TEACHERS™ PRACTICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION · PDF fileCATHERINE PASCARELLA ROSA ......

TEACHERS� PRACTICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDENT

ATTENDANCE POLICY: DEVELOPMENT OF A PERCEPTIONS INSTRUMENT

by

CATHERINE PASCARELLA ROSA

(Under the direction of Dr. Karen Hunt)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this exploratory study was to collect and examine data related to teachers� perceptions of their practices as implementers of student attendance policy. A survey instrument, Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS), was developed to collect data and to measure the practices related to the implementation of student attendance policy from a sample consisting of middle school teachers (n=269) from schools across Georgia. Survey responses were compared to additional data that were obtained from a review of documents including student attendance policy from each district in the sample and demographic data from each school. A policy implementation framework was used to interpret the results. Construct validity of the SAPS was established through the development activities which included a review of the literature, a series of focus group meetings with middle school teachers, and a pilot by a panel of experts. A series of factor analyses using the sample data were completed to explore the factor structure of the items designed to reflect various aspects of teacher actions related to student attendance policy identified through a review of policy literature. Results revealed a five-factor solution. Subscales were identified as Communicating with Parents, Truancy Prevention, Record Keeping, Enforcing Policy, and Supporting Students. Two middle schools not included in the study sample were used to determine test-retest stability reliability. Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach�s alpha analysis for the complete survey data from the sample. Implications of the findings of this study are provided as they relate to policy makers, future researchers of educational policy, school leaders, and teachers. A policy model is expanded and suggestions for use in analyzing individual implementer environments within the larger framework of policy analysis are presented.

INDEX WORDS: Student attendance policy, Teacher as implementer, Teachers� practices, Implementation, Implementation framework, Policy implementation, Policy analysis, Instrument development, Perceptions



by


B.A., Mercer University, 1981

M.B.A., Brenau University, 1991

ED.S., The University of Georgia, 1996

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2003

© 2003

Catherine Pascarella Rosa

All Rights Reserved



by


Approved:

Major Professor: Dr. Karen Hunt

Committee: Dr. C. Thomas Holmes Dr. David Weller

Electronic Version Approved:

Maureen Grasso Dean of Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2003

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................x

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................6

Significance of the Study..................................................................................6 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................7 Research Questions ..........................................................................................7 Framework for the Study..................................................................................9 Assumptions/Limitations of the Study............................................................11 Definition of Terms........................................................................................12 Organization of the Study...............................................................................15

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................................17 Section One: The History of Compulsory Education ......................................18 Section Two: The Conceptual Framework for the Study.................................28 Section Three: The Context of Environment II in Schools..............................36

Summary .......................................................................................................40

3 SETTING, RESEARCH DESIGN, AND PROCEDURES.....................................41

Setting............................................................................................................41

v

Research Design.............................................................................................44 Research Questions ........................................................................................45 Procedures .....................................................................................................45 Summary........................................................................................................56 4 PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS.......................................................................57 Descriptive Data Collected Using the SAPS ..................................................58

Empirically Derived Concepts Measured by the SAPS...................................65

Comparison of Document and Survey Data....................................................88

Summary .....................................................................................................106

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ..................................107

Research Problem .......................................................................................107

Policy Implementation Framework .............................................................108

Environment II: Teachers as actors ............................................................112

Environment II: Written Attendance Policy ................................................119

Conclusions and Implications for Models of Policy Analysis .......................123

Conclusions and Implications for Future Research.......................................130

Conclusions and Implications for Practice....................................................131

Summary .....................................................................................................132

REFERENCES .................................................................................................134

APPENDICES

A JUSTIFICATION OF SURVEY ITEMS ..............................................142

B PILOT SURVEY AND REVISIONS ...................................................147

C STUDENT ATTENDANCE PRACTICES SURVEY ..........................156

vi

D STUDENT ATTENDANCE PRACTICES SURVEY

ITEM ANALYSIS ...............................................................................159

E SUPERINTENDENT LETTER............................................................160

F DISTRICT CONSENT FORM .............................................................161

G PRINCIPAL LETTER..........................................................................162

H SCHOOL CONSENT FORM...............................................................163

I INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO TEACHERS.....................................164

J FOLLOW UP LETTER TO PRINCIPALS ............................................165

K STUDENT ATTENDANCE PRACTICES SURVEY

ITEM ANALYSIS ...............................................................................166

vii

LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page

3.1 School Data..................................................................................................43

3.2 Student Data.................................................................................................43

4.1 Response Rate by School for the Total Sample.............................................59

4.2 Demographic Profile of the Sample..............................................................60

4.3 Levels and Type of Certification for the Sample...........................................61

4.4 Frequency of Response of Each Item for the Total Sample ...........................62

4.5 Mean and Standard Deviation for Each

Item of the SAPS for the Total Sample .........................................................64

4.6 Summary of Mean, Standard Deviation, and Loading of

Factor Pattern Coefficients (1-Factor Solution) for the SAPS ........................68

4.7 Summary of Rotated Factor Pattern Coefficients

for a Five-Factor Oblique Solution for the SAPS ..........................................70

4.8 Identification of the Subscales of the SAPS and the Items Loading ..............71

4.9 Results of the Extraction of Component/ Factors...........................................72

4.10 Subscales, Items, Mean, Standard Deviation,

and Factor Loading for Each Item of Each Subscale .....................................73

4.11 Mean Analysis for Subscale 1

(Communicating with Parents) for All Schools.............................................75


(Truancy Prevention) for All Schools ...........................................................76

viii


(Record Keeping) for All Schools.................................................................77


(Enforcing Policy) for All Schools ...............................................................79


(Supporting Students) for All Schools ..........................................................80

4.16 Mean, Standard Deviation, Alpha if Item Deleted

for Each Item in Subscale 1 ..........................................................................82




for Each Item in Subscale 3 .........................................................................83


for Each Item in Subscale 4 ........................................................................84



4.21 Demographic Information for Teachers on Test-Retest.................................86

4.22 Means, Standard Deviation, and r

(Reliability Coefficient of Stability)

of each Subscale of the SAPS for Test-Retest ..............................................87

4.23 Means, Standard Deviation, and r (Reliability Coefficient of Stability)

of each Subscale of the SAPS for Test-Retest for School 1............................87

ix

4.24 Means, Standard Deviation, and r (Reliability Coefficient of Stability)

of each Subscale of the SAPS for Test-Retest for School 2............................88

4.25 Policy Directives by District.........................................................................89

4.26 School A: Item Statistics ..............................................................................91

4.27 School B: Item Statistics ..............................................................................93

4.28 School C: Item Statistics ..............................................................................95

4.29 School D: Item Statistics ..............................................................................97

4.30 School E: Item Statistics...............................................................................99

4.31 School F: Item Statistics .............................................................................101

4.32 School G: Item Statistics ............................................................................103

4.33 School H: Item Statistics ............................................................................105

x

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page

1.1 Environments Influencing Implementation ...................................................10

5.1 Teachers as Implementers in the School Arena...........................................128

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Although compulsory education laws have been established in all 50 states,

student absenteeism has continued to be a problem faced by stakeholders in American

education (Allen-Meares, Washington, & Welsh, 1986; Brokowski & Dempsey, 1979;

Duke & Meckel, 1980; Eastwold, 1989; Galloway, 1985; Levanto, 1975; Reid, 2000;

School Administrators Association of New York State, 1996). The context of compulsory

education laws varies little from state to state. Generally, these laws include the age for

compulsory attendance and the definition of legal or excused absences (National Center

for Educational Statistics, 1994). The fidelity of the implementation process of state law

has been dependent on the nature of compliance linkages and communication networks

established between state and local educational agencies (Nakamura & Smallwood,

1980).

Historically, state laws mandating schooling have been translated at the district

level by local school board members and transcribed into local policy (Spring, 1998).

Community values have been woven into local policy (Spring, 1998) and thus integrated

into the implementation process resulting in variations in policy translation and emphasis

from district to district. As district policies are interpreted and implemented by

administrators and teachers at the school level, even more variations are apparent

(Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). Lawmakers, district policy makers, school level

administrators, and teachers have historically worked to create just the right balance

2

between rewards and punishment to enhance holding power (Morris, 1986), the ability of

a school to enroll and educate students until they complete the program of study

(Rowntree, 1982). Unfortunately, efforts have been variably successful and excessive

absenteeism has continued to be a major issue of concern for teachers, administrators,

and other educational stakeholders.

Educational policy makers and other political players have focused on the high

price of student absenteeism as an impetus for policy implementation (A+ Educational

Reform Act, 2000; Labaree, 1997; National Commission on Excellence in Education,

1983; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; Spring, 1998). First, absenteeism impacts school

funding which often is calculated using average daily attendance (ADA) rates (Spring,

1998). Second, absenteeism has been an indictor for dropping out (Beachman, 1981;

Bhaerman & Kopp, 1988; Galloway, 1985; Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000;

Reid, 2000) which costs society billions of dollars each year in lost tax revenues due to

welfare, unemployment, and crime (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). To

combat student absenteeism in Georgia, state legislators have initiated supplemental laws

that include contingencies related to student attendance, e.g., requiring regular school

attendance in order to obtain a permit or license to drive (Georgia Teen-Age and Adult

Driver Responsibility Act of 1997). In addition, legislation has also included student

attendance as an accountability measure to grade schools in Georgia (A+ Educational

Reform Act, 2000).

Local school board members and school superintendents have been equally

concerned about student absenteeism. These players have been aware of the cost of

student absenteeism and have also understood the burden absenteeism places on school

3

personnel (Spring, 1998). In addition, these players have been troubled that poor

attendance of a few students has had a harmful effect on the majority of the students who

attend school regularly (Allen-Meares et al., 1986; Galloway, 1985; Reid, 2000; School

Administrators Association of New York State, 1996). The remedy for some districts has

been to develop strict policy which often has included a combination of academic

sanctions, loss of course credit, and other penalties for excessive absenteeism, while other

districts take no action for failure to adhere to student attendance policy (Brokowski &

Dempsey, 1979; Gemmill, 1995; Hassler, 1993; Petzko, 1990; Smith 1998). The results

have been policy and implementation variations from district to district, perhaps allowing

for client and stakeholder manipulation of the system.

Student absenteeism has been a dilemma for school personnel as well (Reid,

2000). The paradox of the situation is that while schools are graded based on student

attendance rates (A+ Educational Reform Act, 2000), administrators and teachers

perceive that they have little control over whether students attend or not (Duke &

Meckel, 1980). Most school level policy has included procedures for implementation to

include communicating student attendance policy, recording attendance, monitoring

absenteeism, and enforcing policy directives (deJung & Duckworth, 1986; Duke &

Meckel, 1980; Reid, 2000). Some schools have set up electronic systems for calling

parents and monitoring attendance (McDonald, 1986), while other schools have been

dependent on individual classroom teachers to monitor attendance (Ola, 1990).

Administrators have possessed little in the way of rewards or incentives to offer teachers

for their efforts in implementing student attendance policies and teachers often view their

contributions to the implementation process as unimportant and nonproductive (Duke &

4

Meckel, 1980), yet it is teachers who control the fidelity of the implementation of school

policies (including student attendance policy) when they close the doors to their

classrooms (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977; Mayer, 1985; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1981).

Many players from different environments have contributed to the process of

implementing student attendance policy (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). From the

capitol to the classroom, stakeholders have worked towards a solution to the problem of

student absenteeism. Policies were often transformed as players in the implementation

process responded or failed to respond to policy directives and every action of each

player has changed the dynamics of the policy implementation process (Mazmanian &

Sabatier, 1981). Thus an understanding of the complex interactions between actors in

implementation environments of schools provides a contextual background from which to

examine variations in the implementation process of student attendance policy

(Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). Most importantly, as teachers are often responsible for

actual policy implementation (Duke & Meckel, 1980), their perspectives are important in

shaping the fidelity of implementation of policy in school.

This study utilized the Policy Environment Framework developed by Nakamura

and Smallwood (1980) as a lens for analysis of teachers� perspectives and actions related

to student attendance issues. The model facilitated the identification of pertinent actors

(teachers) and contexts selected for the study sample, as well as various communication

and compliance mechanisms through which policy variations in implementation might

occur.

In over a decade of research on student absenteeism, Reid (2000) concluded that

teachers play a crucial role in encouraging students to attend school. Some studies have

5

examined how various aspects of teachers� practices (e.g., setting expectations for

students, using rewards and punishment, establishing rapport with students) impacted

student attendance (deJung & Duckworth, 1986; Gemmill, 1995; McMeans, 1990). While

an extensive body of research exists on the impact student attendance policy has played

on student behaviors (e.g., retention, dropout rates, achievement, etc.) (deJung &

Duckworth, 1986; Gemmill, 1995; Hassler, 1993; McMeans, 1990; Ola, 1990; Petzko,

1990; Reid, 1986, 1999, 2000; Smith, 1998), few studies have been conducted on

teachers� perceptions of the practices relating to the implementation of student attendance

policy.

Prior to 1980, research focused on the causes of student absenteeism and

suggested that truancy was a psychological or social issue (Levanto, 1975; Tyerman,

1968). The emphasis of research shifted during the early 1980s through the early 1990s to

the school and school- related issues that affected student attendance (deJung &

Duckworth, 1986; Reid, 1986). The literature on the school-related causes of student

absenteeism examined student attendance rates by race, gender, ability level, classes,

grade levels, departments, teacher behaviors, classroom environments, socioeconomic of

the student population, and the school climate (deJung & Duckworth, 1986; Duke &

Meckel, 1980; Galloway, 1985; McMeans, 1990; Reid, 1986). In the last decade, research

related to student attendance policy focused on various elements of implementation that

might be effective at increasing student attendance in schools (Gemmill, 1995; Hassler,

1993; McMeans, 1990; Petzko, 1990; Reid, 1999; Smith, 1998).

6

Statement of the Problem

The gap in the literature that still exists is an understanding of teachers� practices

as implementers of the student attendance policy particularly at the middle school level.

Few studies have examined middle school teachers� role as the implementer of the

student attendance policy or teacher practices related to the implementation process.

Significance of the Study

Examining practices related to implementation of student attendance policy from

the teachers� perspective might provide policymakers insight into actual implementation

issues, which might affect policy intent (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). Consideration

of such issues as policy is formulated and implemented at the school level would be of

major importance to stakeholders (teachers, students, parents, and schools) in terms of

efficiency of implementation (Duke & Canady, 1991; Spring, 1998). A study of local

school policy is important to practitioners, scholars, and policy makers for three reasons.

First, the implementation of policy at the local level might directly impact the lives of

stakeholders (Duke & Canady, 1991). Second, local policies developed in response to

state law often vary across school districts. Thus, it is vital to consider the dynamics of

the implementation environment in the study of school policy as complex interactions

between and among actors that might affect the fidelity of policy implementation (Fullan

& Pomfret, 1977). Third, the implementation and enforcement of district policy varies

further from school to school within each district. Therefore an examination of school

level policies and practices is valuable and necessary to understand policy intended or

unintended consequences (Duke & Canady, 1991).

7

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this descriptive study was to collect and examine data related to

teachers� perceptions of their practices as implementers of student attendance policy. A

survey instrument, Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS), was developed to

collect data and to measure �the characteristics of a sample at one point in time� (Gall,

Borg, & Gall, 1996, p. 375). Nakamura and Smallwood�s (1980) Policy Environment

Framework was used as the lens through which the study was organized and examined.

According to Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996), �Descriptive studies in education, while simple

in design and execution, can yield important knowledge� (p. 376). The complexity of the

policy process and the interdependent nature of policy actors across policy environments

will be illustrated by the results (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

Research Questions

This study was divided into several research activities: (a) developing the survey,

(b) assessing validity and reliability of the instrumentation, (c) sampling selection based

on geographic regions of Georgia, (d) collecting and analyzing survey data, (e)

comparing data across school districts, and (f) interpreting data in terms of stakeholders

perspectives on student attendance and related policies through the lens of the Policy

Environments Framework (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). Conclusions and

implications for policymakers reflect the reality of school environments. The following

research questions were developed to guide this research:

1. What is the nature of the empirically derived concepts measured by the Student

Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS)?

8

2. What are teachers� perceptions of practices regarding the implementation of

student attendance policy in selected middle schools in Georgia?

In order to appropriately answer the research questions, a survey instrument was

developed to collect data. The content validity of the instrument was established with the

development activities. Items for the survey were developed through an extensive review

of the literature on school attendance policy (Brokowski & Dempsey, 1979; Duke &

Meckel, 1980; Eastwold, 1989; Gemmill, 1995; Hassler, 1993; McLaughlin, 1991a; Ola,

1990; Petzko, 1990; Reid, 2000), the political and policy literature (Labaree, 1997;

Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980; Schneider & Ingram, 1997; Spring, 1998) and through

input of a panel of teachers at the middle school level. Using the data gathered with the

SAPS, further construct validity was examined through a series of factor analyses

procedures. Stability reliability was examined using the test/retest procedure with a

separate sample (N = 104) from two middle schools. Internal consistency reliability was

examined through the use of Cronbach�s alpha. The SAPS was designed to collect data

pertaining to teachers� perceptions of current practices involved in the implementation of

student attendance policy. Examining the context of the implementation of policy at the

school level and the practices related to the implementation process required an

understanding of the complex interactions between actors in each of the environments

related to the policy implementation process and required a framework to comprehend

the constraints, pressures, and conflicts related to teachers� practices, which infiltrated all

aspects of implementation (Labaree, 1997; Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980; Spring,

1998).

9

Framework for the Study

The conceptual framework developed by Nakamura and Smallwood (1980)

provided structure for understanding the implementation process. The framework

(Figure 1.1) was circular in structure with each environment of the policy implementation

process connecting to each of the other environments by linkages. The framework

consisted of �a system of functional environments- Policy Formation, Policy

Implementation, and Policy Evaluation- each of which contained a variety of actors and

arenas and each of which was connected to the others by various communication and

compliance linkages� (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980, p. 27). A policy was transformed

as people responded or failed to respond to policy directives, and every action changed

the dynamics of the implementation process (Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1981).

Each environment (represented by circles) in the implementation process was connected

to each other by communication and/or compliance linkages (depicted by two-way lines).

Within each environment were several different actors (illustrated by the group of

rectangles) operating from different arenas, yet also connected (depicted by the lines

connecting the rectangles).

In the Policy Formation Environment (Environment I) policymakers followed an

established set of rules to formulate policy at the federal, state, and local levels

(Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). Lawmakers -- at the federal, state, and local level --

built coalitions and rallied for bipartisan support of their legislative agenda (Spring,

1998). In this environment the objective was to define the problems, clarify the policy

goals, and outline the method of implementation (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980; Spring,

1998).

10

Figure 1.1. Environments Influencing Implementation (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

Permission for use granted by Dr. Robert Nakamura on November 8, 2001.

11

This study focused on the Policy Implementation Environment (Environment II)

to examine the specific context of teachers� practices as the implementers of the student

attendance policy. The actors in Environment II had various responsibilities as

implementers of policy, which depended on their ability to interpret, communicate, and

execute throughout the implementation process (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980; Spring,

1998). Teachers often controlled the fidelity of implementation of school policies

(including student attendance policy) when they closed the doors to their classrooms

(Fullan & Pomfret, 1977; Mayer, 1985; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1981). The forces that

shaped the implementation process were the actors and their perceptions, the organization

structure, the system of communications, and the compliance mechanisms (Nakamura &

Smallwood, 1980).

The Policy Evaluation Environment (Environment III) held the policymakers and

the implementers accountable for their role in the process of policy implementation.

From the perspective of the policymaker, the response of the constituency was the gauge

used to determine the success of the policy, while the implementers measured policy by

studying outputs, outcomes, and impacts (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). The study of

policy implementation relied upon understanding the relationships between each of these

environments.

Assumptions/Limitations of the Study

The researcher assumed each school in the sample emphasized regular school

attendance and implemented and enforced district level student attendance policy, which

was developed using guidelines provided by Georgia law. The researcher also assumed

that the nature of district level attendance policy, communication networks, and

12

compliance linkages were different between schools and could impact the practices and

that social consequence could restrict perceptions of practice.

Interpretation of results was limited by the assumption that responses provided by

teachers (in the survey study) were honest and accurate. It was also assumed that defined

ranges of responses used to interpret data collected with a survey instrument

accommodated the appropriate practices reflected in the data. However, it was recognized

that beliefs and values vary personally, politically, and contextually and might shift in

time or change in context due to any number of circumstances.

Definition of Terms

The definitions of terms pertinent to this study were divided into two categories:

student attendance terms and policy framework terms.

Student attendance terms.

1. Absenteeism was defined as any type of nonattendance, excused or unexcused.

2. Attendance policy was defined as all rules and regulations of the school or school

district related to student attendance.

3. Excessive absenteeism was defined as any student missing over 10 days of school

during the school year.

4. Excused absence was defined as absences from school that were justified, if

validated for one of the following reasons: (a) a personal illness or attendance in

school endangering a student�s health or the health of others; (b) a serious illness

or death in a student�s immediate family necessitating absence from school; (c) a

court order or an order by a governmental agency, including pre-induction

physical examinations for service in the armed forces; (d) a celebration of a

13

religious holiday; and (e) any conditions rendering attendance impossible or

hazardous to student health or safety (Official Code of Georgia, §20-2-690 to 697,

2000).

5. Unexcused absence was defined as any absence from school which was not

excused.

6. School level policy was defined as the standard set of rules that governed the

practices at the school level.

7. Truancy was defined as anytime a child was absent without parental consent

(Tyerman, 1968).

Policy framework terms.

1. Policy environments were defined by Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) as a

conceptual framework, which included formulation, implementation, and

evaluation. Interconnected complex processes of these policy environments

involved formulating, implementing, and evaluating policy. �The concept of

environments suggests that there is some order in a policy�s life, but that the

ordered parts can be fluid rather than dominated by a single unidirectional

movement from top to bottom� (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980, p. 22).

2. Policy Formation (Environment I) was defined as the formal environment where

elected or appointed officials at the federal, state, and local level followed a

specified procedure to formulate policy. The process involved identifying the

problem, setting priorities, defining the target population, allocating resources,

developing the policy, building coalitions, and communicating the plan for

implementation (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

14

3. Policy Implementation (Environment II) was defined as the environment that

consists of different actors operating from different arenas impacted by the

�organizational structures and bureaucratic norms as well as the communication

networks and compliance mechanisms� (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980, p. 46).

4. Policy Evaluation (Environment III) was defined as a formal ongoing process

used to determine how close the original design of the policy related to the actual


5. Arenas were defined as the settings or positions of power from which the actors

operated in the process of policy implementation (Nakamura & Smallwood,

1980).

6. Actors were defined as individuals with political influence in the process of policy


7. Policymakers were individuals formally charged with the responsibility of

formulating policy such as federal, state, and local lawmakers as well as non-

governmental individuals and groups with influential power over the process

(Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

8. Implementers were the individuals, groups, or organizations formally charged

with implementing the policy directives (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

9. Intermediaries in the implementation of educational policy were teachers who

despite legislative intent or regulatory requirements made key policy decisions in

the day-to-day operations in their classrooms (McLaughlin, 1991a).

10. Evaluators were actors charged by policy makers or policy implementers with the

formal or informal evaluation of the policy (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

15

11. Recipients or consumers were the beneficiaries of the policy (Nakamura &

Smallwood, 1980).

12. Communication networks were defined as the systems set up by policy makers

and implementers of establishing and directing the responsibilities for the policy

implementation process. �Garbled messages from the sender, misinterpretations

by the receiver, and systems failures� were all potential breakdowns in the

communications network that could detrimentally impact the policy

implementation process (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980, p. 24).

13. Compliance mechanisms were defined as systems of sanctions and/or incentives

in place �to ensure that policy messages are received (accurately) and that

implementers and /or evaluators were attempting to take appropriate actions in

accordance with these messages� (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980, p. 25).

14. Linkages were defined as the connections between the policy environments

(Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

Organization of the Study

The purpose of this initial chapter was to identify the research problem to be

studied. Chapter 1 provided the background information as well as the justification for

the study, the statement of the problem, and the research questions that this study

attempted to address. Also included in chapter 1 was the framework used to examine the

policy implementation process (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

Chapter 2 contains the review of the related literature and selected research

studies. This chapter was divided into three major sections. Section one includes the

history of compulsory education, the development of compulsory education laws, and the

16

formation of district student attendance policies. This section also presents an overview

of the research on student absenteeism. Section two includes an explanation of the

conceptual policy framework (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980) used in this study to

analyze and interpret issues and contexts in the implementation environment of student

attendance policy in Georgia. Section three presents the context of the implementation

environment providing the literature related to teachers� beliefs and practices as

implementers of policy.

Chapter 3 outlines a detailed description of the setting, research design, and

procedures used for this study. The research questions are restated and the context of the

study is presented. This chapter concludes with a summary.

The collected data were analyzed through the lens provided by the Policy

Environments Framework developed by Nakamura & Smallwood (1980). The results are

summarized in chapter 4. A summary of the study, implications based on the findings,

and recommendations for further research will be discussed in chapter 5.

17

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter is divided into three major sections. The first section includes the

history of compulsory education and the development of school attendance policies. The

history of compulsory education and the origins of public education in the United States

are outlined. This account is important as it sets the broad context of legal, ethical, social,

and political issues that historically have defined the arena in which student attendance

policy has evolved. Nested within this broad context are the state laws and local policies

that mandate student attendance in public schools as well as individual and community

beliefs and values that affect the implementation of these policies. Inherent also in this

context are major issues and problems associated with school attendance policy as they

relate to student, family, school, and community issues.

The second section includes an explanation of the conceptual policy framework

used in the study to analyze and interpret issues and contexts of the implementation

environment of student attendance policy. The Policy Environment Framework

developed by Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) provides a structure for the examination

of communication networks, compliance linkages, and conflicts surrounding

implementation of student attendance policy within the Policy Implementation

Environment.

The third section provides the context of the implementation environment in

schools. Of particular interest is the examination of various aspects of teachers� (actors)

18

role as implementers of policy. The literature indicates that teachers play an integral role

in the process of implementation of educational policy (McLaughlin, 1991a; Reid, 1999,

2000). An examination of the literature on teachers� beliefs and practices are also

included in this section. A summary concludes this chapter.

Section One: The History of Compulsory Education

Examining the evolution of compulsory education in the United States provided

the context for understanding student attendance policy at the local level. Compulsory

education evolved over the past several centuries (Iannaccone, 1967; Rothbard, 1974;

Spring, 1998). Influenced in the early 17th century by John Calvin, early Puritan settlers

supported the concept of public education to �inculcate obedience to a Calvinist-run

government and to suppress dissent� (Rothbard, 1974, p. 13). By 1642, the Puritan

founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony established the first laws to mandate

education (even before public schools were established) with a compulsory literacy law

for all children (Kaestle, 2000; Pangle & Pangle, 2000; Rothbard, 1974).

Although a national policy for compulsory education did not exist, the federal

government played an important role in the development of systems of education within

each state. The United States Constitution (1787) implied that education was a matter left

to the people and individual state governments (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Iannaccone, 1967;

Kaestle, 2000; Pangle & Pangle, 2000; Spring, 1998). The lack of a national policy was

intentional in order to provide states with discretionary power to develop systems of

education (Spring, 1998). �Each state, through its constitutional arrangements, judicial

decisions, legislative and executive actions, as well as its local administrative agencies,

19

provides the legal context in which school districts operate and exist� (Iannaccone, 1967,

p. 37).

As the nation grew, so did the belief in education for all (Labaree, 1997). The

federal government promoted the policy of public education by granting land to

townships for the purpose of building schools (Kaestle, 2000). The Northwest Ordinance

of 1787 stated, � Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government

and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be

encouraged� (Article 3). By 1789, the state legislature of Massachusetts developed the

first public system of education by establishing general school law, creating school

districts, certifying teachers, developing curriculum, and enforcing compulsory

attendance (Rothbard, 1974). Public schooling expanded during the 19th century for a

variety of social and political reasons. According to Spring (1998):

as a means of maintaining political community through the education of a

democratic citizen, as a way to increase morality and reduce crime, as a method of

Americanizing immigrant populations and preparing the population as a whole for

industrial society. (p. 2)

Although this marked the beginning of public education in the United States,

enforcement of compulsory education did not occur until after World War II (Trattner,

1970).

State Laws Mandating Student Attendance

By the middle of the 19th century, state laws were being enacted that mandated

student attendance. At that time, two factors influenced states to make school attendance

mandatory. First, the desire to develop and maintain a strong democracy required citizens

20

to be educated in the roles and responsibilities of the political process (Schneider &

Ingram, 1997). Second, the influx of large numbers of immigrants from different

homelands created a need for a common system of education to �tame, mould, and

assimilate� (Rothbard, 1974, p. 20) these people. The first state to pass laws mandating

school attendance was Massachusetts with the Massachusetts School Attendance Act of

1852 which made attendance mandatory at least three months of the year for children

between the ages of 8 and 14 (Rothbard, 1974). Other states followed and by 1918, all 50

states had developed compulsory school attendance laws (Spring, 1998). Although

compulsory education laws existed, little was done to enforce these laws and to mandate

that children attend school. The economy depended on children working in the factories,

mines, mills, and fields-- as an inexpensive source of labor (Trattner, 1970).

State compulsory education laws changed with the passing of the Federal Fair

Labor Standards Act of 1938 (Rothbard, 1974; Spring, 1998; Trattner, 1970). These

federal laws were enacted to protect children from adverse working conditions and

enforced a minimum working age of 16 years old, thus forcing the age of compulsory

school attendance to be changed from 14 to 16 years old (Rothbard, 1974). This

legislation marked the beginning of an effort to enforce compulsory education laws

within the states and to improve student attendance. According to Chief Justice Burger,

�both the child labor laws and the compulsory education laws were humanitarian in

nature and were established to provide opportunities to prepare children to become

productive members of society� (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972).

This increase in student attendance did not last long and turned sharply with the

beginning of World War II. During war time, women and children were needed in the

21

workforce to fill the jobs of those men fighting in the military, so compulsory education

laws were ignored. After World War II, there was a concern for the lack of literacy skills

and the low levels of education of the American population. This concern was addressed

at the local level with the enforcement of state compulsory education laws (Trattner,

1970).

Over the years compulsory education laws were challenged in the courts. State

laws mandating student attendance were challenged in the courts due to conflicts

concerning religious beliefs (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972); health regulations (Mountain

Lakes Board of Education v. Maas, 1960); private schools (Pierce v. Society of Sisters,

1925); and parents who want to home school their children (People v. Levinson, 1950).

In Georgia, the compulsory school attendance law was first enacted in 1916. The

original law stated, �An act to require school attendance of children for a minimum

period, and to provide for enforcement of the same, and for other purposes� (Georgia

Legislative Documents, 1945, p. 101). This law required children (except those from poor

families) between the ages of 8 and 14 to attend school for 4 months of each year. The

original code defined acceptable or �excused� absences, described the penalties for non-

compliance, discussed methods of enforcement, and outlined the responsibilities of the

educational stakeholders at the local level.

Over the years, the compulsory education law in Georgia changed making

enforcement and the attendance of children at school more of a priority. The age of

compulsory attendance and the length of the school year were two of the changes made to

the initial law. In 1945, Georgia Law Number 350 changed the age of compulsory

attendance to begin at seven years old and extend to 16 years old and also changed the

22

length of the school year to 175 days. In addition, this law required each county or district

(unless specified) to employ a visiting teacher to act as an attendance officer. In 1984,

home schooling became legal in Georgia with the passage of Senate Bill 504 and House

Bill 146-24 (Official Code of Georgia, Ga. Code Ann. § 20-2-690, 1984). Effective

January 1, 1998, The Georgia Teen-Age and Adult Driver Responsibility Act of 1997,

required that local school systems certify whether or not a student�s attendance patterns

and discipline record allowed a student to have a permit or license to drive and included a

stay-in-school component. Recent legislation in Georgia, the A+ Educational Reform Act

(2000), changed the starting age of compulsory attendance from seven to six years of age.

District Level Student Attendance Policy

At the district level, there were three types of student attendance policy

(Brokowski & Dempsey, 1979; Duke & Canady, 1991; Eastwold, 1989; Hassler 1993;

Petzko, 1990; Reid, 2000; Rood, 1989; Smith, 1998; Suprina, 1979). First, there were

policies that used rewards to provide incentives for school attendance. Second, there were

policies that penalized students for absences through disciplinary actions. Third, there

were policies that utilized academic sanctions such as grade reductions or loss of credit

for student absenteeism. These policies evoked students, parents and stakeholders to

question fairness, individual rights, and legality (Duke & Canady, 1991; Eastwold, 1989;

Reid, 2000).

The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) studied

sample attendance policy to determine the essential elements and concluded that effective

student attendance policy was a �thoughtful attempt towards a solution to the attendance

problem, broad-based participation in the development stage, clearly written with terms

23

explicitly defined, well publicized, consistently enforced, and a means of notifying

parents of absenteeism� (Educational Research Services, 1977, p. 19). Rood (1989)

added that the policy should be aligned with the philosophy of the school district,

educational (not punitive), inclusive of an effective recording procedure, and flexible

enough to take into account extenuating circumstances. Suprina (1979) stressed the

importance of parent involvement in developing and implementation of the student

attendance policy. Duke and Canady (1991) emphasized that policy should not adversely

affect any one group of students. Eastwold (1989) contended that effective student

attendance policy included rewards for regular attendance, held students accountable for

their actions, and treated all students consistently. Reid (2000) suggested that effective

attendance policies supported the goals of the school, included clear communications

with parents on absences and counseling on their legal responsibilities regarding student

attendance, and explicitly stated incentives and methods of promoting a positive school

environment. When developing policy, considerations must be given for handling

absences, monitoring attendance, planning rewards and punishments, communicating

with parents, meeting the needs of individual students with extenuating circumstances,

and assisting students who have been absent for a long period of time (Reid, 2000). Ola

(1990) identified 20 elements of the district level attendance policy and described the

most common as requiring parent notes, posting daily absentee list, requiring medical

excuses, counseling with absentee by counselor or administrator, warning letters, making

phone calls to parents, and using detention/in-school suspension.

At the high school level, academic sanctions have been implemented as a

consequence for absenteeism. The academic sanctions were grade reductions or loss of

24

credit which was imposed on students after a specific number of absences. Many studies

were undertaken to determine the impact of academic sanctions on average daily

attendance (Brokowski & Dempsey, 1979; Gemmill, 1995; Hassler, 1993; Petzko, 1990;

Smith, 1998). Brokowski and Dempsey (1979) and Hassler (1993), studied the impact of

student attendance policies with academic sanctions. Using attendance, achievement, and

behavior to study the implementation of a policy with sanctions, Brokowski and

Dempsey (1979) found that the majority of students were not impacted with the

exception of the less mature students and students with low I.Qs. Hassler (1993) used a

multiple regression analysis to describe the relationship between average daily attendance

rates and demographic variables including performance variables as measured in 8th

grade on the Comprehensive Assessment Program (CAP) which was a norm-referenced,

nationally standardized test. Of the factors analyzed, prior academic achievement as

measured on the CAP was the only factor that was influenced by rates of attendance in all

four schools.

The use of retention for excessive absenteeism was explored by Gemmill (1995).

Gemmill (1995) compared the impact of the student attendance policy in four high

schools where one of the four districts used retention as a consequence for absenteeism.

In this district, a strong relationship was identified from the data between attendance-

related retention and dropping out. In all four schools, students retained for academic

reasons were more likely to graduate than students retained for attendance. These results

suggested that attendance-based retention exacerbates the problem of students dropping

out of school.

25

A study by Petzko (1990) established that school attendance rates could be

predicted based on the implementation of various policy components. Petzko (1990)

found that the demographic variables that proved significant in predicting total school

attendance were percentage of minority students and students planning to attend a four-

year college. Variables that did not appear to be significant at predicting rates of

attendance were free and reduced lunch rates, enrollment, declining enrollment, including

a 9th grade, and the planning of students to attend two-year colleges. The results of this

study implied that attendance policies might be more effective if they contained different

elements for each grade level.

Research on Student Absenteeism

There was no single cause of persistent absenteeism (Galloway, 1985; Reid, 1986,

1999, 2000; Tyerman, 1968). The theoretical framework used to understand the causes of

student absenteeism included psychological factors, social factors, and educational

factors. The literature established a clear link between the socially disadvantaged and

truancy (Reid, 1986; Tyerman, 1968; Woog, 1992); however, this was only one factor in

a complex set of circumstances. Chronic absenteeism was linked with adverse home

conditions, low social class, and deprivation (Tyerman, 1968). Child abuse and neglect,

lack of parental supervision, substance abuse, and family conflicts/violence contributed to

student absenteeism (Dreilinger, 1992; Howard, 1983; Reid, 2000). Using the social

anthropological method of research, Reid (1999) learned that students who are truants

usually had families who did not value education and had friends that shared this same

belief. The complexity of the problem made it difficult to understand the circumstances

surrounding each individual case of chronic absenteeism (Reid, 2000).

26

According to the National Association of Secondary School Principals, student

absenteeism had been a problem facing schools since the early 1970s (Educational

Research Services, 1977). The National Center for Education Statistics had published

historical data on public school attendance since 1929 and reported that on average;

approximately 8% of students enrolled in U.S. schools were absent each day. The

expected rate of absenteeism due to illness would be between 4-5%; however, in most

high schools an absentee rate of 10-15% was not uncommon (Educational Research

Services, 1977; Levanto, 1975; National Center for Education Statistics, 2001; Reid,

2000).

Research on student absenteeism in the middle school was limited. Patterns of

nonattendance starting at the elementary level and leading to problems with student

attendance in middle school had been identified in the literature (Galloway, 1985; Reid,

2000; Robins & Ratcliff, 1978). Galloway (1985) conducted a series of surveys in 1976

and 1982 known as the Sheffield Studies to gain knowledge about persistent absenteeism

in the last years of compulsory attendance and to identify the trends. In this study,

Galloway defined persistent absenteeism as missing more than 50% of the possible

number of school days in the first seven weeks of school. At the elementary school level,

students (5 to 11 years old) showed a consistent pattern of persistent absenteeism of .4%,

while the rate of persistent absenteeism for older children (12-16 years old) was 4.4%. In

this study, 16% of all absences were considered skipping or without parental knowledge.

Galloway determined that previous rates of absenteeism predicted future attendance

patterns. This research validated the research of Colgen (1982) who concluded that the

27

variables that predict 8th grade absences were 7th grade absences, as well as scores on

attitude tests, economic status, and attendance in K-5th grades.

At the high school level, patterns of absenteeism were established by days of the

week, grade level, classes, gender, and race (Levanto 1975; McMeans, 1990; Robins &

Ratcliff, 1978). The days with the highest rates of absenteeism were Mondays, Fridays,

and days prior to vacations (Levanto, 1975). Higher rates of absenteeism were in the

upper grades and reported cases of truancy by gender were more frequent for girls in 9th,

10th, and 11th grades and boys in 12th grade (Levanto, 1975). Truants were more

frequently older than their peers, African-American, living in a single-parent household,

and rarely involved in extracurricular activities or religious activities (Levanto, 1975).

Students enrolled in the fine arts had higher rates of attendance than students in

vocational education (McMeans, 1990).

In 2000, the dropout rate for students 16 to 24 years old was 10.9 % or 3.8 million

young adults (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). Absenteeism was an

indicator for dropping out of school (Beachman, 1981; Bhaerman & Kopp, 1988;

Galloway, 1985; Jimerson et al., 2000; Reid, 2000). Robins and Ratcliff (1978) studied

the detrimental impact truancy had on individuals by comparing students who attended

regularly with students with patterns of absenteeism since starting elementary school.

They concluded that 75% of career truants did not graduate, and as adults earned lower

wages, exhibited more deviant behavior, and experienced more psychological problems.

The dropout problem was estimated to cost society billions of dollars each year in lost tax

revenues, welfare and unemployment, and crime prevention (Bhaerman & Kopp, 1988;

Dryfoos, 1990; Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993; Levin, 1972).

28

Many approaches had been used to address chronic student absenteeism. One

approach focused on enforcing the compulsory attendance laws and penalizing truancy

through the court systems (Bartlett, 1978; Gullatt & Lemoine, 1997; Wilson, 1993).

Another method attempted to rehabilitate the non-attender by understanding why students

were not attending school and trying to help students (Dreilinger, 1992; Howard, 1983).

Community involvement had been used by the juvenile justice system as an approach

used to fight truancy (Sheverbush & Sadowski, 1994). Many experts believed that the

school was responsible for improving student attendance by making changes to the

curriculum and improving teacher/student relations (Rohrman, 1993; Sheverbush &

Sadowski, 1994).

Section Two: The Conceptual Framework for the Study

The conceptual framework developed by Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) was

used to examine teachers� perceptions of practices as implementers of student attendance

policy in middle schools in Georgia. This framework used the concept of policy

environments to help define the actors and arenas within each stage of the policy

implementation process. According to Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) there were three

environments in the policy implementation process that were functionally defined: The

Policy Formation Environment (Environment I), The Policy Implementation

Environment (Environment II), and The Policy Evaluation Environment (Environment

III).

Understanding the process of policy implementation required knowledge of the

interactions between the different actors in each environment and an understanding of the

linkages between environments (McLaughlin, 1991a; Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980;

29

Odden, 1991; Rein, 1983). Rein (1983) stated, �The process is not one of a graceful, one-

dimensional transition from legislation to guidelines and then to auditing and evaluation;

instead it is circular or looping� (pp. 128-129). The system for policy implementation is

cyclical, according to Nakamura and Smallwood (1980):

This does not mean that all the actors in the system have equal power to dominate

the policy process. However, it does imply that actors within any one of the three

environments can influence actors in other environments, often very significantly.

In addition, the system is not closed; policies can originate either within or outside

the system, and the actors can participate in different roles in different

environments. (p. 27)

Policy Formation Environment (Environment I).

In the Policy Formation Environment (Environment I), actors were the

government officials who were elected or appointed as formal formulators of policy and

the process of policy making took place in the governmental arenas at the federal, state,

and local level. The formal actors used a specified set of rules and regulations within the

governmental arena to identify the problem, develop the policy goals, and define target

populations that the policy intended to impact (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

Many individuals responsible for the formation of policy lacked expertise and

understanding of the complexities related to the issues involved with policy formation in

the educational arena and others lacked an understanding of the Implementation

Environment (Labaree, 1997; McLaughlin, 1991b; Reid, 2000). McLaughlin (1991b)

described a pitfall in the Policy Formation Environment as the lack of concern for �local

practice, beliefs, and traditions� (p. 144). Although one would like to believe that the

30

norms and beliefs of the community were woven into the district level policies,

unfortunately this was not always the case. Local school board members� systems of

beliefs were part of a study conducted by Gemmill (1995). This investigation focused on

the intentions of those who created attendance policies. Using the case study approach,

Gemmill (1995) examined the history of the issues related to change with the student

attendance policy by interviewing school board members, principals, counselors,

teachers, and school nurses from four different school districts to find policy was often

changed and adapted because of the �behavior of a single student� ( p. 101).

Policy Implementation Environment (Environment II).

The focus of this study was the Policy Implementation Environment

(Environment II) (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). Implementation had been defined in

different ways (Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1981; Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980; Pressman

& Wildavsky, 1973; Rein, 1983; Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975). An early study on

implementation by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) used the words �carrying out,

accomplish, fulfill, produce, and complete� (p. xiii) to describe the implementation

process. In this case study, the authors accepted the classical model of implementation,

which was linear and utilized the top-down approach, to study the implementation of

policy at the Economic Development Administration. The results of this study suggested

that policy implementation can not be studied in isolation because it was connected to

other processes (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973).

Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) defined implementation as �those actions that

are directed at the achievement of objectives set forth in prior policy decisions� (p. 47).

Their study focused on the personal and psychological complexities of the

31

implementation arena and developed the model that shaped the connections between

policy and performance (Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975). Mazmanian and Sabatier (1981)

defined implementation as �the carrying out of a basic policy decision, usually made in

statute (although also possible through important executive orders or court decisions)� (p.

5). Rein (1983) viewed policy implementation as a continuation of the political process

involved in the policy formation arena. Schneider and Ingram (1997) contend that the

implementation is defined as �the value added to design� (p. 89). This value added

referred to the discretion brought to the process by changing, deleting, or adding to the

original design of the policy. The measure of implementation for Schneider and Ingram

(1997) was the difference between the original and the changed policy.

According to the framework of Nakamura and Smallwood (1980), the

Implementation Environment consisted of different actors (i.e., policy makers, formal

implementers, intermediaries, recipients or consumers, media, special interest groups,

lobbyists, and constituency groups) operating from different arenas impacted by the

�organizational structures and bureaucratic norms as well as the communication networks

and compliance mechanisms� (p. 46). These organizations could influence the

implementers and intermediaries when implementers failed to establish strong coalitions

and excluded input from these groups when formulating policy (Spring, 1998).

The actors in the implementation process were part of the bigger policy system.

The system was �a circular system of communications and compliance linkages� with a

�variety of political forces at work in all three of the policy environments� (Nakamura &

Smallwood, 1980, p. 112). The compliance linkages predicted potential breakdowns that

would impact the success of the implementation process. There were five different types

32

of linkages that existed in varying degrees between the Policy Formation and the Policy

Implementation Environments that could impact the implementation process.

The first type of linkage resembled the classical approach to policy

implementation where the implementers acted as the technicians of the policy makers and

followed the directives of the policy makers. The second linkage, �instructed delegation�

was when administrative authority as well as the task of goal setting was delegated to the

implementers by the policy makers. The third linkage, �bargaining� took place between

policy makers and implementers in both setting goals and developing plans for

implementation of policy. There was also the method of �discretionary experimentation

where policy makers support abstract undefined goals� and allowed implementers to

�refine goals and means for policy makers� (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980, p. 114). The

fifth linkage, bureaucratic entrepreneurship, was explained by Nakamura and Smallwood

(1980) in the following:

The implementers formulate the policy goals and means to carry out goals and

persuade policy makers to accept their goals. The breakdowns that can occur

include (a) technical failure, (b) negotiation failures, (c) cooptation, (d) ambiguity,

(e) unaccountability, and (f) policy preemption. (p. 114)

Implementation was dependent upon both the interpretation and communication

of the policy. The formal communication of the policy was to be clear and concise to

limit the chance of misinterpretation and vagueness; and if the policy is vague and

ambiguous, then the practitioners made policy decisions rather than following prescribed

directives for implementation (Rein, 1983).

33

Policy makers influenced the implementation by �monitoring and intervening�

(Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980, p. 47) the implementation process. The Rand Study

(McLaughlin, 1991b) examined the interpersonal relationships between implementers

and policy formulators focusing on the implementers� receptivity or lack of receptivity to

changes. The conclusion reached by this research was that implementers were critical

actors in the policy process. The results of mutual adaptation, co-optation and non-

implementation could occur depending upon the implementers� level of interest,

commitment, and support (McLaughlin, 1991b). According to McLaughlin (1991b):

What matters most to policy outcomes are local capacity and will. The local

expertise, organizational routines, and resources available to support planned

change efforts generate fundamental differences in the ability of practitioners to

plan, execute or sustain an innovative effort. (p. 147)

Rand analysts found adoption did not guarantee successful implementation and

successful implementation did not translate to continuation. The active commitment of

school board, superintendent, district office, and school leadership was essential to

project success and continuation (McLaughlin, 1991b).

The formal implementers were agencies or departments at the federal, state, or

local level that were legally charged with the responsibility of policy implementation.

Local school boards were the formal implementers of the state law on compulsory

education. Intermediaries were �individuals or groups that are delegated responsibility by

formal implementers to assist in carrying out public policy� (Nakamura & Smallwood,

1980, p. 47).

34

One factor influencing the implementation of educational policy has been the

conflicting views on the purpose of American education (Spring, 1998). Labaree (1977)

identifies three perspectives on the purpose of American education as (a) democratic

equality, (b) social efficiency, and (c) social mobility.

The democratic equality approach sees the purpose of the American system of

education as promoting a democratic society and emphasizes the importance of political

competence of citizens for the public good. This perspective views �the goals of

education as citizenship training, the pursuit of equal treatment, and the pursuit of equal

access� (Labaree, 1997, p.20-21).

From the social efficiency perspective, the purpose of education is to create

productive citizens and promote the economic productivity of society by emphasizing a

curriculum that teaches practical, useful knowledge (Labaree, 1997). The social

efficiency perspective reinforces the existing structure of society, preserves the elite

political control, and views �education as a practical investment in human capital�

(Labaree, 1997, p.48) by preparing workers for the work force.

Nested within both democratic equality and social efficiency is the perspective of

social mobility. According to this perspective, education is a �consumer commodity�

(Labaree, 1997, p. 30) and the purpose of education is to prepare individuals with a

�competitive advantage in the struggle for desirable social positions� (Labaree, 1997, p.

42). Unlike democratic equality and social efficiency, social mobility focuses on

personal gain rather than on improving the political or economic environment for all of

society (Labaree, 1997). Labaree (1997) recognized that beliefs about the purpose of

education are not necessarily totally mutually exclusive, that they may indeed change as

35

an individual�s personal and social contexts change, and the emphasis on goals may vary

as individuals interpret and implement various policies in the school context.

The structure of the organization and the power struggles within the organization

has been another factor often creating obstacles and impeded the implementation process

(Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980; McLaughlin, 1991a). The organizational culture of a

school was the collective set of values, goals, norms, and beliefs brought to the school by

the leadership, teachers, and students which held the school together and provided the

organization its own identity (Hoy & Miskel, 2001). The method of communication used

within the organization, the allocation of time and money, the willingness and the level of

competency of the staff, and the norms of the organization could limit the success of

implementation (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980; Rein, 1983).

Policy Evaluation Environment (Environment III).

In the Policy Evaluation Environment (Environment III), the goal was to

determine �how close a governmental program has come to achieving its stated policy

goals� (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980, p. 67). The primary focus of the evaluation

process was to determine whether or not implementation took place, did it work, and

what did the program look like in practice (Odden, 1991). The process of evaluation was

ongoing and occurred in each environment. The policy makers monitored the feedback

from constituents, the media, and the implementers (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). The

actors in the implementation environment routinely made choices related to the

implementation process, which was considered informal evaluation. If a formal

evaluation was desired, professional evaluators technically trained to systematically

36

assess the programs defined by the policy would conduct the review (Nakamura &

Smallwood, 1980). In the Evaluation Environment, McLaughlin (1991a) warned:

Policy effects are complex, sometimes hidden or invisible, often unanticipated or

nominalistic. And even when they are apparent, they may be transitory. Learning

from experience, then, requires moving away from a positivistic model to a model

of social learning and policy analysis that stresses reflection and assistance to

ongoing decision-making. (pp. 191-192)

A wide-angle lens was necessary when evaluating policy implementation. �The

supports, incentives, and constraints that influence implementer capacity and

implementer motivation reside in the broader system� and �program effects may be

interpreted differently within a system context� (McLaughlin, 1991a, p. 192).

Section Three: The Context of Environment II in Schools

The focus of this research was the teachers� role in the policy implementation

process. In the implementation of educational policy, teachers were the intermediaries

who despite legislative intent or regulatory requirements made key policy decisions in the

day-to-day operations in their classrooms (McLaughlin, 1991b; Nakamura & Smallwood,

1980; Odden, 1991; Reid, 2000; Rein, 1983). Of particular interest was teachers� �will

and capacity� (McLaughlin, 1991b) as examined in their practices in the context of

implementing the student attendance policy in the middle school. Influencing this

environment and embedded within the context are teachers� values and beliefs about the

purpose of American education (Labaree, 1997). Although teachers did not always

understand the complexities of student absenteeism (Reid, 2000), they were expected to

implement student attendance policy. An inherent resource that teachers� possess for

37

attacking such a challenge was their own set of beliefs (Mayer, 1985). These beliefs may

also have impeded the implementation process (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

Teachers� Beliefs

Researchers have defined teachers� beliefs in many ways. Brown and Cooney

(1982) described beliefs as results of actions and major components of behavior, although

the results were time and context specific. Siegel (1985) called beliefs �mental

constructions of experience- often condensed and integrated into schemata or concepts�

(p. 351). Harvey (1986) suggested that belief was an individual�s perception of reality

that had enough value and credibility to guide thought and behavior.

The relationship between the beliefs and the practices of teachers has been the

focus of research by Bauch (1982), Dobson and Dobson (1983), Mayer (1985), and

Pajares (1992). A system of beliefs provided a �sense of purpose that drives practice�

(Mayer, 1985, p. 4). Without a system of beliefs, practice proceeded �without direction or

focus and is reduced to merely getting things done� (Dobson & Dobson, 1983, p. 21).

The research of Bauch (1982) and Dobson and Dobson (1983) supported the conclusion

that teachers displayed a relationship between their beliefs and their practices. In a

synthesis of the research on beliefs, Pajares (1992) stated, �Beliefs are instrumental in

defining tasks and selecting the cognitive tools with which to interpret, plan, and make

decisions regarding such tasks; hence, they play a critical role in defining behavior and

organizing knowledge and information� (p. 325).

Brown (1968) argued that the agreement between beliefs and practice was more

likely to exist if a teacher�s broad philosophical system was consistent with educational

beliefs and suggested a directionality of the relationship between beliefs and practice.

38

According to Brown (1968), beliefs shaped practice. Teacher beliefs had a boomerang

effect on practice whenever teachers were confronted with a directive contrary to their

beliefs; they returned to what they philosophically support (Olson, 1981; Pajares, 1992).

There was also research that suggested that not all teachers operated with a system of

beliefs; some lacked the complexity in their thinking (Miller, 1981).

Teachers� Practices

Although there was a gap in the literature examining the practices related to the

implementation of student attendance policy, other aspects of teachers� practices and how

they impacted student attendance had been explored (deJung & Duckworth, 1986; Duke

& Meckel, 1980; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore & Ousten, 1979). Duke and Meckel

(1980) conducted a yearlong case study in a junior/senior high school that examined

several variables related to teachers� practices including the division of labor, rewards

and sanctions, micro-level decision-making, macro-level decision-making, and training.

The findings of this study concluded that although many different programs were in place

to help with the attendance problem, no one person or group claimed responsibility for

student attendance. The greater the division of labor, the less any one person assumed

responsibility for student attendance resulting in role confusion and poor coordination. At

the micro-level, decisions made by teachers and administrators were guided by policy yet

were neither automatic nor consistent. It was determined that rewards and sanctions were

necessary to encourage teachers to enforce the attendance monitoring policy; however,

praise was the only reward used by administrators. School officials lacked adequate

rewards and sanctions to encourage teacher to enforce the attendance policy; they also

lacked rewards and sanctions that were meaningful to students. At the macro-level,

39

decisions required input from stakeholders and the process included gathering data about

the problem, brainstorming, and determining the alternative solutions.

Unfortunately, this was not the process used in the schools in this study. Teachers

were not involved in the decision making process even when the programs required

teacher support to implement. Lack of training, lack of free time to participate in the

decision making process, and uncertainty of purpose were reasons identified for the low

quality of macro-level decision-making. Finally, it was determined that teachers lacked

training in collaborative decision making and the specialized knowledge necessary in

dealing with the complex set of problems that caused poor attendance. School personnel

had little knowledge of the skills needed to deal more effectively with student attendance

problems. Although this study treated these five factors separately, they were related.

Duke and Meckel (1980) concluded from this fieldwork, �better coordination among

school personnel responsible for attendance problems, more meaningful approaches to

problem definition, greater rewards, more systematic policy-making, and improved

training may lead to reductions in school attendance problems� (p. 355). Teachers were

charged with the implementation of the student attendance policy, yet they lacked

expertise on the �multi-dimensional facets of absenteeism� (Reid, 1999, p. 17).

DeJung and Duckworth (1986) examined the differences in individual teacher�s

overall class absence rates as they related to the teaching practice and teachers� personal

characteristics. This research found that teachers with low class absences one term had

low-class absences the next term and teachers with high class absences one term also had

high-class absences the next term. The patterns from year to year were consistent. The

researchers concluded these patterns could be related to other factors, however, strongly

40

suggested these results were attributed to teacher assignments, teaching style, and teacher

management practices.

Rutter et al. (1979) studied schools with high rates of attendance to learn that

teachers in these schools gave homework often, set high expectations for student

performance, displayed student work, planned curriculum by group rather than by class,

and had more time on task with fewer interruptions. Attendance was higher in classes

when the teacher was prompt, interacted with the students, used frequent praise, and

established a non-threatening learning environment (Rutter et al., 1979).

Summary

This chapter provided the history of compulsory education and the evolution of

state laws mandating student attendance. This background information presented the

context necessary for understanding district level student attendance policy. Nested

within the context of student attendance policy at the local level were the problems

surrounding student absenteeism in the classroom. Section two presented the framework

used in this study to understand the complex interactions between actors and arenas

surrounding the implementation process. The framework of Nakamura and Smallwood

(1980) was used as a lens to examine teachers� practices related to record keeping,

communicating, supporting students, and enforcing policy in the process of implementing

the student attendance policy. The research contended that teachers play a crucial role in

getting students to attend school (Reid, 2000); therefore pursuing an understanding of the

teachers� role in the implementation of the student attendance policy could have

implications for policy makers, school leaders, and educational stake holders.

41

CHAPTER 3

SETTING, RESEARCH DESIGN, AND PROCEDURES

This chapter is divided into four sections; setting, research design, procedures, and

summary. In the section on setting, a rationale for the sample selection procedures and a

description of the sample is provided. In the section on research design, the research

activities are outlined and the research questions are restated. The procedures section

presents the research activities involved in the development of the survey instrument, the

Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS) and the procedures involved in data

collection and analyses. Methods and procedures for establishing content validity and

reliability of the SAPS are provided. A review of the process is included in the summary.

Setting

There were two reasons for selecting middle schools in Georgia as the setting for

this study. First, few studies focusing on the issues of student attendance have been

conducted at the middle school level. It was at this level that patterns of absenteeism

developed and the existing literature suggested the need for additional investigations into

issues in middle school surrounding the implementation of student attendance policy

(Galloway, 1985; Levanto, 1975; Reid, 2000; Robins & Ratcliff, 1978). Second, since

district level student attendance policy was different from district to district, the sample

of middle schools used in this study should be reasonably representative of schools

throughout the state. Although the purpose of all attendance policies was to enforce the

state laws related to compulsory education (Official Code of Georgia, §20-2-690 to 702,

42

2000), lack of consistency in procedures and implementation might variably affect the

lives of students in Georgia schools.

Sample Selection Procedure

Multistage cluster sampling was used as the sample selection procedure to gain

access to a representative sample from the population of middle school teachers from

schools located throughout Georgia. One district was randomly selected from each of the

eight field service zones defined by the Regional Educational Service Agencies of

Georgia acquired from the Georgia Department of Education website at

http://www.doe.k12.ga.us. This selection procedure provided districts from different

regions throughout the state. A list of middle schools from each of these districts was

compiled and using a table of random numbers, one middle school from each district was

selected for the sample.

Description of the Sample

The sample selected for this study consisted of 459 teachers (Georgia Public

Education Report Card, 2000-2001) from eight middle schools located in different

geographic regions of Georgia (see Table 3.1). Descriptive demographic data for the

student population at each school was collected from the Georgia Department of

Education website at http://www.doe.k12.ga.us (see Table 3.2). Data included percentage

of students based on ethnicity, gender, free/reduced lunch rates, retention rate, and

dropout rates. This data was used to describe the implementation environment and will be

used in the analysis of the data.

43

Table 3.1 School Data ________________________________________________________________________

School Location Certified personnel ________________________________________________________________________

School A Metro Atlanta 71 School B Northwest Georgia 87 School C Northeast Georgia 42 School D East Georgia 55 School E Central Georgia 52 School F North Georgia 19 School G Southeast Georgia 80 School H Southwest Georgia 53 ________________________________________________________________________ Note. From Georgia Public Education Report Card (2000-2001). Georgia Department of Education.

Retrieved January 19, 2002, from http://www.k12.ga.us

Table 3.2 Student Data

Ethnicity

School Student

population Free/reduced

lunch White Black Other Retent.

rate Dropout

Rate

A 934 27% 49% 43% 7% 1% .1%

B 1166 50% 39% 10% 51% 1% 0

C 561 56% 91% 3% 6% 2% 0

D 898 58% 31% 68% 1% 6% .3%

E 812 39% 45% 52% 3% 1% 0

F 338 37% 69% 29% 2% 3% 0

G 1255 50% 34% 56% 10% 10% 0

H 880 60% 53% 36% 11% 1% .1%

Note. From Georgia Public Education Report Card (2000-2001). Georgia Department of Education.

Retrieved January 19, 2002, from http://www.k12.ga.us

44

Research Design

The design for this study was an ex post-facto design in which the variables were

assigned and not manipulated (Campbell & Stanley, 1981). The research activities

pertinent to this study included developing the SAPS survey instrument, collecting data

using the SAPS, and documenting validity and reliability of subscales of the instrument,

as well as reporting results in terms of percentages of teacher responses for each SAPS

item and subscales for each school. Results were compared, interpreting similarities and

differences in light of the historical political environment and context of the study in the

sample (Labaree, 1997; Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

This study followed the steps outlined by Rea & Parker (1992) for conducting

survey research. The steps included: (a) establishing an information base for the

development of SAPS items by reviewing the literature, examining student attendance

policy from school districts in Georgia, and meeting with focus groups of middle school

teachers; (b) determining the sample, sample size, and the sample selection procedures

based on reasonable representation of middle schools in the state of Georgia; (c)

construction of the SAPS based on the information collected from the review of

literature, examination of sample policies, and focus group meetings that aided the

researcher in the translation of components of student attendance policy into

implementation statements; (d) establishment of content validity of the instrument by

piloting the survey with an expert group of teachers, administrators, and a school social

worker who assessed each item of the survey and suggested revisions of the instrument;

(e) adjustment of the instrument making edits and revisions based on the pilot results; (f)

administration of the SAPS to teachers (N = 104) in two Hall County middle schools to

45

determine the stability reliability of the instrument using the test/retest procedure with a

time interval of two weeks; (g) distribution and collection of the SAPS to a sample of

teachers (N= 459 ) in selected middle schools across the state of Georgia; (h) analysis of

SAPS data by percentages of teacher responses for each SAPS item and subscales for

participating schools data; and (i) interpretation of variation in implementation of each

component of student attendance policy measured by the SAPS in light of the historical

political environments of the state and locals school districts (Labaree, 1997; Nakamura

& Smallwood, 1980).

Research Questions

The following research questions were developed to guide this study.




student attendance policy across a selected, representative sample of middle

schools in Georgia?

Procedures

The procedures for this study were divided into two research activities: (a)

developing and documenting validity and reliability characteristics of the SAPS

instrument and (b) collecting and analyzing descriptive data using the SAPS. The section

on instrument development described the instrument development activities and included

the processes used for establishing construct validity and reliability of the instrument.

The section on SAPS descriptive data outlined the procedures for administering the

survey and analyzing the data.

46

SAPS Instrument Development

A teacher survey was developed and used to collect data on implementation

aspects of student attendance policies. Survey research has often been used in education

to gather �the characteristics of a sample at one point in time� (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996,

p. 375). In education, descriptive studies have provided valuable knowledge (Gall, Borg,

& Gall, 1996). The Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS) was a self-report

instrument designed to gather teachers� perceptions of the practices surrounding the

implementation of the student attendance policy in schools. As conceptualized in

chapter 1, teachers have certain roles and responsibilities as implementers of policy

(Brokowski & Dempsey, 1979; Duke & Meckel, 1980; Eastwold, 1989; Gemmill, 1995;

Hassler, 1993; McLaughlin, 1991a; Ola, 1990; Petzko, 1990; Reid, 2000). Many

practices are part of the implementation process. Some of these practices are part of the

written policy, while other practices might be considered unwritten or even unspoken

(Brokowski & Dempsey, 1979; Eastwold, 1989; Gemmill, 1995; Hassler, 1993;

McLaughlin, 1991a; Petzko, 1990; Reid, 1999; Smith, 1998). Estimating the degree to

which these practices actually occurred was difficult (McLaughlin, 1991b). The SAPS

operationally defined teachers� perceptions of their role as implementers of student

attendance policy in terms of the frequency of occurrences of activities specified in each

item on the survey.

Development activities for the SAPS.

The SAPS instrument was developed using the following procedures.

1. An extensive review of the literature was conducted to determine the essential

components of student attendance policy. (Brokowski & Dempsey, 1979;

47

Gemmill, 1995; Hassler, 1993; Ola, 1990; Petzko, 1990; Reid, 1986, 1999). In

addition, student attendance policies from 16 different school districts in Georgia

were obtained from the Georgia School Board (2001) website and were reviewed

to develop a list of common elements. This list was cross-referenced with the list

of the 20 most common elements contained in student attendance policies

established by Ola (1990). Each item was listed with justifications from the

literature for inclusion in the survey (see Appendix A) (Rea & Parker, 1992).

2. Input from middle school personnel helped define the practices related to the

implementation of the student attendance policy. Focus group (n=35) meetings

took place with middle school teachers to discuss the attendance policy of Hall

County Schools (Georgia) and to determine the roles and responsibilities of

teachers as implementers of the student attendance policy. The participants in the

focus group created lists of practices related to the implementation process. These

lists became part of the information bank used for development of survey items.

3. Recommended procedures for designing surveys in development of the SAPS

were followed (Berdie & Niebuhr, 1986; Rea & Parker, 1992). Items were

developed that defined teachers� perceptions of practices related to the

implementation of student attendance policy within the context of a middle

school.

4. The initial draft (see Appendix B) of a teacher questionnaire was piloted with a

panel consisting of nine middle school teachers, three administrators, and a social

worker. These individuals were selected based on their knowledge of the issues

related to the implementation of student attendance policy and their reputation for

48

being detailed oriented. This group discussed item and scale clarity, flow,

completeness, and communication of intent with the researcher. Changes were

suggested in the content, format, scale, and communication of intent. A final

review of instrument items and response format was completed by a small number

of selected university faculty, middle school teachers, and the director for student

services for Hall County Schools.

5. The initial instrument was revised and edited (see Appendix C) as a result of the

recommendations made by the team of experts. The revised survey included five

questions regarding demographics of the respondents and 33 items related to the

perceptions of teachers regarding implementation of student attendance policy.

The SAPS used a five point Likert-type scale, anchored at both ends with

responses starting with, almost never to nearly always. These qualifiers provided

respondents with a wide range of choices to match their perceptions of their

experiences.

6. As a result of these instrument development activities, the SAPS instrument (see

Appendix C) was developed and formatted onto Scantron paper, unlike it appears

in this document. An item analysis rationale for each item of the SAPS was

included in Appendix D.

Structuring and scoring of the SAPS.

The SAPS was developed specifically to collect data on various aspects of the

implementation of the student attendance policy. Practices related to the implementation

of student attendance policy were defined and conceptualized in the items on the SAPS.

The survey included 33 statements defining teacher practices that were developed based

49

on practices identified by teachers, policy elements identified through literature reviews,

and through a review of student attendance policies from school districts in Georgia.

From the literature, teachers� practices related to the implementation of student

attendance policy could be organized into four broad categories. Without empirical

evidence, four subscales were identified that defined the practices related to the

implementation of the student attendance policy. Although these subscales were

exploratory in nature, the predicted subscales of the SAPS and the estimated percentage

of the total 33 items included in each subscale were as follows: (a) record keeping, 18%;

(b) communicating, 24%; (c) supporting students, 27%; and (d) enforcing policy

directives, 31% (see Appendix D).

The first anticipated category or subscale (6 items) related to the teachers�

perceptions of their roles as record keepers for the implementation of student attendance

policy. For teachers collectively, a mean score of 24 to 30 on the first subscale of the

SAPS might indicate that teachers perceived that as implementers of the student

attendance policy a major responsibility was to keep records pertaining to student

attendance, whereas a total mean score of 6 to 12 on this subscale would be an indicator

that teachers did not see record keeping as a priority.

The teachers� role as communicator of student attendance policy defined the

projected second likely subscale (8 items). Items for this subscale were related to

teachers� perceptions of their role in the implementation process related to

communicating with students, parents, and administrators about student attendance

policy. For teachers collectively, a mean score of 32 to 40 on the second subscale of the

SAPS might indicate that teachers perceived that they were responsible for

50

communicating student attendance policy to other educational stakeholders. A mean

score of 8 to 16 might indicate that only some teachers see their role in the

implementation process as communicator.

The third predicted subscale of the SAPS contained nine items related to teachers�

perception of their role as they supported students who were absent from school. For

teachers collectively, a mean score of 36 to 45 on this subscale of the SAPS might

indicate that teachers perceived that they were responsible for supporting students who

were frequently absent. A mean score of 9 to 18 might have indicated that only some

teachers saw their role in the implementation process as supporting frequently absent

students.

The fourth identified subscale included 10 items related to teachers� perceptions

of their role in the enforcement of the student attendance policy. For teachers

collectively, a mean score of 40 to 50 on this subscale of the SAPS may have indicated

that teachers perceived that they play an integral role in the enforcement of the student

attendance policy. A mean score of 10 to 20 for teachers collectively might have

indicated that only some teachers perceived themselves as responsible for the

enforcement of student attendance policy.

The SAPS was used to collect data for a sample of N= 459 teachers from n=8

schools in terms of percentage of frequency for each item, each subscale, each rating, for

the total sample and by each school. The data were quantified and examined by school.

Exploratory descriptive analyses of the data were conducted to determine the range of

different responses and results were compared for the total sample and for each school.

51

Validity of the SAPS.

Construct validity characteristics (Messick, 1989) of the SAPS were examined by

completing a series of principal component factor analysis procedures to derive first, an

unconstrained solution, followed by a series of subsequent analyses using oblique

rotations (SPSS, 2001), extracting factors iteratively, and terminating when factor

eigenvalues of 1.0 were obtained. Factor/factor and item/factor intercorrelations were

completed. Teachers were used as the unit of analysis for these procedures and data were

examined for missing responses prior to the analyses. Item grand means (for schools)

were substituted for missing data to enhance the number of usable responses. Factor

loadings were examined to determine the best conceptual and statistical interpretation of

the data. A set of decision rules was developed and considerations for retention of items

on factors were addressed. Items retained on survey subscales were used in subsequent

analysis. Although items were conceptually arranged on the survey by subscales, these

analyses were exploratory in nature.

The following set of decision rules were used to determine whether or not to

retain an item after these analyses. An item was retained on the factor of highest loading

giving consideration to the following criteria in order of occurrence: (a) magnitude of the

item loading on a factor was greater or equal to .33 (at least 10 of the variance in the item

was in common with the factor on which it was loaded); (b) the item loaded primarily on

one factor; or (c) the item loaded on multiple factors, but the difference between the

percentages of item/factor variance explained for the two highest loadings was at least

15%. If these criteria were met, items were included on instrument subscale aggregations

and thus used for subsequent analyses.

52

Content validity of the SAPS instrument was established using the process

outlined in the section, Development Activities for the SAPS. Procedures included an

extensive search of the literature, focus group meetings with middle school teachers, and

a review of district level attendance policies from Georgia districts. As a result of these

activities (Berdie & Niebuhr, 1986; Rea & Parker, 1992), an initial draft of the Student

Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS) was developed. Next, a panel of experts piloted the

survey. These experts reviewed each item, examining the item and scale clarity, flow,

completeness, and communication of intent. Edits and revisions were made. The final

draft was reviewed by yet another group of experts and revised accordingly.

Reliability of the SAPS.

Internal consistency reliability of the SAPS was examined using individual items

of the survey. Survey responses with complete data were used to determine the internal

consistency reliability characteristics of the SAPS. Cronbach�s coefficient alpha (α) was

calculated for items for each of the subscales of the SAPS.

A test-retest reliability procedure was used to determine the coefficient of stability

of the survey. The test-retest took place in two middle schools in Hall County, Georgia.

Teachers from these middle schools completed the survey. Two weeks later, the same

group of teachers completed the survey again. Responses to factored subscales were

correlated from time one to time two to determine the stability of responses over time.

Pearson product-moment correlation procedures were used to determine the reliability

coefficient of stability, or r value.

53

SAPS Descriptive Data Collection

The Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS) was administered to all teachers

(N= 459) in the eight middle schools in the sample to collect data related to teachers�

perceptions of student attendance implementation practices. The procedures for collecting

this data involved the following:

1. A letter was sent to the superintendent of each district in the sample explaining

the study and requesting permission to approach the principals of selected schools

about participating in a research study that requires teachers to answer a survey

(see Appendix E). The signature of the superintendent was required on a consent

form (see Appendix F). If a district did not agree to participate, another district

and school in the same region was selected.

2. Upon permission from the superintendent, an introductory letter was mailed and a

phone contact was made to each school principal to request their consent for

participation in the study (see Appendix G). Principals, who agreed to participate

in the study, replied by either mailing or faxing a consent form (see Appendix H).

If a school did not agree to participate, a similar school in the district was

selected.

3. Upon agreement to participate in the study by the school principal, individual

school packets were mailed to each school. The packets included an introductory

letter (see Appendix I) to teachers, copies of the SAPS instrument, and an

envelope for returning surveys.

4. The principal or a designee distributed a survey packet to each certified teacher in

the school. Three days after distribution, reminder postcards were distributed to

54

all teachers, not to single out any individuals, urging them to return the surveys

to the designee, sealed in the envelope provided.

5. Five business days after the school packets were mailed, a follow up contact was

made to each participating principal to assure that survey packets were received

and distributed. Instructions for distributing the reminder postcards were

provided.

6. Respondents were given ten days to complete and return the survey. Each survey

was coded on the return envelope to identify the school rather than individual

respondents.

7. On day ten, thank you letters were sent to each participating principal (see

Appendix J).

8. After four weeks, the principals would be contacted if surveys were not yet

returned. Additional packets would be sent as needed.

Organization of the data.

The data were organized in different ways and presented in chapter 4. A brief

narrative of the results of the SAPS was provided. A series of tables were used to present

data as a whole. This presentation of data showed items with the highest average

frequency scores, items that show strength, items that show lowest averages, items that

appear weak, and items showing the largest differences. Item distribution analyses of

each item and each subscale of the SAPS by teachers as a group and by schools was

displayed in a table using percentages of individuals who selected each response for each

item.

55

Analysis of the data.

Descriptive statistics for pertinent demographic characteristics for the sample

were reported. Characteristics of each school in the sample (N = 8) included population,

ethnicity of the student population, retention rate, dropout rates, and free/reduced lunch

rate. In addition, teacher-level variables for each school from Part I of the SAPS were

also collected.

Factor analyses of the data collected on the SAPS were conducted to examine

construct validity of the instrument. This analysis was conducted as a large-scale factor

analysis of the data collected from all teachers as a unit across the sample. Data were

examined prior to the analyses for missing or duplicate teacher responses which were

substituted with item grand means in order to maximize the number of usable responses

for the analyses. For one-factor solutions, factor pattern matrices were used to examine

factor loadings. For solutions beyond one-factor, rotated factor pattern/structure matrices

were used to examine factor loadings for oblique solutions.

A set of considerations that were regarded as appropriate, given the exploratory

nature of the study (which involved instrument development) was used to guide the factor

analyses conducted for the SAPS. These considerations involved: (a) validity concerns

for both the face and content validity of items and subscales relative to conceptual bases

of constructs measured and (b) reliability concerns relative to inclusion of appropriate

numbers of items for subscales.

The internal consistency reliability of subscales of the SAPS was examined for the

data collected (n=269) using Cronbach�s coefficient alpha (α) reliability analyses.

Factored subscale scores for the SAPS were used in the reliability analyses. Alpha

56

coefficients were computed for each subscale of the SAPS and alpha if item deleted

were calculated for each item within each subscale.

The stability of the instrument was examined using test-retest (stability)

coefficients. Pearson product-moment correlations were computed using data collected

on the subscales of the SAPS from a separate sample of middle school teachers

(Litwin, 1995).

Summary

A description has been provided of the setting, research design, and procedures to

be followed in conducting this study. The research problem was restated and the research

questions were presented. The procedures followed for the selection of the sample,

acquisition of the data, development of the survey, and analyses of the data were

included.

Chapter 4 includes the descriptive statistics for the sample demographics and the

results of the data analysis derived from the data collected from the teacher surveys to

address the research questions presented in the study.

57

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

The study was divided into the following research activities: (a) developing the

Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS), (b) assessing validity and reliability of the

SAPS, (c) selecting the sample based on geographic regions of Georgia, (d) collecting

and analyzing survey data, (e) comparing data across school districts, and (f) interpreting

data in terms of stakeholders perspectives on student attendance and related policies

through the lens of the Policy Environments Framework (Nakamura & Smallwood,

1980). The presentation of findings address each of the following research questions.




student attendance policy in selected middle schools in Georgia?

This chapter is divided into three major sections: (a) the descriptive data collected

using the SAPS, (b) the empirically derived concepts measured by the SAPS, and (c) the

data collected by reviewing documents. In the first section, the descriptive data collected

using the SAPS includes the response rate by school for the total sample, demographic

data for each school, frequency of responses for each item, and the descriptive statistics

of mean and standard deviation for each item of the SAPS. In the second section, the

methods used for deriving construct validity and reliability is presented and the

coefficients of internal consistency and stability are examined. The third section includes

58

a document review of the student attendance policies from each district in the sample and

the descriptive statistics for each school in the sample.

Descriptive Data Collected Using the SAPS

The SAPS was used to collect data from teachers from eight different schools in

Georgia about their perceptions of teachers� practices related to the implementation of

student attendance policy. The data collected by the SAPS were presented by the total

sample and by school. The data included response rate, demographics, frequency of

responses for each item for the total sample, and the descriptive statistics for each item

for the total sample.

Response Rate

The sample consisted of 469 certified teachers from eight middle schools in

Georgia. The number of teachers who responded by completing the SAPS was 269. The

response rate from the schools in the sample ranged from 39% to 90% with a total

average response rate of 59% (see Table 4.1). Highest rates of response were recorded

from School E (90 %) and School H (89 %). Schools A, B, and G had the lowest rates of

response with rates of 42%, 46%, and 39% respectively. The high rate of response may

have been due to the return method used by the researcher. All respondents recorded

answers on the Scantron sheet and returned in a sealed envelop to a school level designee.

The school principal appointed the school level designee and approved this process. The

designee then returned all completed surveys in a self-addressed stamped envelope. For

the teachers that opted not to complete the SAPS, the principal or designee provided the

following: Completion of the SAPS was optional; several surveys had already been

completed by teachers this year; teachers� time was very limited; and other demands

59

within the school took precedence over research surveys from the outside. Of the eight

schools that participated, two superintendents and five principals expressed an interest in

the final report.

Table 4.1

Response Rate by School for the Total Sample ______________________________________________________________________ No. No. Percentage School sent received returned ______________________________________________________________________ School A 71 30 42% School B 87 40 46% School C 42 21 50% School D 55 40 73% School E 52 47 90% School F 19 13 68% School G 80 31 39% School H 53 47 89% Totals 459 269 59% ________________________________________________________________________ Note. n = 269.

Demographic Data

The first five items of the SAPS collected demographic data. The demographic

data indicated the largest percentage of the respondents were female (79%), between 40

and 49 years of age (35%), and with over 20 years of experience (26%) (see Table 4.2).

The demographics also indicated that the smallest percentage of respondents were over

60 years old (only 4 respondents), with 16-20 years of teaching experience (33

respondents), with a T-7 level of certification (only 1 respondent) and with 4-12

certification (only 6 respondents).

60

Table 4.2

Demographic Profile of the Sample _______________________________________________________________________ Type Percent Gender n Male Female _______________________________________________________________________ School A 30 20 73.3 School B 38 17.5 77.5 School C 21 14.3 85.7 School D 40 17.5 82.5 School E 46 21.3 76.6 School F 13 23.1 76.9 School G 29 12.9 80.6 School H 46 17 80.9 Total 269 17.8 79.2 ______________________________________________________________________ Age: 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+_______

School A 16.7 30 30 23.3 School B 5 22.5 57.5 10 School C 23.8 23.8 23.8 28.6 School D 30 20 32.5 15 School E 4.3 25.5 38.3 27.7 School F 23.1 23.1 30.8 23.1 School G 12.9 32.3 12.9 29 6.5 School H 8.5 23.4 40.4 21.3 2.1 Total 13.8 24.9 35.3 21.6 1.5

______________________________________________________________________

Experience: 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+_______

School A 26.7 20 6.7 10.3 33.3 School B 20 5 42.5 7.5 25 School C 23.8 9.5 14.3 19 33.3 School D 25 25 15 7.5 27.5 School E 23.4 21.3 12.8 14.9 27.7 School F 38.5 15.4 7.7 30.8 7.7 School G 19.4 35.5 6.5 6.5 29 School H 14.9 27.7 21.3 14.9 19.1 Total 22.3 20.8 17.5 12.3 26 _______________________________________________________________________ Note. n = 269.

61

The demographic data showed that the highest percentage of teachers in the

sample had a master level degree (T-6) and held 4-8 certificates (see Table 4.3).

Table 4.3

Levels and Type of Certification for the Sample _______________________________________________________________________ Type Percent _______________________________________________________________________ Certification: Provisional T-4 T-5 T-6 T-7

School A 6.7 30 40 16.7 3.3 School B 2.5 17.5 72.5 7.5 0 School C 0 38.1 42.9 19 0 School D 5 50 30 15 0 School E 6.4 36.2 51.1 4.3 0 School F 15.4 46.2 38.5 0 0 School G 0 35.5 38.7 19.4 0 School H 2.1 44.7 46.8 4.3 0 Total 4.1 36.8 46.5 10.4 .4 _______________________________________________________________________ Certificate: K-8 4-8 4-12 K-12 7-12_______

School A 16.7 40 0 23.3 16.7 School B 17.5 50 0 30 2.5 School C 0 52.4 9.5 19 19 School D 10 62.5 0 20 7.5 School E 6.4 51.1 2.1 27.7 10.6 School F 23.1 46.2 7.7 7.7 15.4 School G 12.9 51.6 3.2 22.6 6.5 School H 14.9 51.1 2.1 17 12.8 Total 12.3 51.3 2.2 22.3 10.4 ________________________________________________________________________ Note. n = 269.

Frequency of Responses

A total of 269 teachers from eight middle schools in Georgia responded to the 33

items on the Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS). The SAPS used a five point

62

Likert-type scale anchored on each end with, almost never to nearly always, to provide

respondents with a possible range of responses. The Scantron sheets were processed, and

the percent of response for each item was determined for the total sample. The frequency

of responses were calculated by determining the number of responses, for each place on

the frequency scale, divided by the total number of respondents (n = 269) for each item of

the SAPS. The frequency of responses for the total sample for each item on the SAPS

was provided (see Table 4.4).

Table 4.4

Frequency of Response of Each Item for the Total Sample

Categories Item Almost Never

Nearly always

1 2 3 4 5 Record absences school 6 18.20% 4.50% 11.50% 10% 55.80% Record tardies to class 7 11.20% 7.10% 18.60% 17.10% 46.10% Record abs. by class 8 12.30% 9.70% 15.60% 13.80% 47.60% Phone contact 9 33.10% 15.20% 20.80% 14.50% 15.60% Parent note 10 13.40% 3.00% 12.30% 14.10% 56.10% Copy policya 11 11.20% 2.60% 4.80% 10.00% 71.00% Excuse with dr. notea 12 8.60% 2.60% 4.80% 6.70% 77.00% Record check outs 13 27.50% 8.60% 23.80% 10.40% 28.30% Contact parent 3+ days 14 18.00% 14.10% 16.70% 16.40% 34.60% Sends teacher letter 15 27.50% 11.50% 14.50% 15.20% 29.70% Incentives/rewards 16 36.10% 13.80% 17.80% 10.40% 21.60% Home visitsb 17 68.00% 10.40% 10.40% 5.60% 4.80% SSTa 18 7.10% 1.90% 13.80% 28.30% 48.00% Established procedurea 19 3.30% 5.60% 9.30% 19.70% 61.30% Trained to implement 20 17.50% 11.20% 15.60% 17.80% 35.70% Assignment for tardyb 21 65.80% 15.20% 8.90% 5.90% 4.10% Detention for tardy 22 41.60% 12.30% 14.10% 16.40% 15.60% Grade reduction/tardyb 23 76.60% 8.20% 9.30% 1.90% 3.70% Discipline ref/tardy 24 25.70% 8.60% 22.30% 20.10% 23.40% Teacher contact tardy 25 20.10% 10.80% 25.30% 22.30% 20.10% Detention /unexcused 26 65.40% 8.90% 11.90% 4.10% 8.90% Grade reduction unexc.b 27 70.30% 9.30% 10.40% 2.20% 7.40% Discipline ref./unexc. 28 52.00% 10.00% 12.60% 7.80% 16.70% 10+ to counselor 29 15.60% 9.70% 15.20% 18.20% 41.30% 10+ to administrator 30 30.50% 11.90% 1.006% 14.50% 27.10%

63

Categories Item Almost Never

Nearly always

1 2 3 4 5 10+ teacher/parent conf. 31 26.40% 15.20% 20.80% 14.50% 22.30% 10+ admin/parent conf. 32 31.20% 11.50% 23.00% 14.90% 19.00% Tutoring 33 28.30% 15.60% 25.70% 13.80% 14.90% Modify curriculum 34 37.90% 17.50% 21.20% 12.30% 10.40% Excused make-upa 35 1.90% 2.00% 2.60% 10.80% 82.90% Announce eventsa 36 5.60% 0.70% 4.50% 9.30% 79.60% Announce testsa 37 1.50% 0.00% 2.20% 8.20% 88.10% Check daily report 38 7.10% 3.70% 19.30% 21.90% 47.20% Note. aCombining responses 4 and responses 5 exceeded 75%. bCombining responses 1 and responses 2

exceeded 75%.

The results of the SAPS for the total sample indicated that there were seven items

where 75 % or more of the respondents marked a four or five on the SAPS that suggested

high rates of frequencies for those items. The items that showed strength included: (a)

provided a copy of policy to the students (81%), (b) excused absence with a doctor note

(84%), (c) discussed student attendance in SST meetings (76%), (d) established

procedures for implementing student attendance policy (80%), (e) allowed students to

make up work with an excused absence (93%), (f) announced events (89%), and (g)

announced tests (96%). In addition, there were four items where 75% or more of the

respondents marked a one or two on the SAPS that suggested extremely low rates of

frequency for those items. The items that showed low rates of occurrence were: (a) home

visits (78%); (b) assignments as a consequence for tardies (81%); (c) grade reductions as

a consequence for tardies (85%); and (d) grade reduction as a consequence for an

unexcused absence (80%).

64

Descriptive Statistics

The mean and standard deviation for each item on the SAPS for the total sample

were calculated (see Table 4.5). Means were calculated for each item by multiplying each

scale value by the number of individuals who selected it and dividing by the total number

of respondents (n = 269) in the sample. The assigned values of the SAPS followed

specific procedures with the response of, almost never, equal to one point, to nearly

always, equal to five points and each response between the anchors was equal to two,

three, and four points, respectively.

Table 4.5

Mean and Standard Deviation for Each Item of the SAPS for the Total Sample

Item Item # Mean Standard deviation

Record absences school 6 3.807 1.569 Record tardies to class 7 3.799 1.378 Record abs. by class 8 3.749 1.441 Phone contact 9 2.639 1.459 Parent note 10 3.984 1.421 Copy policy 11 4.277 1.341 Excuse with dr. note 12 4.415 1.236 Record check outs 13 3.035 1.558 Contact parent 3+ days 14 3.370 1.505 Sends teacher letter 15 3.081 1.603 Incentives/rewards 16 2.673 1.566 Home visits 17 1.682 1.160 SST 18 4.096 1.151 Established procedure 19 4.312 1.067 Trained to implement 20 3.437 1.497 Assignment for tardy 21 1.673 1.118 Detention for tardy 22 2.520 1.535 Grade reduction/tardy 23 1.474 0.998 Discipline ref/tardy 24 3.071 1.509 Teacher contact tardy 25 3.120 1.391 Detention for unexcused 26 1.816 1.310 Grade reduction unex. 27 1.668 1.209 Discipline ref for unex. 28 2.270 1.552 10+ to counselor 29 3.599 1.485

65

Item Item # Mean Standard deviation

10+ to administrator 30 2.960 1.605 10+ teacher/parent conf. 31 2.915 1.499 10+ admin/parent conf. 32 2.788 1.495 Tutoring 33 2.715 1.395 Modify curriculum 34 2.396 1.369 Excused make-up 35 4.721 0.753 Announce events 36 4.572 1.025 Announce tests 37 4.814 0.613 Check daily report 38 3.991 1.207

Note. N = 269.

Since 4.0 and higher represented a response by the respondents of nearly all of the

time, the data were considered using that standard of agreement. The results indicated

that items with a mean of 4.0 or higher suggested high rates of frequency. These items

included: (a) followed established procedure to monitor student attendance (mean =

4.312), (b) provided a written copy of policy to students and parents (mean = 4.277), (c)

excused absences with a note from a doctor (mean = 4.415), (d) allowed make-up work

for excused absences (mean = 4.721), (e) discussed absenteeism in SST meetings (mean

= 4.096), (f) announced events (mean = 4.572), and (g) announced tests (mean = 4.814).

The item that indicated the lowest level of frequency was grade reductions for tardiness

(mean = 1.474).

Empirically Derived Concepts Measured by the SAPS

This section outlines the steps followed in the study to determine the empirically

derived characteristics (construct validity and reliability) of the SAPS. The construct

validity characteristics of the SAPS are reported. The steps taken by the researcher to

ensure content validity are summarized. In addition, the results of factor analyses

procedures are presented to illustrate construct validity of the subscales of the SAPS for a

66

sample consisting of middle school teachers (n = 269) from a representative sample of

schools (n = 8) in Georgia.

Construct Validity

Content validity of the SAPS instrument was established using the development

activities outlined in this section. Litwin (1995) defined content validity:

Content validity is a subjective measure of how appropriate the items seem to

a set of reviewers who have some knowledge of the subject matter. The

assessment of content validity typically involves an organized review of the

survey�s contents to ensure that it includes everything it should and does not

include anything it shouldn�t. (p. 35)

The survey, Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS), was developed to

determine middle school teachers� perceptions of the practices related to the

implementation of student attendance policy. Recommended procedures for designing

surveys (Berdie & Niebuhr, 1986; Rea & Parker, 1992) were followed. Activities

included an extensive review of the literature to determine the essential components of

student attendance policy (Brokowski & Dempsey, 1979; Gemmill, 1995; Hassler, 1993;

Ola, 1990; Petzko, 1990; Reid, 1986, 1999). In addition, student attendance policies from

16 different school districts in Georgia were obtained from the Georgia School Board

(2001) website and were reviewed to develop a list of common elements. This list was

cross-referenced with the list of the 20 most common elements contained in student

attendance policies established by Ola (1990). Each item was listed with justifications

from the literature for inclusion in the survey (see Appendix A) (Rea & Parker, 1992).

67

Middle school personnel input were solicited to help define practices related to the

implementation of student attendance policy. Focus groups, consisting of middle school

teachers (n = 35), discussed the attendance policy of Hall County Schools (Georgia) and

determined the roles and responsibilities of teachers as implementers of student

attendance policy. These meetings were held weekly for two months by grade level with

middle school teachers. The participants in the focus group created lists of practices

related to the implementation process. These lists became the information bank and were

used in the development of survey items.

Using the information bank, items were developed that defined teachers�

perceptions of practices related to the implementation of student attendance policy within

the context of a middle school (Berdie & Niebuhr, 1986; Rea & Parker, 1992). Items

were arranged into an initial draft of a questionnaire, which was piloted by nine middle

school teachers, three administrators, and a social worker. These individuals were

selected based on their knowledge of the issues related to the implementation of student

attendance policy and their reputation for being detailed oriented. These experts analyzed

the SAPS for item and scale clarity, flow, completeness, and communication of intent

with the researcher and they suggested changes in the content, format, scale, and

communication of intent (Berdie & Niebuhr, 1986; Rea & Parker, 1992). Revisions were

made to the SAPS based on these suggestions (see Appendix B). A final review of the

instrument was completed by a small number of university faculty, middle school

teachers, and the director for student services for Hall County Schools. The SAPS was

revised and edited as a result of the recommendations made by this team of experts.

68

The revised survey (see Appendix C) included five questions regarding

demographics of the respondents and 33 items related to the perceptions of teachers

regarding implementation of student attendance policy. The SAPS used a five point

Likert-type scale, anchored at both ends with responses starting with almost never to

nearly always. These qualifiers provided respondents with a wide range of choices to

match their perceptions of their experiences. In conclusion, the SAPS was developed

using an organized review of the content by experts in focus groups, piloted, revised

based on suggestions, and reviewed by a panel of experts. The final version of the SAPS

was transferred to Scantron format.

Further construct validity characteristics (Messick, 1989) of the SAPS were

examined by completing a series of principal components factor analysis procedures (see

Table 4.6).

Table 4.6

Summary of Mean, Standard Deviation, and Loading of Factor Pattern Coefficients

(1-Factor Solution) for the SAPS

Descriptive 1 Factor Item # Item Mean Std. deviation Loading

6 Record absences/school 3.807 1.569 0.402a 7 Record tarries/class 3.800 1.378 0.372a 8 Record absences/ class 3.749 1.449 0.571a 9 Phone contact 2.639 1.459 0.517a 10 Parent note 3.984 1.421 0.589a 11 Copy policy 4.277 1.341 0.222b 12 Excuse with dr. note 4.415 1.236 0.736a 13 Record check outs 3.035 1.559 0.285b 14 Contact parent 3+ days 3.370 1.505 0.664a 15 Sends teacher letter 3.081 1.603 0.633a 16 Incentives/rewards 2.673 1.566 0.387a 17 Home visits 1.682 1.160 0.264b 18 SST 4.096 1.151 0.123b

69

Descriptive 1 Factor Item # Item Mean Std. deviation Loading

19 Established procedure 4.312 1.067 0.309b 20 Trained to implement 3.437 1.497 0.222b 21 Assignment for tardy 1.673 1.118 0.287b 22 Detention for tardy 2.520 1.535 0.545a 23 Grade reduction/tardy 1.474 0.998 0.389a 24 Discipline ref/tardy 3.071 1.501 0.489a 25 Teacher contact tardy 3.120 1.390 0.550a 26 Detention for unexcused 1.816 1.309 0.492a 27 Grade reduction unexcused 1.668 1.209 0.224b 28 Discipline for unexcused 2.270 1.552 0.999a 29 10+ to counselor 3.599 1.485 0.507a 30 10+ to administrator 2.959 1.605 0.668a 31 10+ teacher/parent conf. 2.915 1.499 0.646a 32 10+ admin/parent conf. 2.788 1.495 0.708a 33 Tutoring 2.714 1.395 0.233b 34 Modify curriculum 2.396 1.369 0.999a 35 Excused make-up 4.720 0.753 0.518a 36 Announce events 4.572 1.025 0.379a 37 Announce tests 4.814 0.613 0.405a 38 Check daily report 3.991 1.207 0.247b

_______________________________________________________________________ Note. aItems loading on 1-factor solution. bItems not loading on 1-factor solution. Extraction method used

was maximum likelihood .

Of the 33 items on the SAPS, 23 items loaded onto a factor. Items loaded on one-

factor if coefficients were greater than or equal to .33. The items that did not load on the

one-factor were 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 33, and 38; however, due to the nature of

this exploratory research, these items were retained for further analyses.

Next, to reduce the number of variables further and to identify constructs, a series

of subsequent analyses were completed using oblique rotations, extracting factors

iteratively, and terminating when eigenvalues of one or greater were obtained

(Kaiser, 1958) (see Table 4.7).

70

Table 4.7

Summary of Rotated Factor Pattern Coefficients for a 5-Factor Oblique Solution for the SAPS

Communality Factor coefficients Item Initial Extraction 1 2 3 4 5

6 0.404 0.402 0.026 0.084 0.542a (0.135) (0.049) 7 0.314 0.372 (0.540) (0.086) (0.020) 0.125 (0.027) 8 0.339 0.571 (0.260) 0.040 (0.012) 0.075 0.033 9 0.500 0.517 0.739a (0.028) 0.061 0.060 (0.172)

10 0.513 0.589 0.052 (0.082) 0.775a 0.113 0.024 11 0.313 0.222 0.244 (0.028) 0.153 0.039 0.138 12 0.566 0.736 (0.070) 0.048 0.878a 0.050 0.073 13 0.271 0.285 0.399a (0.016) 0.045 0.117 (0.025) 14 0.621 0.664 0.753a (0.060) (0.008) (0.126) (0.023) 15 0.609 0.633 0.750a (0.021) 0.076 (0.083) (0.075) 16 0.407 0.387 0.623a 0.128 (0.187) 0.173 0.136 17 0.277 0.264 0.497a 0.055 0.028 0.209 0.093 18 0.201 0.123 0.068 0.114 0.069 (0.175) 0.108 19 0.363 0.309 0.194 0.034 0.194 (0.149) 0.063 20 0.332 0.222 0.172 0.178 0.129 (0.158) 0.015 21 0.291 0.287 0.189 (0.060) (0.017) 0.497a 0.028 22 0.443 0.545 (0.070) 0.033 0.058 0.505a 0.052 23 0.346 0.389 0.031 0.007 (0.021) 0.621a (0.082) 24 0.435 0.489 (0.205) 0.048 0.019 0.128 (0.066) 25 0.539 0.550 0.247 0.039 (0.052) (0.016) 0.011 26 0.511 0.492 0.106 (0.034) 0.019 0.429a (0.031) 27 0.267 0.224 (0.076) 0.082 0.058 0.369a (0.002) 28 0.509 0.999 (0.026) 0.028 (0.041) 0.151 0.059 29 0.494 0.507 0.101 0.441a (0.039) (0.238) 0.025 30 0.583 0.668 (0.091) 0.845a 0.030 (0.060) (0.051) 31 0.646 0.646 0.186 0.655a (0.022) 0.035 0.024 32 0.596 0.708 0.019 0.878a 0.025 0.186 (0.055) 33 0.277 0.233 0.025 0.075 (0.095) 0.105 0.155 34 0.282 0.999 (0.031) 0.001 0.069 0.008 (0.022) 35 0.367 0.518 (0.098) (0.024) (0.045) (0.119) 0.734a 36 0.347 0.379 0.122 (0.021) 0.069 0.034 0.568a 37 0.331 0.405 (0.093) (0.047) 0.103 0.048 0.629a 38 0.235 0.247 0.056 0.033 (0.114) (0.049) 0.269

Note. aItems loading (a) items and retained on factor. Extraction method used was maximum likelihood.

The following set of decision rules were used to determine whether or not to

retain an item after these analyses. An item was retained on the factor of highest loading

71

giving consideration to the following criteria in order of occurrence: (a) The magnitude

of the item loading on a factor was greater than or equal to .33 (at least 10% of the

variance in the item was in common with the factor on which it was loaded), (b) the item

loaded primarily on one factor, or (c) the item loaded on multiple factors, but the

difference between the percentages of item/factor variance explained for the two highest

loadings was at least 15%. If these criteria were met, items were included on instrument

subscale aggregations and thus used for subsequent analyses.

The resulting set of two through six factor solutions were examined for best

conceptual and statistical arrangement. The items loading on each subscale were

examined and constructs for each subscale were identified from the literature (see Table

4.8).

Table 4.8

Identification of the Subscales of the SAPS and the Items Loading

Subscale Construct Items Loading

SS1 Communicating with parents 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

SS2 Truancy prevention 29, 30, 31, 32

SS3 Record keeping 6, 10, 12

SS4 Enforcing policy 21, 22, 23, 26, 27

SS5 Supporting students 35, 36, 37 Note. n = 269.

Each of the items that loaded on each of the subscales showed strength

statistically and conceptually, with the exception of subscale 1 where only four of the six

72

items related to the construct, Communication with Parents. Item 13 and item 16 did not

fit conceptually although they showed strength statistically. In the principal components

factor analysis, item 13 showed relatively low strength on the one-factor solution as well.

These items were retained on subscale 1 for further analysis. The lack of fit conceptually

might have been attributed to wording of the item and revisions may be necessary in

confirmatory stages of instrument development. Three items, 7, 8, and 38, loaded on the

sixth factor, however conceptually these items did not hold together and there was little

strength statistically with item 7 having a coefficient of .327 and Item 38 at .333. The

magnitude of these coefficients was not great enough to warrant a sixth subscale. Twelve

items did not load on one- factor or on two through six factors given the decision rules.

Items 7, 8, 11, 18, 19, 20, 28, 33, 34, and 38 were identified as not loading.

Using the Kaiser (1958) criterion, only factors with eigenvalues greater than one

were retained. The total variance explained was calculated using initial eigenvalues and

the extraction sums of squared loadings (see Table 4.9).

Table 4.9

Results of the Extraction of Component/Factors

Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings

Factor Eigenvalue % total variance Cummulative

eigenvalue Cummul. % of

variance 1 6.908 20.933 2.916 8.836 2 2.687 8.142 1.310 3.970 3 2.122 6.429 4.628 14.026 4 1.790 5.424 1.557 4.718 5 1.528 4.631 1.556 4.716

Total 36.26% Note. n = 269.

73

Using the extraction sums of squared loadings, the cumulative percent of variance

explained by the five-factor solution was only 36.26 %. Collectively, results indicated

additional work on the SAPS was in order.

The exploratory design of this investigation required that initial subscales of the

SAPS be identified (chapter 3). From the literature, teachers� practices related to the

implementation of student attendance policy could be organized into four categories.

Although these subscales were exploratory in nature, the predicted subscales of the SAPS

were Record keeping, Communicating, Supporting Students, and Enforcing Policy.

The data collected using the SAPS identified these initial subscales and indicated an

additional subscale, Truancy Prevention (see Table 4.10).

Table 4.10

Subscales, Items, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Factor Loading for Each Item of Each Subscale

Subscale Items Mean SD Factor loading

Communicating with parents 9 2.641 1.478 0.739 13 3.000 1.568 0.399 14 3.348 1.516 0.753 15 3.081 1.611 0.750 16 2.672 1.569 0.623 17 1.695 1.176 0.497 Truancy prevention 29 3.588 1.485 0.441 30 2.963 1.606 0.845 31 2.910 1.504 0.655 32 2.787 1.500 0.878 Record keeping 6 3.816 1.566 0.542 10 3.977 1.427 0.775 12 4.421 1.239 0.878

74

Subscale

Items Mean SD Factor loading

Enforcing policy 22 2.511 1.535 0.505 23 1.474 1.003 0.621 26 1.816 1.315 0.429 27 1.669 1.245 0.369 Supporting student 35 4.720 0.755 0.734 36 4.571 1.027 0.568 37 4.813 0.614 0.629

Note. n = 269.

Communicating with parents.

This subscale consisted of six items. These items were conceptually arranged on

the SAPS and defined by teachers� perceptions of their practice related to

Communicating with Parents. The items appeared on the survey, numbered and stated as

follows:

9 Teachers in this school contact parents by phone to notify them of student

absences from school.

13 Teachers in this school record student check outs from their classroom.

14 Teachers in this school contact parents when a student misses three or

more consecutive days of school.

15 Teachers in this school send letters notifying parents of student

absenteeism after a certain number of absences.

16 Teachers in this school provide incentives and rewards for regular school

attendance.

17 Teachers in this school make home visits to meet the student�s family and

to determine the causes of absenteeism.

75

Although this subscale had a grand mean of 2.747 for all schools in the sample,

each item was analyzed to provide an accurate assessment of the subscale in terms of

specific strengths and/or weaknesses (see Table 4.11). Using a mean of 4.0 or higher, for

each item, the items identified with the highest level of frequencies were as follows:

School C items 13 (mean = 4.191); 14 (mean = 4.238); 15 (mean = 4.100); and 16 (mean

= 4.762); School E item 14 (mean = 4.064); and School H item 14 (mean = 4.435).

Table 4.11

Mean Analysis for Subscale 1(Communicating with Parents) for All Schools

Items School

A School

B School

C School

D School

E School

F School

G School

H Total Mean

9 1.467 1.925 3.762 2.256 3.426 3.000 2.533 3.000 2.639 13 1.667 2.900 4.191 3.550 3.130 2.923 2.936 3.068 3.035 14 2.167 2.400 4.238 3.000 4.064 2.923 3.200 4.435 3.370 15 1.690 2.300 4.100 3.051 3.745 3.385 3.032 3.489 3.081 16 2.138 2.475 4.762 2.600 2.128 3.231 1.387 3.553 2.673 17 1.300 1.550 2.191 1.475 1.536 1.692 1.484 2.200 1.682 Sub-scale mean 1.738 2.258 3.874 2.655 3.005 2.859 2.429 3.291 2.747

Note. n = 269.

Truancy prevention.

This subscale consisted of four items. These items were conceptually arranged on

the SAPS and defined by teachers� perceptions of their practice related to Truancy

Prevention. The items appeared on the survey, numbered and stated as follows:

29 Teachers in this school refer students absent more than 10 days to the

counselor for counseling.

76

30 Teachers in this school refer students absent more than 10 days to an

administrator for a conference.

31 Teachers in this school meet with parents of students absent more than 10

days.

32 Teachers in this school request that administrators meet with parents of

students absent more than 10 days.

Although this subscale had a grand mean of 3.065 for all schools in the sample,

each item was analyzed to provide an accurate assessment of the subscale in terms of

specific strengths and/or weaknesses (see Table 4.12).

Table 4.12

Mean Analysis for Subscale 2 (Truancy Prevention) for All Schools

Items School

A School

B School

C School

D School

E School

F School

G School

H Total mean

29 3.133 2.675 3.905 3.575 3.894 2.769 4.032 4.213 3.599 30 2.300 2.425 4.048 2.950 3.298 3.308 3.258 2.723 2.959 31 2.200 2.100 3.571 2.675 3.435 2.846 2.742 3.587 2.915 32 1.967 2.600 3.714 2.600 3.213 2.769 2.742 2.826 2.788 Sub- scale mean 2.400 2.450 3.810 2.950 3.460 2.923 3.194 3.337 3.065

Note. n = 269. Using the same standard, the items identified with the highest level of frequencies

were as follows: School C item 30 (mean = 4.048); School G item 29 (mean = 4.032);

and School H item 29 (mean = 4.213). Items that were close were School C item 29

(mean 3.905) and School E item 29 (mean = 3.894). School A had the lowest level of

frequency on items 30 (mean = 2.20) and 32 (mean = 1.967).

77

Record keeping.

This subscale consisted of three items. These items were conceptually arranged on

the SAPS and defined by teachers� perceptions of their practice related to Record

Keeping. The items appeared on the survey, numbered and stated as follows:

6 Teachers in this school record student absences from school as excused or

unexcused.

10 Teachers in this school excuse student absences with a note from a parent.

12 Teachers in this school excuse student absences with a doctor�s note.

This subscale had a grand mean of 4.069 for all schools in the sample; each item

was analyzed to provide an accurate assessment of the subscale in terms of specific

strengths and/or weaknesses (see Table 4.13).

Table 4.13

Mean Analysis for Subscale 3(Record Keeping) for All Schools

Items School

A School

B School

C School

D School

E School

F School

G School

H Total mean

6 3.133 3.050 3.900 3.575 4.596 3.923 4.742 3.596 3.807 10 3.067 3.875 4.048 3.075 4.600 4.077 4.516 4.413 3.984 12 3.100 4.425 4.143 4.500 4.745 4.385 4.871 4.674 4.415 Sub- scale mean 3.100 3.783 4.030 3.717 4.647 4.128 4.710 4.228 4.069

Note. n = 269. Using the mean of 4.0 as the standard, most items in this subscale scored close to

4.0 or higher. School A was the only school that scored low on all three items: Item 6

(mean = 3.133); item 10 (mean = 3.067); and item 12 (mean = 3.1). School D had two

items scoring low, item 6 (mean = 3.575) and 10 (mean = 3.075). School B and School H

78

scored low on item 6 with means of 3.050 and 3.596 respectively. All other scores were

3.9 or higher as depicted in Table 4.24. Item 12 had the most strength of all items in this

subscale (mean = 4.415).

Enforcing policy.

This subscale consisted of five items. These items were conceptually arranged on

the SAPS and defined by teachers� perceptions of their practice related to Enforcing

Policy. The items appeared on the survey, numbered and stated as follows:

21 Teachers in this school use additional assignments as a consequence for

tardiness.

22 Teachers in this school use after-school detention as a consequence for

tardiness.

23 Teachers in this school use a grade reduction as a consequence for

tardiness.

26 Teachers in this school use after-school detention as a consequence for

unexcused absences.

27 Teachers in this school use referrals to the office as a consequence for

unexcused absences.

This was the weakest subscale for all schools in the sample with a grand mean of

1.830; each item was analyzed to provide an accurate assessment of the subscale in terms

of specific strengths and/or weaknesses (see Table 4.14). School F was the only school

that had an item that met the standard, item 22 (mean = 4.000). School B and School G

had similar scores on item 22, mean = 3.150 and mean = 3.032 respectively. All other

79

items were below mean = 3.00. The item showing the most strength in this subscale was

item 22 (total item mean = 2.520).

Table 4.14

Mean Analysis for Subscale 4(Enforcing Policy) for All Schools

Items School

A School

B School

C School

D School

E School

F School

G School

H Total mean

21 1.367 2.025 1.381 1.550 1.638 1.539 1.484 2.000 1.673 22 2.300 3.150 1.667 1.350 2.553 4.000 3.032 2.723 2.520 23 1.167 2.325 1.095 1.325 1.565 1.000 1.097 1.532 1.474 26 1.367 2.325 1.191 1.250 2.609 2.154 1.387 1.826 1.816 27 1.500 1.800 1.571 1.300 1.652 2.231 2.065 1.170 1.668 Sub- scale mean 1.540 2.325 1.381 1.355 2.004 2.185 1.813 1.850 1.830

Note. n = 269. Supporting students.

This subscale consisted of three items. These items were conceptually arranged on

the SAPS and defined by teachers� perceptions of their practice related to Supporting

Students. The items appeared on the survey, numbered and stated as follows:

35 Teachers in this school allow students with excused absences to make up

missed assignments.

36 Teachers in this school announce special school events such as assembles,

pep rallies, and other school activities.

37 Teachers in this school announce tests and quizzes.

This subscale had a grand mean of 4.702 for all schools in the sample; each item

was analyzed to provide an accurate assessment of the subscale in terms of specific

strengths and/or weaknesses (see Table 4.15).

80

Table 4.15

Mean Analysis for Subscale 5 (Supporting Students) for All Schools

Items School

A School

B School

C School

D School

E School

F School

G School

H Total mean

35 4.500 4.575 4.762 4.950 4.553 4.923 4.774 4.848 4.721 36 4.267 4.350 4.486 4.575 4.638 4.462 4.452 4.870 4.572 37 4.600 4.875 4.810 4.850 4.830 5.000 4.677 4.894 4.814 Sub- scale mean 4.456 4.600 4.686 4.792 4.674 4.795 4.634 4.870 4.702

Note. n = 269. The mean scores for Item 35 were high for each school and ranged from mean =

4.50 at School A to mean = 4.95 at School D indicating high levels of frequency. Slightly

lower mean scores were presented for item 36 which ranged from mean = 4.267 at School

A to mean = 4.87. The highest mean scores were presented for item 37 of the SAPS.

Mean scores on item 37 ranged from mean = 4.60 at School A to mean = 5.0 at School F.

Although the mean scores for each of these items indicated a high level of frequency, the

mean scores for all three items on this subscale at School A indicated the lowest level of

frequency.

Reliability of the SAPS

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1996), �Reliability refers to the consistency of

the scores obtained- how consistent they are from on administration of an instrument to

another and from one set of items to another� (p. 160). This indicated that to be reliable,

the SAPS instrument had to be measured for both internal consistency and stability.

Internal consistency.

Internal consistency reliability of the SAPS was examined first, using the items

that loaded on the two through six factor solution (α = .833) and second, using each of the

81

subscales of the SAPS. The SAPS used a five-point Likert-type scale to measure

frequency of teachers� perceptions of practices related to the implementation of student

attendance policy with responses anchored at each end ranging from almost never to

nearly always. Due to this design, Cronbach�s alpha (α) was used to calculate internal

consistency reliability for each item within each of the five subscales, α = .832. To

further establish internal consistency, the mean score and the standard deviation of all

items within each subscale were examined. To support item internal consistency, these

values should be roughly equivalent for each item of the subscale. Then, alphas were

calculated for each item if each item was deleted in each subscale. Alpha coefficients

ranging in value from zero to one were used to describe the reliability of factors

extracted, the higher the score, the more reliable the generated scale. A score of 0.700

was considered an acceptable reliability coefficient but lower scores were used in the

literature (Litwin, 1995; Nunnally, 1978).

Communicating with Parents, subscale 1 of the SAPS consisted of six items. First,

the mean and standard deviation for each of the items in this subscale were examined (see

Table 4.16). The item mean for this subscale was 2.740 with a variance of .330, with a

minimum mean of 1.695 and a maximum mean of 3.348. Second, an examination of the

alpha if item deleted ranged from .703 to .776. Third, the Cronbach�s alpha for subscale 1

was α = .770, which was an acceptable reliability coefficient. Only Item 13 had an alpha

if item deleted greater than the alpha for the total subscale suggesting that perhaps this

items should be deleted because it in not contributing to internal consistency.

82

Table 4.16

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Alpha if Item Deleted for Each Item in Subscale 1 _______________________________________________________________________ Item Mean Standard deviation Alpha if item deleted _______________________________________________________________________

9 2.641 1.478 0.718 13 3.000 1.568 0.776 14 3.348 1.516 0.703 15 3.081 1.611 0.704 16 2.672 1.569 0.746 17 1.695 1.176 0.766

_______________________________________________________________________Note. Cronbach�s reliability coefficient, alpha = .770. Truancy Prevention, subscale 2 of the SAPS consisted of four items. First, the

mean and standard deviation for each of the items in this subscale were examined (see


minimum mean of 2.780 and a maximum of 3.588. Second, an examination of the alpha

if item deleted ranged from .782 to .834. Third, the Cronbach�s coefficient alpha for

subscale 2 was α =.839, which indicated an acceptable reliability coefficient.

Record Keeping, subscale 3 of the SAPS, consisted of only three items. First, the

mean and standard deviation for each of the items in this subscale were examined (see



alpha if item deleted ranged from .556 to .772. Third, the Cronbach�s coefficient alpha

for subscale 3 was α = .750, which was an acceptable reliability coefficient. Item 6 is not

contributing to the internal consistency of this subscale with an alpha if item deleted

greater than the alpha coefficient for the subscale. To improve the internal consistency,

83

removal or rewording of Item 6 and additional items need to be added to the SAPS in the

confirmatory stages of development.

Table 4.17


29 3.588 1.485 0.834 30 2.963 1.606 0.782 31 2.910 1.504 0.784 32 2.787 1.500 0.783

_______________________________________________________________________Note. Cronbach�s reliability coefficient, alpha = .839.

Table 4.18


6 3.816 1.566 0.772 10 3.977 1.427 0.676 12 4.421 1.239 0.556

_______________________________________________________________________Note. Cronbach�s reliability coefficient, alpha = .750. Enforcing Policy, subscale 4 of the SAPS, consisted of four items. First, the mean

and standard deviation for each of the items in this subscale were examined (see Table

4.19). The item means for this subscale was 1.820 with a variance of .1620, with a


alpha if item deleted ranged from .585 to .658. Third, the Cronbach�s coefficient alpha

84

for subscale 4 was α = .670, which was slightly lower than the acceptable reliability

coefficient of .700 but could be considered acceptable in exploratory studies using a

small sample size (Litwin, 1995; Nunnally, 1978).

Table 4.19


21 1.654 1.103 0.633 22 2.511 1.535 0.585 23 1.474 1.003 0.617 26 1.816 1.315 0.588 27 1.669 1.245 0.658

_______________________________________________________________________Note. Cronbach�s reliability coefficient, alpha = .670. Supporting students, subscale 5 of the SAPS consisted of only three items. First,

the mean and standard deviation for each of the items in this subscale were examined (see

Table 4.20). The item means for this subscale was 4.700 with a variance of .015, with a

minimum mean of 4.571 and a maximum of 4.813. Second, an examination of the alpha

if item deleted ranged from .463 to .599. Third, the Cronbach�s coefficient alpha for

subscale 5 was α = .640, which was lower than an acceptable reliability coefficient but

again might be considered acceptable in exploratory studies using a small sample size

(Litwin, 1995; Nunnally, 1978).

85

Table 4.20

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Alpha if Item Deleted for Each Item in Subscale 5

_______________________________________________________________________ Item Mean Standard deviation Alpha if item deleted ________________________________________________________________________

35 4.720 0.755 0.463 36 4.571 1.027 0.599 37 4.813 0.614 0.577

_______________________________________________________________________Note. Cronbach�s reliability coefficient, alpha = .640. Coefficient of stability.

A test-retest reliability procedure was used to determine the coefficient of stability

of the survey. Isaac and Michael (1990) defined the coefficient of stability as �the

correlation between two successive measurements with the same test� (p. 123). The test-

retest took place in two middle schools in Hall County, Georgia. A total of 104 teachers

were on the faculties of these two schools and 55 teachers responded to the initial test of

the survey. A two-week interval was used to diminish the effect of memory between the

test and the retest. Incentives for completing the survey were not offered, however

refreshments were provided to show gratitude after all data were collected. Forty-one

teachers responded to the retest, which indicated a 38% response rate. A response rate of

30% was considered adequate (Martella, Nelson, & Marchand-Martella, 1999).

The demographic data of the test-retest method concluded that largest percentage

of teachers were female, between the ages of 30 to 39, possessing between six and 16

years teaching experience, holding T-6 teaching certificates, and with 4-8 certification

(see Table 4.21).

86

Table 4.21

Demographic Information for Teachers on Test-Retest ________________________________________________________________________ Type Percent ________________________________________________________________________

Gender Male: Female: 25% 75% Age 20-29: 30-39: 40-49: 50-59: 60+: 13% 36% 27% 24% 0% Experience 0-5: 6-10: 11-15: 16-20: 20+: 16% 27% 27% 7% 22% Certification Provisional: T-4: T-5: T-6: T-7: 2% 27% 60% 9% 2% Area K-8: 4-8: 4-12: K-12: 7-12: 20% 51% 4% 13% 12% ________________________________________________________________________ Note. aTotal possible respondents, N = 104 and total actual respondents, n = 41(39%).

Responses to each of the subscales of the SAPS were correlated from time one to

time two to determine the stability of responses over time. Using the schools combined,

the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to determine the reliability

coefficient of stability, or r, value for each of the subscales (see Table 4.22).

The results indicated that the reliability coefficients for subscale 1 (r = .841),

subscale 2 (r = .661), and subscale 3 (r = .833) had r values equaling or exceeding .700

which established stability (Litwin, 1995). Although the correlation was significant at the

0.01 level, the reliability coefficients for subscale 4 and subscale 5 showed weak levels of

stability; therefore an examination of the schools separately was performed.

87

Table 4.22

Means, Standard Deviation, and r (Reliability Coefficient of Stability) of each Subscale of the SAPS for Test-Retest

N Mean time 1

SD time 1

Mean time 2

SD time 2 r

Subscale 1 39 16.23 3.76 16.23 4.05 .841** Subscale 2 41 10.37 4.71 9.85 4.09 .661** Subscale 3 39 12.56 2.54 12.98 2.19 .833** Subscale 4 40 6.88 2.73 6.75 2.01 .525** Subscale 5 41 14.05 1.38 13.8 1.71 .568**

Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. Examining the reliability coefficients of stability for each subscale for School 1

and School 2 (see Table 4.23 and Table 4.24) indicated high reliability coefficients for

most subscales. Examining the differences in the test-retest results for each school

reveals that School 2 had some unclear results in subscale 4.

Table 4.23

Means, Standard Deviation, and r (Reliability Coefficient of Stability) of each Subscale of the SAPS for Test-Retest for School 1 ________________________________________________________________________

N Mean time 1

SD time 1

Mean time 2

SD time 2 r

Subscale 1 22 15.43 3.59 15.62 3.88 .800** Subscale 2 22 10.36 4.93 10.23 4.42 .772** Subscale 3 21 12.19 2.56 12.57 2.36 .933** Subscale 4 22 6.36 2.54 6.67 2.15 .669** Subscale 5 22 14.05 1.56 13.55 1.68 .608**

________________________________________________________________________ Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

88

Table 4.24

Means, Standard Deviation, and r (Reliability Coefficient of Stability) of each Subscale of the SAPS for Test-Retest for School 2 ________________________________________________________________________

N Mean time 1

SD time 1

Mean time 2

SD time 2 r

Subscale 1 18 17.17 3.85 16.94 4.25 .873** Subscale 2 19 10.37 4.57 9.42 3.74 .506* Subscale 3 18 13.00 2.52 13.44 1.95 .683** Subscale 4 18 7.50 2.91 6.83 1.86 .369 Subscale 5 19 14.05 1.18 14.11 1.73 .543*

________________________________________________________________________ Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

These results may have been influenced by the manner in which the SAPS was

administered at School 2. Not all teachers participating in the test (n = 30), completed the

retest (n = 19) at School 2. An event that occurred between time one and time two that

may have impacted the results worth noting was both schools were initiating a self-study

as part of the accreditation process. All teachers were required to complete a survey as

part of this process just prior to the retest, which may have lead to apathetic or less than

valid responses to the test-retest administrations of the SAPS. Although the results

indicated some stability, additional work on the development of the subscales might

strengthen the stability of the SAPS.

Comparison of Document and Survey Data

In this section, a document review examined the context of student attendance

policy for each district in the sample. The district level policy was summarized. This

qualitative piece was necessary to understand the nature of teachers� perceptions as they

89

related to the implementation of student attendance policy. The document review was

then compared to the item statistics for each school collected using the SAPS.

Student attendance policy varied from district to district. The policy documents

were examined and a description of the directives included in each district policy was

included in Table 4.25. The description provides the content and emphasis of the policy,

which was important for understanding the context of the data collected using the SAPS.

Table 4.25

Policy Directives by District _____________________________________________________________ District A B C D E F G H _____________________________________________________________ Defines legal absence Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Written excuses Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Parental contact Y Y Y Y Y Y N N

Addresses tardiness N Y N N Y N N N

Grade reduction N Y Y N Y N N N

Loss of credit N Y N Y Y Y N Y

Appeals process N Y N Y N Y N Y

Referral to court N Y Y Y N N N N _____________________________________________________________ Note. Extracted from district level student attendance policy. Y = Included in student

attendance policy. N = Not included is student attendance policy.

90

School A The board policy for student attendance in District A defined lawful absences and

emphasized the importance of regular school attendance by stressing that school

attendance has positive effects on the quality and continuity of instruction, developing

teacher-student interactions, and providing opportunities for peer interactions in an

intellectual setting. The policy explicitly stated that efforts were made by school

personnel to contact parents when children are absent from school by 10:30 each

morning. According to this policy, schools were required to keep updated telephone

numbers on file. The responsibility of the parent included contacting the school in

advance to notify school personnel of upcoming absences and provide a written

explanation for absences and tardies. The policy emphasized that absences shall not

penalize student grades if absences were excused by law, make-up work for excused

absence was completed satisfactorily; an average of 70 or above was earned in course

work. The effective date of this policy was June 16, 1997.

The results of the SAPS survey from School A were included in Table 4.26.

Although this policy explicitly stated that phone contact was required for each absence,

the mean for this item was only 1.47. This suggested that perhaps attendance calls were

made by an attendance clerk or automated telephone system, not the teachers. According

to these results, teachers made few home visits too, which suggested perhaps home visits

were the responsibility of the school social worker and not the teacher. Additional items

showing low frequencies were the items related to consequences for tardies and

unexcused absences. The items with the strongest frequency at School A appeared to be

those items related to supporting students including SST, allowing make-up work with an

91

excused absence, and announcing tests and events. Another item with strength was

checking a daily report that suggested that a system of checking attendance during the

school day was in place and implemented at this school.

Table 4.26

School A: Item Statistics

Item Item # Mean Stand.deviation Record absence from school 6 3.133 1.870 Record tardy to class 7 2.767 1.696 Record absence by class 8 2.966 1.608 Phone contact 9 1.467 0.860 Parent note 10 3.067 1.837 Copy policy 11 3.267 1.182 Excuse with dr. note 12 3.100 1.918 Record check outs 13 1.667 1.155 Contact parent 3+ days 14 2.167 1.315 Sends teacher letter 15 1.690 1.316 Incentives/rewards 16 2.138 1.525 Home visits 17 1.300 0.952 SST 18 4.033 1.066 Established procedure 19 3.467 1.613 Trained to implement 20 2.587 1.630 Assignment for tardy 21 1.367 0.890 Detention for tardy 22 2.300 1.466 Grade reduction/tardy 23 1.167 0.648 Discipline ref/tardy 24 1.933 1.311 Teacher contact tardy 25 2.167 1.341 Detention for unexcused 26 1.367 1.129 Grade reduction unexcused 27 1.500 1.196 Discipline ref for unexcused 28 1.367 0.964 10+ to counselor 29 3.133 1.656 10+ to administrator 30 2.300 1.489 10+ teacher/parent conference 31 2.200 1.472 10+ admin/parent conference 32 1.967 1.245 Tutoring 33 2.667 1.446 Modify curriculum 34 2.000 1.114 Excused make-up 35 4.500 1.167 Announce events 36 4.267 1.311 Announce tests 37 4.600 1.070 Check daily report 38 4.267 1.081

Note. n = 30.

92

School B

The Board Policy for student attendance for District B defined lawful absences

and explained further the Board requirements for student attendance. This policy required

a written explanation for student absences, tardiness, and early checkouts. The policy

defined a combination of three unexcused tardies or unexcused early checkouts as one

unexcused absence. This policy stressed that if a student had excessive absences and/or

tardies, the social worker may refer the student and parents to the Department of Family

and Children�s Service or to Juvenile Court. This policy had a loss of credit penalty at the

high school level for six unexcused absences per semester. An appeals process was in

place. This Board Policy was last revised August 19, 1996.

The results of the SAPS survey from School B were included in Table 4.27. The

results of the SAPS for School B aligned with the policy directives showing strength in

the teacher practices of record keeping and student support. The descriptive results

indicated that an established procedure for implementing student attendance policy was

perceived to being followed by the teachers who completed the SAPS. According to the

results, a copy of the policy was provided to students and teachers implemented the

policy by recording absences and tardies to class. Another group of items with strong

frequency at this school appeared to be those items related to supporting students

including SST, allowing make-up work with an excused absence, and announcing tests

and events.

93

Table 4.27

School B: Item Statistics

Item Item # Mean Std. deviation Record absence to school 6 3.050 1.739 Record tardy to class 7 4.500 0.751 Record absence by class 8 4.150 1.051 Phone contact 9 1.925 1.328 Parent note 10 3.875 1.202 Copy policy 11 4.750 0.543 Excuse with dr. note 12 4.425 0.903 Record check outs 13 2.900 1.128 Contact parent 3+ days 14 2.400 1.105 Sends teacher letter 15 2.300 1.244 Incentives/rewards 16 2.475 1.377 Home visits 17 1.550 1.085 SST 18 3.825 1.217 Established procedure 19 4.025 1.128 Trained to implement 20 2.667 1.308 Assignment for tardy 21 2.025 1.250 Detention for tardy 22 3.150 1.460 Grade reduction/tardy 23 2.325 1.385 Discipline ref/tardy 24 3.575 1.279 Teacher contact tardy 25 2.975 1.310 Detention for unexcused 26 2.325 1.366 Grade reduction unexcused 27 1.800 0.967 Discipline ref for unexcused 28 2.375 1.462 10+ to counselor 29 2.675 1.385 10+ to administrator 30 2.425 1.299 10+ teacher/parent conference 31 2.100 1.057 10+ admin/parent conference 32 2.600 1.336 Tutoring 33 2.600 1.237 Modify curriculum 34 2.350 1.189 Excused make-up 35 4.575 0.984 Announce events 36 4.350 1.292 Announce tests 37 4.875 0.335 Check daily report 38 3.925 1.185

Note. n = 40.

94

School C The Board Policy for student attendance for District C defined lawful absences

and stressed the importance of regular attendance to student achievement. This policy

was divided into five sections: Definitions, daily attendance, releasing students, make-up

work, and truancy follow-up. This policy defined lawful absences, clarified in attendance

as at least half of the instructional day, and outlined the procedures for releasing students

early. This policy provided guidelines for make-up work including rules for excused

absences, unexcused absences, and out-of-school suspension and required schools to

write the procedures for make-up work. The section on truancy follow-up, outlined the

procedures for monitoring unexcused absences. This procedure required parent contact

by teachers after three consecutive absences, administrative contact after seven absences

per semester, and contact by the social worker after nine absences per semester. For

students with over ten unexcused absences per semester, teacher were required to start the

Student Support Team (SST) process for the student and the school social worker

coordinated a parent conference with parents for the purpose of developing an attendance

contract. This contract was revised each year and became part of the student�s permanent

record. A breach of this contract resulted in a referral to Juvenile Court. Counselors were

required to hold regular attendance meetings with students under contract. Included in

this policy were incentives for perfect attendance and improved attendance. According to

this policy, principals were responsible for developing, implementing and disseminating

procedures and rules for the implementation of this policy and for encouraging school

attendance. This policy was revised June 10, 2002. The results of the SAPS survey from

School C were included in Table 4.28.

95

Table 4.28

School C: Item Statistics


Note. n = 21. The teachers in School C perceived that an established procedure for

implementing student attendance policy existed. According to the results of the SAPS,

96

teachers provided a copy of the policy to students and were trained by administrators at

the district level or the school level to implement the policy. Teachers perceived

themselves as communicators with parents, supporters of students, and providers of

incentives and rewards for student attendance. Among the many items with strong

frequency at this school were those items related to supporting students to include SST,

allowing make-up work with an excused absence, and announcing tests and events.

Another item with strength was checking a daily report that suggests that a system of

checking attendance during the school day was in place and for the most part

implemented at this school. The items with the lowest rate of frequency were

consequences such as assignments, detentions, and grade reductions for tardies and

unexcused absences, which was not an expectation mentioned in the Board Policy.

School D

The Board Policy for student attendance for District D defined the roles of the

homeroom teacher, principal, attendance officer, and superintendent. According to the

policy, the homeroom teacher kept records, investigated absences of three or more days,

and reported students with up to seven absences to the principal. The principal contacted

parents and filed a written request to the attendance officer. The visiting teacher

investigated records and absences, made home visits, and reported back to the principal

who in turn notified the superintendent of truancy. According to the policy, the

superintendent contacted parents and made referrals to Juvenile Court. This policy had a

no credit provision at all levels for students who missed more than 30 days. In high

school, after 20 absences, an appeal was required every five days missed. This policy was

97

last revised on July 20, 1989. The results of the SAPS survey from School D were

included in Table 4.29.

Table 4.29

School D: Item Statistics


Note. n = 40.

98

At School D, teachers perceived that established procedures for implementing

student attendance policy existed. The results indicated that there was a high frequency

rate for recording absences to class and excusing absences with a note from a doctor. In

addition, there was strength at this school on those items related to supporting students to

include SST, allowing make-up work with an excused absence, and announcing tests and

events. Another item with strength was checking a daily report that suggests that a system

of checking attendance during the school day is in place and for the most part

implemented at this school. Items that suggested low rates of frequency were

consequences such as assignments, detention, or grade reduction for tardies and

unexcused absences.

School E

The Board Policy for student attendance for District E had separate policies for

kindergarten through sixth grade and then seventh through twelfth grade. Both policies

defined lawful absences and stressed the importance of regular attendance to student

achievement. According to this policy, students were not penalized if they provided

documentation that supported the legal absence within three days, otherwise the principal

determined whether the absence was excused or unexcused. After three undocumented

absences, parents were to be contacted. If absences continued, students were referred to

the office of student support services. In grades one through eight, students with more

than 10 unexcused absences were not promoted to the next grade level. Make-up work

was allowed for excused absences only. Suspensions were not considered unexcused

absences, however, students received a zero for work missed. Consequences for tardiness

in this policy included parent conference, detention, Saturday school, and one week

99

assignment to the Alternative School. According to this policy, 10 tardies counted as one

unexcused absence. Documentation must be provided to excuse tardiness.

The results of the SAPS survey from School E were included in Table 4.30.

Table 4.30

School E: Item Statistics


Note. n= 40.

100

At School E, teachers perceived that there was an established procedure for

implementing student attendance policy. The results indicated that there was a high

frequency rate for recording absences to class and excusing absences with a note from a

parent or a doctor. There was strength in the item related to contacting parents when a

student was absent three consecutive days, however, the standard deviation for that item

was 1.09. In addition, there was strength at this school on those items related to

supporting students to include SST, allowing make-up work with an excused absence,

and announcing tests and events. Another item with strength was checking a daily report

that suggests that a system of checking attendance during the school day was in place and

for the most part implemented at this school. Items that suggested low rates of frequency

were home visits and consequences such as assignments or grade reduction for tardies

and unexcused absences.

School F

The Board Policy for student attendance for District F defined legal or excused

absences, explained the procedures for prearranged absences, and discussed the required

documentation. According to this policy, students in high school who miss more than 10

days per semester received no credit, and students in elementary and middle school who

miss 20 days or more per year were not promoted. There was an appeals process at the

school level and at the system level.

The results of the SAPS survey from School F are included in Table 4.31.

101

Table 4.31

School F: Item Statistics


Note. n = 13. At School F, teachers perceived that there were established procedures for

monitoring student attendance. The results indicated that there was a high frequency rate

102

for recording tardies to class and excusing absences with a note from a parent. In

addition, there was strength at this school on those items related to consequences for

student tardies to include detention and discipline referrals and supporting students to

include SST, allowing make-up work with an excused absence, and announcing tests and

events. Another item with strength was checking a daily report that suggests that a system

of checking attendance during the school day is in place and for the most part

implemented at this school. Items that suggested low rates of frequency were

consequences such as grade reduction for tardies and home visits.

School G

The Board Policy for student attendance in District G defined legal or excused

absences, explained the required documentation to include medical excuses for excessive

absences, and determined who can make up assignments missed. This policy specifically

allows make up work for excused absences and counts out of school suspensions as

unexcused absences. This policy was adopted July 2001.

The results of the SAPS survey from School G are included in Table 4.32. At

School G, teachers perceived that there was an established procedure for implementing

student attendance policy and that students were provided a copy of the attendance

policy. The results indicated that there was a high frequency rate for all items related to

record keeping and documentation of absences with parent and doctor notes. There was

also strength indicating that teachers perceived that students with absenteeism of 10 +

days were referred to the counselor. In addition, there was strength at this school on those

items related to supporting students to include SST, allowing make-up work with an

excused absence, and announcing tests and events. Items that suggested low rates of

103

frequency were incentives and rewards and consequences such as detention or grade

reduction for tardies and detentions for unexcused absences.

Table 4.32

School G: Item Statistics


Note. n = 31.

104

School H

The Board Policy for student attendance in District H stressed the importance of

regular school attendance, defined legal or excused absences, and explained the

procedures required for documentation of absences, making up missed assignments, and

checking student out early. This policy had a penalty for excessive absenteeism at all

levels. According to this policy, students in middle and high school who missed more

than 10 days per semester (excused or unexcused) received no credit, and students in

elementary level who missed 20 days or more per year were not promoted. There was an

appeals process at the school level and at the system level. This policy also stated that the

Board of Education reserved the right to excuse student absences (beyond 10 days per

year) for school-sponsored non-instructional activities. This policy was adopted February

28, 2000.

The results of the SAPS survey from School H are included in Table 4.33. At

School H, teachers perceived that there was an established procedure for implementing

student attendance policy and that students were provided a copy of the attendance

policy. The results indicated that there was a high frequency rate for recording tardies to

class and documenting absences with parent and doctor notes. There was also strength

indicating that teachers perceived that students with absenteeism of 10 + days were

referred to the counselor. In addition, there was strength at this school on those items

related to supporting students to include SST, allowing make-up work with an excused

absence, and announcing tests and events. The only item that suggested a low rate of

frequency was using grade reduction as a consequence for tardies or unexcused absences.

105

Table 4.33

School H: Item Statistics


Note. n = 47.

106

Summary Chapter 4 presented the descriptive data collected using the Student Attendance

Practices Survey (SAPS), the empirically derived concepts measured by the SAPS, and

the data collected by reviewing the student attendance policies of each district in the

sample. The descriptive data collected using the SAPS included response rate by school,

demographic data for each school, frequency of responses for each item, and descriptive

statistics for each item of the SAPS. The results of the factor analyses procedures were

presented. The methods for deriving construct validity and reliability were outlined and

the coefficients for internal consistency and reliability were examined. Finally, a

summary of each district level policy and the descriptive data collected by the SAPS for

each school were presented.

Chapter 5 presents the results of the data analysis using the framework of

Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) as a lens for examining the data, conclusions, and

implications for further research.

107

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this exploratory study was to collect and examine data related to


survey instrument, the Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS), was developed to

collect data regarding the frequency of actions related to implementation practices for

student attendance policy from a sample of middle school teachers in schools across

Georgia. Survey responses were compared to additional data that was obtained from a

review of student attendance policy documents from each district in the sample and

demographic data from each school. Nakamura and Smallwood�s (1980) Policy

Environment Framework was used as the lens through which the study was organized

and data were examined and interpreted.

The following research questions were developed to guide this study.




student attendance policy across a selected, representative sample of middle schools in

Georgia?

Research Problem

Understanding the practices of middle school teachers as implementers of student

attendance policy was the goal of this inquiry. Few studies have examined teachers� role

108

as implementers of policy or teacher practices related to the policy implementation

process.

Policy Implementation Framework

The conceptual framework of Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) (chapter 1,

Figure 1) was used to guide the research focus and as a lens through which to interpret

the results of this study. According to this framework, the environments influencing the

implementation of policy include the formation, implementation, and evaluation

environments. Important to the implementation process are the compliance linkages and

communication networks that connect each of these environments. Nakamura &

Smallwood (1980) contend that each of the environments influencing the implementation

of policy has a separate function in the policy implementation process. Although this

research focused on Environment II, the Implementation Environment, an understanding

of the interactions between and among the actors within each of the environments, an

understanding of the communication networks and compliance linkages between each of

the environments, and an understanding of how policy implementation is informally

evaluated in the context of problematic issues in each of the three environments was

necessary when using this framework (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). A terse

summary description of elements of this framework is provided below to illustrate the

complexity of the contexts investigated and the multidimensionality of results reported in

this study.

The actors in Environment I (chapter 1, Figure 1.1), the Policy Formation

Environment, are the elected officials such as state lawmakers, state school board

members, district level superintendents, local school boards, lobbyists, and other political

109

players interested in issues related to education and have the power to act by law

regarding the concerns of their constituencies (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980; Spring,

1998). Like most educational policies, compulsory education law in Georgia (O.C.G.A. §

20-2-690-702, 2000) evolved over the years with the additions of new statutes,

amendments (i.e.�A+ Reform Act of 2000, Georgia Law Number 350 of 1945, O.C.G.A.

Ga. Code Ann. § 20-2-690 of 1984, and The Georgia Teen-Age and Adult Driver

Responsibility Act of 1997) and various interpretations of such law over time (Schneider

& Ingram, 1997). Changes in the original law occurred as the result of challenges in

interpretation (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925; People v. Levinson, 1950; Mountain

Lakes Board of Education v. Maas, 1960; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972) and responses to

problems in the implementation environment as a way to establish consistent compliance

linkages.

In Georgia, state laws have included compliance linkages holding schools,

parents, and students accountable for regular school attendance. Such policy is subsumed

under the impetus for stronger measures of accountability at the state level that have been

fueled by federal policies such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which intends to

close the achievement gap between disadvantaged (low SES) and minority students and

their peers. Most recently in Georgia, The A+ Reform Act of 2000, a comprehensive

educational reform statute passed by the Georgia General Assembly to increase student

achievement, to improve school completion rates, and to hold local schools accountable

for the progress of all students was passed as somewhat of a precursor to the federal

legislation mentioned above. This legislation established compliance linkages for schools

by using student attendance as a measure to actually grade schools and, in turn, connected

110

school grades to rewards and interventions such as financial rewards for schools and

school systems. An additional state level compliance linkage for maintaining student

attendance and thus establishing a higher grade and subsequent rewards for schools was

The Georgia Teen-Age and Adult Driver Responsibility Act of 1997. This legislation

encouraged school attendance beyond the age of 16 by requiring proof of attendance for

obtaining a driver�s permit or license.

Communication networks between policy regulators and implementers of school

attendance policies have been established between the State Board of Education (SBOE)

and local school districts. Policies developed by the SBOE have defined legal or excused

absences and provided guidelines (although somewhat vague) for documentation of

absences and consequences for unexcused absences (SBOE Rule160-5-1-.10, 2002).

Certain rules established by the SBOE policy were required in district level policies,

while establishing procedures and consequences for such unexcused absences were

developed at the district level.

According to the conceptual framework of Nakamura and Smallwood (1980)

(chapter 1, Figure 1.1), the actors responsible for the implementation of the compulsory

education laws are the local school board members, superintendents, juvenile and

magistrate court judges, principals, social workers, truancy officers, and teachers. This

view of policy presumes that at the individual school district level implementation begins

in Environment II, however, formation of policy, which is a function of Environment I,

continues at the district level by the local board of education as state laws and SBOE

rules are interpreted, reinterpreted and communicated to schools (Rein, 1983). The net

results of such interactions are variation in policy from district to district. It is within this

111

district structure that teachers as implementers of policy become an important factor in

the day-to-day effectiveness of any policy influencing schools and students.

In this study, policy variation was apparent both in review of policy documents

and in interpretation of data collected via survey responses. The review of documents

established that each of the eight schools in the sample for this study had different

requirements for attendance mandated by district level student attendance policy.

Examining documents of student attendance policy for the sample provided evidence that

some districts included compliance linkages suggested by state guidelines such as

detention, Saturday school, placement at the alternative school, loss of credit after a

certain number of illegal absences and/or referral to juvenile court for truancy in policy,

while some districts had none of these guidelines in written policy. Although all of the

policies for the eight schools in this study provided definitions for legal absences (SBOE

Rule160-5-1-.10, 2002), some policies failed to address student tardiness and early

dismissal. Some of the policies defined the roles and responsibilities of each actor in the

implementation process, while others remained vague and lacked specificity both in rules

and responsibilities of implementers.

Mayer (1985) and Spring (1998) suggest that teachers are the pertinent actors in

the implementation of school policy as they devise procedures for implementation within

their own classrooms. Much of the research in educational policy has not investigated

teachers as �official� implementers of policy. However, it remains a function of job

responsibility, that the fidelity of the implementation of many educational policies is

controlled by teachers through what they do and what they fail to do in the

implementation process (McLaughlin, in Odden, 1991; Fullan & Promfret, 1977),

112

changing the dynamics of policy with every action and every problem (Mazmanian, &

Sabatier, 1981; Schneider & Ingram, 1997).

The focus of this research was on teachers� practices as actors in the

Implementation Environment (chapter 1, Figure 1.1) within the context of schools and

student attendance policy. Within the school context, teachers interpret and reformulate

federal policy, state laws, district policy, and school procedures in their routines and

actions in the day-to-day operations in their classrooms (McLaughlin, 1988; Nakamura &

Smallwood, 1980; Odden, 1991; Reid, 2000; Rein, 1983). Nakamura and Smallwood

(1980) imply �this diffusion of intergovernmental responsibilities can allow the attitudes,

norms, expectations, and perceptions of local intermediaries to shape policy

implementation to meet these intermediaries� preconceptions of policy goals� (Nakamura

and Smallwood, 1980, p. 48). This research was aimed at gathering data linked to the

perceptions of teachers about their own and other teachers� practices related to the

implementation of student attendance policy (Research Question 2) in this study. The

Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS) was developed to gather teachers�

perceptions in middle schools across districts in Georgia to provide data to answer this

research question in this study. The empirical characteristics of the SAPS were examined

using a series of statistical procedures and analyses to address Research Question 1.

Environment II: Teachers as Actors

Recognizing first, that policy at the school level has the most impact on students

(Duke & Canady, 1991) and second, that teacher practices make a difference in student

attendance (Reid, 1986, 2000), instrument development in this study was viewed as an

important means of collecting a wide variety of data from teachers as they routinely

113

implemented policy in the everyday life of their classrooms. Survey research might be the

most efficient way to collect data from teachers, as the pertinent actors, to identify the

context of Environment II (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980), and to examine practices at

the school level. In this investigation, the Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS)

was developed for use in the middle school environment with the assistance of middle

school teachers. The survey was used in this study to collect data specifying teachers�

perceptions of their own and other teachers� practices relating to the implementation of

student attendance policy.

Construct Validity of the SAPS

The development of the SAPS included a review of the literature, focus group

meetings with middle school teachers, and a pilot by a group of experts consisting of

middle school teachers, administrators, social workers, and the director of student

services from one district in Georgia (Berdie & Niebuhr, 1986; Rea & Parker, 1992).

Although these activities were adequate for establishing content validity of the

survey (Berdie & Niebuhr, 1986; Rea & Parker, 1992), perspectives from different

districts, considering the variations in policy from district to district, may have resulted in

an instrument that measured perceptions, at best, of different expectations and results.

The SAPS was used to collect data from a representative sample (n = 269) from

the population of middle school teachers from schools (n = 8) located throughout various

geographic regions of the state of Georgia. Although the sample size was adequate for

this study, a larger sample size in further exploratory research and in the confirmatory

stages of instrument development would be of value.

114

The descriptive data collected using the SAPS were examined and generated

some general conclusions, although written policies indicated a variation in areas of

emphasis and enforcement regulations among the districts in this study. An examination

of the descriptive results of the item means for the total sample (n = 269) indicated

teachers perceived that the following practices occurred nearly all of the time. In order of

magnitude, teachers announced tests, allowed students with excused absences to make up

work, announced events, excused absences with a doctor�s note, followed an established

procedure for monitoring student attendance, provided a copy of the districts� student

attendance policy to students and parents, and discussed student attendance as part of the

Student Support Team (SST) process.

The descriptive results also indicated the following practices were perceived by

teachers as rarely or almost never occurring according to the item means scores of the

total sample (n= 269). Beginning with the least likely to occur, using grade reductions

for tardies or unexcused absences, using assignments for tardies, visiting homes of

students, using detentions for tardies or unexcused absences, using a discipline referral

for unexcused absences, and modifying the curriculum for students who are frequently

absent. These results indicate that teachers perceive that grade reductions, assignments,

and detentions were not consequences for tardies and that generally; students with

unexcused absences were not sent to the office with a discipline referral. Thus, there

appeared to be little in the way of compliance linkages in place by teachers in the schools

in this study to enforce the attendance policies of their respective districts in their

classrooms.

115

The construct validity of the SAPS was further examined by completing a series

of principal component factor analyses procedures to derive first, an unconstrained

solution, followed by a series of subsequent analyses using oblique rotations, extracting

factors iteratively (SPSS, 2001). The results of factor analysis procedures using data in

this study indicated that the SAPS was not a one-factor instrument and reduced the

number of variables from 33 to 23 loading on a one-factor solution.

Next, utilizing the data collected with the SAPS, subsequent principal component

factor analysis procedures using oblique rotations and extracting factors iteratively were

used to further reduce factors and to determine item-factor structure (SPSS, 2001). These

analyses resulted in two through six-factor solutions. Review of the various one through

six factor solutions indicated that the five-factor solution represented the best conceptual

and statistical fit with the intent of the constructs inherent in the measure. The total

variance in the data, however, explained by the five-factor solution was only 36.26%,

which indicated that a portion of the variance in the data collected remains unexplained

by data from questions on the survey. Explanations for the variance explained by the

SAPS might be attributed to the differences in policy from district to district and the

press to implement certain elements of policy as opposed to others. Thus, the

constructs implied in policies might have been implemented with varying consistency

and may also prove difficult to measure consistently and across time due to the tendency

to adjust normal procedures when problems such as with one student and excessive

absences occur or, perhaps, that new policies and/or procedures are introduced into the

situation and subsequently change teachers� implementation practices. In addition, it

may be that survey questions and responses did not reflect variables that

116

influence the implementation process like community values and teachers� beliefs about

the purpose of education (Labaree, 1997). In terms of measurement concerns, results

indicate that some item stems might not have been clearly worded and are in need of

further examination and/or rating scales might need to be revisited for clarity, fit with the

item, and/or anchoring.

Results of the factor analyses indicated that teachers� perceptions of practices

related to the implementation of student attendance policy collected using the SAPS were

organized onto five factors or subscales. The subscales detected were identified as

Communicating with Parents, Truancy Prevention, Record Keeping, Enforcing Policy,

and Supporting Students. These subscales reflect the categories initially identified from

the literature (deJung & Duckworth, 1986, Duke & Meckel, 1980; Ola, 1980; Rutter, et

al., 1979). The factor analysis identified Truancy Prevention as a separate subscale

whereas initially (chapter 1) these items were envisioned as explicating enforcing policy.

The subscales identified with the highest rate of frequency of occurrence for the

total sample were Record Keeping (subscale 3) and Supporting Students (subscale 5).

The results seem logical given that Record Keeping and specifically recording attendance

are required by State School Board Rule to be included in each district�s written policy

and mandated by state law, while the measures suggested for Supporting Students might

be considered reputable practices that encourage regular student attendance although the

practices are not included in the written policy. The subscale that showed the lowest

mean scores for levels of frequency in all eight schools in the sample was subscale 4,

Enforcing Policy. The items for this subscale suggested that consequences are enforced

for unexcused tardiness and absences. Consequences include detention, additional

117

assignments, office referrals, and grade reductions. These results for the study sample

indicated that teachers perceived that other teachers in their school did not use these

consequences for unexcused absences frequently.

Reliability of the SAPS

The reliability coefficient of internal consistency for each of the factors was

examined using Cronbach�s alpha analysis procedures. The alpha coefficient for the

subscales of the SAPS ranged from .641 to .839. The lowest coefficient was obtained for

subscale 5 (Supporting Students) (α = .641). This subscale consisted of only three items

which might explain this moderate score for internal consistency. Additional items added

to the SAPS might improve the internal constancy for this subscale. The magnitude of

alpha coefficients obtained for all subscales of the SAPS were deemed acceptable given

the exploratory nature of this study (Litwin, 1995; Nunnally, 1978).

The stability reliability of the SAPS was measured using test-retest procedure to

determine the coefficient of stability for each of the subscales of the SAPS. Although the

response rate of 30 % for the test-retest was adequate (Martella, Nelson, & Marchand-

Martella, 1999) and a comparison of the means and standard deviation showed little

variance from time one to time two, the stability of the SAPS over time is somewhat

unclear given the findings of this study. The Pearson product-moment coefficient of

stability, r, was calculated for each of the subscales of the SAPS and all of the subscales

indicated r values were significant at the .01 level, however, the coefficient of stability

suggests that teachers� practices that were measured for subscales Communicating with

Parents, Truancy Prevention, and Record Keeping may be more stable over time and less

118

susceptible to school-related effects than practices related to Enforcing Policy and

Supporting Students.

Due to the nature of the constructs measured using the SAPS, and that one might

expect variations in practices over time, measures of stability, from a traditional

measurement perspective, may not be particularly applicable here. Teachers� practices

measured by the SAPS might be largely problem-driven and subject to abrupt and

possibly short-lived change as teachers react in response to one or a number of problems

arising in the school or classroom context and/or as new or adjusted policy and or

procedures are emphasized in the school/district context. Such problem-driven

implementation might also vary in terms of reactionary alteration of practices from

teacher to teacher within a school and to further illustrate complexity of practices, might

vary in emphasis for one or more components of policy as illustrated in the five SAPS

subscales. On a larger scale, teacher practices in general are also influenced by their own

values and beliefs, for example, about the purposes of education (Labaree, 1997). Such

values and beliefs might interact at some level of agreement/disagreement with

leadership emphasis related to student attendance issues within the school environment

(Hoy & Miskel, 2001; Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980, McLaughlin, 1987) to emphasize

or constrain various aspects of policy implementation. The complexity of the problems

surrounding student absenteeism (Galloway, 1985; McMeans, 1990; Reid, 1986, 1999,

2000; Robins & Ratcliff, 1978; Rohrman, 1993) might also serve to influence teacher

practices as contextual influences will more than likely vary from time to time within the

school year. For example, serious grade-related issues pertaining to absenteeism usually

do not appear until school has been in session for some time, and grading becomes

119

problematic. Therefore the degree of implementation of various procedures might vary

depending on the time of year and the nature of the problem. Thus, variables measured by

the SAPS are subject to unpredictability, and may not be consistently measured across

participants and across time using traditional measurement approaches.

In light of the results of the instrument analysis in this study, further adaptation of

instrumentation using additional exploratory and confirmatory methods might prove

useful in acquiring teachers� perceptions of the process of implementing student

attendance policy. It is certainly reasonable that survey instruments can be designed to be

conceptually valid with adequate reliability to gather data on teachers� practices as they

relate to policy implementation on a large-scale basis, however, in order to examine the

unique intricacies of the policy implementation process, the use of qualitative methods

might be explored. In addition, classical models of policy analysis fall short of explaining

the multiple layers of personal, interpersonal, organizational, and cultural influences

involved in the implementation process of educational policy in schools and the

multiplicity of factors impacting the school environment. Further studies on teachers�

practices particular to attendance policies might consider the use of multiple methods for

collecting data to explain particular cultural environments, problem-based factors, and

policy impeding on the context of schools.

Environment II: Written Attendance Policy

Examining the data collected using the Student Attendance Practices Survey

(SAPS) provided some insight into the practices of teachers as implementers of student

attendance policy. However, to further understand the context of Environment II, the

Implementation Environment, an examination of the written student attendance policy

120

was necessary (chapter 4). Although some components of attendance policy were

required of all district level policy by state mandates, examination of policy documents

the eight schools in the sample revealed some interesting differences in student

attendance policies. This research established that policy and practices related to student

attendance varied in emphasis of policy directives, communication networks, and

compliance linkages from district to district across the state.

The common components of all policies examined from the sample included the

definition of legal or excused absences and requirement of written excuses from parents

as documentation for absences from school. These policy directives were established

compliance linkages by State School Board Rules (SBOE Rule160-5-1-.10, 2002) as a

way to establish a systematic way of recording and reporting student attendance

statewide. As previously stated, data from the participants in this study indicated that

record keeping (a subscale for the SAPS) showed relatively high rates of frequency at all

schools. Another SBOE policy directive outlining the criteria for allowing students to

make up work due to legal or excused absences were detailed in the policies of half of the

schools in the sample (Districts C, E, G, and H), while the data collected using the SAPS

indicated very high levels of frequency (83 %) in response to allowing students to make

up work for the total sample. Thus, results indicated here that the teachers responding to

the SAPS perceive that teachers were in compliance with implementation of these

elements of state mandates related to student attendance.

Communication networks were established in district level student attendance

policy for all districts except District G and District H. These policy directives were also

included in the SAPS and were identified as a subscale (Communicating with Parents).

121

The frequencies of responses for items on this subscale varied from school to school

ranging from relatively low means scores for School A (1.66) to a mean for the subscale

for School C of 3.57. Although communicating with parents was not part of the written

policy for District G and District H, teachers at these schools perceived that

communication with parents occurred with a reasonably high level of frequency as

indicated by mean scores for the subscale for School G of 2.57 and for School H of 3.28.

The issue of student tardiness was addressed in only two district policies in the

sample, District B and District E. According to the subscales identified by the factor

analysis of the SAPS, tardiness was addressed in three of the five items in subscale 4,

Enforcing Policy. Teachers� responses for the subscale, Enforcing Policy, indicated low

levels of frequency of implementation practices, even for School B and School E which

were the two schools including tardiness in district policy. These results suggest that

teachers perceive that consequences for student tardiness rarely occur in all schools in the

sample including those schools that address tardiness in district level policy.

Compliance linkages included in district level policy included grade reductions,

loss of credit, and referral to court as consequences for excessive unexcused absenteeism.

Such consequences were specific to only three districts (District B, C, and E). The single

item designed to tap aspects of implementation of consequences for the SAPS did not

significantly load on any of the five subscales in the factor analyses. Descriptive statistics

from each school in the sample for this item indicated low levels of occurrence across all

schools in the sample that might imply that teachers perceived grade reduction as rarely

occurring as a consequence for excessive absenteeism. However, loss of credit was stated

as a punitive measure in district written policy for five of the eight districts in the sample

122

(Districts B, D, E, F, and H). Retention rates for the schools in these districts ranged from

one percent to six percent; data on attendance related retentions could not be obtained.

An interesting finding was mined from the data from School G. During the 2000-

2001 school year, School G had the highest retention rate of any school in the sample at

10% or 126 students. In July 2001, revisions to the student attendance policy for District

G took place. Such revisions, as previously indicated, might have served to change

teachers� practices. The current student attendance policy for District G does not,

however, include a loss of credit provision. All the districts that included loss of credit

also included an appeals process with the exception of District E. The referral to court

was only mentioned in the policies from District B, District C, and District D.

Results gleaned from document reviews of district attendance policies, when

compared with data regarding teachers� practices collected using the SAPS, indicate that

a wide variety of responses to state and district written policy seem to exist in the

implementation environments of schools. These results, when considered collectively,

support the idea that both cultural and reactionary responses to changing and perhaps

problematic issues in school environments influence teachers� practices regarding

implementation of student attendance policies in schools. From policy makers�

perspectives, while such inconsistencies might seem problematic in terms of fidelity of

implementation, variations might be expected due to the complexity and uniqueness of

school environments and personal, cultural, and professional issues largely defined in the

context of communities in which schools exist. Thus, one size fits all policies are difficult

to enforce given these intervening variables in the school context and that variation might

be built into policy language to allow for such differences and guard against non-

123

implementation (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980) which often occurs with difficult and

unenforceable policy in schools. From the leadership perspective, while communication

and compliance linkages (Nakamura & Smallwood) might have been established by the

state to the school district vis-à-vis necessary elements of policy and instructions for

enforcement, it seems that districts might tend to give discretionary power for

enforcement of implementation of policies such as those governing student attendance

perhaps to the school leader. Teachers� responses to the SAPS indicated that a wide

variety of discretion might also be allocated to the teacher in actual process and

procedures regarding implementation of attendance policies. Thus, school leaders might

well assess such variation in terms of appropriateness for the context and values and

beliefs of faculty, parents, and communities (Labaree, 1997).

Conclusions and Implications for Models of Policy Analysis

The conceptual framework of Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) (chapter 1,

Figure 1.1) used a wide lens to define the environments that influence implementation of

policy. As one focuses on the teacher as the implementer in the context of the school, the

policy implementation process can be viewed as quite complex and is clearly multi-

layered. The results of this study indicate that teachers perceive that their practices related

to implementation might have been differentially defined through interpreting and

synthesizing state law, district level policy, school policies, and unwritten policies. The

implementation process regarding attendance policies in the school environment seems to

be largely problem-driven and thus, in some respects, requires accommodation of what

might be considered best practices at any one point in time (Duke & Meckel, 1980).

Particularly with student attendance policy, implementation involves reactionary dealing

124

with problems as they arise. Additional complexities are introduced as implementers

attempt to evaluate all aspects of the problem situation, which in itself is part of the

implementation process (Pajares, 1992). The problems related to the implementation

process have an alternating press on teacher actors, and resulting teacher actions depend

on many different factors including but not limited to student needs, urgency of the

situation, conditions, and time constraints. Pajares (1992) explains, as implementers,

teachers translate state law, district policy, school procedures, and the human issues

related to the problems of student attendance, to plan and make decisions about what

needs to be done and what can be left undone.

The findings of this study are limited to the individual teacher as actor in the

larger context of state and district attendance policy. From the policy analysis

perspective, the findings have implications for the expansion of the larger policy

environments model developed by Nakamura and Smallwood�s (1980) (chapter 1, Figure

1.1) that illustrates three policy environments, policy formulation, implementation, and

evaluation. Expanding on the implementation environment within the larger model, the

focus of this study was on specific actors (teachers) in schools and their practices as

influenced by their own personal contexts as well as interconnections with other actors,

leaders, cultural conditions, community expectations, and so on in the complex school

environment. Of particular interest was specifically teachers� role as implementers of

student attendance policy

An expanded framework for understanding the context of implementation actors,

in this case teachers, is suggested as a starting point for researchers in attempting to

examine the environment of teachers as implementers of policy in the context of the

125

school environment (Figure 5.1). The framework depicts a series of nested rectangles

surrounding the teacher as implementer and its focus is on the teacher�s role in the policy

implementation process.

In the proposed framework, each rectangle represents another layer of the policy

process that impacts implementation at the school level. Federal policies, state laws, and

district and school policies constitute layers of press for compliance of written policy and

might be considered environments quite distant and have indirect influences on teachers�

practices. It is the proximal environment that seems to have the greatest affect on

teachers� perceptions and practices as they implement policies in schools.

As one moves through the framework closer to the teacher actor, a unique layer

of press surrounding the teacher and impacting the implementation process includes

personal factors (gray rectangle) such as values and beliefs of the individual (Labaree,

1997), cultural influences, professional orientations, experiences, and a host of others that

might serve to confirm or interact with school-level environmental factors to influence

practices for the individual teacher. For example, a teacher might believe that the purpose

of education is to assist the student in overcoming his/her background constraints in order

to move up in society. Such a social mobility perspective (Labaree, 1997) might serve to

drive practices, on one hand, such as not reporting absences to maximize the student�s

exposure to learning, or, on the other hand, such as closely communicating with parents

regarding the value of the student�s learning for his/her future. Though operating from the

same perspectives, each example provides different ways in terms of practice that

teachers might attempt to manipulate variables in the implementation environment that

he/she perceives are within control.

126

Moving further from the individual teacher influences, another unique layer

influencing implementation is that of unwritten policy. Such unwritten policy might take

the form of perhaps procedures inherent in the school operation that are simply expected

of teachers by school leaders or others, or perhaps procedures and processes that teachers

indeed might exercise discretion over. For example, some of the unwritten policies

related to student attendance might even include the things teachers do within their

classrooms that encourage students to attend such as announcing tests and quizzes or

assemblies and special events (as measured by items on the SAPS). However, such

practices might also involve implementing a grading structure that includes class

participation, communicating rules regarding make up work, and incorporation of various

methods and procedures for assisting students who have been absent.

An additional layer of complexity that might influence the decisions of teachers as

actors in the implementation process includes school level policies and procedures that

may or may not be in place for monitoring student attendance as well as the expectations

and emphasis placed on student attendance by school leadership. The clearness and

conciseness of the communication of policy at the school level limits the chance of

misinterpretation and vagueness, otherwise teachers� interpretations and reformulations

become the school policy (Rein, 1983). Thus, in some sense, teachers reformulate policy

in the implementation environment (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).

The fourth layer in the framework that might impact teachers as implementer of

policy in the school context includes directives for district level student attendance

policies. As with school level policies, teachers also interpret the language and directives

as they reformulate district policy in the implementation process. District policy might

127

elicit action to somewhat circumvent implementation of directives. For example, if a

student has a large number of absences without documentation and the district policy

contains a loss of credit stipulation, the teacher�s actions might include contacting parents

to obtain documentation for the absences to avoid implementation of the loss of credit

procedure.

Adding additional layers of complexity to the teacher�s environment and policy

implementation processes in the context of schools are state laws and federal policies

surrounding student attendance issues which are represented by the final, larger layers

two layers of the framework. These environments often include complex and omnibus

educational reform laws at the state level (e.g., A+ Reform Act of 2000 in Georgia) and

federal laws for education such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that hold teachers

and schools accountable for improving the performance of all students and use student

attendance as a measure to grade schools. Such an emphasis at these levels, when

translated to the school level in terms of report cards, test score and attendance rate

comparisons, often places burdens on teachers and schools to appear politically correct

and thus may serve to impact implementation practices.

128

Teacher Practices

Figure 5.1. Teachers as Implementers in the School Arena

Federal Policies

State Laws

District Policy

School Policy

Unwritten Policies

Teacher as ImplementerProblems Problems

129

Inherent in the implementation process are the alternate press of problems

depicted by arrows coming from the outer edge of the illustration pressing toward the

teacher. Besides the alternating press of attendance related problems, the teacher has the

constant concerns (internal press) for student achievement, accountability, and meeting

the needs of the students. Reactions to the alternating press of problems, when combined

with press from the interaction of expectations within the larger layers of policy

environments, are often products of the complexity of the process. Thus practices and

reactions to problem press (depicted by the dark arrow moving outward in this

framework) seem to be uniquely derived by individual teachers as they sift concerns

through their own individual perspectives and the context of situation within which they

must operate. In addition, there are the complex issues that surround individual student

absenteeism such as illness, family-related concerns, and psychological issues that must

be considered when making decisions about individual students. This framework

illustrating the intricate complexities of but one actor in Nakamura and Smallwood�s

(1980) policy environment model might enable future researchers to examine the

multiple layers of factors influencing the policy implementation processes in education,

particularly as they reach the school environment.

Considering the collective influences and interactions of the layers of this

framework on teachers� practices at the school level, practitioners might glean some

reasonable approaches to actions when attempting to implement any policy in schools.

For example in this case, as student attendance problems arise, teachers tend to interpret

such problems by synthesizing each level of policy directives, bringing to the process

past experiences, working within the organizational structure of the school and the

130

leadership emphasis of the administrators, using their own system of values and beliefs

about the purpose of education to re-invent policy and make decisions about what needs

to happen next. This process of translating the multiple layers of policy occurs in the gray

area (the personal zone as described previously) surrounding and connected to the

teacher. The results of the process are teachers� actions as implementers of policy or their

practices represented by the bold black arrow. Such actions produce effects that might

permeate the various layers of policy implementation depicted in the framework and

serve to alter policy intent in terms of serving the political environment for

implementation.

Conclusions and Implications for Future Research

The nature of this exploratory study provided a foundation from which to further

develop methods for measuring practices of teachers as implementers of policy in the

school implementation environment. Although the data collected with the SAPS

demonstrated reasonable validity and reliability, future research and confirmatory

analysis using different sets of data might be used to develop the subscales of the SAPS

further. Considerations might include adding items to strengthen subscales, sampling

using a larger sample, and/or selecting the sample from one district to limit policy

variability.

To add a dimension of richness to the data, future studies might include the use of

qualitative methods. For example, using the case study approach to examine the practices

of middle school teachers to determine what influences their role as implementers of

policy would further develop this line of inquiry. In addition, the use of multiple

methods, each producing unique data, and combining data in a more comprehensive way

131

might serve to further explain complex environmental conditions such as those in schools

that seem to affect the policy implementation process.

Conclusions and Implications for Practice

The findings of this study have implications in practice for policy makers, school

leaders, and teachers as implementers of policy. For policy makers, the results provide

insight about the perceptions of teachers as implementers and an understanding of how

policy translates into practice. Policymakers attempt to formulate policy in the formation

environment, not necessarily understanding and concerned with the specificity of

implementation. It may be that more global policies providing more local control, might

take into consideration the layers involved in the implementation process. For example,

in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 the federal policy does attempt to individualize

implementation and subsequent results through allowance for variations in definitions of

�adequate yearly progress� to state board and local systems so that the goals and

objectives of each state are woven into policy at each level.

The implications of this study for school leaders are twofold. First, this study

provides a view of teachers� perceptions related to the implementation process. This

perspective might be used to guide leadership emphasis in the implementation

environment which might be of value in light of the federal and state mandates which

continue to emphasize accountability and use student attendance as a measure to grade

schools. Although this study did not address the perceptions of administrators

surrounding the implementation of student attendance policy, further research might

examine the administrators� role in the implementation process presenting an additional

line of inquiry. Second, this study has implications for developing assessments of

132

teachers as implementers of policy. Monitoring student attendance is a professional

responsibility of teachers required by state and local policies and therefore might need to

be included as part of the job description, duties and responsibilities, and measurable

assessments for review annually.

Summary

The purpose of this exploratory study was to collect and examine data related to


survey instrument, Student Attendance Practices Survey (SAPS), was developed to

collect data and to measure the practices related to the implementation of student

attendance policy from a sample consisting of middle school teachers (n=269) from

schools across Georgia. Survey responses were compared to additional data that were

obtained from a review of documents including student attendance policy from each

district in the sample and demographic data from each school. A policy implementation

framework was used to interpret the results.

Construct validity of the SAPS was established through the development activities

which included a review of the literature, a series of focus group meetings with middle

school teachers, and a pilot by a panel of experts. A series of factor analyses using the

sample data were completed to explore the factor structure of the items designed to

reflect various aspects of teacher actions related to student attendance policy identified

through a review of policy literature. Results revealed a five-factor solution. Subscales

were identified as Communicating with Parents, Truancy Prevention, Record Keeping,

Enforcing Policy, and Supporting Students.

133

Two middle schools not included in the study sample were used to determine test-

retest stability reliability. Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach�s alpha

analysis for the complete survey data from the sample.

Implications of the findings of this study were provided as they relate to policy

makers, future researchers of educational policy, school leaders, and teachers. A policy

model was expanded and suggestions for use in analyzing individual implementer

environments within the larger framework of policy analysis were presented.

134

REFERENCES

A+ Educational Reform Act. (2000). Georgia General Assembly. Atlanta, GA.

Retrieved October 29, 2001, from http://search.state.ga.us/govenor/querygovenor.html Allen-Meares, P., Washington, R. O., & Welsh, B. L. (1986). School attendance. In Social work services in schools (pp. 86-104). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Bartlett, L. (1978). Absences: A model policy and rule. Des Moines: Iowa State Department of Public Instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 162 433) Bauch, P. A. (1982). Predicting elementary classroom teaching practices from teachers� educational beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 226 437) Beachman, H. C. (1981). Reaching and helping high school dropouts and potential school leavers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 236 451) Berdie, D. R., & Niebuhr, M. A. (1986). Questionnaires: Design and use (2nd ed.). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. Bhaerman, R. D., & Kopp, K. A. (1988). The school�s choice: Guidelines for dropout prevention at the middle and junior high school. Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Brokowski, W. W., & Dempsey, R. A. (1979). Attendance policies and student performance. Clearing House, 53, 129-130. Brown, B. B. (1968). The experimental mind in education. New York: Harper and Row. Brown, C. A., & Cooney, T. J. (1982). Research on teacher education: A philosophical orientation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 15(4), 13-18. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1981). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. E. (1990). Politics, markets, and American schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

135

Colgen, D. L. (1982). Prediction of school attendance patterns of eighth grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia. deJung, J., & Duckworth, K. (1986). An examination of student discipline policy in three middle schools. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Dobson, R. L., & Dobson, J. E. (1983). Teacher beliefs-practice congruency. Viewpoints in Teaching and Learning, 59(1), 20-27. Dreilinger, M. (1992). School attendance, truancy and dropping out. New York: Bureau for At-Risk Youth. Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York: Oxford University Press. Duke, D. L., & Canady, R. L. (1991). School policy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Duke, D. L., & Meckel, A. M. (1980). Student attendance problems and school organization. Urban Education, 15, 325-357. Eastwold, P. (1989). Attendance is important: Combating truancy in the secondary school. NASSP Bulletin, 73(516), 28-31. Educational Research Services. (1977). Student absenteeism. Arlington, VA: Author. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in

education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335- 397. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Galloway, D. (1985). Schools and persistent absentees. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Gemmill, W. H. (1995). Student absenteeism, school intervention attendance policies which result in credit ineligibility: Unintended consequences (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, 1995). (UMI No. 9532130) Georgia Department of Education Website. Atlanta, GA. Retrieved June 20, 2002 from http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/legalservices/rules.asp

136

Georgia Legislative Documents 1945, Law Number 350(1), 343-345. Georgia Public Education Report Card. (2000-2001). Georgia Department of Education. Retrieved January 19, 2002, from http://www.k12.ga.us Georgia School Board. (2001). Policy manuals. Retrieved June 27, 2001, from http://www.gsba.com/policymanuals/policies Georgia Teen-Age and Adult Driver Responsibility Act of 1997, Ga. L. O.C.G.A. § 40-5-22 (1997). Gullatt, D. E., & Lemoine, D. A. (1997). Truancy: What�s a principal to do? American Secondary Education, 1, 7-12. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 527 489) Harvey, O. J. (1986). Belief systems and attitudes toward the death penalty and other punishments. Journal of Psychology, 54, 143-159. Hassler, L. B. (1993). An analysis of factors influencing student attendance: The attendance policy, demographic variables, and academic achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1993). (UMI No. 9318514) Howard, R. C. (1983). Factors associated with juvenile detention truancy. Adolescence, 21, 82-94. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Iannaccone, L. (1967). Politics in education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education. Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1990). Handbook in research and evaluation (2nd ed.). San

Diego, CA: EdITS. Jett, D. L., & Platt, M. L. (1979). Pupil attendance: The bottom line. NASSP Bulletin, 63(424), 32-38. Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Carlson, B. (2000). A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6), 525-559. Kaestle, C. J. (2000). Toward a political economy of citizenship: Historical perspectives on the purposes of common schools. In L. M. McDonnell, P. M. Timpane & R. Benjamin (Eds.), Rediscovering the democratic purposes of education (pp. 47-73). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

137

Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychomertika, 23, 187-200. Kirsch, I., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in America: A first look at the results of the national adult literacy survey (Report prepared by Educational Testing Service with the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81. Levanto, J. (1975). High school absenteeism. NASSP Bulletin, 59(10), 100-104. Levin, H. M. (1972). The costs to the nation of inadequate education. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Litwin, M. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Martella, R., Nelson, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1999). Research methods: Learning to become critical research consumers. Boston: Allyn-Bacon. Mayer, R. (1985). Recent research on teacher beliefs and its use in the improvement of instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 259457) Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1981). Effective policy implementation. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. McDonald, M. M. (1986). A comparison of the effect of using computer calls and personal calls for improving school attendance in public high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 185-196). Albany: State University of New York Press. McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). The Rand change agent study: Ten years later. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 143-156). Albany: State University of New York Press. McMeans, M. L. (1990). Teacher behaviors associated with student absenteeism (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1990). (UMI No. 9023478) Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13- 103). New York: Macmillan.

138

Miller, P. J. (1981). Perspectives: Teachers� opinions and the ideational basis of education. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 27(2), 182-191. Morris, B. S. (1986). Testing a model of school holding power: Teacher perceptions of the work environment, robustness, personal characteristics, and alienation behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1986). (UMI No. 8710577) Mountain Lakes Board of Education v. Maas, 56 N. J. Super. 245,152 A.2d 394 (App. Div. 1959), aff�d, 31 N.J. 537 158 A.2d 330, cert. denied, 363 U.S. 843 (1960). Nakamura, R. T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The politics of policy implementation. New York: St. Martin�s Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). State compulsory school attendance

laws. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Drop out rates in the United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. No child left behind act of 2001: Reauthorization of the elementary and secondary acts. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved June 17, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/ Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Article 3. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Odden, A. R. (1991). The evolution of education policy implementation. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 1-12). Albany: State University of New York Press. Official Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A.). (1984). Georgia Law. Atlanta: State of Georgia. Official Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A.). (2000). Georgia Law. Atlanta: State of Georgia. Ola, J. (1990). Attendance policies: Are they effective in reducing student absenteeism? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1990). (UMI No. 9106778) Olson, J. (1981). Teacher influence in the classroom: A context for understanding curriculum translation. Instructional Science, 10, 259-275.

139

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers� beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Pangle, L. S., & Pangle, T. L. (2000). What the American founders have to teach us about schooling for democratic citizenship. In L. M. McDonnell, P. M. Timpane & R. Benjamin (Eds.), Rediscovering the democratic purposes of education (pp. 21-46). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. People v. Levinson, 404 Ill. 574, 90 N.E. 2d 213 (1950). Petzko, V. N. (1990). The relationship of characteristics of large, metropolitan high schools to school attendance rates (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1990). (UMI No. 90266) Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkley: University of California Press. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and conducting survey research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reid, K. (1986). Disaffection from school. New York: Methuen. Reid, K. (1999). Truancy in schools. London: Routledge. Reid, K. (2000). Tackling truancy in schools: A practical manual for primary and secondary schools. New York: Routledge. Rein, M. (1983). From policy to practice. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Robins, L., & Ratcliff, K. (1978). Long range outcomes associated with school truancy. Washington, DC: Public Health Service. Rohrman, D. (1993). Combating truancy in our schools: A community effort. NASSP Bulletin, 76(549), 40-45. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 457251) Rood, R. E. (1989). Advice for administrators writing the attendance policy. NASSP Bulletin, 73(516), 21-25. Rothbard, M. N. (1974). Historic origins. In W. F. Rickenbacker (Ed.), The twelve year sentence (pp. 11-34). LaSalle, IL: Open Court. Rowntree, D. (1982). A dictionary of education. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble.

140

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ousten, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours, secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. School Administrators Association of New York State (1996, September). The challenge of decreasing absenteeism. Copy Editor, 3, 1-8. Sheats, D., & Dunkleberger, G. (1979). A determination of the principal�s effect in school initiated home contacts concerning attendance of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Research, 72(6), 310-312. Sheverbush, R. I., & Sadowski, A. F. (1994). A family systems approach to the problem of truancy. Pittsburg, KS: Pittsburg State University. (ERIC Document Service No. ED 369 030) Siegel, I. E. (1985). A conceptual analysis of beliefs. In I. E. Siegel (Ed.), Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (pp. 345-371). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Smith, W. K. (1998). An evaluation of the attendance policy and program and its perceived effects on high school attendance in Newport News Public Schools (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1998). Retrieved June 5, 2001, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-3898// Spring, J. (1998). Conflicts of interests. The politics of American education. New York: McGraw-Hill. State School Board Rule. (2002, February). JBD 160-5-1-.15. Atlanta, GA. Retrieved January 15, 2003, from http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/doe/legalservices/rules _db.asp?u_order=NSBA_code Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). (2001). (Version 11.01) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS. Suprina, R. N. (1979). Cutting down on student cutting. NASSP Bulletin, 62(422), 27-31. Trattner, W. I. (1970). Crusade for the children. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Tyerman, M. (1968). Truancy. London: University of London Press. Van Meter, D. S., & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration and Society, 6(4), 47-168.

141

Wilson, K. G. (1993). Tough on truants. American School Board Journal, 180(4). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 461 151) Wisconsin v. Yoder, 49 Wis. 2d 430, 182 N.W. 2 d 539 (1971), aff�d 32 L. Ed. 2 d 15 (1972). Woog, A. K. (1992). School attendance policy and its effect on unexcused absences (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1992). (UMI No. 9231016)

142

APPENDIX A

JUSTIFICATION OF SURVEY ITEMS Implementation Statements Justification

Item #6 Teachers in this school record student absences from school and class as excused or unexcused.

Items #7 & #8

Teachers in this school record student attendance every class period. Teachers in this school record student tardiness to class.

Item #9 Teachers in this school contact parents by phone to notify them of student absences from school. Item #10 Teachers in this school excuse all student absences with a note from a parent.

�All public schools shall keep daily records of attendance, verified by the teacher certifying each record� (O.C.G.A. §20-2-697). Georgia law and State Board of Education policies define excused or �lawful� absences (O.C.G.A. §20-2-692; O.C.G.A. §20-2-693). Policies include an �effective reporting and recording procedure� ((Rood, 1989, p. 24). Effective school policies on student attendance require that teachers keep accurate records of attendance in each class (Jett & Platt, 1979; Reid, 2000). (Also see justification for Item #6 above). Studies emphasized parental contact is the responsibility of the teacher and the school (McDonald, 1986; Reid, 2000; Rood, 1989; Sheats & Dunkleberger, 1979; Woog, 1992). Ola (1990) stated that teachers perceived contacting the parents of all absent students by phone established the �home-school connection� (p. 44). Georgia law and State Board of Education policies define excused or �lawful� absences (O.C.G.A. §20-2-692; O.C.G.A. §20-2-693).

143

Item #11

Teachers in this school provide a written copy of the student attendance policy to students and parents. Item #12 Teachers in this school excuse student absences with a doctor�s note.

Item #13 Teachers in this school record student check-outs from their classrooms.

Item #14

Teachers in this school contact parents whenever a student misses three or more consecutive days of school.

Item #15

Teachers in this school send letters notifying parents of student absenteeism after a certain number of absences.

Item #16 Teachers in this school provide incentives and rewards for regular school attendance.

Reid (2000) contends that copies of student attendance policy �should be given to all parents and pupils attending the school as a preventative approach to non-attendance� (p. 131). �Policies should be clearly articulated to students and parents� (Woog, 1992, p. 40). �Policies must be well-publicized before going into effect� (Rood, 1989, p. 24). Ola (1990) identified notes from medical doctors as one of the 20 most common elements of student attendance policies. Georgia law and State Board of Education policies define excused or �lawful� absences (O.C.G.A. §20-2-692; O.C.G.A. §20-2-693). �All public schools shall keep daily records of attendance, verified by the teacher certifying each record� (O.C.G.A. §20-2-697). According to Reid (2000), teachers should contact parents and show support to students when returning from a long period away from school. Ola (1990) listed, �letters are sent to parents at certain intervals,� on the list of the 20 most common elements of student attendance policies (p. 43). Reinforcement for regular or improved attendance includes recognition, rewards, and incentive programs (Reid, 2000; Rood, 1989).

144

Item #17 Teachers in this school make home visits to meet the student�s family and to determine the causes of excessive (over 10 days) absenteeism. Item #18 Teachers in this school discuss student attendance issues in Student Support Team (SST) meetings. Item #19 Teachers in this school follow an established procedure for monitoring student attendance.

Item #20 Teachers in this school are trained by school level administrators or district level personnel to implement the student attendance policy.

Items #21, #22, #23 & #24 Teachers in this school use additional assignments as a consequence for tardiness. Teachers in this school use after school detention as a consequence for tardiness. Teachers in this school use grade reductions as a consequence for tardiness. Procedures in this school for tardiness include referrals to the administrator for disciplinary actions.

Ola (1990) listed, �visitation to homes of chronic absentees� on the list of the 20 most common elements of student attendance policies (p. 43). Schools should have in place systems to meet the needs of students with extenuating circumstances (Reid, 2000). Rood (1989) suggests �consistent enforcement� of attendance monitoring procedures (p. 23). Staff development to discuss the processes and procedures for monitoring student attendance is necessary for all teachers responsible for implementing student attendance policy (Reid, 2000, p. 117). Student receives some type of punishment when their absence or tardy is deemed illegal or unexcused (Brokowski & Dempsey, 1979; Gemmill, 1995; Hassler, 1993; Ola, 1990; Smith, 1998; Woog, 1992).

145

Item #25 Teachers in this school contact parents to discuss tardiness. Items #26, #27, & #28 Teachers in this school use after school detention as a consequence for unexcused absences. Teachers in this school use grade reductions for unexcused absences. Teachers in this school use referrals to the office for disciplinary action as a consequence for unexcused absences. Item #29 Teachers in this school refer students with excessive absenteeism (over 10 days) to the school counselor for counseling. Item #30 Teachers in this school refer students with excessive absenteeism (over 10 days) to the school administrator for a conference.

Studies emphasized parental contact is the responsibility of the teacher and the school (McDonald, 1986; Reid, 2000; Rood, 1989; Sheats & Dunkleberger, 1979; Woog, 1992). Ola (1990) stated that teachers perceived contacting the parents of all absent students by phone established the �home-school connection� (p. 44). Student receives some type of punishment when their absence or tardy is deemed illegal or unexcused (Ola, 1990; Woog, 1992). Grade reductions, Saturday school, in-school suspension, and out-of-school suspension have been included in student attendance policy (Ola, 1990; Smith, 1998; Suprina, 1979; Woog, 1992). Rood (1989) supports providing counseling to students who are frequently absent from school. Ola (1990) included on the list of the top 20 most common elements of student attendance policies that guidance counselors meet with students �who are chronically absent� (p. 43). Ola (1990) included on the list of the top 20 elements of student attendance policies that school administrators counsel with students �who are chronically absent� (p. 43). Rood (1989) also supports this intervention.

146

Item #31 & #32 Teachers in this school meet with parents of students with excessive absenteeism (over 10 days). Administrators in this school meet with parents of students with excessive absenteeism (over 10 days).

Item #33, #34 & #35 Teachers in this school provide tutoring for students who miss school frequently. Teachers in this school modify the curriculum in an effort to assist students who are frequently absent. Teachers in this school allow students with unexcused absences to make up missed assignments. Item #36 & #37 Teachers in this school announce special school events such as assemblies, pep rallies, and activities. Teachers in this school announce tests and quizzes. Item #38 Teachers in this school check a daily absentee report routinely to confirm that students missing from class are absent from school.

Studies emphasized parental contact is the responsibility of the teacher and the school (McDonald, 1986; Reid, 2000; Rood, 1989; Sheats & Dunkleberger, 1979; Woog, 1992). Ola (1990) stated that teachers perceived contacting the parents of all absent students established the �home-school connection� (p. 44). Supporting students who have missed school improves student attendance rates (Reid, 2000). Ola (1990) listed �announcing special event, assemblies, pep rallies, tests and quizzes� as a common component on student attendance policy. Effective school policies on student attendance require routine and accurate record keeping procedures (Jett & Platt, 1979; Reid, 2000).

147

APPENDIX B

PILOT SURVEY AND REVISIONS Directions: Select the best response for each of the following questions. Record all responses on the answer sheet provided using a #2 pencil. Return the completed answer sheet in the enclosed envelope. Part I- Personal Data/ General Information 1. Sex. A. Male B. Female 2. Age.

A. 20-29 years B. 30-39 years C. 40-49 years D. 50-59 years E. 60 years-older 3. How many years of teaching experience have you completed?

A. 0-5 years B. 6-10 years C. 11-15 years D. 16-20 years E. 20+years 4. What is your highest level of certification?

A. PBT B. T4 C. T5 or L5 D. T6 or L6 E. T7 or L7 5. In which area do you teach?

A. Academics B. Special Education C. ESOL

D. Connections/Electives/Exploratories

6. What grade level(s) do you teach? A. 6th grade B. 7th grade C. 8th grade D. 6, 7th and 8th grade E. Other

7. Which of the following categories describes your school�s student enrollment?

A. less than 200 B. 200-500 C. 500-800 D. 800-1100 E. 1100 + 8. Which best describes the community where your school is located?

A. A rural area that is sparsely populated. B. An urban area with a population of 2,500 - 50,000 people per square mile. C. A suburban area part of a major metropolitan area. D. A small city that is not in a major metropolitan area.

9. Do you live in the school district (county or city) where you work?

A. Yes B. No

148

Part II- Student Attendance- For the following statements, select the response that best illustrates your opinion of the practices of teachers in this school. A. Almost always

B. Often

C. Rarely

D. Almost never

E. Not applicable

Teachers in this school�.

1. record absences as excused or unexcused. 2. record tardies. 3. record check outs from their classrooms. 4. take attendance every class period. 5. excuse absences with a parent�s note. 6. contact parents for absences from school. 7. communicate with parents about the student attendance policy. 8. excuse absences with a doctor�s note. 9. contact parents when a student misses two or more consecutive days of school. 10. send a letter notifying parents of student absenteeism. 11. provide incentives and rewards for good attendance. 12. make home visits to meet the student�s family to determine the cause of absences. 13. meet with team teachers to discuss students with attendance problems. 14. work with teachers to develop procedures for monitoring attendance. 15. are trained by school administrators to implement the student attendance policy. 16. are trained by district office personnel to implement the student attendance policy. Procedures in this school for tardiness include� 1. a consequence for each tardy. 2. additional assignments for each tardy. 3. after school detentions for each tardy. 4. Saturday school for tardiness. 5. in- school suspension for excessive tardiness. 6. out-of-school suspension for excessive tardiness. 7. grade reductions for excessive tardiness. 8. no consequences. 9. communication with parents.

149

A. Almost always

B. Often

C. Rarely

D. Almost never

E. Not applicable

Consequences for unexcused absences used in this school include�

1. after-school detention. 2. grade reductions. 3. Saturday school. 4. a fine ($) for parents. 5. in-school suspension. 6. out-of-school suspension. 7. student conference with a counselor. 8. student conference with an administrator. 9. administrative conference with parents. 10. parent conference with the school social worker. 11. no punishment as long as students make up missed assignments. 12. no punishment unless unexcused absences are excessive (over 10 days). Consequences for excessive absences (over 10 days) in this school include� 1. parent conference with teachers. 2. administrative conference with student. 3. administrative conference with parents. 4. referral of student to the counselor. 5. home visit by the school social worker. 6. home visit by law enforcement or truancy officer. 7. referral of students to juvenile court for truancy. 8. referral of parents to court for the non-attendance of their children. 9. no response from school personnel.

150

Revisions and Edits to the Survey

The directions for the survey were revised to be clearer and more concise. The following demographic information was deleted from the survey: In which area do you teach?

A. Academics B. Special Education

C. ESOL D. Connections/Electives/Exploratories

What grade level(s) do you teach?

A. 6th grade B. 7th grade C. 8th grade D. 6, 7th and 8th grade

Which of the following categories describes your school�s student enrollment? A. less than 200 B. 200-500 C. 500-800 D. 800-1100 E. 1100 +

Which best describes the community where your school is located?

A. A rural area that is sparsely populated. B. An urban area with a population of 2,500 - 50,000 people per sq./mi. C. A suburban area part of a major metropolitan area. D. A small city that is not in a major metropolitan area.

Do you live in the school district (county or city) where you work?

A. Yes B. No

The following demographic information was added to the survey: Item #5 Area of certification(s): A. K - 8 B. 4 - 8 C. 4 � 12 D. K � 12 E. 7 � 12

151

The directions and scales used in Part II of the survey were changed from:

For the following statements, bubble in the response that best illustrates your opinion of the practices of teachers in this school. (a) = Strongly disagree; (b) = Disagree; (c) = Agree; (d) = Strongly agree; (e) = Not applicable. To Directions for Part II: Using the scale from �Almost Never� to �Nearly Always�, mark the appropriate response that best illustrates your opinion of the practices of teachers in your school. Survey statements that changed from the original survey based on the feedback received from the expert teachers, administrators, and social worker: Item 6 As implementers of student attendance policy, teachers should record all absences as excused and unexcused. to

Teachers in this school record student absences from school as excused or unexcused. Item 7 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers should record all tardies. to Teachers in this school record student tardiness to class. Item 8 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers should take

attendance every class period. to Teachers in this school record attendance each class period. Item 9 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers should contact

parents whenever a student is absent from school. to Teachers in this school contact parents by phone to notify them of student

absences from school. Item 10 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers should excuse

all student absences with a note from a parent. to Teachers in this school excuse student absences with a note from a parent. Item 11 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers should

communicate with parents about the student attendance policy. to Teachers in this school provide a written copy of the student attendance

policy to students and parents.

152

Item 12 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers should excuse all absences with a doctor�s note. to

Teachers in this school excuse student absences with a doctor�s note. Item 13 Teachers in this school record student check-outs from their classrooms.

(item was added) Item 14 As implementers of the student attendance policy, homeroom teachers

should contact parents when a student misses two or more consecutive days of school. to

Teachers in this school contact parents whenever a student misses three or

more consecutive days of school. Item 15 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers should send

letter after 5 absences. to Teachers in this school send letters notifying parents of student

absenteeism after a certain number of absences. Item 16 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers should provide

incentives and rewards for good attendance. to Teachers in this school provide incentives and rewards for regular school

attendance. Item 17 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers should make

home visits to determine the causes of non-attendance. to Teachers in this school make home visits to meet the student�s family and

to determine the causes of absenteeism. Item 18 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers should meet

with team teachers to discuss student attendance problems. to Teachers in this school discuss student attendance issues in Student

Support Team (SST) meetings. Item 19 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers should develop

procedures for monitoring attendance. to Teachers in this school follow an established procedure for monitoring

student attendance.

153

Item 20 As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers are trained by school administrators to implement the student attendance policy. (combined with) As implementers of the student attendance policy, teachers are trained by district office personnel to implement the student attendance policy. to Teachers in this school are trained by school administrators or district level personnel to implement the student attendance policy.

Item 21 Students who are late to school or class should expect a consequence for each tardy. to Teachers in this school use additional assignments as a consequence for tardiness.

Item 22 Procedures in this school for tardiness include after school detentions. to Teachers in this school use after-school detention as a consequence for tardiness.

Item 23 Procedures in this school for tardiness include grade reductions for excessive tardiness. to

Teachers in this school use grade reductions as a consequence for tardiness.

Item 24 Students with excessive tardies (over 10 times) to class or school should expect to be handled through the discipline process. (combined with) Procedures in this school for tardiness include in- school suspension for excessive tardiness. (combined with) Procedures in this school for tardiness include out-of-school suspension for excessive tardiness. to Use referrals to the administrator for disciplinary action for tardiness. Item 25 Procedures in this school for tardiness include communication with parents. to Teachers in this school contact parents to discuss student tardiness. Item 26 Consequences for unexcused absences used in this school include after- school detention. to Teachers in this school use after-school detention as a consequence for unexcused absences.

154

Item 27 Consequences for unexcused absences used in this school include grade reductions. to Teachers in this school use grade reductions as a consequence for unexcused absences. Item 28 Consequences for unexcused absences used in this school include in- school suspension. (combined with) Consequences for unexcused absences used in this school include out- of- school suspension. to Teachers in this school use referrals to the office for disciplinary action as a consequence for unexcused absences. Item 29 Consequences for unexcused absences used in this school include student conference with a counselor. (combined with) Consequences for excessive absences (over 10 days) in this school include referral of student to the counselor. to Teachers in this school refer students absent more than 10 days to the counselor for counseling. Item 30 Consequences for unexcused absences used in this school include student conference with an administrator. (combined with) Consequences for excessive absences (over 10 days) in this school include administrative conference with student. to Teachers in this school refer students absent more than 10 days to school administrators for a conference. Item 31 Consequences for excessive absences (over 10 days) in this school include parent conference with teachers. to Teachers in this school meet with parents of students absent more than 10 days. Item 32 Consequences for unexcused absences used in this school include administrative conference with parents. (combined with) Consequences for excessive absences (over 10 days) in this school include administrative conference with parents. to Teachers in this school request administrators meet with parents of students absent more than 10 days.

155

Item 33 Teachers in this school provide tutoring for students who miss school frequently. (item was added)

Item 34 Teachers in this school modify the curriculum in an effort to assist

students who are frequently absent. (item was added) Item 35 Teachers in this school allow students with an excused absence to make up

missed assignments. (item was added) Item 36 Teachers in this school announce special school events such as assemblies,

pep rallies, and activities. (item was added) Item 37 Teachers in this school announce tests and quizzes. (item was added) Item 38 Teachers in this school check a daily absentee report routinely to confirm that students missing from class are absent from school. (item was added) The following items were deleted from the initial survey: Consequences for unexcused absences used in this school parent conference with the school social worker.

Consequences for excessive absences (over 10 days) in this school include home visit by law enforcement or truancy officer Consequences for excessive absences (over 10 days) in this school include homes visit by the school social worker. Consequences for excessive absences (over 10 days) in this school include referral of students to juvenile court for truancy. Consequences for excessive absences (over 10 days) in this school include referral of parents to court for the non-attendance of their children. Consequences for excessive absences (over 10 days) in this school include no response from school personnel.

156

APPENDIX C

STUDENT ATTENDANCE PRACTICES SURVEY

Please record all responses on the survey by bubbling in answers using a #2 pencil. Please return the completed survey in the enclosed envelope. Part 1- Demographic Information 1. Gender: a. male b. female 2. Age: a. 20-29 b. 30-39 c. 40-49 d. 50-59 e. 60 3. Years of teaching experience:

a. 0-5 b. 6-10 c. 11-15 d. 16-20 e. 20+years

4. Highest level of certification: a. provisional b. T4 c. T5 d. T6 e. T7

5. Area of certification(s): a. K-8 b. 4-8 c. 4-12 d. K-12 e. 7-12 Part II- Using the scale from �Almost Never� to �Nearly Always�, mark the appropriate response that best illustrates your opinion of the practices of teachers in your school. 6. Teachers in this school record student absences from school as excused or

unexcused. 7. Teachers in this school record student tardiness to class. 8. Teachers in this school record student attendance each class period. 9. Teachers in this school contact parents by phone to notify them of student absences

from school. 10. Teachers in this school excuse student absences with a note from a parent. 11. Teachers in this school provide a written copy of the student attendance policy to students and parents.

157

12. Teachers in this school excuse student absences with a doctor�s note. 13. Teachers in this school record student check-outs from their classrooms. 14. Teachers in this school contact parents whenever a student misses three or more

consecutive days of school. 15. Teachers in this school send letters notifying parents of student absenteeism after a

certain number of absences. 16. Teachers in this school provide incentives and rewards for regular school

attendance. 17. Teachers in this school make home visits to meet the student�s family and to

determine the causes of absenteeism. 18. Teachers in this school discuss student attendance in Student Support Team (SST)

meetings. 19. Teachers in this school follow an established procedure for monitoring student

attendance. 20. Teachers in this school are trained by school administrators or district level

personnel to implement the student attendance policy. 21. Teachers in this school use additional assignments as a consequence for tardiness. 22. Teachers in this school use after-school detention as a consequence for tardiness. 23. Teachers in this school use grade reductions as a consequence for tardiness. 24. Teachers in this school use referrals to the administrator for disciplinary action for

tardiness. 25. Teachers in this school contact parents to discuss student tardiness. 26. Teachers in this school use after-school detention as a consequence for unexcused

absences. 27. Teachers in this school use grade reductions as a consequence for unexcused

absences. 28. Teachers in this school use referrals to the office for disciplinary action as a

consequence for unexcused absences.

158

29. Teachers in this school refer students absent more than 10 days to the school counselor for counseling.

30. Teachers in this school refer students absent more than 10 days to school

administrators for a conference. 31. Teachers in this school meet with parents of students absent more than 10 days. 32. Teachers in this school request administrators to meet with parents of students

absent more than 10 days. 33. Teachers in this school provide tutoring for students who miss school frequently. 34. Teachers in this school modify the curriculum in an effort to assist students who

are frequently absent. 35. Teachers in this school allow students with excused absences to make up missed

assignments. 36. Teachers in this school announce special school events such as assemblies, pep

rallies, and activities. 37. Teachers in this school announce tests and quizzes. 38. Teachers in this school check a daily absentee report to confirm that students

missing from class are absent from school.

159

APPENDIX D

STUDENT ATTENDANCE PRACTICES SURVEY ITEM ANAYLSIS Initial Categories Predicted Items Estimated Percentage Record keeping

#6, #7, #8, #13, #19, #38

18%

Communicating

#9, #11, #15, #25, #31, #32, #36, #37

24%

Supporting students

#14, #16, #17, #18, #29, #30, #33, #34, #35

27%

Enforcing policy directives

#10, #12, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #26, #27, #28

31%

33 items 100%

160

APPENDIX E

SUPERINTENDENT LETTER

Dear Superintendent, I am currently working on a research project that examines the implementation of policy at the school level. The title of my study is TEACHERS� PRACTICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDENT ATTENDANCE POLICY: DEVELOPMENT OF A PERCEPTIONS INSTRUMENT. The population for this study consisted of all the middle schools in Georgia. A middle school in your district, (name of school), was randomly selected to be part of the sample. I would like your consent to approach the principal and teachers of this school to determine if they are willing to participate in this research project. As a school administrator, I realize that taking part in research projects can sometimes burden a school staff. This study is simply a teacher survey that will take about 10 minutes to complete. I will provide the self-addressed stamp envelopes to return the completed surveys. Without professional collaborations, understanding the complexities related to our craft would not be possible. Please be assured that no individual or school will be identified in this study. All information will be confidential and only general conclusions representing group data will be reported. A summary of the results of this study will be made available to you, if you so desire. I hope you will help me in this attempt to extend the boundaries of knowledge in our profession. Please use the attached consent form and send your response back to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Your assistance is appreciated. Sincerely,

Catherine Rosa, Ed. S.

161

APPENDIX F

DISTRICT CONSENT FORM

(To satisfy The University of Georgia Human Subjects Application process, this consent information must be on school district letterhead.)

To: The Committee of Catherine Rosa From: The Superintendent Re: TEACHERS� PRACTICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDENT ATTENDANCE POLICY IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN GEORGIA As the Superintendent of (name of district), (check appropriate responses below, sign, and return in the enclosed envelope) _______ I consent to allow the candidate to approach the principal of (name of school) about the proposed research project. _______ I do not consent to allow the candidate to approach the principal of (name of school) about the proposed research project. _______ I would like a copy of the completed study. _______ I do not need a copy of the completed study. ________________________________________ Signature of Superintendent Date Comments:

162

APPENDIX G

PRINCIPAL LETTER

Dear Principal, I am conducting a research study titled �TEACHERS� PRACTICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDENT ATTENDANCE POLICY IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN GEORGIA�. Knowing more about how teachers� practices as implementers of the student attendance policy may have implication for policy makers and school leaders. As administrators, we act as intermediaries for the implementation process and a better understanding of the complexities involved in the implementation of policy may improve our practice. Your school was one of eight middle schools in Georgia selected as part of the sample for this study. I have already contacted the district level office and obtained the consent from the superintendent of schools to approach you about this project. If you are willing to participate, I will send a survey to be completed by you and your teaching staff. The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. I will provide a self-addressed stamped envelope to each teacher to return completed surveys. It�s that easy. The anonymity of all participants will be preserved. The research results will describe aggregates only and will not identify any individual answers or identify any schools. Only pseudonyms will be used in the analysis of the data. I will be contacting you this week to see if you are interested in participating in this study. In the meantime, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 770-534-7473 or my dissertation advisor, Dr. Karen Hunt at University of Georgia, Department of Educational Leadership, 750 River Crossing Road Athens, GA 30602 by calling 706-542-4060. Sincerely, Catherine Rosa, Ed. S.

163

APPENDIX H

SCHOOL CONSENT FORM (To satisfy The University of Georgia Human Subjects Application process, this consent information MUST BE ON SCHOOL LETTER HEAD.) To: Catherine P. Rosa From: Principal Re: TEACHERS� PRACTICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDENT ATTENDANCE POLICY: DEVELOPMENT OF A PERCEPTIONS INSTRUMENT As the Principal of (Name of Middle School): (check appropriate responses below, sign, and fax to770-531-3055) _______ I consent to participate in this research project by administering the surveys to teachers at my school. _______ I do not consent to participate in this research project. _______ I would like a copy of the completed study. _______ I do not need a copy of the completed study. ________________________________________ Signature of Principal Date Comments:

164

APPENDIX I

INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO TEACHERS Dear Colleague, As part of my doctoral program in Educational Leadership at the University of Georgia, I am conducting a study titled �TEACHERS� PRACTICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDENT ATTENDANCE POLICY: DEVELOPMENT OF A PERCEPTIONS INSTRUMENT�. Your school was one of eight middle schools in Georgia selected as part of the sample for this study. If you decide to participate in my research, you will be asked to complete a survey that will take about 10 minutes to complete. The survey asks questions about your role in the implementation of the student attendance policy. Participation is voluntary and if you choose not to partake, there will not be adverse consequences. Please use the self-addressed stamped envelope to return surveys (even if you do not participate). It�s that easy! Your input is important and perhaps from the data collected we can learn something that can impact our practice and the policy making process. The anonymity of all participants will be preserved. The research results will describe aggregates only and will not identify any individual answers or identify any schools. If you have any questions related to this research, please contact me at 770-534-7473 or email me at [email protected] . If you need to contact my dissertation advisor at UGA, please contact Dr. Karen Hunt at 706-542-4060 or write to Educational Leadership Dept. 750 Rivers Crossing Road Athens, GA 30602. Your time and participation is appreciated! Sincerely, Catherine Rosa For questions or problems about your rights please call or write: Chris A. Joseph, Ph.D., Human Subjects Office, University of Georgia, 606A Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30602-7411; Telephone (706) 542-6514; E-Mail Address [email protected].

165

APPENDIX J

FOLLOW-UP PRINCIPAL LETTER

Dear Principal, Thank you for participating in my research project titled, �TEACHERS� PRACTICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDENT ATTENDANCE POLICY: DEVELOPMENT OF A PERCEPTIONS INSTRUMENT�. I appreciate the time and collaborative effort of you and your staff. Knowing more about how teachers� practices as implementers of the student attendance policy may have implication for policy makers and school leaders. As administrators, we act as intermediaries for the implementation process and a better understanding of the complexities involved in the implementation of policy may improve our practice. I am currently in the process of examining the data collected by school and for all the schools in the sample collectively. Remember that the anonymity of all participants will be preserved. The research results will describe aggregates only and will not identify any individual answers or identify any schools. Only pseudonyms will be used in the analysis of the data. I f you are interested in the results of this analysis, please let me know by calling me at 770-534-7473 or my dissertation advisor, Dr. Karen Hunt at 706-542-4060 at The University of Georgia, Department of Educational Leadership, 750 River Crossing Road Athens, GA 30602. Thanks again and if I can ever return the professional courtesy please let me know. Sincerely, Catherine Rosa, Ed. S.

166

APPENDIX K

STUDENT ATTENDANCE PRACTICES SURVEY ITEM ANALYSIS

Subscales Items Percentage of the SAPS

Communicating with parents

#9, #13, #14,#15, #16, #17

29%

Truancy prevention

#29, #30, #31, #32

19%

Record keeping

#6, #10, #12

14%

Enforcing policy Supporting students

#21, #22, #23, #26, #27 #35, #36, #37

24%

14%

21 items 100%

TEACHERS™ PRACTICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION · PDF fileCATHERINE PASCARELLA ROSA ......

Documents

Transcript of TEACHERS™ PRACTICES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION · PDF fileCATHERINE PASCARELLA ROSA ......