicators of success or failure of the intervention. However, the relationships among
tardiness, absences, and grades and dropping-out or 11 school failure are complex. The
phenomenon of class tardiness in the literature has been viewed as students coming late, not
reaching school on time, missing out initial time from the first period and primarily not being
present in the time set by the school. Educational psychologists took a great interest to find the
causes of and solutions to, tardiness and subsequently worked a lot to get the most accurate
findings. They were more focused about discovering the root causes behind tardiness so that
this problem is addressed appropriately. There are many reasons for the students to show
tardiness in the school, few reasons are directly related to the student that is students are not
taking their breakfast on time, students are de-motivated to come to the school and the young
ones who find it extremely difficult to get up early in the morning. Whereas a few are not related
to the students, but fall on others like family members, van drivers and others who do not support
students to be on time. Researchers view tardiness as a form of absence because this is how
students miss a part of their class. Tardiness is defined as “coming, occurring or remaining after
the correct, usual or expected time; delayed “(Free Dictionary)”. Therefore tardiness can broadly
be defined as missing time over a course of a school day. For that reason researchers reckon it as
a chronic problem as two of the classes which the researchers have taken into consideration, have
around six students who turn up late every other day and show signs of lethargy and
disengagement from school. The familiar faces are lined up every morning outside the
attendance office with no concern or emotion on their faces whenever the researchers pass by.
This attitude can even become more adverse when the students re-promoted from their middle
school to high school. Unpunctuality in the middle school can develop into high school lateness
where the early slow disentanglement evolves into later truant attitude. Educational
psychologists, stated that school tardiness and absenteeism accelerate if the students are not
committed to their school. In an earlier study, reached at the same conclusion, vigorously stating
that if students do not at home in their school environments, they prefer to be absent or tardy at
school. “(Kirkpatrick, Cronsone and Elder 2001)”.
II
The purpose of this study is to determine if an intervention program can have a significant effect on
increasing student attendance, reducing tardiness and improving academic achievement. Chapter II
provides a review of the literature and the theoretical foundation for this study. The sections of this
chapter include: (a) attendance, (b) intervention programs designed to reduce tardiness, and (c)
intervention programs designed to increase attendance. Absenteeism California schools receive funding
based on students’ average daily attendance (ADA). In 1997, Senate Bill 727 passed, which limited
attendance to actual attendance only. Before the passage of this bill, schools received revenue even if
students had excused absences such as illness, medical appointments, or funerals. This bill was
introduced out of a concern that poor school attendance (excused or unexcused) increased a student’s
risk of dropping out of school. The School Attendance Improvement Handbook, published by the
California Department of Education, states that, “Regular school attendance is a necessary part of the
learning process and the means to graduation with a good education” (CDE, 2000, p. 7). In a report on
absenteeism in the nation’s public schools, Balfanz and Burns (2012) stated that students need to be in
school daily to succeed. They defined chronic absenteeism as students who have missed 10% or more of
the school year or 8 in the previous year missed a month or more of school. However, most schools
measure only average daily attendance that is based on the entire student body, not specific students.
Therefore a school could have 90% average daily attendance but still have 40% of its students
chronically absent. There are only six states that measure chronic absenteeism by individual student.
The researchers used these six states to produce an estimate of the nation’s attendance challenge. Their
results showed a conservative estimate of the national rate of chronic absenteeism to be 10% to 15%.
That means that 5 to 7.5 million students are chronically absent. The researchers found that
absenteeism begins to rise in middle school and continues to climb through high school, with seniors
frequently having the highest rate of all. The report communicated that even without improvements in
the American education system getting students to school every day will drive up achievement, high
school graduation, and college attainment rates. There are many reasons why students are absent from
school. Dube and Orpinas (2009) studied positive and negative behavior reinforcements of students who
refused to go to school. The model looked at two reasons students do not go to school. One was
because of negative reinforcement, indicating that students refused to go to school to avoid fear or
anxiety-producing situations. The second was because of positive reinforcement, indicating that
students refused to go to school to pursue positive tangible rewards such as gaining parental attention,
watching television or playing video games. The study looked at secondary data collected from school
social workers. The sample was taken from a suburban Atlanta district and 9 was comprised of 99
students (58 boys and 41 girls) in grades 3-8 who had no documented chronic illness or health problems
and were referred to a school social worker for health problems from October 2005 through October
2006. The researchers gathered data through the use of an informational survey, the School Refusal
Assessment Scale for Children (SRAS-C), the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and the Reduced
Aggression and Reduced Victimization Scale. The data were evaluated using separate one-way analyses
of variance. A Cronbach’s Alpha was run to establish the internal validity of the surveys and scales used.
The informational survey was given to each student by the social worker, who asked for the primary
person in charge of the participant’s education, the number of excused and unexcused absences,
academic needs, experience of any traumatic or stressful events, demographic information and
academic achievement information. The results showed that the mean number of excused absences was
6.4 days (SD = 5.51), the mean number of unexcused absences was 7.4 days (SD = 4.24) and neither of
these differed significantly between gender. The majority of students (57%) said both their mother and
father were in charge of their education. The average estimated GPA was 2.8 (SD = 0.68). To measure
traumatic events, the researchers took a total integer count of stressful life experiences for each
student, with a possible range of 0 to 13. Over half (54.5%) of students had faced at least one traumatic
or stressful event, with the most frequent event being divorce (32.3%) and separation from parents
(28.3%). 10 The researchers used the School Refusal Assessment Scale for Children (SRAS-C) to measure
positive and negative behavior reinforcement related to school refusal behavior. In this scale, responses
ranged from never = 0 to always = 6. The primary reason for missing school was based on the highest
mean score. From the results, three groups were identified: 1) multiple, which were students who
missed school for both positive and negative reasons (defined by a 0.5 or lower point spread between
the two highest scores for negative and positive reinforcement), 2) positive, which were students who
missed school for positive reasons such as being able to spend more time with their parents, and 3) no
profile, which were students who had scores lower than one across both profiles. Of the 99 students,
17.2% had a multiple; 60.6% had a primary profile of positive reinforcement; and 22.2% had no profile.
These descriptive results show that most students missed school for positive tangible reinforcement.
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire was used to assess emotional and behavioral difficulties. In
this scale, response categories were not true = 0, somewhat true = 1, and certainly true = 2. Higher
scores indicated a higher level of problem behaviors. The results showed that students in the multiple
reinforcement group had significantly higher mean scores for total difficulties than the positive
reinforcement group and no profile group (p < .05). The final scale used was the Reduced Aggression
and Reduced Victimization Scale, which was developed for use with upper elementary and middle
school students to measure relational aggression or victimization and overt behaviors. This 11 scale
measures how frequently each behavior occurred during the seven days prior to the survey (0 to 6 or
more times). The scores were added and higher scores indicated increased relational aggression and
victimization. An analysis of variance was conducted and the results showed that students in the
multiple reinforcement group had a significantly higher mean of being victimized (p < .05) and a higher
mean count of traumatic or stressful events (p < 0.5). The no profile group had a significantly lower
frequency of perpetuating aggression than the other groups (p < 0.5). The study supports the idea that
the majority of students’ attendance problems are positively reinforced. Dube and Orpinas (2009)
stated, “This finding is not surprising, given that previous studies have found that students often think
that school is boring, classes are unengaging, and staff members are unapproachable, making absences
more likely to occur ” (pp. 91-92). The results showed that school absenteeism is a complex problem and
that interventions should be focused on the problems and not just absenteeism itself. The notion that
students being “bored” in school is what leads them to cut class or miss school, was also confirmed in
another study by Fallis and Optow (2003). The study took place at two large urban schools in two cities
in the Northeastern United States (School 1 N = 3000 students; School 2 N = 1000 students). In both
schools, over half of the student population was eligible for free and reduced lunch, which indicated low
family income. Both schools had high dropout rates between 22–42%. Although the schools had diverse
populations, the largest student groups were Black and Latino (94–98%). Qualitative data were collected
by two student 12 researchers. In the first year, they analyzed data collected from 10 interviews
completed at School 1. In the years that followed, they collected qualitative data from 160 students who
were divided into eight focus groups. Freshmen through seniors, representative of the school diversity,
were recruited by teachers at their schools and participation in the focus groups was voluntary. In the
focus groups, students discussed their views on cutting class. After the focus group sessions, the
researchers worked jointly with university-based researchers to identify themes that arose from the
meetings. They found that students cut classes as a reaction to their perceptions that schools are
bureaucratic, sterile, and do not respect their academic preferences or goals. The study also indicated
that student, staff and teacher burn-out was a factor in cutting class. In addition, the labeling of students
as losers also led to not wanting to attend class. The study established that students used the word
“boring” to label many aspects of school. In their research, students used the word boring to mean a
one-way, top down relationship with a teacher who failed to engage or include them in the lesson.
Students felt this type of teaching method was disrespectful. In the study, students also cited that their
peers who needed more help or were disrespectful in the classroom distracted them from being
engaged or challenged. A final finding was that students were also aware that resources differed
between schools, and that at some schools their peers had access to more elective choices, clubs, and
extracurricular activities. The lack of these resources contributed to the students’ perception that school
is boring. The researchers recommended that instead of schools investing time and money in 13
punitive interventions for students who cut class, they should foster student voice and engagement.
Eliciting student feedback and criticism on cutting class can give schools an opportunity to better
understand students’ perspectives and experiences and give them guidance in designing intervention
programs. Gump (2005) also studied cutting class and its connection to student achievement at the
university level. He studied 300 undergraduate students in twelve discussion sections of Introduction to
Japanese Culture, which was a course that fulfilled a general education requirement. The study took
place through four semesters, beginning in fall 2001 and ending in spring 2003. Gump gathered data on
attendance at weekly discussion sessions. Absences were counted for students who did not provide a
doctor’s note or make prior arrangements for being absent. Twenty percent of the student’s grade was
directly related to attendance, which included points for attendance, participation and weekly quizzes. A
correlation analysis was run to determine if there was a relationship between attendance and grades.
The researcher found that as absences increased, grades (generally) decreased (p < .001). He suggested
that future studies should differentiate data between gender, class, and school. Another study that
looked at the relationship between attendance and academic achievement was conducted by Gottfried
(2011). In this study, he sought to eliminate the variable of family influence on attendance and school
performance by employing a model of family fixed effects on a longitudinal sample of siblings within the
same household in a large urban school district. The study took place over six 14 years from 1994–1995
through 1999–2000 (total sample N=33,400, sibling sample N=6,872). The study analyzed absences and
outcomes of standardized test scores in mathematics and reading based on a comprehensive data set of
student, neighborhood, teacher, classroom, grade, school, and annual observations. Data were analyzed
using a standard linear education production function developed by education economists and
sociologists. Gottfried found that absences remained significantly and negatively related to reading
academic performance in all models (p < .07). He also found that the negative relationship between
missing school and standardized testing achievement was slightly greater for mathematics than reading
(p < .08). Gottfried concluded that, “Missing school is directly linked to deterioration in achievement” (p.
172). Barry, Chaney, and Chaney (2011) researched how truancy and recent alcohol use affected
students’ educational aspirations. The participants were selected yearly, beginning in 1975, from a large,
nationally representative sample of adolescent students in 130 public and private secondary schools
throughout the United States. Students were surveyed on their beliefs concerning personal lifestyle,
school performance and satisfaction, and beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes related to drug and alcohol
use. The survey was originally intended for high-school seniors but was expanded to include students in
eighth through tenth grade in 1991. The survey was conducted during regularly scheduled class times.
Surveys from the students were anonymous, while senior respondents were asked to give their names
and mailing addresses on a separate form for follow-up surveys. The survey addressed 15 demographic
variables, beliefs concerning personal lifestyle, school performance and satisfaction, intergroup and
interpersonal attitudes, and beliefs related to alcohol and other drug use. Because this was a secondary
analysis, they looked at specific data from the survey that related to this particular study which included
adolescent alcohol behavior, truancy, and personal academic aspirations. The data were analyzed using
a logistic regression analysis to assess the predictor variables impact on one’s educational aspirations.
Initially they looked at the independent variables of reported binge drinking and truancy. They also
looked at demographic variables such as age, sex, race, and father and mother’s educational level. The
study found that as truant behavior increased, the likelihood of plans to attend a 4-year
college/university decreased (p = 0.00). The researchers also found that students who reported less
frequent binge drinking behavior and truancy had higher odds of having educational aspirations of
attending a 4 year college/university (p = 0.00). The researchers recommended that schools consider
developing programs that promote connectedness to school. Knesting and Waldron (2006) conducted a
qualitative case study on how atrisk students persist in school. They studied 17 high school students
who were identified as at-risk for dropping out at a comprehensive high school with enrollment of 1,333
students. The high school performed above average in several areas compared to others in the state,
but was chosen because the graduation rate had dropped over 5 years from 88% to 71.5%. The students
were selected by teachers who worked with at-risk students. Of the seventeen students chosen, 10
were males 16 and 7 females; 13 were white and 4 were African American. Students’ ages ranged from
15 to 19, and there was one student in grade 9, six in grade 10, three in grade 11, and seven in grade 12.
Over a 5 month period, Knesting and Waldron conducted interviews with students seeking background
information, such as what the students thought of their school, what they liked and did not like about
their school, what advice they would give to others who considered dropping out of their school, and if
there was anybody at their school they would suggest to seek advice if dropping out of school was a
consideration. They also conducted interviews with school administrators, counselors, social workers
and teachers to understand how the school supported at-risk students. There were also informal
observations conducted in classrooms, during passing periods and before and after school. To record
data, field notes were taken as soon as possible following interviews and observations. Knesting and
Waldron broke the data collected into “units” of instances found in interviews and observations. These
units were then reread and grouped into categories containing several units until themes began to arise.
The themes were triangulated using data gathered in classroom observations and faculty interviews.
Out of the data analysis process, Knesting and Waldron developed theories to describe students’
persistence to earn a diploma. They found that there were three factors that were important to
students’ persistence. The first was that students had “goal orientation.” This meant that they believed
that something beneficial would result from graduating such as improving their life, helping them
achieve financial independence, the ability to continue their 17 education, or avoiding the consequences
of being a drop-out. The second factor was a “willingness to play the game.” They had learned that they
needed to change their behavior and meet school demands in order to stay in school. This included
figuring out and following the rules, accepting that they needed to respect the school discipline policies,
and minding their own business and staying focused on their goals. The third factor was “meaningful
connections.” Students identified friends, family, school counselors, deans, teachers and administrators
as people who helped them stay in school. Teachers were cited the most as building meaningful
connections with students. They identified several things that teachers do that foster these connections:
teachers communicate caring; they look for the good in students; they do not give up on students who
have made mistakes in the past; they know that the students’ lives outside the classroom affect their
behavior in the classroom; they hold high expectations for students but make accommodations; and
they provide a safe haven for students. Knesting and Waldron found, “Once this group of at-risk
students had a goal focus, an understanding of what they needed to do to graduate and a relationship
with a supportive adult, they were able to move from talking about staying in school to actually doing
something to help them stay in school” (p. 609). They concluded that to help students graduate, high
school educators should emphasize people not programs, focus on the positive, have high expectations,
talk with students, and pay attention to the small things. Tardiness Interventions Tardiness to class is
another aspect of attendance that affects many students. Education Code Section 48260 states that
students who are tardy to class in excess of 30 minutes, without a valid excuse, for more than three
school days in a year are considered truant (CDE, 2000). There are several studies on interventions that
are designed to combat student tardiness. Active supervision is one intervention method that has been
studied to decrease student tardiness. Johnson-Gros, Lyons, and Griffin (2008) assessed whether active
supervision in the hallways had an effect on student tardiness. The study was conducted at a rural high
school in the Southeast with a student population of 450. To determine the rate of tardiness they looked
at the number of referrals for tardiness per week during third, fourth and fifth period. Active supervision
took place only during third and fifth period. They found that tardiness decreased during third period
20% (M = 9, range: 2 to 16) from the baseline (M = 2, range: 0 to 4) and during fifth period 20% (M = 7,
range: 3 to 11) from the baseline (M = 1, range: 0 to 3). The results showed that active supervision can
be an effective intervention to reduce tardiness between passing periods. Active supervision was also
studied by Tyre, Feuerborn, and Pierce (2011) who investigated the implementation of a school wide
intervention program to reduce student tardiness. The program used elements of a school wide Positive
Behavior Support program, which included explicit instruction of student expectations, implementation
of student consequences, and active supervision. The study was 19 conducted at a combined middle and
high school (grades 7–12) in Washington State, which was operated by the Bureau of Indian Education.
The student population was 98% Native American, although many students identified themselves as
multiethnic. All students were on free and reduced lunch. To combat chronic tardiness, the school
implemented a program called Safe Transitions and Reduced Tardies (START). Parts of the program
included active supervision during passing periods, explicit teaching of student expectations for behavior
during passing, and consistent and immediate consequences for tardies. The first consequence of 1–3
tardies required students to fill out a postcard immediately upon being tardy to class giving reasons why
they were tardy and how they would avoid the behavior in the future. The postcard was sent home to
the parent or guardian. The consequences got progressively more severe and included lunch detention,
afterschool detention, Friday school from 3–5:30 p.m., and a parent conference. The researchers
tracked daily tardies, which were averaged monthly. They calculated the mean of the monthly tardy
averages for the three months preintervention and the 17 months after intervention implementation.
They then compared the median for the months prior to intervention to the median of the months after
intervention implementation. They found that there was a 67% decrease in average tardy rates. The rate
of tardiness remained at lower levels for 17 months. Because the researchers only looked at tardy rates
and not the effects of tardiness on academic achievement, they recommended that more research be
done with attendance and how it relates to academic achievement. 20 Densley, Young, Caldarella, and
Christensen (2011) studied the use of teacher written praise notes as an intervention method to
decrease tardiness. The study took place at a suburban school with a primarily Caucasian student
population. Six general education students were chosen for the study, three who were moderately tardy
and three who were severely tardy. Teachers were asked to write praise notes with a positive comment
on the days students were punctual. The researchers collected data on the number of minutes students
were late each tardy incident and the number of praise notes that were written by teachers. They
collected baseline data on tardiness for the two weeks prior to implementation of the praise notes. They
divided the total number of written praise notes by the total number of times students arrived at school
on time. The results showed that for the moderately tardy students, praise notes were written on 23%
of the days they arrived on time, and their minutes of tardiness decreased by 78%. The results showed
that for the three severely tardy students, praise notes were written on 35% of the days they arrived on
time, and their minutes of tardiness decreased by 84%. The authors concluded that writing one positive
praise note a week had a positive impact on student attendance. Interventions to Improve Student
Attendance When students are continually absent and tardy from school, their educational future is in
jeopardy. Schools should offer intervention programs for students who have documented attendance
problems. Programs need to address the attendance problems and offer solutions to the problems that
contribute to the lack of student academic success (CDE, 2000). 21 Galotti, Kozberg, and Gustafon
(2009) researched the impact of goal setting and decision making on at-risk youth. The research was
conducted at the Wisconsin ChalleNGe Academy, which is a program that helps high school dropouts
earn a diploma. The program is run by the National Guard and focuses on helping students develop life
skills. The sample for the study included 90 cadets who completed the first phase of the program. The
researchers used several survey instruments. In the first phase of the program, they surveyed the cadets
about their decision to enter the ChalleNGe program, how they approached that decision, and what
their goals were. In the second phase of the program, they were asked what postprogram options they
were considering, what factors they took into consideration to come up with those options, and what
their goals were. To analyze the cadets’ goal setting, the researchers compared the mean number of
goals the cadets listed in phase 1 with the mean number of goals they listed in phase 2. They found that
the cadets listed significantly fewer goals in phase 2 (5.67) than in phase 1 (8.27). To analyze the cadets’
decision making capabilities they looked at the criteria the cadets listed when they described making
decisions about joining the ChalleNGe program, in phase 1, and what postprogram options they had
decided on, in phase 2. They found that the mean number of criteria for the decisions the cadets made
declined from phase 1 (3.03) to phase 2 (2.27). The researchers analyzed the data further using a factor
analysis, which showed that as the tenure of the cadets in the program increased, they listed fewer
criteria for making decisions and developed a more positive reaction to the process of decision making.
The intervention showed that students could develop 22 and refine their goal setting and decision
making process to establish clearer and more streamlined direction regarding achievement of goals.
DeSocio et al. (2007) focused their study on the effects of teachers who built mentoring relationships
with students who were chronically absent and in danger of dropping out of school. The study took
place at a northeast urban high school with a diverse population of 2000 students. One hundred and
three students were chosen who had 15 or more unexcused absences in the previous school year and
were 16 years of age or younger. These students were randomly assigned into three groups: one group
who received intervention (n = 29), a control group who did not receive intervention (n = 37), and a
group of students who were unable to enroll (n = 37). Teachers were invited to participate and seven
were chosen based on their enthusiasm and positive beliefs about helping at-risk students succeed. Each
teacher was randomly assigned four students. The teachers established relationships with students
through checking with them daily, encouraging new interests, providing tutoring services, advocating
and helping them to resolve problems they were experiencing. Baseline attendance and GPA data were
collected on students for the semester prior to intervention and were compared to attendance and GPA
data collected during the semester of intervention. The researchers conducted an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to examine the difference between the treatment groups. The results showed that absences
significantly decreased among the students who received intervention (M = 4.5 days missed, F(2, 89) =
5.92, p = .004) than students in the unable to enroll group and control group (M = 28 days missed, F(2,
89) = 3.16, p = 23 .047). They also conducted a Pearson chi square analysis to examine the probability of
students staying in school. They concluded that students in the intervention group were more likely to
complete the school year (p =.027). The advocacy and mentorship these students experienced helped
them to connect to school and become engaged in their education. Fantuzzo, Grim, and Hazan (2005)
evaluated the implementation of Project START (Stop Truancy And Recommend Treatment), a
community-based intervention program designed to reduce truancy. The participants included 567
elementary, middle, and high school students from a northeastern urban public school district. All of the
participants had been referred to the court system for truancy. They were divided into three groups:
one group who was referred to traditional family court, one to Project START, and nonreferred truants.
Students who enrolled in the Project START program attended court proceedings at family courts
created at designated school buildings within the community, which reduced transportation and social
barriers. There were also community based caseworkers present at the proceedings who connected the
family to community resources such as counseling, occupational training, etc. Court data were collected
on dates of truancy hearings and school data were collected on the number of days school was
attended, the number of excused absences and the number of unexcused absences per student. The
researchers used a two-way ANOVA to determine if there were differences in truancy rates among the
groups in three different time periods (30 days, 60 days, 1 year post). The results showed that at 24 30
days, absences had significantly decreased in the Project START group and the group referred to
traditional family court (p < .001), but not in the nonreferred group. At 60 days, students enrolled in
Project START maintained this lower absence rate, while absences grew in both the traditional and
nonreferred groups. At a one year postcourt period, all groups had higher rates of absenteeism;
however, the Project START group still had a significantly lower absentee rate compared to the two
other groups (p < .01). The researchers recommended future research that included ongoing monitoring
and postintervention treatment of students with attendance problems. Summary The literature
suggested that when students are absent from school, cut class, or are tardy, their academic
achievement is affected and they are in danger of not graduating from high school. Students miss school
for a variety of reasons. They find school boring, classes unengaging, and staff members unapproachable
(Dube & Orpinas, 2009). Researchers have looked at interventions that improve attendance and
tardiness; however, there is limited research on interventions that address both student attendance and
academic achievement. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine if the Students for Success
Intervention Program has a positive effect on improving student tardiness, attendance and academic
achievement. Chapter III will provide the methodology, comprised of school demographics, sample
population, instrumentation, and statistical analysis.