Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 1
Running Head: Attendance and Socioeconomic Status
Attendance Rates Among Socioeconomic Status Subgroups
By
Jarrett Morris
Submitted to
Educational Leadership Faculty
Northwest Missouri State University
Department of Professional Education
College of Education and Human Services
Maryville, MO 64468
Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements for
61‐683 Research Paper
Fall 2013
July 15, 2014
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 2
ABSTRACT
The study was completed to find if there is a significant correlation between
attendance rates and those students who receive free or reduced lunch. Students from
low socioeconomic status, specifically free or reduced lunch were used in the study. It
should be noted and taken into consideration that this study was performed in a
suburban school district not the normal urban district where this issue seems to be
more prevalent. Throughout research within this suburban school, it was shown there is
an inconsistent relationship between students who miss school and their socioeconomic
status. There is a moderately strength of relationship with a correlation coefficient of
.64, which means there is a strong practicality with a p‐value of .56, but no significant
relationship. After taking in all the data, collectively determining the findings, it has
been found that there needs to be a focus on low attendance rate for those students
who receive free or reduced lunch
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 3
INTRODUCTION
Background, Issues and Concerns
With so many different races and socioeconomic statuses throughout the United
States there is a growing concern regarding the attendance of those students. Many
have wondered if there is a correlation between low attendance rates and low
socioeconomic status. In order for schools in Missouri to be current on the Missouri
School Improvement Program (MSIP 5), the students as a whole must have an average
attendance of at least 90%.
Also the study whether students of low socioeconomic status, which is
determined using free or reduced lunch, may have lower attendance levels than
students who are not on the free or reduced lunch program. This is a concern that has
been very public; this is such a big issue because many educators are attempting to
connect the dots on why certain students struggle.
Practice under Investigation
The practice under investigation will be analyzing attendance data rates of
students from differing levels of socioeconomic status in suburban schools in Missouri.
School Policy to be Informed by Study
The standard this research study will focus on is schools meeting 90%
attendance from 90% of the students. If the attendance from a certain race or
socioeconomic status shows to be below MSIP 5 Standard, steps will be taken within the
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 4
school to help increase attendance within this subsection. All schools in Missouri must
meet all MSIP 5 standards to obtain full funding given from the state.
Conceptual Underpinning
The right for a student to learn is theirs from ages 5‐21, but in order to learn
those students must be present in a school. The reasons for students to miss school
vary to the extreme; it is up to the school to determine why certain students are missing
and to develop a plan to help that child meet the goals of the school of 90% attendance
or greater. With students attending school on a more regular basis with the combining
of an adequate time on task ratio throughout the day, student achievement will
increase. Theoretically, the higher the attendance a student has, the higher their
achievement rate will eventually be. Overall with those students who struggle
socioeconomically as well as academically, being in school for 90% of the time or more
will help increase the achievement within the classroom.
Statement of the Problem
If there is an attendance gap among students of a certain socioeconomic status,
an action team within the school should gather to create a plan to help lessen the
attendance problem.
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 5
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine the attendance rate of student
subgroups in a suburban middle school, based on socioeconomic status.
Research Questions
RQ#1: Is there a correlation between free or reduced lunch rates and attendance
rate?
RQ#2: If a correlation is shown, what is the district doing to intervene on behalf of
these subgroups?
Null Hypotheses
There is no correlation shown between socioeconomic status and attendance
rate.
Anticipated Benefits of the Study
The anticipated benefit of the study is the recognition of low attendance among
certain subgroups in a specific suburban middle school. In order to meet the current
Missouri State Improvement Program standards (MSIP 5), administrators and teachers
will be able to take this information and focus on initiatives to increase attendance.
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 6
Definition of Terms
Free or reduced lunch – A program allowed in schools for students whose family
income falls below a certain level. This data is often used to determine socioeconomic
status in schools.
DESE – Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
MSIP 5 – Missouri State Improvement Program. This is the most current
accountability system used to review and accredit pubic school districts in Missouri.
This is the 5th version.
Action Team – A school site based council made of up administrators and
teachers. Site council serves as a conduit for teachers and administrators to express
concerns and solve daily process issues.
Summary
A study was conducted to see if there was any correlation between
socioeconomic status and the attendance at a suburban middle school in the Midwest.
If the data shows a direct correlation between socioeconomic status and attendance, it
will be recommended to this school that they need to implement practices that will
improve attendance among these groups. The goal of this study is to help schools
determine which socioeconomic groups should be targeted to help increase attendance
to meet the MSIP 5 Standard requirements.
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 7
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of the MSIP 5 is to create a well‐expressed vision and focused goals
necessary to bring about positive results in schools (MSIP 5, 2013). This resource most
importantly provides links to the MSIP 5 toolkit, which allows administrators to grasp on
the new version of MSIP. On the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education website, there is a description of the newest version of the Missouri School
Improvement Plan. The MSIP 5 program helps build a structure of accountability for
reviewing and accrediting public schools in Missouri.
Funding for a school is very important and when incorporating the MSIP 5 goals
and where each school ranks will determine how much funding is provided by the state.
In order to meet the MSIP goal, one determining factor would be attendance rate. MSIP
5 wants each school to have 90% of students attending school 90% of the time, which
would then give that school a perfect score. If an individual is inquiring or seeking ways
to manipulate the data they may visit The Missouri Comprehensive Data System website
(MCDS, 2013). Principals must make attendance to school a priority for all students in
order for funding to maintain for the next budget.
To determine the correlation between performance of students and their
attendance many studies have been conducted. One determining factor has been the
socioeconomic status and the effects that may have on students. “Several studies have
deemed attendance as important enough to be evaluated as an academic outcome,
thereby suggesting that increased attendance is a direct indicator, rather than
determinant, of school success” (Gottfried, 2010, p. 2). This study developed in order to
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 8
evaluate relationships in elementary and middle schools in urban setting, the main focus
being on socioeconomic status amongst other variables.
The desire to reach academic goals is the main focus for raisin attendance rates,
it may seem to be funding through this study but that is not the case. The student
achievement and success is the priority. The importance of student attendance within
urban schools is highlighted through the research of Gottfried. (Gottfried, 2010)
“Research has suggested that the academic, sociological and economic issues
related to both increased and decreased attendance are heightened for youth in
urban schools systems. Thus the importance of attending school in early years
appears to be crucial for urban youth, because it is particularly these minority
and high‐poverty students who fall behind…if the premise is true, then
identifying early strong relationships between attendance and achievement can
be indicative of reduced future academic risk among young urban students”
(Gottfried, 2010, p. 2).
In order to help administrators combat the probability of school failure before the
problems become intensified, Gottfried has suggested several casual effects attendance
has on academic performance and how that would lead to understand the early
educational experiences of urban youth.
For many instances in a school setting it’s not about whether or not the ability to
diagnose a problem but what steps should be taken to help relieve the cause of the
issue. Research has been done to analyze what students truly miss out on when they do
not attend school as well as what other outside factor may be influenced. Students do
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 9
not only miss out on the many educational information that is needed to be successful,
studies by several people have concluded that those students also tend to engage in
high‐risk behaviors more frequently than their peers with higher attendance rates. An
article that was compiled by Smink and Reimer (2005) shows effective strategies to
contest low attendance for students. “Several best practices to [improve attendance]
and reduce truancy have been identified: collaboration, use of incentives and sanctions,
family involvement, establishment of a supportive context, and assessment and
evaluation of the program” (p. 5).
Johnson, an education advisor at Utah State University, used the information
from Smink and Reimer as well as data regarding attendance to highlight the need for
effective attendance increasing programs. “Research has identified that early
identification of poor attendance patterns and the truancy problems that follow is vital
to ensuring a successful school experience. These patterns usually develop in the
elementary grades and, when addressed early, enjoy a more positive prognosis for
change.” (Smink & Reimer, 2005 p. 3).
Johnson (2010) focused on reducing dropout rates and how low attendance
during the elementary ages have led to high dropout rates for students at the secondary
level. With the research from Johnson, the emphasis on increasing the implementation
by districts of systematic programs that helps fight early attendance issues.
Along with Johnson, Maynard (2011) has developed an idea of systematic ways
to increase student attendance that will ultimately increase student achievement.
Throughout Maynard’s research she concluded that student respond and benefit
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 10
intervention. “Students who exhibit problematic absenteeism benefit from participating
in interventions targeting attendance compared to those who did not receive the
intervention.” This school wide implementation of a program will benefit all students
from different grade levels. Throughout Maynard’s study the type of interventions were
also researched to help decide on what type of interventions, “Both simple programs
and more complex programs were associated with moderate, positive effects” (p. 27).
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 11
Research Methods
Research Design
A study was conducted to determine whether different levels of socioeconomic
statuses are shown to have low attendance rates. The independent variable is
socioeconomic status, determined by free or reduce lunch rate. The dependent variable
is the attendance rate. If there is a significantly low attendance rate found in any
socioeconomic group, proposals will be set in place to help foster student attendance.
Study Group Description
Students from a suburban middle school, grades six through eight, in the
Midwest, were used to determine the results of this study. Attendance rates for the
subgroup used will be taken from 2009‐2013, which lends a five‐year cumulative
comparison. The free and reduced lunch percentage for this suburban school is at 62%.
The ethnicity breakdown for this suburban school is as follows; White 54.9%, Black
17.4%, Hispanic 15.3%, Asian 5.8%, and Indian .5%.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Data was collected from the DESE website and used to show attendance data
from different socioeconomic groups. There will be five years of attendance data
collected ranging from years 2009‐2013.
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 12
Statistical Analysis Methods
A correlation analysis was conducted to determine the strength of the
relationship between attendance rates and free or reduced lunch status. The mean, R‐
value, r‐squared value and p‐values were determined for the analyses. The null
hypothesis was tested for attendance using a p‐value of 0.25.
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 13
FINDINGS
A correlation analysis was conducted to determine whether there was a
relationship between attendance and free or reduced lunch. The following tables,
graphs and charts will depict the findings based on the raw statistical data found on the
Missouri DESE website in 2013 and from the attendance records of the school in 2013.
Table 1: Correlation Study Free or Reduced Lunch vs. Attendance Rate
N Mean r R² p‐value
Free or Reduced Lunch 411 73.6%
Attendance > 90% 411 78.9% 0.64 0.40% 0.56
Note significance = or < .25
Table one shows the correlation between free or reduced lunch compared to
attendance rate. The independent variable was the percentage of free or reduced lunch.
The dependent variable was the attendance rate. With an r of 0.64, there is a
moderately strong direct relationship. As F/R increases, attendance increases. As F/R
increases, less students paid for lunch. Thus showing there is a correlation between
students who pay for their lunch and the attendance rates around those students. The
practicality is significant because the R‐squared value equals .40 and that is greater than
10. However, the student found that free or reduced lunch and attendance rate are not
significantly related because the p‐value (0.56) is greater than the alpha value of .25.
Which means the null hypothesis is not rejected. The data within this suburban school, it
was shown there is an inconsistent relationship between students who miss school and
their socioeconomic status. There is a moderately strength of relationship with a
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 14
correlation coefficient of .64, which means there is a strong practicality with a p‐value of
.56, but no significant relationship.
Table 2:
The chart above shows the percentage of students on free or reduced lunch,
which is 62% of the student population within the school. The amount of student
overall in the school who pay for their lunch without assistance is 38% as of 2013
statistics. This data shows that nearly two thirds of students qualify for aid to help take
care of the price of food at the school. This also means that the socioeconomic situation
of many students in this school is considered very low and the pie chart shows the
correlation of those needing help and those who do not.
FreeorReducedLunchPercentage
FreeorReducedLunch
PaidFull
38
62
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 15
Table 3:
The chart above has been broken down into 3 sections or subgroups and also will
show what percent of those students either reached 90% attendance or did not reach
90% attendance based off stats taken by the School District. The chart shows those
students who receive completely free lunch but come to school 90% of the time is at
84%. The chart then shows those students who receive a reduced lunch price but attend
school 90% of the time is a little higher at 88%. However those students who pay for
their lunches fully and come to school 90% of the time is calculated at 90%.
This chart shows a slight inconsistency in the numbers. According to MSIP 5
every student should be meeting the 9090 rule, which is 90% of all students in the
school should be attending school 90% of the time. The chart above shows that only
one group of these students is meeting that goal and that are those 90% of students
who are paying for their lunch in full. This chart explains the correlation very well,
although remember that the number of students on Free or reduced lunch is
9090 Breakdown >=90% % <90% % Free 404 340 84% 64 16%Reduced 97 85 88% 12 12%Full Pay 303 274 90% 29 10%
Totals 804 699 87% 105 13%
Data as of 1/22/14 asj
Source: QV
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 16
dramatically higher than those who pay for their lunch in full, data may be seen that in
chart 2 above.
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 17
Conclusions and Recommendations
The outcome of this study shows that there is a relationship between students
who receive Free or Reduced lunch and attendance rates. There was moderately high
correlation found because of the .64 R‐value. Conversely, the study shows that the null
hypothesis was not rejected because of the p‐value (0.56) was significantly greater than
the alpha value of (0.25). This data would lead you to believe that there is a relationship
between free or reduced lunch and attendance rate at this specific suburban school.
From looking at the data the r‐value is equal to .64, which means as Free or Reduced
Lunch % increases, the attendance rate also increases. From these results, it can be
stated that F/R Lunch has a positive effect on attendance
Also discuss practically and significance specifically with data to support conclusions.
The conceptual underpinning for this research is that in order for students to
learn they must be present in the classroom. It is up to the school, administrators and
staff to determine the factors that affect those students who do not come to school and
create an intervention plan. There are multiple plans and strategies that one may use to
address the attendance issues for students who struggle. With there being so many
students, the benefits of using different strategies are the same as if you were in the
classroom using different instructional strategies. All students are different and react
differently to certain approaches and strategies, so the more strategies the more
opportunities to reach all the students.
With this study being concluded, it’s very obvious that there are many ways to
study this topic and based on the results more research may be needed to understand.
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 18
Unfortunately with MSIP 5 being on the doorstep of every district and school it should
be at the top of the agenda for any district. With funding, accreditation being affected it
is very important for schools to find a way to implement a plan to reach this goal. The
study could be narrowed so that the school could focus on procedures, implement a
plan within the school to fix the attendance issues.
Another way to help the district is by conducting a district‐wide survey to discuss
the results. This would ultimately help the district determine the differences in
demographics, which would then allow those in charge to distribute their resources
properly. Once that occurs the MSIP 5 goal would be met and a plan for the future
would be taking place.
Overall the results of this study show that the school has work to be done to
address the attendance issues from those students on free or reduced lunch. With there
being no noteworthy relationship between free or reduced lunch and attendance, those
students who qualified for help are still slightly below the attendance rate of those
students who pay full price. The school should implement a plan to help reach those
students who are not meeting the 90% attendance requirements and help narrow that
gap so that MSIP 5 standard is met.
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 19
REFERENCES
Blevins, B. (2009). Effects of Socioeconomic Status on Academic Performance in
Missouri Public Schools. Udini. Retrieved June 18, 2013 from
http://udini.proquest.com/view/effects‐of‐socioeconomic‐status‐on‐
pqid:1879929841/
Bottoms, G. & Schmidt‐Davis, J. (2010). The Three Essentials: Improving Schools,
Requires District Vision, District and State Support and Principal Leadership.
Southern Regional Education Board – Wallace Foundation. Retrieved on June 27,
2013 from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge‐center/school‐
leadership/district‐policy‐and‐practice/Documents/Three‐Essentials‐to‐
Improving‐Schools.pdf
Duncan, Arne (2009). Turning Around the Bottom Five Percent. U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved on June 27, 2013 from
http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/06/06222009.html
Gottfried, M. (2010). Evaluating the Relationship Between Student Attendance and
Achievement in Urban Elementary and Middle Schools: An Instrumental
Variables Approach. American Educational Research Journal. Retrieved June
18, 2013 from http://www.attendancecounts.org/wordpress/wp‐
content/uploads/2010/04/Gottfried2010.pdf
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 20
Johnson, B. (2010). 15 Effective Strategies of the National Dropout Prevention Center/
Network as a Model for Plan Development. Utah State University. Retrieved
Oct. 14, 2013 from
http://www.ped.state.nm.us/SEB/technical/Dropout%20Prevention%20TA%20D
ocument%20BJ%204‐6‐10.pdf
Johnson, C. (2010). The Relationship of School Connectedness to Race, Achievement,
Attendance, Socioeconomic Status and Behavior. Baker University.
http://www.bakeru.edu/images/pdf/SOE/EdD_Theses/Johnson_Cynthia.pdf
MSIP 5. (2013). Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://dese.mo.gov/qs/MSIP5.html
Missouri Comprehensive Data System (MCDS). (2013) Missouri Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from
http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/Pages/default.aspx
Noll, James (2012). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues, 17th Edition.
McGraw‐Hill/Dushkin. Kindle Edition.
Putnam, R., Homer, R. & Algozzine, R. (2013). Academic Achievement and the
Implementation of School‐wide Behavior Support. Positive Behavioral
Interventions & Supports. Retrieved June 18, 2013 from
http://www.pbis.org/pbis_newsletter/volume_3/issue1.aspx
Ready, Douglas D. (2010). Socioeconomic Disadvantage, School Attendance, and Early
Cognitive Development: The Differential Effects of School Exposure. American
Attendance and Socioeconomic Status 21
Sociological Association. http://www.attendancecounts.org/wordpress/wp‐
content/uploads/2010 /04/Ready‐2010‐2.pdf
Reimer M. & Smink J. (2005). 15 Effective Strategies for Improving Student Attendance
and Truancy Prevention. National Dropout Prevention Center/Network.
www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/CJPPD/CjJjyd/.../AtaStrategies.doc