parental factor

A QUANTITATIVE, DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF POTENTIAL PARENTAL FACTORS THAT MAY HINDER STUDENT ATTENDANCE

by Jamila Williams A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX July 2010

UMI Number: 3507054

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3507054 Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Potential Parental Factors ii

©2010 by Jamila Williams ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Potential Parental Factors iv ABSTRACT The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive study was to examine potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance by evaluating parental knowledge levels based on seven demographic characteristics. The study used a 21-item survey created specifically for this study. The sampling frame of potential participants derived from the parents/guardians of the 240 students at an inner-city, high poverty, high minority, PreK-8th grade school in Portland, Oregon. Data analysis was separated into three sections: 1) Parents’/guardians’ demographic data, 2) descriptive data of parental knowledge, understanding, and attitudes, and 3) inferential data, related to the null hypotheses for the three guiding research questions based on the seven independent variables of the parental demographic characteristics. The data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), a computerized program intended for data management and analysis. Testing for significant differences was determined using the Basic Statistical Testing for Significant Difference between percentages with a 99% confidence level. Based on the findings and analysis of the study, it appears that more research is needed to determine parental factors that may hinder student attendance. Recommendations for future research studies include a larger sampling frame, greater access to parents/guardians, connecting parents’/guardians’ responses with their child/children, the addition of personal interviews, and additional analysis conducted from the survey data.

Potential Parental Factors v DEDICATION This body of work is dedicated to my mother, Betty, who supported, encouraged, and pushed me through the process. Thank you, Mom for your continued love, patience, and support in all of my endeavors. To my children, Talibah, Adia, and Kerel, and grandchildren, Aalieyah, E.J., and Aryanna, who believed in me and loved me. I wanted to set an example showing that you can do anything you put your mind to no matter what your age. And finally, this dissertation is dedicated to all the students and parents I have had the honor of having touched my live through my 30-year career in education. Stay focused and remember, you are never too young nor too old to follow your dreams!

Potential Parental Factors vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people helped me throughout my dissertation journey, some with words of encouragement, and some with prayers. I must first, give honor to God who is the head of my life. On the days I would get frustrated and discouraged with the dissertation journey, I would remember Proverbs 3:5, ―Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.‖ God’s comfort would keep me and inspire me to keep going. A special thank you to my mentor, Dr. Philip Orlando who stuck with me, encouraged me, and supported me through the entire dissertation process. Dr. Orlando not only provided fantastic feedback, he also spoke words into my life that helped me feel that I could complete my dissertation. He never gave up on me and I thank you. Thanks also to my committee members Dr. Donald Munday and Dr. Debra Maddox who provided feedback and support. They, too, stuck by me and encouraged me. Thank you to my financial counselor, Neel Dutt for keeping me on track and working with me! Thank you to Dr. Harriett Adair who was my Area Director in Portland. Dr. Adair was the first to believe in me and encourage me to begin working on my dissertation. Thank you, Dr. Adair. You were and are a blessing to my life.

Potential Parental Factors vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 Background of the Problem .........................................................................................................2 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................5 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................................5 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................................7 Significance to Leadership ...........................................................................................................8 Nature of the Study ......................................................................................................................8 Research Questions ....................................................................................................................12 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................14 Theoretical Framework ..............................................................................................................15 Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................................20 Assumptions ...............................................................................................................................22 Scope and Limitations ................................................................................................................23 Delimitations ..............................................................................................................................24 Summary ....................................................................................................................................24 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................27

Potential Parental Factors viii Documentation ...........................................................................................................................28 Review of the Literature .............................................................................................................29 Historical Overview ...................................................................................................................30 History of Schooling and Compulsory Education ......................................................................30 Compulsory Education Attendance Laws in the United States ..................................................31 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 .............................................................................................33 Title I Part A: Parental Involvement Policy ...............................................................................34 Student Attendance Requirements .............................................................................................35 Student Attendance and Achievement .......................................................................................36 The Problems of Truancy ...........................................................................................................36 Current Findings .........................................................................................................................37 Compulsory Attendance Laws in Oregon ..................................................................................37 Effectiveness of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ............................................................38 School Choice and Increased Spending .....................................................................................40 Ramifications for Teacher Preparation Programs ......................................................................41 Student Truancy .........................................................................................................................42 Income Level and Employment Status .......................................................................................45 Attendance and Achievement.....................................................................................................46 Student Grade Level ...................................................................................................................47 Parental Involvement Impact on Student Attendance ................................................................48 Ethnicity .....................................................................................................................................50 Language ....................................................................................................................................50 School Intervention Programs ....................................................................................................51

Potential Parental Factors ix Community Support ...................................................................................................................55 Connecting School Attendance with Welfare Benefits ..............................................................56 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................56 Summary ....................................................................................................................................59 CHAPTER 3: METHOD ...............................................................................................................62 Research Method Appropriateness .............................................................................................62 Research Design Appropriateness ..............................................................................................63 Population...................................................................................................................................64 Sampling Frame .........................................................................................................................65 Permission to Conduct the Study ...............................................................................................65 Informed Consent Form .............................................................................................................66 Confidentiality ............................................................................................................................67 Geographic Location ..................................................................................................................68 Data Collection ...........................................................................................................................68 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................................69 Survey Pilot Test ........................................................................................................................71 Validity – Internal and External .................................................................................................73 Reliability ...................................................................................................................................74 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................75 Research Questions and Hypotheses ..........................................................................................76 Summary ....................................................................................................................................78 CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ..................................................80 Research Design and Methods ...................................................................................................80

Potential Parental Factors x Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................................80 Data Analysis Procedures...........................................................................................................81 Findings ......................................................................................................................................82 Presentation of Data ...................................................................................................................82 Section 1: Parents’/Guardians’ Demographic Data....................................................................82 Section 2: Descriptive Data on Parental Knowledge Levels, Understanding, and Attitudes.....88 Section 3: Inferential Data..........................................................................................................93 Research Question One ..............................................................................................................93 Summary of Findings Related to Hypothesis 1 ........................................................................125 Research Question Two ...........................................................................................................126 Summary of Findings Related to Hypothesis 2 ........................................................................156 Research Question Three .........................................................................................................157 Summary of Findings for Hypothesis 3 ...................................................................................187 Summary ..................................................................................................................................187 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................189 Findings ....................................................................................................................................190 Hypothesis 1 .............................................................................................................................191 Hypothesis 2 .............................................................................................................................193 Hypothesis 3 .............................................................................................................................194 Implications ..............................................................................................................................196 Implications for Leaders ...........................................................................................................196 Implications for Other Stakeholders ........................................................................................198 Study Design Limitations .........................................................................................................199

Potential Parental Factors xi Recommendations ....................................................................................................................199 Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................200 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................203 APPENDIX A: PARENT SURVEY (ENGLISH) ...................................................................216 APPENDIX B: PARENT SURVEY (SPANISH) ...................................................................222 APPENDIX C: SURVEY COVER LETTER (ENGLISH) .....................................................228 APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FORM (ENGLISH) ...............................................230 APPENDIX E: PERMISSION TO USE PREMESIS, NAME AND/OR SUBJECTS............231 APPENDIX F: ORIGINAL SURVEY CREATED ON SURVEY MONKEY BY RESEARCHER ........................................................................................................................232 APPENDIX G: BASIC STATISTICAL TESTING FOR DIFFERENCES ............................240

Potential Parental Factors xii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of literature reviewed by search words ........................................................29 Table 2 Correlation of survey questions to the research questions ...........................................71 Table 3 Statistical Analysis for Research Questions ..................................................................77 Table 4 Question 1- Gender .......................................................................................................83 Table 5 Question 2 – Age Group Range ....................................................................................84 Table 6 Question 3 – Number of Children Attending School .....................................................85 Table 7 Question 4 – Child’s/Children’s Grade Level Range ...................................................86 Table 8 Question 5 – Highest Level of Education ......................................................................87 Table 9 Question 6 – Employment Status...................................................................................87 Table 10 Question 7 – Ethnicity .................................................................................................88 Table 11 Research Question 1 ...................................................................................................90 Table 12 Research Question 2 ...................................................................................................91 Table 13 Research Question 3 ...................................................................................................93 Table 14 Gender * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law ......................................................94 Table 15 Age Group * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law.................................................95 Table 16 Number of Children * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law ..................................97 Table 17 Pre K * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law .........................................................97 Table 18 K-2nd * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law..........................................................98 Table 19 3rd-5th * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law ........................................................98 Table 20 6th-8th * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law .........................................................99 Table 21 Highest Level of Education * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law.....................100 Table 22 Employment Status * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law..................................102

Potential Parental Factors xiii Table 23 Ethnicity * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law ..................................................103 Table 24 Gender * Failure to Comply .....................................................................................104 Table 25 Age Group * Failure to Comply................................................................................106 Table 26 Number of Children * Failure to Comply .................................................................107 Table 27 Pre K * Failure to Comply ........................................................................................108 Table 28 K-2nd * Failure to Comply.........................................................................................108 Table 29 3rd-5th * Failure to Comply .......................................................................................109 Table 30 6th-8th * Failure to Comply ........................................................................................109 Table 31 Highest Level of Education * Failure to Comply......................................................111 Table 32 Employment Status * Failure to Comply ..................................................................113 Table 33 Ethnicity * Failure to Comply ...................................................................................114 Table 34 Gender * Meaning of Tardy ......................................................................................115 Table 35 Age Group * Meaning of Tardy ................................................................................116 Table 36 Number of Children * Meaning of Tardy ..................................................................118 Table 37 Pre K * Meaning of Tardy ........................................................................................118 Table 38 K-2nd * Meaning of Tardy .........................................................................................119 Table 39 3rd-5th * Meaning of Tardy ........................................................................................120 Table 40 6th-8th * Meaning of Tardy ........................................................................................120 Table 41 Highest Level of Education * Meaning of Tardy ......................................................122 Table 42 Employment Status * Meaning of Tardy ...................................................................123 Table 43 Ethnicity * Meaning of Tardy ...................................................................................125 Table 44 Gender * When Considered Late ..............................................................................127 Table 45 Age Group * When Considered Late ........................................................................128

Potential Parental Factors xiv Table 46 Number of Children * When Considered Late ..........................................................129 Table 47 Pre K * When Considered Late .................................................................................129 Table 48 K-2nd * When Considered Late .................................................................................130 Table 49 3rd-5th * When Considered Late ................................................................................130 Table 50 6th-8th * When Considered Late .................................................................................131 Table 51 Highest Level of Education * When Considered Late...............................................132 Table 52 Employment Status * When Considered Late ...........................................................134 Table 53 Ethnicity * When Considered Late ............................................................................135 Table 54 Gender * Knowledge of Incentives ...........................................................................136 Table 55 Age Group * Knowledge of Incentives ......................................................................137 Table 56 Number of Children * Knowledge of Incentives .......................................................139 Table 57 Pre K * Knowledge of Incentives ..............................................................................140 Table 58 K-2nd * Knowledge of Incentives ...............................................................................141 Table 59 3rd-5th * Knowledge of Incentives ..............................................................................141 Table 60 6th-8th * Knowledge of Incentives ..............................................................................141 Table 61 Highest Level of Education * Knowledge of Incentives ............................................143 Table 62 Employment Status * Knowledge of Incentives .........................................................145 Table 63 Ethnicity * Knowledge of Incentives .........................................................................146 Table 64 Gender * Yellow Cards .............................................................................................147 Table 65 Age Group * Yellow Cards .......................................................................................148 Table 66 Number of Children * Yellow Cards .........................................................................149 Table 67 Pre K * Yellow Cards ................................................................................................150 Table 68 K-2nd * Yellow Cards ................................................................................................150

Potential Parental Factors xv Table 69 3rd-5th * Yellow Cards ...............................................................................................151 Table 70 6th-8th * Yellow Cards ................................................................................................151 Table 71 Highest Level of Education * Yellow Cards .............................................................153 Table 72 Employment Status * Yellow Cards ..........................................................................154 Table 73 Ethnicity * Yellow Cards ...........................................................................................156 Table 74 Gender * Vital Learning Missed When Absent .........................................................158 Table 75 Age Group * Vital Learning Missed When Absent ...................................................159 Table 76 Number of Children * Vital Learning Missed When Absent .....................................160 Table 77 Pre K * Vital Learning Missed When Absent ............................................................161 Table 78 K-2nd * Vital Learning Missed When Absent ............................................................161 Table 79 3rd-5th * Vital Learning Missed When Absent ...........................................................162 Table 80 6th-8th * Vital Learning Missed When Absent............................................................162 Table 81 Highest Level of Education * Vital Learning Missed When Absent .........................164 Table 82 Employment Status * Vital Learning Missed When Absent ......................................166 Table 83 Ethnicity * Vital Learning Missed When Absent .......................................................167 Table 84 Gender * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes ...........................................................167 Table 85 Age Group * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes .....................................................169 Table 86 Number of Children * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes.......................................170 Table 87 Pre K * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes .............................................................171 Table 88 K-2nd * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes ..............................................................171 Table 89 3rd-5th * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes .............................................................172 Table 90 6th-8th * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes .............................................................172 Table 91 Highest Level of Education * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes ...........................174

Potential Parental Factors xvi Table 92 Employment Status * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes ........................................175 Table 93 Ethnicity * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes ........................................................177 Table 94 Gender * Increase in Parental Involvement .............................................................178 Table 95 Age Group * Increase in Parental Involvement ........................................................179 Table 96 Number of Children * Increase in Parental Involvement .........................................180 Table 97 Pre K * Increase in Parental Involvement ................................................................180 Table 98 K-2nd * Increase in Parental Involvement .................................................................181 Table 99 3rd-5th * Increase in Parental Involvement................................................................181 Table 100 6th-8th * Increase in Parental Involvement ..............................................................182 Table 101 Highest Level of Education * Increase in Parental Involvement ............................183 Table 102 Employment Status * Increase in Parental Involvement .........................................185 Table 103 Ethnicity * Increase in Parental Involvement .........................................................186

Potential Parental Factors 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The focus on improving student attendance in schools has become necessary throughout the United States as schools continually deal with the issues of poor student achievement (Baker & Jansen, 2000; Henry, 2007). Research conducted on the importance of student attendance and the implementation of strategies to increase attendance, revealed a relationship between attendance and achievement (Baker & Jansen, 2000). This quantitative, descriptive research study, using a cross-sectional, Likert-type survey, specifically developed for this research study to gather data on frequencies and descriptive trends (Creswell, 2005), sought to examine potential parental factors that may affect student attendance. The study investigated the knowledge levels of the parents/guardians in relationship to compulsory education attendance laws, the school’s attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement. The discussion in the theoretical framework included a historical overview of compulsory education laws, school attendance programs, and the relationship attendance has with achievement, which provided the foundation for the study and the assumptions formulated in the study. Variables were discussed that demonstrated the impact parents/guardians had on attendance and achievement. Several studies presented identified the importance of developing a school-wide attendance program when striving to increase student attendance. Other studies presented included discussions of the negative impact of truancy. Background information, research questions, hypotheses, limitations, and delimitations were presented in chapter 1 to provide a clear picture of the problem and purpose for the study. Concluding chapter 1 was a summary of key points presented in the chapter including supporting citations, transitioning into the Literature Review in chapter 2.

Potential Parental Factors 2 Background of the Problem Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, each state was mandated to devise and put into practice statewide accountability systems to make certain all public schools made adequate yearly progress. Schools that did not make adequate yearly progress ran the risk of sanctions from the United States Department of Education (Pepukayi, 2004). Student attendance was one of the areas where schools were required to maintain a specified percentage rate to comply with adequate yearly progress guidelines. A strong attendance intervention plan based on the demands for accountability and achievement set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was considered to be a potential step for schools. Studies have been conducted on the importance of student attendance as related to student achievement. Counting the Truants (Christie, 2006), described several problems of student truancy, the effects truancy had on student achievement, and the effects compulsory attendance laws had on student attendance. Results from the study indicated that mandatory attendance laws only showed a minimal increase in student attendance. For a school to see genuine improvement in attendance, the students needed to believe that their participation in school was worthwhile (Christie, 2006). When students believed that someone cared and students developed personal relationships with the school personnel, the students’ attendance increased. The study concluded that if a school only strove to enforce mandated attendance laws without considering the students’ personal relationships, the desired increase attendance did not occur. Interest in the importance of personal relationships for students served as a catalyst for further research. Researchers continued to determine the importance that personal relationships had on student attendance. A study conducted by Volkmann and Bye (2006), Improved School

Potential Parental Factors 3 Attendance Through Adult Volunteer Reading Partners, provided data indicating that one method to improve student attendance was to provide personalized adult contact for the students. Volkmann and Bye (2006) conducted an ex post facto exploratory study of elementary students over a two-year period that analyzed data reporting the impact providing a weekly, one hour oneon-one adult contact for students demonstrating attendance issues, had on improving the students attendance. The school in the study experienced poor student achievement. The development of an adult volunteer reading program was an attempt to improve student attendance. The study showed an increase in individual student attendance when interventions were implemented. Students’ attendance improved on the days the students met with the adult readers, but the dayto-day attendance of the students did not improve. Joronen and Astedt-Kurki (2005) found that if parents believed that their children were doing satisfactorily in school, the parents did not maintain contact with their children’s’ teacher or stay current on school events. If a student began to have difficulty in school with academics, parents would make the student study. Parents would still not contact the school. The findings showed that even with parents’ negative involvement, students still demonstrated an improvement in attendance. Burns (2000) conducted a study to determine the effectiveness of the Stevenson/YMCA community school programs in relationship to parental involvement, student attendance, and achievement. The findings showed that children with parents involved in school had higher scores for effort than children whose parents were not involved in school. Children with involved parents attended school more than children whose parents were not involved in school. The study showed that children with involved parents demonstrated a significant increase in motivation, citizenship, and homework completion compared to the children with parents who were not

Potential Parental Factors 4 involved in the school. Student attendance has a significant effect on student learning (Stanca, 2006). To ensure that schools focused on improving student attendance, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) mandated schools to achieve and maintain an annual student attendance percentage rate of 95% by 2010 to be in compliance. School districts with schools not meeting the percentage rate risked negative sanctions by the U. S. Department of Education (Pepukayi, 2004). In 2005, the Portland Public School district in Portland, Oregon, fully aware of the NCLB mandates required all schools in the district with an attendance rate below 95% to develop a plan that would improve student attendance. To assist schools in achieving the yearly target, schools were required to design and implement a strategic attendance plan that identified and addressed potential factors inhibiting students from coming to school. Identifying potential hindrances to student attendance may extend the current research (Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005) and be useful to school administrators, teachers, and district leaders in the effort to improve a school’s attendance rate. A quantitative study conducted by Stanca (2006) described the effect student attendance had on students’ academic performance. Statistically, student attendance had a significant impact on student learning. Although several studies have been conducted on the importance parents/guardians had on student attendance, little research has occurred that has identified the effects parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels may have on student attendance (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002, p. 308). A study that seeks to identify potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance might provide useful data to school district leaders striving to improve attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 5 Statement of the Problem Overton (a fictitious name used to preserve confidentiality), an inner-city, high poverty (96%), high minority (92%) school in the Portland Public School District, had maintained a relatively constant attendance rate over the past years: 93.3% in 2003, 94.7% in 2004, 94.2% in 2005, 93% in 2006, 93.8% in 2007, and 94.3% in 2008 (Portland Public School’s website). In 2008, in addition to being a high poverty school, Overton saw an increase in enrollment of families speaking Spanish (25%). Both the increase in students from high poverty homes and the increase in students from Spanish-speaking families were due to the opening of a neighboring low-income housing development. The problem was that in order for the school to reach the mandated 95% attendance rate by 2010, efforts must be made to identify potential hindrances to student attendance. The current quantitative, descriptive research study, using a Likert-type survey created specifically for this study, sought to examine potential parental factors that might hinder student attendance by gathering data on the knowledge levels of parents/guardians of the students at an inner-city, high poverty, high minority school in Portland, Oregon. The data was used to seek frequencies and trends between the dependent and the independent variables that may help identify potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance, thus impacting the school’s annual attendance rate. Purpose of the Study This quantitative, descriptive study, using a cross-sectional, Likert-type survey, created specifically for this study, strove to examine potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance by gathering data on the parental knowledge levels on the dependent variables: compulsory education attendance laws, the school’s attendance program, and relating student

Potential Parental Factors 6 attendance with achievement and the independent variables: gender, students’ grade level range, number of children attending the school, parents’/guardians’ age group range, highest level of education, employment status, and ethnicity, to determine frequencies and trends at an inner-city, high poverty, high minority, PreK-8th grade school in Portland, Oregon. ―Quantitative research is a type of educational research in which the researcher decides what to study; asks specific, narrow questions; collects quantifiable data from participants; analyzes these numbers using statistics; and conducts the inquiry in an unbiased, objective manner‖ (Creswell, 2005). The purpose for the use of quantitative research is specific and can be measured through the use of survey instruments (Creswell, 2005). A quantitative research method is appropriate for this study because the researcher will determine what to study and administer the survey in an unbiased, objective manner (Creswell, 2005). The Likert-type survey created for this study, asked narrowly designed questions to gather information concerning parents/guardians knowledge levels on the specific topics. The descriptive research design was used for this study. Descriptive research design focuses on current events (Salkind, 2006). Assessing parents’/guardians’ current knowledge levels as related to the independent variables, through the use of a survey may provide data on frequencies and trends in parental knowledge levels. The data may identify potential barriers to student attendance. The survey used in this study was made available to all parents/guardians of the school; therefore, the study did not have a control group.

Potential Parental Factors 7 Significance of the Study All states in the United States have mandatory public school attendance laws, yet many school districts continue to cope with issues of poor student attendance. Stanca (2006) identified student attendance as a contributor to successful student achievement. A quantitative study by Jacobson (2005) indicated that when college students received an e-mail on the day after an absence from class, student attendance improved at the next class session. The study spoke to the impact that implementing specific intervention strategies into the school system had on improving the attendance of the students who were involved in the study. A study by Epstein and Sheldon (2002) found that ensuring that parents had ―clear information about the school attendance policies and understood the importance of attendance for student report card grades and classroom learning, more parents may convey messages to their children about the importance of school and good attendance‖ (p. 317). When parents felt connected to the school through personal contacts or through home-to-school communications, students came to school more regularly (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Norman, 2005). Epstein and Sheldon’s study demonstrated the need for school leaders to identify parental perceptions and knowledge levels of school policies as well as the connection between student attendance and achievement. The information gathered from this study may add to the body of knowledge regarding the identification of potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance. Information was gained on the effect students’ grade level ranges (PreK-2, 3-5, 6-8), parents’/guardians’ gender, age group range, highest level of education, employment status, and ethnicity may have on parental knowledge levels of compulsory education laws, the school’s attendance program, or the relationship attendance has to achievement. The data might also provide ideas for potential

Potential Parental Factors 8 parental workshops or training. A school’s Leadership Team or Site Council may find the study data useful in the development of school-wide attendance programs that increase student attendance. The results from this study may present data that might stimulate topics for future research on hindrances parents/guardians encounter related to student attendance. Significance to Leadership The overarching significance of this research study was to provide information to school leaders, leadership teams, and site councils concerning potential parental factors that may be a hindrance to student attendance. The resulting data from this quantitative, descriptive study may be useful to school leaders of other inner-city, high poverty, or high minority schools when working with parents/guardians of students with high absentee issues. The data regarding parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels concerning attendance may be useful in developing meetings, workshops, trainings, and programs to improve school attendance. The information derived from the study may be a valuable resource for school administrators, teachers, district leaders, parents/guardians, educational journals, and educational funders as all strive to develop strategies to improve student attendance, and to meet the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 mandates. Nature of the Study The study examined the knowledge levels of the parents’/guardians’ concerning the dependent variables: 1) compulsory education attendance laws, 2) Overton’s school-wide attendance program, and 3) relating student attendance with achievement. The results of the study could be useful in understanding the views of the larger population on the problem being studied (Creswell, 2008). The decision to use quantitative or qualitative research methods depended upon the type of data sought from the study, the size of the participant group, the data

Potential Parental Factors 9 collection instrument, and the method of data collection. Each research method has a specific manner in which data is collected as well as different ways the research is conducted. Quantitative research produces numeric data that can be analyzed using statistics to seek trends or relationships between variables. The data is usually collected from a large group of participants. The data is collected in an ―unbiased, objective manner (Creswell, 2005, p. 39). Qualitative research seeks to obtain the views and beliefs from the participants ―asks broad, general questions‖ (Creswell, 2005, p. 39). The data from qualitative research uses the words from the participants to generate themes. Usually a small group of participants are used in the study. The research is conducted in a ―subjective, biased manner‖ (Creswell, 2005, p. 39). Quantitative research uses a predetermined instrument, such as surveys and tests to collect data. Qualitative research collects data through protocols, which guide the proceedings of the study. Quantitative research seeks to gather information that will indicate trends or relationships in the responses of the participants. Qualitative research explores a problem or phenomenon (Creswell, 2005). The current research study examined potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance. A predetermined survey was offered to the parents/guardians at the school. The participants consisted of the parents/guardians who decided to participate in the study. The study did not have a control group, nor were participants placed into preset groups. The data was analyzed for trends and frequencies with numerical statistics generated. This study sought to determine parental knowledge levels, with topics limited to the dependent and independent variables. Acknowledging the differences in instrumentation, group size, data collection techniques, and desired outcome data, the quantitative research method was selected for this study.

Potential Parental Factors 10 A descriptive research design was used for this study. The study could have used either a descriptive or correlational design. A descriptive research design ―describes the characteristics of a population by directly examining samples of that population‖ (Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005, p. 101), whereas the correlational research design ―attempts to understand patterns of relationships around variables‖ (Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005, p. 101). A correlational research design is useful when the study has more than one independent variable. Information may be derived to predict if one or more variable has an effect on the dependent variable (Salkind, 2006, p. 191). A descriptive research design produces data on percentages, frequencies, and averages (Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005). Both experimental and ex post facto research designs seek to identify a cause-effect relationship between the dependent and independent variables. The experimental design develops a sampling of participants randomly assigned into groups, usually with a control group and an experimental group. This current research study sought to examine parental knowledge levels to ascertain frequencies and trends. The survey was administered to all parents without a control group being established, therefore, the descriptive research design seemed appropriate. A survey was used in this study, as a quantitative study provides data regarding trends in the attitudes, beliefs, and opinions of the population in the study (Creswell, 2008). Since the survey was administered during a time constricted event, using a survey provided information to the researcher in a short amount of time. The questions contained within the survey were selected to provide data on parental factors that might hinder student attendance. A survey was useful for this study because the participants were able to complete the survey individually and within a short period. Some of the participants received the survey through the United States Postal

Potential Parental Factors 11 Service. Using an easy to complete survey may increase the likelihood participants would complete and return the survey. The quantitative data for this study was collected through a Likert-type scaled survey developed specifically for the study. The Likert-type scaled survey is an effective and efficient tool to measure a wide range of varied responses (Hartley & Maclean, 2006). All parents of the students attending Overton School had the opportunity to complete the survey to provide specific information on the dependent variables. The data was analyzed using the following independent variables: 1) students’ grade level ranges (PreK-2, 3-5, 6-8), 2) number of children attending the school, 3) parents’/guardians’ gender, 4) parents’/guardians’ age group range, 5) highest level of education, 6) employment status, and 7) ethnicity. Family income level was not gathered as the school’s poverty level had been established as 96% by the school district. Poverty level was considered a control variable. The survey was made available to all parents/guardians of the students who attended a family event. The survey was presented, explained, and made available to all parents in attendance. Parents/guardians were required to sign an Informed Consent Form to ensure understanding of the purpose for the study and the respondents’ right to withdraw from the study. A Spanish version of the survey plus translators was provided for Spanish-speaking parents/guardians who attend the family event to ensure that they understood the survey and their right to withdraw from the study. The Informed Consent Form and the Survey Cover Letter were translated into Spanish for the Spanish-speaking parents/guardians. An additional attempt was made through the United States Postal Service to contact parents/guardians who may not have attended the family event. A Survey Cover Letter and the Informed Consent Form accompanied the surveys mailed to the parents/guardians. The Survey

Potential Parental Factors 12 Cover Letter and the Informed Consent Form were translated into Spanish for the Spanishspeaking parents/guardians. Although several opportunities were made to gather the information of all parents/guardians at the school, the potential existed that some of the parents/guardians would decide not to participate in the survey. The sample for the study consisted of the parents/guardians who completed and returned the survey. Care was taken to ensure the confidentiality of the survey data. All participants and the Spanish interpreters were required to complete an Informed Consent Form. The Spanish interpreters were advised of the importance of confidentiality to ensure that the privacy of the Spanish-speaking parents/guardians was protected. The surveys were kept in a locked file for three years. At the end of three years, the surveys were destroyed. Demographic information was collected from the survey including gender, age range, highest level of parents’ education, employment status, ethnicity, number of children attending the school, and grade level range of their child/children. Parents/guardians with students who had Spanish marked as the home language were provided with a survey and cover letter translated into Spanish and a translator if needed. The survey results were disaggregated and analyzed for frequencies and trends of the dependent variables as they related to the independent variables to determine if trends existed that could be potential hindrances to student attendance. Research Questions Research questions emerge from the problem and purpose statements. This study sought to gather data on potential parental factors that may be hindrances to student attendance by exploring parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels concerning the dependent variables: 1) compulsory education attendance laws, 2) Overton’s school-wide attendance program, and 3) relating student attendance with achievement. The research questions were developed to gather

Potential Parental Factors 13 the desired information. Data was disaggregated using the independent variables: 1) students’ grade level ranges (PreK-2, 3-5, 6-8), 2) number of children attending the school, 3) parents’/guardians’ gender, 4) parents’/guardians’ age group range, 5) highest level of education, 6) employment status, and 7) ethnicity. Research Question 1 sought to examine the knowledge levels of the parents/guardians at Overton School concerning the compulsory education attendance laws. Data from this question provides a school’s administrators, Leadership Team, or Site Council with information to determine the laws parents/guardians are aware of and for which laws parents/guardians need additional information. If the study reflected a need, additional information could be provided through workshops, newsletters, or during one-on-one conversations. Research Question 2 sought to examine the knowledge levels of the parents/guardians concerning Overton’s school-wide attendance program. Whereas a Leadership Team or Site Council may have invested time in the development of an attendance program, if parents/guardians were not aware of the program, they may not understand the significance of bringing their child to school on time. Identifying the knowledge levels of the parents/guardians may provide valuable information in the modification of an attendance program. If differences exist between parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels based on the independent variables, adjustments could be made to the school-wide attendance program to meet the needs of the school. Research Question 3 provided information on the knowledge levels of parents/guardians at Overton regarding the relationship between student attendance and achievement. If the study results were to demonstrate a need, the information derived from this data might assist the school’s administrators, the Leadership Team, or the Site Council in the development of

Potential Parental Factors 14 communication strategies to inform parents who might not understand the connection between student attendance and achievement. The Site Council might incorporate the results from the survey into the School Improvement Plan. If language was shown to be a hindrance, the Site Council may address the issue through communications sent home Hypotheses Salkind (2006) states, ―A hypothesis is an objective extension of the question that was originally posed‖ (p. 7). The purpose of this study sought to gather data on potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance by exploring parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, Overton’s school-wide attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement. Salkind (2006) states, ―A hypothesis results when the questions are transformed into statements that express the relationships between variables‖ (p. 7). Hypothesis 1 suggested that a difference existed between the parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of the compulsory education attendance laws based on each of the seven variables. Null Hypothesis 1 stated that no difference would result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of the compulsory education attendance laws. Hypothesis 1 related to Research Question 1 in the identification of the knowledge levels of the parents/guardians concerning the compulsory education attendance laws. Hypothesis 2 suggested that a difference existed between the parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels concerning Overton’s school-wide attendance program based on the seven variables. Null Hypothesis 2 stated that no difference existed in the knowledge levels of the parents/guardians concerning Overton’s school-wide attendance program. If the data reflects a need, assessing the knowledge levels of parents/guardians may assist in the improvement of a school-wide attendance program.

Potential Parental Factors 15 Hypothesis 3 suggested that a difference existed between parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels concerning relating student attendance with achievement based on each of the seven variables. Null Hypothesis 3 stated that no difference existed in the knowledge levels of the parents/guardians concerning relating student attendance with achievement. If the study reflects a need, data on the knowledge levels of parents/guardians might provide information for potential parental workshops or trainings. Theoretical Framework The desire to improve student attendance through the identification of issues that might hinder student attendance and the development of intervention strategies to improve student attendance is the theoretical framework for this study. By law, parents are responsible to ensure that their children attend school on a regular basis (Christie, 2006). Compulsory education became mandated in the United States with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States in 1789. The purpose of this study seeks to gather data on potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance by exploring parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, the school’s attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 encouraged attention to attendance as schools struggled to reach the required achievement mandates. Sheldon (2007) states, ―Although the NCLB spotlight has shined brightest on standardized testing, NCLB also holds schools accountable for high levels of student attendance‖ (p. 267). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) established a strong focus on student attendance in all schools (Sheldon, 2007). Schools began to seek methods and strategies to identify potential hindrances to student attendance. Studies were conducted to determine if a correlation between academic success and

Potential Parental Factors 16 student attendance could be shown by researchers (Sheldon, 2007). Researchers found that ―when students attend school more often, they are less likely to engage in delinquent or destructive behaviors‖ (Sheldon, 2007, p. 267). Although evidence has demonstrated the connection between school attendance and achievement, few researchers have studied the effects of interventions on student attendance (Sheldon, 2007). Research studies were conducted on several variables such as the importance of parental and community involvement, the development of a school-wide action plan, and the relationship between parents’ beliefs and student development. Further research has been conducted on the relationship between student truancy and delinquent behavior in the community (Sheldon, 2007). Sattes (1985) discussed the use of the partnership model to improve parental involvement and student attendance. Parents were seen as full partners in the school community. The findings showed that parent involvement influenced achievement and attendance when the involvement was meaningful to parents. The highest achievement gains happened ―when parents are involved in preschool or elementary grades as home tutors‖ (Sattes, 1985, p. 11). Sattes’ (1985) research found that a partnership model for parental involvement could be extremely beneficial to the school community. Parental involvement had to focus on the central aim of the school, such as improving student attendance. The mission of the school became clear, power was shared, all parties were held accountable, and everyone had a stake in and was responsibility for the students’ learning. Leggett (1993) conducted a study to determine the relationship between parental behaviors and beliefs toward Head Start students' learning and the children’s development.

Potential Parental Factors 17 The findings of the study showed that there was a correlation between the students’ development and the parents’ beliefs. The findings showed that higher performing students tended to have parents who provided educational toys, books, and other educational activities at home. Results demonstrated that the home environment was a vital component in academic and social achievement. The highest achievement gains happened when parents were involved as tutors in preschool or elementary grades (Sattes, 1985). A focus on improving the achievements of children at academic risk combined with parental involvement was not only useful; it was crucial (McKay et al., 2003; Swap, 1993). When deciding how best to meet the needs of the individual child, the importance is in remembering that a child’s needs are best met by enhancing the sense of community, which means the purposeful alliance of parents, teachers, administrators, and students (Swap, 1993). The partnership must be based on shared values and face-to-face contact as well as a school community that has educational values that brings people together in service to those values, and helps members know what to expect from each other (Swap, 1993). Swap (1993) stated, ―When families and educators work collaboratively, both experience new learning and an important new source of support‖ (p. 1). During the 2000-2001 school year, Sheldon (2007) conducted a study of 69 elementary schools. The schools in the study were required to develop a school, family, and community action plan. The findings of the study indicated that schools that developed a strong plan experienced an increase in student attendance as compared to schools that developed a weak action plan or had no plan at all. Schools from the study that continued to implement a strong family and community involvement plan in following years continued to experience an increase

Potential Parental Factors 18 in student attendance. Schools with strong family and community involvement plans also experienced an increase in student achievement. Epstein and Sheldon (2002) conducted a study on improving student attendance through the development of a family and community program. Participants selected for the survey were from 12 elementary schools. School demographics reflected poverty level, homelessness, ethnicity, and language spoken at home. The majority of schools were from urban settings. The schools in the study were surveyed at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year to determine which of the suggested parent involvement activities should be used as well as the level of effectiveness of the activity to increase attendance. The suggested activities included: 1) making home visits to families of chronically absent students, 2) rewarding students for improved attendance, 3) establishing a school-based contact person for parents, 4) phoning home when students are absent, 5) holding workshops for parents on the importance of attendance, 6) having a counselor work with students with chronic absenteeism, 7) working with a truant officer for problem students and the families, and 8) having an after-school program. Four of the parent involvement activities identified displayed a high level of evidence for improved student attendance and decreased chronic absenteeism. The four activities identified were: 1) rewards to students, 2) communications with families, 3) school contacts for families, and 4) the implementation of an after-school program. When the researchers in the study analyzed the impact of after-school programs and student attendance, the findings validated that schools with these programs saw an increase in student attendance. Schools with the after-school programs also saw a decrease in chronic absenteeism. Two of the parent involvement activities described in the study improved student attendance but did not decrease chronic absenteeism. The two activities were referrals of students

Potential Parental Factors 19 to counselors and working with truant officers. Referrals of students to counselors and truant officers affected the rate of attendance of the students but did not affect the rate of chronic absenteeism. The most effective method to decrease chronic absenteeism in the study was the implementation of home visits. Home visits reduced the rate of chronic absenteeism, but did not affect the daily attendance rates (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002). When families and educators worked collaboratively, both experienced new learning and important new sources of support (Swap, 1993). Involving parents early in the schooling of their children is important (Reid, 2006). Riding and Baker (2003) looked for a correlation between poor parental support in low- income schools and poor student attendance. Findings from the study revealed that an increase in parental involvement not only improved student attendance, but also improved student behavior. Parents who were actively involved with their children, each other, and the school became problem-solvers and helped increase the levels of involvement of other parents (Joronen & Astedt-Kurki, 2005). Joronen and Astedt-Kurki (2005) examined the impact of family involvement on adolescents as related to school attendance. Data gathered through semi-structured interviews of 19 Finnish adolescents showed that both positive and negative family involvement affected the students’ school attendance. Parents supporting and taking an active role in their children’s lives demonstrated positive family involvement impacting school attendance (Sheldon, 2007). Findings showed that when a student was doing poorly, the supportive family encouraged, and comforted the student. Positive family involvement also appeared when parents maintained contact with their children’s teachers, especially if there was an issue of attendance or achievement.

Potential Parental Factors 20 One strategy Sheldon (2007) researched that improved student attendance was the development of a school-wide involvement program engaging school, family, and community. Sheldon (2007) found that schools with a school-wide family involvement program demonstrated an increase in each school’s annual student attendance. Researchers are continuing to discuss the importance of family involvement in reducing truancy and absenteeism (Anderson & Minke, 2007; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Norman, 2006). Continuing to concentrate on the connection between parents/guardians with student attendance, the current research study strives to examine potential parental factors that may be hindrances to student attendance by gathering a description of parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of the dependent variables as compared to the independent variables. Definition of Terms Compulsory Education: Compulsory education refers to the mandated national and state laws that require parents to send children between the ages of seven and 18 to school each day (Christie, 2007). One of the main purposes for compulsory education was to reduce the disparity between educating students from families with higher incomes and students from families with lower incomes (Thayer-Smith, 2007). Leadership Team: Leadership Teams are ―a small group of educators with the principal functioning as a strong cohesive force‖ (Marzano, 2003, p. 174). The Leadership Team works with the principal to ensure that the views of all staff members are represented and decisions are made to improve school issues (Marzano, 2003). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was initiated in 2001 by President George W. Bush to develop a system to hold schools accountable for increased student achievement and decreased high school student dropout rates (The White

Potential Parental Factors 21 House website, 2006, Foreword ¶ 2). NCLB has specific guidelines and target goals that schools must meet each school year or risk sanctions. Parental Involvement: Parental involvement consists of the numerous ways parents are involved in their children’s school lives (California Department of Education website, 2008). Some examples include ensuring their children are at school each day on time, attending conferences, attending school events, volunteering at school as well as encouraging their children to complete homework and pay attention at school (Calloway, 2006). Cavazos (2007) states, ―Parents, regardless of social class or income, promote the development of attitudes that are a key to student achievement when they show an interest in their children’s schooling‖ (p. 1). School-wide Attendance Program: A school-wide attendance program is a plan established by the school to encourage students to arrive at school on time on a daily basis as well as to aid in determining methods that support strategies to change the attitudes and behaviors of students who are not coming to school or who are arriving late to school. The attendance program may consist of ―giving students awards for improving their attendance and referring students to counselors to discuss attendance problems‖ (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002, p. 317). Title 1 Part A Parent Involvement Policy: The Title 1 Part A Parental Involvement Policy is defined as ―the participation of parents in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities‖ (Department of Education, 2004, p. 3). Truancy: Truancy is difficult to define clearly (Davies & Lee, 2006). For example, some parents take their children out of school for Take Your Child to Work Day, for a family vacation, or for a shopping event (Davis & Lee, 2006). When the absence occurs, the parent may not

Potential Parental Factors 22 consider the absence as detrimental to the student’s education. For the sake of this study, truancy will be defined as an unexcused absence from school. The Legislative Counsel Committee of the Oregon Legislative Assembly (2007) website states that four full day ―unexcused absences in a four-week period during which the school is in session shall be considered irregular attendance‖ (Article 339.065). Assumptions For the purpose of this study, the following five assumptions were made. First, parents/guardians responded honestly to the survey questions. Honest responses were a vital component to understanding parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels. Honest responses were necessary for the collection of valid data. Skewed data might have resulted if parents/guardians responded in a dishonest fashion. The second assumption was that parents/guardians understood how to complete the survey. The survey was presented on a scan form which caused parents/guardians answer in a specific area. Care and time was taken to ensure that each parent/guardian was provided with enough explanation of the Informed Consent Form and that a clear description of the survey was provided. A third assumption of this study was that the parents/guardians completing the survey were a representative sample of all parents/guardians at Overton School. Every attempt was made to gain input from a wide variety of parents/guardians who attended the family event as well as the parents/guardians who do not attend. A fourth assumption was that the translations of the Informed Consent Form and the survey accurately asked the same questions from the English version. Having the survey translated by a professional translator increased the likelihood that the English and Spanish Informed Consent Form and the survey provided the same information. The fifth assumption of

Potential Parental Factors 23 this study was that the poverty level was a control variable. With the school’s poverty level set at 96%, the assumption was made that not enough variance between parents/guardians income levels would be present to provide valuable data. Scope and Limitations The scope of this study was to gather data on potential hindrances to student attendance by exploring parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, Overton’s school-wide attendance program, and the relationship between student attendance and achievement. Limitations included the subjects who voluntarily agreed to participate, the number of subjects surveyed, and the amount of time available to conduct the study. A major limitation was that the study only surveyed the subjects who voluntarily agreed to participate. Of major importance to the study was receiving responses from the parents/guardians of students who had experienced problematic attendance, therefore, every effort was made to capture the responses from a variety of respondents. Another limitation was the number of parents/guardians who received and responded to the survey sent home to parents//guardians not attending the family event. The study was limited to one school that was located in an inner-city area. The survey was translated into Spanish, which resulted in another limitation in the accuracy of the translation. A limitation occurred with the details of the translated explanation provided to the Spanish-speaking parents/guardians dealing with how to complete the survey and regarding answering questions the parents/guardians might have had. The level of the Spanish-speaking parents’/guardians’ trust in the confidentiality of the translator presented another limitation to the study. Given that this study focused on parents/guardians of students in an inner-city, high poverty, high minority school the results may be applicable only to schools within a similar setting or with similar demographics.

Potential Parental Factors 24 Delimitations This study was confined to surveying the 240 parents/guardians of the Pre-K-8th grade students at Overton School. The focus was on the parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, Overton’s school-wide attendance program as well as relating student attendance with achievement. Only parents/guardians of the students were included in the study. The responses on the survey were restricted to the questions included within the survey. Although the research in this quantitative, descriptive study focused on a specified school, the implementation of the results could be useful to any school where student attendance w a concern. Summary The purpose of this study sought to gather data on potential hindrances to student attendance by exploring parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, Overton’s school-wide attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement. This study was a quantitative, descriptive study that surveyed the parents/guardians of 240 students at Overton, a Pre-K-8th grade inner-city, high poverty, and high minority school in Portland, Oregon. A cross-sectional Likert-type scaled survey was used to explore parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, Overton’s school-wide attendance program, and the relationship between attendance as it impacts achievement. Data from the survey provided information that was analyzed for frequency. The data was disaggregated by: 1) students’ grade level ranges (PreK-2, 3-5, 6-8), 2) number of children attending the school, 3) parents’/guardians’ gender, 4) parents’/guardians’ age group range, 5) highest level of education, 6) employment status, and 7) ethnicity.

Potential Parental Factors 25 Chapter 1 presented studies dealing with parental factors and their affects on student attendance. A key finding indicated a connection between parental involvement in school and increased student attendance. In order for schools to see a decrease in student absenteeism, schools must proactively engage parents (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002). One of the most effective strategies to reduce student truancy has been to establish strong parent-school connections (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002). Parents’ attitudes concerning school attendance influence how children develop values concerning school attendance (Kube & Ratigan, 1992). Though various programs and interventions have been developed and implemented, common components existed in many of the programs. The common components found in research involved parental involvement, consistent sanctions, ongoing programs, the involvement of the community and other agencies (McCray, 2006). When deciding how best to meet the needs of the individual child, schools must remember that a child’s needs are best met by enhancing the sense of community within the school, which means purposeful alliances of parents, teachers, administrators, and students (Reid, 2006). This current research study attempted to add to the body of knowledge in the area of improving student attendance by examining the impact parental knowledge levels of the dependent variables: compulsory education attendance laws, a school’s attendance program, and the relationship between students’ attendance with achievement, had on identifying potential hindrances to student attendance when analyzed with the independent variables. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical literature regarding the impact of compulsory education, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and Title 1 Part A: Parental Involvement. The importance of student attendance and the influences that parental beliefs and involvement may

Potential Parental Factors 26 have upon student attendance will also be detailed. Described in the chapter will be strategies that schools have implemented to increase student attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 27 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This quantitative, descriptive study, using a cross-sectional, Likert-type survey, created specifically for this study, strove to examine potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance by gathering data on the parental knowledge levels on the dependent variables: compulsory education attendance laws, the school’s attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement and the independent variables: students’ grade level range, number of children parents/guardians had attending the school, parents’/guardians’ gender, parents’/guardians’ age group range, highest level of education, employment status, and ethnicity, to determine frequencies and trends at an inner-city, high poverty, high minority, PreK-8th grade school in Portland, Oregon. The growing focus on improving student attendance in schools has increased in necessity because schools throughout the United States continually deal with the issues of poor student achievement (Ola, 1990). This literature review will include a historical overview of compulsory education laws and discussions from current research findings on the impact of compulsory education, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Title 1 Part A: Parental Involvement Policy, national, and state attendance laws. Discussed in the literature review will be the importance of student attendance, the influence that parental beliefs and involvement have on student attendance, strategies, and attendance programs implemented in schools to increase student attendance. Guiding the research of this literature review is the search to identify studies of potential hindrances to student attendance and the affect parental knowledge levels involvement, and attitudes may have on their children’s attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 28 Documentation The focus of the literature search was to gather information on compulsory education laws, the effect parental involvement, beliefs and knowledge levels has on student attendance, and successful strategies and interventions that when implemented, had shown an increase in student attendance. Research and applicable support references were collected through both electronic and conventional methods. University of Phoenix Online sources included the ProQuest Educational Journal, ProQuest Psychological Journal, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, and ProQuest Digital Dissertations databases. Additionally, sources came from Academic Search Premier, Research Library, ABI/INFORM Global, Academic OneFile, and SocINDEX databases. In addition, information was gathered from ERIC Clearinghouse and US government publications. Keyword searches included word combinations of student absenteeism, student attendance, compulsory education, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, truancy, and parental involvement. Additional Internet searches used commercial search engines such as Google, Yahoo!, and Google Scholar using the same keyword combinations. Searches using the Google Scholar online library yielded results similar to the University of Phoenix Online sources. Illustrated in Table 1 is a summary of the literature searched by key words.

Potential Parental Factors 29 Table 1 Summary of literature reviewed by search words Keywords searched Absenteeism Student Attendance Compulsory Education No Child Left Behind Parental Involvement

Scholarly Journals and articles 16 22 3

Dissertations

Books

Internet Websites

2 5 2

2 1 2

3 6

Newspapers

1 3

6

2

4

1

Although only 70% of the references were within the last five years, the gap in research was found as few researchers have examined the effect interventions has on student attendance (Sheldon, 2007). Moreover, references were not found that addressed the implication parental knowledge levels of attendance laws, a school’s attendance program, or the correlation between attendance and achievement might have had on student attendance. Review of the Literature Addressed in this literature review was the following areas: a historical overview and current findings for: compulsory education laws, problems with student truancy, the importance of parental involvement related to student attendance and achievement, and strategies that schools have implemented to address the issues of poor student attendance. As part of the literature review, information was gathered on the impact a students’ grade level range has on parental knowledge level and school involvement. Articles on parental home language, education level, employment status, and ethnicity was used to determine importance of each variable on student attendance. Key words selected sought to identify potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 30 Historical Overview History of Schooling and Compulsory Education Society has searched continually for a system to transfer the culture of the society to its youth. Schools have been selected as institutions to use for the transmission of the culture. Schools were seen as ―specialized social institutions specifically designed to transmit the culture of the larger society to the young‖ (Pai & Adler, 2001, p. 129). Society believed that the survival and continuation of a culture’s beliefs and values should be perpetuated through the school system. Schools play a major role in influencing the knowledge base of each student as well as transmitting the values and morals of the society. Thus, public schools are vital to ensure the independence of America (Wright, 2000). The idea of compulsory education started in Germany with Martin Luther (1483-1546). Luther believed that the state had a responsibility to educate students to ensure the continuation of religious beliefs (Simpson, 2003). He wanted students to read and understand the Bible for themselves instead of relying on the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings to interpret the meaning of scripture. In addition to the need for people to learn to read, Luther also believed that compulsory education should teach obedience to the state and perpetuate Lutheran religious beliefs in non-Lutheran children (Simpson, 2003). Few parents sent their children to the religious educational institutions because they lacked resources and some of the clergy were corrupt (Zhang, 2004). Because of parent unrest, a Protestant reform campaign led by Myconius developed the first form of school in 1524 in the state of Gotha. The idea and format spread to other countries. In 1559, the Duchy of Wurttemberg established the first modern school attendance policy and ordered fines to be levied on the parents of truant students (Simpson, 2003; Zhang, 2004). By 1870, most children were

Potential Parental Factors 31 attending school voluntarily producing a national literacy rate of over 90%. Compulsory education was also becoming common (Everhart, 2006; Simpson, 2003). The nineteenth century brought forth the establishment of state controlled compulsory education by the Kings of Prussia. This system discouraged the idea of voluntary education and mandated compulsory attendance where beginning in 1912, students were not allowed to leave school until they had passed a mandatory summative examination. Even though the Kings of Prussia established the compulsory education system, Zhang (2004) stated that studies in Britain declared that prior to compulsory schooling many students were already receiving private education. Compulsory Education Attendance Laws in the United States Compulsory education in the United States began when the Pilgrims developed colonies. Along with the culture and customs of the people came their beliefs regarding schooling. The New England Puritans wanted the educational system to focus on teaching students to read the Bible, which they believed would ensure better humankind (Simpson, 2003). Parents were mandated to see that their children could read to understand societal laws and to read the Bible. Parents were punished if their children did not meet the reading requirements (Simpson, 2003). During the sixteenth century, the majority of educational offerings for children were presented in religious institutions, which were under the control of the Roman Catholic Church (Provasnik, 2006; Simpson, 2003; Zhang, 2004). John Calvin voiced a need for compulsory schooling that would consist of instruction in religion, languages, and world science. Calvin determined that his desire to teach students the truth was more important than the practical academic skills the parents wanted their children to acquire. Calvin was concerned that allowing the ideas of the society to infiltrate the doctrines of the schools would damage the children, thus

Potential Parental Factors 32 damaging society. A Catholic school principal and several parents, in 1891-1903, challenged the compulsory attendance laws (Provasnik, 2006). The state legislature ruled against the principal and parents continuing the compulsory attendance mandate (Provasnik, 2006). An increase in trade and manufacturing businesses and the increase in immigration changed the labor needs from the previous large agricultural-based market (Thayer-Smith, 2007). The change in the labor needs resulted in an increase in poverty, crime, a change in morals and values of the people (Thayer-Smith, 2007). A shift in the labor market was one cause for needing compulsory education (Simpson, 2003). As the needs in the agricultural market declined, schools began to see an increase in enrollment. A system was needed to ensure that students were attending schools (Provasnik, 2006; Simpson, 2003). In 1789, Massachusetts passed a law mandating that towns with 50 or more people establish an elementary school for at least six months throughout the year. Towns with 199 or more families were required to provide a grammar school that taught classical languages (Simpson, 2003; Tozer, Violas, & Senese, 2002). The Constitution of the United States of America, ratified in 1789, included a universal educational system for all children (Wright, 2000). In the 1840s, public schools took on a uniform role because America was in the process of expanding westward (Wright, 2000). The early 1900s brought about an increasing belief that states should protect students by implementing child labor laws and compulsory education (Garcia-Mondragon, 2003). In 1852 Massachusetts became the first state to require children between the ages 8-14 to attend school (Wright, 2000). Formal education was established to close the disparity between the rich and poor (Thayer-Smith, 2007). By 1918, every state in the United States had developed a compulsory attendance law. By 1960, four additional states had joined Massachusetts in compulsory education requirements, extending the exit age to 18 years

Potential Parental Factors 33 of age. By 2006, there were 16 states that required students to attend school until age 18 or until they graduated, whichever occurred first (Christie, 2007). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 As the 21st century began, the Federal Government decided to evaluate the educational system in America. The data indicated that student achievement in America was declining and the dropout rate for high school students was increasing (The White House website, 2006, Foreword ¶ 2; Havsy, 2004). President George W. Bush believed there was a need to establish a solution to help America’s schools (The White House website, 2006, Foreword ¶ 2). His solution was the development of a reform effort, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, which was signed into law on January 8, 2002. The President stated, ―Too many children in America are segregated by low expectations, illiteracy, and self-doubt‖ (The White House website, 2006, Foreword ¶ 2). The basic premise behind NCLB was an honorable reform, which strove to be certain that all children received a high quality education (Applegate, 2003; McCaslin, 2006; The White House website, 2006). Additionally, NCLB was designed to ―ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments‖ (U.S. Department of Education, Statement of Purpose, 2006). The use of researchbased curriculum and high quality instruction should assist disadvantaged students in academic improvement (McCaslin, 2006). Another component of NCLB required schools to be accountable for student attendance (Sheldon, 2007). Several serious considerations had to be taken into account to guarantee that NCLB was effective in achieving the desired goals (McCaslin, 2006). First, in order to be effective, the

Potential Parental Factors 34 school reform plan needed to receive bipartisan support to ensure that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents were working together. By working together, the reforms would ensure that the public schools would ―build the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every part of America‖ (The White House website, 2006, Foreword, ¶ 5). Second, the reform plan had to provide the funding and accountability to allow schools to work in an effective and efficient manner with the teachers, students, and parents to guarantee student achievement (The White House website, 2006). Several issues concerning the effectiveness and value of NCLB existed. Title I Part A: Parental Involvement Policy As part of the NCLB policy, the Title 1, Part A: Parental Involvement policy was established to assist students living in poverty to meet the state academic standards (Simieou, 2005). Through Title 1 funding, programs, activities, and procedures were designed to bring parents into the educational process as partners. NCLB required schools to implement a parental involvement policy, defined as ―the participation of parents in regular, two-way and meaningful communication involving student academic learning, and other school activities‖ (Department of Education, 2004, p. 3), to ensure that parents had the opportunity to be aware of and were involved in the educational process. The policy required the state department, the local school district, and the school to develop as well as implement programs, activities, and procedures that actively involved and engaged parents. On the state level, the Department of Education had to involve parents, teachers, administrators, and community members in discussions that dealt with the development of benchmarks, standards, potential curriculum, and ensured that the curriculum ―appropriately addressed the requirements of students with special needs‖ (National Coalition for Parental

Potential Parental Factors 35 Involvement in Education (NCPI), 2004). The state would be required to provide an annual report of achievement data for each Title 1 school. Each state’s Department of Education worked with the school districts to develop a plan to adhere to the NCLB requirements. School districts were required to survey parents and students to gather information regarding their satisfaction with the school and school district (Portland Public Schools Board Policy, 2007). This was done to guide adjustments as well as modifications of the school district’s parental involvement policy. The school district had to establish a monthly parental Title 1 Advisory Committee designed to support and guide the district’s efforts to strengthen the family-school partnership and develop the district’s parental involvement plan (Portland Public Schools Board Policy, 2007). The district then submitted the Parental Involvement Plan to the Oregon State Department of Education. On the school level, parents were notified if students were receiving Title 1 assistance. Furthermore, parents were involved in the development of the school’s Title 1 Plan and completed the Student-Teacher-Parent Compact, which outlined the responsibilities and agreements for each participant. Schools had to provide opportunities for parent volunteers to represent the school at the District Parent Advisory Council (Portland Public Schools Title 1 Handbook, 2002). Student Attendance Requirements Under NCLB, states were mandated to devise and implement a statewide accountability system to ensure that all public schools in the district made adequate yearly progress (Christie, 2006). A school not making adequate yearly progress ran the risk of negative sanctions from the United States’ Department of Education. Attendance was one of the areas in which schools were required to maintain a specified student attendance percentage rate to comply with adequate

Potential Parental Factors 36 yearly progress (Christie, 2006; Christie, 2007). NCLB established rates for graduation as one of the measures of a school’s success. Schools were held accountable to meet the state established rate for graduation (Christie, 2007). Therefore, students could not graduate unless the required amount of attendance time in school was fulfilled. Student Attendance and Achievement Student attendance is one of the most important issues facing schools today (Ola, 1990). The lack of instruction may cause the truant student to be inadequately prepared for the State mandated assessments. The student’s lower scores negatively affect the achievement of the school, thus potentially putting the school at risk of not achieving Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as mandated by the NCLB (Christie, 2006; Christie, 2007). Moreover, as the schools average daily attendance (ADA) declines, teachers’ frustration levels and workloads increase as the teacher attempts to make the class growth necessary for NCLB (Kube & Ratigan, 1992). School funding is based on a formula that includes the number of students in attendance at the school on a daily basis (Bloom & Cohen, 2007; Ola, 1990; Simpson, 2003). Schools with high levels of truant students run the risk of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from the state and federal government (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Garcia-Mondragon, 2003; Mc Cray, 2006). The loss of funding prohibits schools from providing valuable resources and services to the entire school community (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Garcia-Mondragon, 2003). The Problems of Truancy Truancy, described as missing school without permission, is a growing problem in today’s schools (Everhart, 2006; Kearney & Bensaheb, 2006; McCray, 2006; Reid, 2005). Truancy is a problem for the entire society (Garcia-Mondragon, 2003; Lounsbury, Steel, Loveland & Gibson, 2004; Volkmann & Bye, 2006). Problematic truancy can lead to lowered

Potential Parental Factors 37 student achievement, delinquency, drug involvement, and even early pregnancy (Hallfors, Vevea, Iritani, Cho, Khatapoush, & Saxe, 2002; McCray, 2006; Ola, 1990; Reid, 2006; Wright, 2000). A student’s truancy can signal low attachment to school and produce negative relationships with peers who also have issues attending school (DeSocio, Van Cura, Nelson, Hewitt, Kitzman, & Cole, 2007). In some instances, these tendencies ―seemed to be associated with those also experiencing drug abuses‖ (Hallfors et al., 2002). The effects of student truancy not only affect the student, but also continue to impact schools and communities. McCray (2006) states, ―Truancy has the potential to cause a decline in the economy of our nation and therefore be viewed as the serious problem it is" (p. 32). In order to prevent or reduce high school dropout rates, elementary and middle schools must ―look at strategies to reduce absenteeism, therefore improving student attendance which ultimately may create an increase in student motivation‖ (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002). Current Findings Compulsory Attendance Law in Oregon The State of Oregon instituted a compulsory attendance law in 1889 (Infoplease website, 2007). The Legislative Counsel Committee of the Oregon Legislative Assembly (2007) website reported information on Oregon’s compulsory attendance laws. Article 339.010, which was amended in 1965, set the mandatory school age from seven to 18 years of age unless the student had graduated from high school before the age of 18. Article 339.020 required parents to make sure the child was in school during the school term. This legislation was established to allow children to attend private or parochial schools, or to be homeschooled as long as the child met the state requirements for knowledge and time in school. Article 339.030 established an exemption for students aged 16 or 17 who were lawfully employed part or full time and enrolled

Potential Parental Factors 38 in school, community college, or an approved alternative education program. If a child had been emancipated or was in the process of becoming emancipated, Article 339.030 provided an exemption for that child. Article 339.065 set irregular attendance at eight unexcused one-half day absences in any four week period in which a school was in session. Notice had to be either given to parents, in person, or written as stated in Article 339.080. This would impel the parents to ensure regular attendance for the children in their household. The school would also be required to notify the Principal and the district’s Attendance Supervisor. If the child was on parole, the parole officer had to be notified. Article 339.090 required that the Attendance Supervisor notify the district’s Superintendent if the parents had not sent the child to school within three days of the initial notification. Article 339.925 detailed the procedures to follow when a parent was in violation of the compulsory attendance law. The district’s Superintendent would notify the parents in writing that the child had violated the compulsory attendance law. Furthermore, the information provided notification to the parents that failure to comply with the compulsory attendance law was a Class C violation and requested that the parents attend a conference with the Superintendent or a designee. Moreover, a citation might be administered to parents, which could lead to fines and a court appearance. Effectiveness of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 NCLB was developed to ―close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers‖ (U. S. Department of Education, Testing for Results, 2006, p. 1) and was comprised of four major principles. The principles were: ―1) stronger accountability for results, 2) increased flexibility and local control, 3) expanded options for parents, and 4) an

Potential Parental Factors 39 emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work‖ (U. S. Department of Education, Testing for Results, 2006, p. 1). Research supported the significance of the goals set forth by NCLB; however, the complexity of the changes in educational policies triggered concerns among many people (Sunderman & Kim, 2004). Sunderman and Kim (2004) stated, ―There is bitter controversy over not only the substance of the requirements, but also the feasibility and desirability of the dramatically altered role of federal and state administrators in forcing local change‖ (p. 2). Although NCLB pushed for higher standards, little attention was given to pedagogical expertise that would assist students needing help to achieve (McCaslin, 2006). Sunderman and Kim (2004) believed that it was unlikely that anyone would have read and fully understood all the intricate provisions in the NCLB policy. Critics proclaimed that the public education system might have been in jeopardy because of the many components of NCLB. The four studies conducted by The Civil Rights Project (2004) concluded there were major unexpected changes that had occurred. The research showed that ―federal control was being expanded drastically, reaching far more deeply into core local and state educational operations than ever before, without regard to state or local capacity‖ (Sunderman & Kim, 2004, p. 4). The last large push by the Federal Government was during the Civil Rights Era when previously excluded groups strove to receive full access to public schools (Sunderman & Kim, 2004). Proficiency levels were important to NCLB; however because the states were able to set their own levels, wide variance existed from state to state. The report showed that ―a one-sizefits-all accountability model does not work in all conditions, sharply constrains state policy, and undercuts the capacity of educators to make needed changes‖ (Sunderman & Kim, 2004, p. 5). A

Potential Parental Factors 40 school in one state could be rewarded for making growth whereas a school in another state might be punished for making the same results. The reality, however, was that students, schools, and subgroups that were farthest behind had to make more progress each year to avoid sanctions (Sunderman & Kim, 2004). The intent of the law was to produce high academic achievement. States that had the lowest standards, appeared to be making the most growth. Without a national proficiency standard, each state was able to set its own proficiency standards for schools (Thayer-Smith, 2007). To avoid sanctions, some states began lowering the standards, thus lowering the amount of yearly progress that was required to avoid sanctions (Sunderman & Kim, 2004). School Choice and Increased Spending The funding for NCLB was provided predominately during the first year of the program. No indication was given that the funding would decrease after the first year. This would necessitate states needing to pick up the funding responsibility. However, the funding did decrease (Sunderman & Kim, 2004). With this decrease in funding, states began experiencing financial struggles with cuts to individual state funding. The Civil Rights Project (2004) reported that even though resources were decreased, the accountability provisions remained the same. One of the major components of NCLB was the provision that schools in need of serious academic help would receive more money and increased teacher preparation. Unfortunately, ―the impositions of special burdens and requirements and higher and more rapid loss of resources targeted towards schools serving the most disadvantaged population‖ (Sunderman & Kim, 2004, p. 6), caused the schools to become sanctioned and publicly labeled as failing schools. NCLB provided the opportunity for students to transfer from schools labeled as ―not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)‖ to higher performing schools.

Potential Parental Factors 41 In addition, parents would have the opportunity to request additional support such as transportation, tutors, and extra academic assistance for their children. The money, however, was to come out of the school’s budget, further handicapping the school. The underlying assumption was that competition would make all schools develop a better program with support for students who were experiencing difficulty with the curriculum. The assumption made was that parents would do a better job of choosing a high performing school when given the opportunity (Sunderman & Kim, 2004). Roberts (2006) conducted research to determine the correlation between parental satisfaction with the Supplemental Educational Services received through NCLB and student attendance. The study provided parents of students receiving the in need status through NCLB, with a survey to measure the parents’ satisfaction with the tutoring program implemented in the school. The study found no direct correlation between parental satisfaction and student attendance. A correlation was not found between parental demographics and student attendance. Many states saw an overcrowding in the enrollments of the so-called higher achieving schools causing the scores in the higher achieving schools to decline. A report from the National Education Association (NEA) (2005) reported that the manner in which the current law was implemented created additional problems for schools. Overcrowding increased class size in some instances and a potential for re-segregation became imminent as more children tried to gain entrance into the few spaces available in the higher achieving schools. Ramifications for Teacher Preparation Programs Several components of NCLB speak to the improvement of teacher skills. NCLB provides funding for professional development to enable teachers to meet these higher-level requirements with the outcome of them becoming highly qualified in all subjects taught. The Civil Rights Project (2004) reported that many states did not change teacher preparation

Potential Parental Factors 42 programs. Another concern from NEA (2005) was the requirement for Special Education teachers to be highly qualified in multiple subject areas. NCLB required all teachers to demonstrate content knowledge in each subject area taught. An NEA report (2005) stated ―doing so places an unreasonable and possible unobtainable burden on special education teachers and makes it even more difficult for schools to address the shortage of qualified special education teachers‖ (p. 3). Small and rural schools also had a difficult time maintaining enough qualified teachers to meet the NCLB requirements. With their small size, the rural schools were not able to hire separate teachers who had the appropriate certification and licensure to be considered highly qualified for subjects such as the sciences. NCLB required paraprofessionals to have an Associate’s degree, two years of college coursework, or to pass tests in the areas of reading, writing, and math. With the low salary of most paraprofessionals, few were able to afford the expense of the college requirements. The NEA Report (2005) suggested that school districts should use federal funds to pay any costs incurred by paraprofessionals or that the districts should provide the training needed to meet the new requirements of NCLB. Student Truancy Christie (2006) described the problem of student truancy and the effects that truancy had on student achievement. In the study, Christie (2006) discussed the effects that compulsory attendance laws had on ensuring student attendance. The study concluded that students would need to believe that participation in school would be worthwhile. Forcing students to attend school could produce a poor learning environment for the entire class if the student who was being forced to attend became disruptive thus interfering in the learning of the other students (Christie, 2007; Stanca, 2006). Whereas having mandatory laws did show a minimal increase

Potential Parental Factors 43 in student attendance, school attendance did increase when students believed someone cared about them and with the development of a personalized adult relationship. Even though minimal improvement in student attendance was demonstrated, when no mandatory attendance policy was implemented, student absenteeism dramatically increased (Marburger, 2006). The Christie (2006) study concluded that if a school only enforced mandated laws without fostering personal relationships with students, the desired increase in school attendance was not demonstrated. However, research also has shown that 25% of students who would have dropped out of school remained because of the compulsory school laws (Christie, 2007). Supporters of compulsory education believed that by increasing the attendance age, the dropout rates, crime, and teen pregnancy would decrease (Christie, 2007). More students would graduate with a high school diploma thus improving the likelihood of the students employed in a job with higher wages (Christie, 2007). A positive connection was found between daylight crimes and truancy (GarciaMondragon, 2003; Mc Cray, 2006; Reid, 2005; Wright, 2000). Conducting investigations to locate truant students and handling the crimes can be extremely expensive for the community. ―When truants are unsupervised during the day, law enforcement officers are required to locate them, determine where they belong, and in some cases arrest them for committing illicit acts" (Mc Cray, 2006, p. 32). Funding for these officers is usually passed on to the public through additional monies gleaned through special taxes. Students with truancy issues that led to dropping out of school face the potential of becoming unemployable (Mc Cray, 2006). The inability to become employed thus has the potential of the student needing to apply for welfare, thus causing an increase in welfare recipients. This increase in welfare recipients causes taxpayers to pay more to support the

Potential Parental Factors 44 welfare system (Havsy, 2004; Mc Cray, 2006). Moreover, when students are not prepared for existing jobs within the community, businesses may be required to provide training for the students. If this solution does not work, the businesses may have to continue to search for qualified employees (Mc Cray, 2006). The extra training and time expended in this search activity may cause the businesses to lose time, money, and production output. When students are truant, a higher chance of vandalism and theft to businesses may occur (Mc Cray, 2006). Students with high rates of truancy additionally tended to have a higher risk of dropping out of school (Garcia-Mondragon, 2003; Gump, 2004; Thayer-Smith, 2007). Clump, Bauer, and Whiteleather (2003) conducted a study on the effect student attendance had on student achievement. The study focused on determining if increased absences caused lower grades or if lower grades caused increased absences. The findings showed that students who attended class on a regular basis had a significantly higher number of correct answers on the unit tests that covered the material directly taught in class. Another finding of the study showed that if student attendance increased after an exam, the test score on future tests increased by nearly a full letter grade. The study found that student absenteeism not only affected scores of the unit test but also the grades on future tests were also negatively influenced. Student mobility was identified as another link to truancy. Students with high mobility rates tended to have an increase in absenteeism and a decrease in achievement performance (Engec, 2006). A study by Engec (2006) researched the academic performance of students with high mobility rates and students who were non-mobile. A negative relationship was found between student mobility rates and academic performance. A potential cause of disparity in performance could be associated with lost learning opportunities between changes in the schools that the students attended as well as inconsistencies in school curricula. Other factors that might

Potential Parental Factors 45 cause students truancy included poverty, ethnic status, and family issues (Garcia-Mondragon 2003; Ventura & Miller, 2005). Income Level and Employment Status According to the National Center for Health Statistics (Bloom & Cohen, 2007) over onequarter (15 million) of school-aged children (aged 5–17 years) in the United States did not have perfect attendance during the previous surveyed year because of illness or injury. During the survey year, five percent of children missed 11 or more days of school because of illness or injury. Children from families with low incomes were more than twice as likely to have absences of 11 days or more (9%) compared to children from families with the highest income (4%). Children from single-parent families were more than twice as likely to have been absent from school for 11 or more days during the past survey year because of illness or injury as compared to children from two-parent families. ―Economically disadvantaged parents are more pessimistic about the chances that their adolescents will be able to attend college in the future, which in turn reduces the motivation for actively managing an adolescent’s environment‖ (Castillo, 2003, p. 11). The search for parental factors that might inhibit student attendance led Iyamu and Obiunu (2006) to researched reasons for poor student attendance in a primary school in Nigeria. The study identified several factors that inhibited parents from sending their children to school. The most prevalent factors were poverty and the high cost of schooling. Additional reasons identified in the study were the value of money, misconceptions about the importance of educating females, and the rise in unemployment. The study concluded that poor parents did not send their children to school and females were more likely to be absent from school. Parents did

Potential Parental Factors 46 not send their children to school because the parents did not want to pay the cost of schooling. Furthermore, children were discouraged from going to school because of the parents’ beliefs that jobs would not be available even if the children went to school (Iyamu & Obiunu, 2006). Attendance and Achievement Statistically, nationwide during a four-week period in the spring of 2000, more than half of eighth, tenth, and twelfth grade students missed one or more days of school (Applegate, 2003). Frequent truancy caused the students to miss educational information and skills that were needed to be successful throughout the school year (Applegate, 2003; Sleigh & Ritzer, 2001). Students who were truant often exhibited lower achievement, which fostered academic frustration causing further truancy (Clump, Bauer, & Whiteleather, 2003; Corville-Smith, Ryan, Adams, & Dalicandro, 1998; McCray, 2006). Other causes of student truancy included illness, family problems, working parents, lack of motivation, and large school size (Garcia-Mondragon, 2003; Kearney & Bensaheb, 2006; McCray, 2006; Wright, 2000). Students with high absenteeism tended to have low self-image and poor relationships with their peers (Corville-Smith, Ryan, Adams, & Dalicandro, 1996; Garcia-Mondragon, 2003). School size was identified as another factor that could cause students to be absent from school. Large school size might cause students to feel unsupported. McCray (2006) states ―When children do not feel a sense of belonging in school, they often seek support elsewhere, which can result in truancy" (p. 31). Evidence suggested that smaller schools might positively influence higher student attendance (Cotton, 1996). Continuing the investigation into the correlation between student attendance and achievement, Roby (2004) conducted a study in schools in Ohio. The findings supported a strong positive correlation between student attendance and achievement. Further findings illustrated that

Potential Parental Factors 47 in a school with 180 days and five hours of instruction, a student who had a 99% attendance rate still missed 3,600 hours of instruction, whereas a student who had an 85% attendance rate missed 54,000 hours of instruction during the school year. Frequent truancy was seen as possibly limiting the opportunities available for students (Corville-Smith, Ryan, Adams, & Dalicandro, 1996; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002). When students were not in school vital learning opportunities were missed, many that could not be duplicated when the students returned to school (Druger, 2004; Gump, 2004; Ola, 1990). The lack of learning opportunities negatively affected the students’ academic performance (Clump, Bauer, & Whiteleather, 2003; Druger, 2004; Garcia-Mondragon, 2003; Gump, 2005; Ledman & Kamuche, 2003; Roby, 2004; Wright, 2000). Many students with frequent truancy do not receive the proper instruction which may contribute to them becoming successful adults. When the students become adults, the lack of skills might cause them to be unemployed, on welfare, or to earn lower incomes (GarciaMondragon, 2003; McCray, 2006). The findings in the study concluded that truancy might lead to criminal activity, delinquency, and a higher risk of substance abuse and violence (GarciaMondragon, 2003; Hallfors et al., 2002; McCray, 2006). Student attendance has been tied to student achievement as well as delinquency and pregnancy (Christie, 2007). Student Grade Level A study conducted by Garcia-Mondragon (2003) focused on the relationship between absenteeism and student achievement. Students participating in the study were elementary school-aged children in the first through the fifth grade from a school in Long Beach, California. The researcher collected report cards and standardized test score data during the first grading period of the 2000-2001 school year. The findings showed that for students in the first through

Potential Parental Factors 48 the third, high levels of absenteeism resulted in lower levels of progress and effort, lower teacher perceptions of the students’ growth, and lower scores on standardized testing. For students in the fourth and fifth grade, the findings supported the assumption that high absenteeism resulted in lower levels of progress and effort; however, the findings did not support a correlation between high levels of absenteeism and scores on standardized testing. The study’s researcher was unclear if excessive absences caused the poor student achievement or if the poor student achievement encouraged continued excessive absences. Another study was conducted by Thayer-Smith (2007) on the correlation among student absenteeism, achievement, and student engagement. The study gathered data on first and second grade students from 15 Title I schools and 10 non-Title I schools during the 2005-2006 school year. Data was collected through the school’s Average Daily Attendance (ADA) data and the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) assessment. The findings of the study showed that in first grade there was a significant correlation between student attendance and achievement in the fall scores. No correlation was found between student attendance and achievement in the spring scores of the students in the study. For the second grade students the study noted no correlation between attendance and the fall achievement scores, yet a significant correlation existed between student attendance and spring achievement scores. As for Title I schools versus non-Title I schools, the study found that Title I schools had higher absenteeism compared to the non-Title I schools. Parental Involvement Impact on Student Attendance In order for schools to see a decrease in student absenteeism, schools should engage parental involvement (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002). One of the most effective strategies to reduce student truancy has been to establish strong parent-school connections (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Simieou, 2005). A parents’ attitude concerning school attendance influences how the

Potential Parental Factors 49 children develop a sense of value regarding attending school (Kube & Ratigan, 1992). ―Parental involvement and support make a direct difference in a child’s attitude, attendance, and academic performance (Calloway, 2006, p. 1). When deciding how best to meet the needs of the individual child, educational leaders should remember that children’s needs are best met by enhancing their sense of community, which means purposeful alliance of parents, teachers, administrators, and students (Reid, 2006). Technological Horizons in Education Journal (1993) reported the use of an automated phone calling/voice mail system in a study. The North Carolina elementary school used in the study found the phone system useful for the school, students, and parents. The automated phone system in the study was set up to provide a homework hotline, send messages to parents concerning the students, or school events, and a voicemail system that allowed parents to contact the school. The study stated that parents were able to stay current with the activities of the school as well as monitor progress in various facets of their children’s educational experiences. The findings suggested that the school functioned more effectively and efficiently by notifying parents and students of attendance issues, homework assignments as well as sharing successes with the community. The findings also suggested that the automated phone system provided increased communication with families and supported collaboration. Warren (2004) reported on a study conducted by a school in the California School District, to use an automated notification system to improve attendance and support crisis management. The study found that the need for a quick response was brought on by several shooting incidents that occurred at two of the high schools. The shootings stressed the need for a quick system to communicate with parents and the community. The Netcom PhoneMaster system was acquired by the school district. The PhoneMaster technology allowed the district to

Potential Parental Factors 50 communicate with parents through a call or through e-mails to the 24,000 parents. The study explained that the school’s PhoneMaster system was able to call or e-mail important messages and provide reminders on student attendance or important issues. Parents in the study were also able to contact the school with questions or concerns. The study reported that the California District’s 95% attendance record was the best ever recorded after the introduction and use of the PhoneMaster system. Ethnicity Although researchers have studied the impact of parental involvement, few have focused on the perspectives of parents concerning school and the need for parental involvement (McKay, Atkins, Hawkins, Brown, & Lynn, 2003). McKay et al. (2003) conducted a study of African American parents in a Midwest elementary school. The study examined the perspectives of African American parents and the teachers at the school to determine if a relationship existed between parents’ and teachers’ knowledge and attitudes of parental involvement. The findings of the study showed that parents’ knowledge and attitudes of racism negatively affected involvement in school activities. The study revealed that schools with high populations of African American parents might want to explore the parents’ knowledge and attitudes regarding racism and community support, while also providing opportunities for the parents to be involved in the school. The study suggested that when schools provided opportunities for parents to interact with teachers, the level of parental involvement at school and at home increased. Language In an effort to improve student attendance, research has been conducted on the effect parental home language has on parental involvement and student attendance. A study by Castillo (2003) states, ―limited knowledge of the educational system as well as a lack of English language

Potential Parental Factors 51 skills and limited education, may affect how parents will intervene and get involved in their children’s education‖ (p. 16). Castillo’s (2003) research indicated that lack of parental involvement may be due to language barriers. Parents may feel ―alienation and confusion with the American school system‖ (Castillo, 2003, p. 18). To assist parents who do not speak English, schools may desire to determine what information the parents know and create methods to assist the parents in receiving the information in their home language. School Intervention Programs Research by Marburger (2006) supported the use of an attendance policy to improve student attendance. Moore’s (2005) study produced several key findings. The group with regular attendance as well as penalties for absences showed the highest attendance rate, which was supported by Ledeman and Kamuche’s (2003) study. As part of the emphasis on attendance, the instructor gave the students in the study statistics that showed attending class increased their performance. The results of the study demonstrated that when students were encouraged to attend class and were provided with quantitative data that explained and supported the importance of school attendance, the students identified the relevance of school attendance, and responded effectively decreasing absenteeism. The research findings of the study supported the belief that penalizing students with excessive absences did not improve the students’ attendance or the students’ academic performance. Students in the study with improved class attendance also demonstrated improved academic performance. Although the research findings substantiated the improvement in student grades, the study pointed out other factors that influenced the students’ grades. For example, the study suggested that students who attended school regularly often spent more time outside of

Potential Parental Factors 52 class studying. Therefore, the increased time-on-task played a major role in the improvement of students’ grades. The results of the study found that modifying the class schedule, the manner of testing, and the teachers’ behaviors in the classroom all contributed to students’ decisions regarding if or not to attend class. Students were more likely to attend class when the teacher was engaging. The findings noted that the size of the class influenced student attendance. This was similar to the findings in Gump (2005). Students were more apt to be absent in a larger class versus a smaller class. The study suggested that the increased absence in a larger class might occur because more students could produce a noisier environment and increased distractions. The study supported Ledman and Kamuche (2003) concluding that the students’ attendance increased when positive interactions with the teacher occurred. A correlation was found between student attendance and student academic performance (Moore, 2004). Research by Kearney and Bensaheb (2006) focused on interventions a school-based health professional could execute to combat absenteeism. The study detailed that health-related illnesses account for many of the legitimate reasons students are absent from school. It suggested that one intervention should be asthma management. In addition, it discussed the components of case management. The activity of case management was described as consisting of the health professional making contact with the students’ parents. The doctor ensured that the family had information on asthma, trained the student on how to use the asthma therapy equipment and the health professional made home visits (Kearney & Bensaheb, 2006). The study found that students with asthma had fewer absences when the students had access to a full-time nurse. The Kearney and Bensaheb (2006) study also discussed the need to address the spread of communicable diseases. The health professionals in the study found that when children used

Potential Parental Factors 53 hand sanitizers at school they had fewer absences. The study reported that students must receive instruction on the importance of washing hands and the techniques the students should use to ensure germs were killed. Another health concern for students and families discussed in the study was instruction on lice prevention. Lice education included providing a lice comb to the family and for the health professional to develop a positive relationship with the family. The study reported that schools where the health professional instructed students on general wellness showed a decrease in absenteeism. One health-related absenteeism prevention method discussed in the Kearney and Bensaheb (2006) study was the development of a support group to assist students with stressful situations and other mental health needs. The study referred to the establishment of a support group with the school nurse for the students not attending school regularly. The study suggested that the group meet one hour once a week for a five-week period. The discussions related to illness, depression, and setting weekly attendance goals as well as discussing the students’ likes and dislikes. Seeking to determine the effects a different learning environment for frequently truant students may have on student attendance. Ventura and Miller (2005) conducted a mixedmethodology study on the Odyssey Learning Center’s Discovery Program. The study described the development of the Discovery Program as an alternative program for students displaying serious behavioral issues in school. The study explained that students in the Discovery Program had little to no parental support, were in danger of becoming delinquent and potentially required juvenile justice interventions. The students in the study received training in life skills and counseling services. The study concluded that the Discovery Program provided students the

Potential Parental Factors 54 opportunity to bond with positive adults, empowered the students with strategies to solve problems in school, at home, and gave the students hope. Further research conducted by Reid (2006) in England focused on the development of a plan to combat student attendance issues. The approach used in the study was called SchoolBased Scheme. The program began with professional development of the school staff, which resulted in the development of the School-Based Scheme. The study described the manner in which parents and students were informed on the components of the School-Based Scheme. Students in the study were divided into five stages that related to the level of school attendance. Stage 1 was designed for students who attended school on a regular basis, while level five was designed for students whose attendance rate fell below 65%. Interventions used in the study consisted of faculty professional development, clear communication between school and home of the importance of school attendance and the consequences for non-attendance. Additional interventions included tutors, daily check-ins, external rewards as well as meetings with parents and students. The study concluded that the school in the study saw a 9% increase in student attendance after the implementation of the School-Based Scheme. Another study to determine the effect of implementing an attendance plan was conducted by Arends-Kuenning and Amin (2004). The study was focused on a school incentive program for students in Bangladesh. Three school incentive programs were implemented in 1994. The programs in the study were: 1) Food-For-Education (FFE), which paid families in food for sending the children to school, 2) the Secondary School Scholarship Program (SSSP), which paid the schooling cost of young girls to keep the young girls in school, and 3) Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee School, which opened two schools that focused on young girls and

Potential Parental Factors 55 children in poverty. Another component of the study was the implementation of a longer school day for the students. The findings showed that the FFE program demonstrated the largest impact on increasing student attendance for the boys aged 6-10. The SSSP program had the largest impact on increasing student attendance for the girls aged 11-19. The study speculated that because the FFE program was not gender specific, parents might have sent the boys to school more than the girls. The girls in the SSSP program in the study showed dramatic increases in amount of time spent in school as compared to previous years. The results reflected that with a gender specific intervention program, more girls benefited. The study supported the fact that parents do respond by sending the children to school when incentives are in place. However, response of the parents did differ according to the gender of the children. The study concluded with concerns about the students whose attendance did not increase. Further research was suggested to answer the questions that were raised regarding the possible affect severe poverty might have on student attendance. Some of the possible effects were: 1) the need to have the students work outside of the home, 2) the need to have the girls fill the woman’s role in the household, or 3) in some cases, the family might have been headed by a single female. Community Support To deal with the truancy issue, "Many communities are designing and implementing truancy-reduction programs involving families, schools, law enforcement, businesses, judicial and social services agencies, and community and youth service organizations" (Mc Cray, 2006, p. 32). New Haven Connecticut developed The Stay in School Program, which used peer pressure and mentor support to encourage students to maintain regular attendance (Mc Cray, 2006, p. 32). High school students were paired with middle school students who were displaying

Potential Parental Factors 56 issues with truancy. A written agreement was used as well as bi-monthly check-ins to ensure that the middle school students were attending school. Connecting School Attendance with Welfare Benefits A study conducted by Campbell and Wright (2005) discussed the impact of linking welfare payments to school attendance. The study yielded that in the late 1980s several states began to institute satisfactory school attendance as a requirement for monetary assistance to welfare recipients. The thought behind the requirement was the possibility that good school attendance would decrease the need for welfare assistance when the children became adults. The study analyzed seven welfare-school attendance programs in California. The data in the study found that the welfare school-attendance programs were not effective strategies in improving student attendance unless strong case management supports were in place. One reason the welfare school-attendance programs failed was that the programs spent more money on monitoring students who were already attending school rather than focusing on the issues associated with poverty (Campbell & Wright, 2005). The researchers suggested that schools and the welfare department jointly develop policies that would match the school’s policy for all students. In this manner, the school and the welfare department would be able to administer the program fairly. The researchers also suggested that schools monitor student attendance on a regular basis to determine the causes of excessive absences. Finally, a collaborative model between the school, the welfare department, and the parents of the students was to be developed. Collaboration would involve parents in a meaningful manner and would build bridges between the school and the community agencies. Conclusion The research focus guiding this quantitative, descriptive study using a cross-sectional survey, created specifically for the study, to gather a description of trends (Creswell, 2005) was

Potential Parental Factors 57 to examine potential parental factors that may be a hindrances to student attendance by exploring parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, the school’s attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement. Seven independent variables was used to determine if trends exist in parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels: 1) Students’ grade level ranges (PreK-2, 3-5, 6-8), 2) number of children parents/guardians have attending the school, 2) parents’/guardians’ gender, 4) parents’/guardians’ age group range, 5) highest level of education, 6) employment status, and 7) ethnicity. The ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, 1789, began a universal educational system for all children (Wright, 2000). National and State laws were implemented to mandate that students between the ages of seven and 18 attend school. The mandatory laws forced students to attend school; however, other issues arose when students became disengaged in the learning and began to exhibit disruptive behavior because they did not want to be at school (Christie, 2007). Even though minimal improvement was shown from the implementation of mandatory attendance, student absenteeism increased when students were not mandated to attend. Personal relationships with a caring adult proved to be the most effective method to improve student attendance (Christie, 2007). Initially used to close the disparity gap between the rich and the poor, the need for schools to focus on improving student achievement forced attention to move to student attendance with the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Sheldon (2007) stated that research displayed that students who maintained good attendance scored better on standardized tests than students who had not maintained good attendance. Schools with higher rates of attendance had students who performed better on standardized tests than schools with lower rates of attendance (Sheldon, 2007).

Potential Parental Factors 58 A major component of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was the requirement for schools to develop a Parental Involvement Policy. Schools would now have to look to parents/guardians not only as necessary partners, but also provide opportunities for parents to have a voice in the students’ academic learning. Policies had to be developed at the school, district, and state levels actively to engage parents in a decision-making capacity (National Coalition for Parental Involvement in Education, 2004). Parents, when looked upon as partners, worked with the school to ensure that students received a high quality education. When students develop poor attendance, issues of truancy can lead to negative consequences for the student, the school, and the community. For the student, truancy can lead to poor achievement in school, dropping out of school, criminal activity, and even substance abuse (McCray, 2006). For the school, excessively truant students tend to score lower on achievement tests causing the school to be at risk of not meeting AYP as required through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The community suffers from the affect of truant students through increased crime and vandalism (Garcia-Mondragon, 2003). Several interventions were undertaken by researchers to determine effective methods to improve student attendance. Technology usage through emails, voicemails, and automated phone calls proved to be effective modes of communication and did show improvement in student attendance (Warren, 2004). Other researchers tried implementing penalties for poor attendance (Marburger, 2006). Using penalties, however, did not render an improvement in attendance or achievement. Two factors did stand out as valuable tools in improving student attendance. The first was the need for students to establish personal relationships with adults at the school and the other factor was the establishment of an effective parental involvement plan in the school. McCray

Potential Parental Factors 59 (2006) found that when students established a positive relationship with someone at the school, the student was more inclined to attend school. Many researchers spoke to the need for parental involvement to assist in improving students’ attendance. A focus on improving the achievement of children at academic risk partnered with parental involvement is not only useful; but the need to include parental involvement is crucial (McKay, Atkins, Hawkins, Brown, & Lynn, 2003; Swap, 1993). The development of a strong parental involvement plan not only improved student achievement, but also had a positive effect on student attendance (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002). Summary An examination of the literature explored the development of compulsory education in the United States and the effectiveness shown in decreasing student absenteeism. Next, research was conducted through a literature review to gather data on NCLB and the effectiveness in reducing student absenteeism. An examination of the negative effects of truancy on students, schools, and the community transpired. The literature reviewed intervention strategies developed by schools and community groups to combat student truancy and improve student attendance. Finally, literature reviewed the relationship between parental involvement in schools and the impact on reducing student absenteeism. Literature was found that substantiated a need to understand the impact of parental income level, employment, status, home language spoken, and level of education. Applegate (2003) conducted a study to investigate a potential relationship among student attendance, socioeconomic status, and achievement. The study concluded that a correlation existed between student achievement and attendance. Using the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) statistical

Potential Parental Factors 60 analysis tests confirmed a relevant relationship between students’ achievement scores, socioeconomic status, mobility rates, and school attendance. Existing literature suggested a significant need for interventions and strategies to improve school attendance and decrease truancy (Kube & Ratigan, 1992; Roberts, 2006). The importance of truancy prevention is vital with the growing number of younger students becoming truant (McCray, 2006). Therefore, in order for students to receive the full benefits of the increased demand for accountability and achievement set forth in NCLB, schools must develop strong intervention plans that encourage students to be at school. Chapter 2 reviewed literature to identify potential hindrances to student attendance by exploring the correlation of student attendance and student achievement, the influence that parental beliefs and school involvement had on student attendance, and investigating strategies that have been implemented in schools to increase student attendance. National and state laws and policies on compulsory education, the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the negative effects of student truancy are discussed in chapter 2. Two strategies resonated as beneficial to improving student attendance: the development of a personal relationship with someone at the school, and the development of and implementation of a strong parent involvement plan. The information gathered from this current research study will add to the body of knowledge that includes the potential hindrance parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, the school’s attendance program and relating student attendance with achievement may have on student attendance. Chapters 1 and 2 provided background information, research of the literature, theoretical frameworks, and the importance of this research study.

Potential Parental Factors 61 Chapter 3 provides an overview of the research method, the appropriateness of the design, information on the population, and a description of the survey instrument as well as the strategies used for data collection and analysis. It discusses the research methodology and design used in this quantitative, descriptive study using a cross-sectional survey to gather a description of trends (Creswell, 2005) on potential hindrances by exploring parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, Overton’s school-wide attendance program, and the relationship between student attendance and achievement.

Potential Parental Factors 62 CHAPTER 3: METHOD This quantitative, descriptive study, using a cross-sectional, Likert-type survey, created specifically for this study, strove to examine potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance by gathering data on the parental knowledge levels on the dependent variables: compulsory education attendance laws, the school’s attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement and the independent variables: students’ grade level range, number of children parents/guardians have attending the school, parents’/guardians’ gender, parents’/guardians’ age group range, highest level of education, employment status, and ethnicity to determine frequencies and trends. Chapter 3 presents a detailed description of the research method and design that was used in this study as well as their appropriateness for the study. This chapter includes information on the population, sampling, participants, and data collection procedures that was used. A description of the data collection instrument, a Likert-type survey, discussing reliability, validity and the appropriateness of the instrument for this study are included. Chapter 3 thoroughly discusses the data analysis procedures and the appropriateness of the procedures for this study. Research Method Appropriateness Quantitative research gathers ―hard data‖ (Neuman, 2003, p. 139) that reflects numerical values. Specific variables are developed to use in the study. The procedures for gathering and analyzing the variables are established before the data is collected. The data collection and analysis procedures are generally standardized and easily replicable. Quantitative research tests hypotheses developed before conducting a research project. The conclusions generated from the research may be generalized by using a sampling to represent a larger population. The results of the data collection can be analyzed for frequencies and trends. Data analysis for quantitative

Potential Parental Factors 63 research is displayed through graphs, tables, or charts. Descriptions of the relationships between the hypotheses and the dependent and independent variables are discussed. Qualitative research gathers ―soft data, in the form of impressions, words, sentences, photos, symbols‖ (Neuman, 2003, p. 139). Generalized themes or broad topics are used to guide the study. Data from qualitative research is collected through interviews, observations, or documents. The procedures for collecting data are determined depending to the study. The data collection procedures are not standardized and depend upon the specific study, thus creating a difficult situation for replication. The data from qualitative research paints a picture of the theme or topic. Numerical values are usually not associated with qualitative research data. The purpose of the current research study sought to gather numerical data to analyze for frequency and trends. The data was collected through the use of a survey with the participants completing the survey individually. Survey responses consisted of responses made on the scan form of the survey. Data from the survey was displayed using graphs, charts, or tables. The resulting data provided information on the relationship between the hypotheses and the variables used in the study. A quantitative research method proved to be appropriate for the study. Research Design Appropriateness A non-experimental, descriptive design was used in the current study to determine potential parental factors that may be a hindrance to student attendance. In descriptive research, the researcher strives to define a subject in a detailed manner. The use of descriptive research should provide essential information regarding the current knowledge levels of the respondents of the survey. Descriptive research is useful when striving to determine what is happening currently. Descriptive designed studies seek to ―understand events that are occurring in the present and how they might relate to other factors‖ (Salkind, 2006, p. 186). A case study or

Potential Parental Factors 64 ethnographic design seeks to describe a situation; however both designs describe the data from a behavioral theory instead of simply describing the situation in terms of frequency and trends. The data from descriptive research describes ―the current state of affairs at the time of the research‖ (Salkind, 2006, p. 186). A historical research design investigates events that have occurred in the past; therefore the historical design was not deemed appropriate for the current study. Correlational research design also provides a description of a current event, but correlational research design strives to determine a correlation between the variables in the study. The current study sought to gather descriptive data on the hypotheses and the variables without continuing to determine a correlation. Glatthorn and Joyner state, ―Descriptive studies make primary use of surveys, interviews, and observations‖ (p. 101). Descriptive research can be used to describe trends and frequencies as a stand-alone study or the data can provide the foundation for further studies. The use of descriptive research was deemed appropriate for the current research study because a survey was used to gather information on the knowledge levels of the research subjects, concerning a current situation, to analyze for frequencies and trends without the determination of a specific relationship between the variables and the hypotheses. Population This descriptive, quantitative study focused on the parents/guardians of the students attending Overton, an inner-city, high poverty, high minority, Pre-Kindergarten-8th grade school in Portland, Oregon. Recently a new low-income housing development had opened across the street from the school. Overton was one of only three schools in the district in which 100% of the student body is eligible for the USDA free lunch and breakfast program. In addition to problems related to poverty, the school had a growing percentage (25%-up from 22% in 2006) of English

Potential Parental Factors 65 Language Learners (ELL), particularly children from Spanish-speaking homes where one or both parents/guardians did not speak any English. The school had one of the highest minority enrollments in the district (92% are African American, Hispanic, or Asian). Sampling Frame All parents/guardians of the Pre-Kindergarten-8th grade students were given the opportunity to complete a Likert-type survey, which had been converted to a scan form to assist in data analysis. A copy of the Likert-type scaled scan form is included in English (see Appendix A) and in Spanish (see Appendix B). The respondent sampling for the study consisted of all the parents/guardians who returned the survey. The exact number of respondents in the sampling was not known until after all opportunities for completion of the survey had been expended; however, a 30-40% response rate was anticipated. Permission to Conduct the Study The Research and Evaluation Department at Portland Public Schools was contacted and informed regarding the nature of the study and the value the study might provide for Overton School and other schools in the district. A Request to Conduct Research Form (see Appendix E) was completed and filed with the Portland Public Schools’ District Office to ensure that confidentiality was maintained throughout the research study and to provide an umbrella permission to work with the school. No risks to parents/guardians were anticipated with the study or the procedures used in administering the survey. The Research and Evaluation Department was informed that the results of the study would be shared with the school principal and district administrators. The department was informed that although a signed Informed Consent Form (see Appendix D) was required from all respondents, including the translators, the Informed Consent Forms was not linked with the completed survey.

Potential Parental Factors 66 Informed Consent Form The purpose of an Informed Consent Form was to ensure that the study was conducted in a safe and ethical manner. The Informed Consent Form (see Appendix D) for this study was designed to provide the respondents with information on the purpose of the study, how data was collected, the benefits the school received from the data, the people who would see the data, any potential risks that might have occurred, the time requirements for the survey, the measures taken to ensure confidentiality, and the respondents right to withdraw from the study. A signed Informed Consent Form was required of each respondent before the survey was administered. Permission was obtained from the Portland Public Schools’ Research and Evaluation Department and the school’s Principal to conduct the study using a survey developed by the researcher. A survey cover letter (see Appendix C) explaining the purpose of the current research study, the approximate time requirement for completing the survey, and an explanation of the manner in which the data was to be used was provided for each participant. The survey cover letter explained the benefits the data provided the school, how data was to be shared with the school, and the procedures the researcher implemented to ensure the confidentiality of the survey data. Explanation of the purpose of the study as well as all instructions on how to complete the survey was provided to parents in their native language. The Informed Consent Form and the survey was presented and explained to all parents/guardians who attend the family event. The Informed Consent Form was translated into Spanish for the Spanish-speaking parents/guardians. Translators for the Spanish-speaking parents/guardians were required to sign an Informed Consent Form to ensure translators understood the need for confidentiality as well as understood that the parents/guardians had the

Potential Parental Factors 67 right to discontinue the completion of the survey if they chose. The survey data was sent to the district’s Research and Evaluation Department for analysis. Translators were provided to ensure that the parents/guardians who needed assistance in translation had access to those resources to respond to the survey. An opportunity was provided for parents/guardians who did not attend the family event to complete the survey by mailing the survey through the United States Postal Service. Planning multiple opportunities for respondents to complete the survey allowed increased access to parents/guardians who may not have been available to attend the family event. To ensure that parents/guardians did not complete multiple surveys, the signed Informed Consent Forms were attached to a master list of all parents/guardians at Overton School to monitor participation. The surveys sent through the United States Postal Service were returned to the researcher. The Informed Consent Forms with parents’/guardians’ signatures were kept in a separate secure location. Confidentiality Every effort was made to maintain the confidentiality of all information collected. All respondents and the translators were required to complete an Informed Consent Form. Only the researcher handled the signed Informed Consent Forms and the completed surveys. Once completed, the Informed Consent Forms were kept separate from the completed survey to prevent a connection of the participant with the data from the survey. Both the completed surveys and signed Informed Consent Forms were stored in separate confidential locked areas, held for a period of three years, and then destroyed in the most appropriate manner available at that time. A list of potential respondents obtained by the researcher at the family event was maintained by the researcher to use as a checklist to ensure respondents completed only one survey. The checklist was destroyed at the end of three years.

Potential Parental Factors 68 Geographic Location This quantitative, descriptive study was conducted at Overton School. Overton was an inner-city, high poverty, high minority, PreK-8th grade school in Portland, Oregon. Overton School was in the Portland Public School District that served approximately 47,000 students. Overton was located next to a housing development property that was designed to assist low income and homeless people to become re-established with housing and job skills. Data Collection Collection of the data was through a Likert-type scaled survey (see Appendix A & B). The information gained helped to determine potential parental factors that may inhibit students from coming to school thus impacting Overton’s student attendance rate. The survey, created specifically for the study, consisted of 28 questions. Six demographic questions, three questions on attendance laws, three questions on the school’s attendance program, and five questions pertaining to parents’/guardians’ knowledge of the relationship between attendance and achievement. Eleven questions pertaining specifically to the school concluded the survey. A survey was deemed appropriate for data collection because the survey provided information to the researcher in a short amount of time and was administered to a large group. The use of a survey provided the opportunity to ask questions specifically tailored to meet the needs of the study. The survey in this study was administered to and collected from parents during a family event. Each respondent read and signed the Informed Consent Form describing the nature and purpose of the study, request for participation, and the assurance of confidentiality. To reach parents who did not attend the family event, a letter was sent to their home explaining the survey, the Informed Consent Form, and the importance of parents’/guardians’ input. Information on

Potential Parental Factors 69 participants’ right to opt out of the study was also contained in the letter. Parents/guardians with the home language listed as Spanish, on the student registration form, received the survey, cover letter, and Informed Consent Form translated into Spanish. To increase the control over the number of survey respondents, a return pre-addressed, postage-paid envelope was included with the survey mailing to the parents/guardians in the effort to encourage the completion and return of the survey. A 30-40% response rate was anticipated from the various data collection events to provide a reliable sampling of respondents. The signed Informed Consent Forms, from the family event, were collected by the researcher and stored in a secure area. The completed surveys were placed in a covered box located next to the researcher. Surveys returned to the school by the parents/guardians who received the survey through the mail, was collected by the school secretaries. The school secretaries placed the unopened envelopes into an envelope to be collected by the researcher. The researcher opened the envelopes and separated the signed Informed Consent Forms from the surveys. The Informed Consent Forms were placed in a secure location. The completed surveys were combined with the surveys collected at the family event and sent to the Research and Evaluation Department for analysis. Instrumentation Data collection consisted of a Likert-type survey administered to the parents/guardians of the students at Overton School. The Likert-type scaled survey was an effective and efficient tool to measure a wide range of varied responses (Hartley & Maclean, 2006). The original survey (see Appendix E) was developed by the researcher, using Survey Monkey, an online tool, for creating surveys to use on the Internet or to be printed in a PDF format for use in person. A template was provided to assist in creating the survey. Over 20 types of questions were available

Potential Parental Factors 70 to be used in the survey. Once created, the developer could send out e-mails containing an online link providing access to the survey electronically or the survey may be printed in hard-copy. A copy of the original survey created on Survey Monkey was included in Appendix E. The survey design was deemed appropriate for the current research study because of the ability to administer the survey to a large group of people as well as the ability to collect data through the use of the United States Postal Service. The current study did not set out to collect verbal or recorded responses from the participants, nor did the current study use data already collected in the past. Therefore, the use of a case study, ethnography, nor historical design was not deemed appropriate. Once the original survey (see Appendix E) was completed by the researcher, the Portland Public School’s Research and Development Department reformatted the survey into a scan format to enable ease in the collection and analysis of the data. The importance of truthful answers was necessary in the study to enable the resulting data to be useful to the school. Collecting data through an anonymous survey allowed respondents to answer without the data compromising their anonymity. Data for this quantitative research study was collected using a Likert-type scaled survey. The Likert-type scale is an effective and efficient tool to measure a wide range of varied responses (Hartley & Maclean, 2006). A Likert-type survey design used in a quantitative study provides data regarding trends in the attitudes, beliefs, and opinions of the population in the study (Creswell, 2008). The survey was developed in English and Spanish, as those were the major languages spoken at Overton School. A Likert-type cross-sectional survey was appropriate because this specific survey examined a sampling of the population (Creswell, 2005) providing a broad picture of what was occurring. The use of a survey in a descriptive research study provides

Potential Parental Factors 71 a tool to gather data. Survey research studies the ―characteristics of the populations through the use of surveys‖ (Salkind, 2006, p. 186). Table 2 summarizes the correlation of the survey questions to the research questions goal. Table 2 Correlation of survey questions to the research questions Keywords

Items on the survey

National and State attendance laws

8a, 8b, 8c

Overton’s school attendance program

9a, 9b, 9c

Attendance correlation to achievement

10a, 10b, 10c, 11

Potential hindrances for parents

12

The Portland Public Schools’ Research and Evaluation (R & E) Department used Microsoft Word to transfer the survey onto a scan form survey. The R & E Department was presented with the amended survey, which had been modified after the survey pilot test. The survey was reviewed to ensure that all questions followed the rules about placement on the page and the answer bubble responses could be captured during scanning. The amended English survey (see Appendix A) was translated into Spanish (see Appendix B) to provide access to the Spanish-speaking parents/guardians. The final, amended surveys (see Appendix A and B) were scanned using a Canon Image Scanner. Survey Pilot Test A pilot test using the original survey (see Appendix E) was administered, using the online version from the Survey Monkey website, before the final scan form survey in English (see Appendix A) and in Spanish (see Appendix B) were created. The survey pilot test was to assess the validity and reliability of the survey instrument. The survey pilot test strove to ascertain if the

Potential Parental Factors 72 questions were written in a clear understandable manner and to determine if any ambiguities existed. Ten staff members from Overton School, who did not have children attending the school, were presented with the survey. All 10 staff members responded to the survey. The responses from the survey were analyzed to determine if the responses to the questions would provide the necessary data to answer the research questions. Along with the survey responses, private interviews were held with each staff member to gather feedback on the relevance, reliability, and validity of the survey questions to the informational data needs of the school. Adjustments and modifications were made to the original survey (see Appendix E) by the researcher, to align with the feedback from the staff members, thus improving the relevance, reliability, and validity of the survey. One change that was made was to the order of potential responses, which were listed in Question 7. This asked for the employment status of the respondent. The original order of the potential responses was: unemployed, employed full-time, homemaker, retired, student, employed part-time, and declined to answer. After the survey pilot test, the response order became: employed full-time, employed part-time, full-time student, homemaker, unemployed, and declined to answer. Another change in the survey occurred with the responses on the knowledge section of the survey. Using the Likert-type five-point scale, the original potential responses were: 1) strongly agree, 2) agree, 3) disagree, 4) strongly disagree, and 5) do not know. After the pilot test the potential responses were changed to: 1) I’m sure this is true, 2) I think this is true, 3) I think this is not true, 4) I’m sure this is not true, and 5) Do not know. A third change made to the survey was to separate the information concerning parents’/guardians’ desires to volunteer from the rest of the survey because the responses would cause the consistency and validity of the data analysis to be skewed.

Potential Parental Factors 73 Validity – Internal and External The feedback from the pilot study was used to assess and adjust the survey items for content and construct validity. Construct validity ―links the practical components of the test score to some underlying theory or model of behavior‖ (Salkind, 2006, p. 116). The pilot study sought to ensure that the questions and resulting responses would garner responses that could provide information on potential hindrances. The amendments to the survey, after the pilot study, were made to increase the reliability and validity of the survey in order to produce the desired information. Salkind (2006) stated that internal validity is ―the quality of an experimental design such that the results obtained are attributed to the manipulation of the independent variable‖ (p. 223). The scoring of the survey was accomplished using the school district’s Research and Evaluation Department, to ensure that scoring occurred in a consistent, unbiased manner. The survey used in the current research study was divided into two parts. To maintain internal consistency, the introductory cover letter to the survey explained to the respondents that they would be asked questions about two different topics. The first part of the survey asked respondents questions about attendance laws and potential programs to improve attendance. The second part of the survey presented questions that pertained to respondents’ availability to assist at Overton School. Internal consistency was checked by considering how an individual respondent answered a survey question. A survey has high internal consistency if a respondent believes that X answers all questions about X in virtually the same way (Brzezinski, personal correspondence, March 27, 2009). Feedback from respondents in the pilot study was used to improve the reliability and validity of the survey questions.

Potential Parental Factors 74 External validity ―is the quality of an experimental design such that the results can be generalized from the original sample to another sample and then, by extension to the population from which the sample originated‖ (Salkind, 2006, p. 223). Providing multiple opportunities for parents/guardians to take the survey in addition to translating the survey into Spanish increased the potential number of respondents who might complete the survey as well as reach a broader selection of participants. The data from the random selection of participants may be applicable to other schools with issues of poor student attendance. By contrast, the possibility existed that the translation of the survey into Spanish and the explanation of how to complete the survey may cause a concern for the external validity of the survey data. This may result because the data depended on the translators to explain the survey to the Spanish-speaking parents. When considering the affect using translators might have on the reliability and validity of the study, several factors were taken into account. The translators were required to explain the survey questions to the parents/guardians if needed. The survey was written in Spanish, so parents/guardians would be able to read the questions themselves. Even if the parents/guardians were unable to read Spanish, the translator still read the words as they were written. Therefore, the reliability of the survey was not affected. To increase the reliability of the translated survey, effort was made to gather data from a sampling of at least 20 Spanish-speaking parents/guardians from the various students’ grade level ranges. Reliability Testing for reliability assists the researcher in determining the consistency and stability of the instrument used in the study. The current study used two types of reliability tests to determine the usefulness of the survey. An inter-rater test was conducted through the use of a Pilot Study to test the measure of agreement between the raters on the survey items and the

Potential Parental Factors 75 completed survey. Each of the 10 raters in the Pilot Study rated each question to determine the clarity, and understandability of each question. A side-by-side comparison was made of the survey seeking to determine which questions had high agreement and which questions needed to be modified, adjusted, or deleted. The survey was measured for internal consistency by the Pilot Study raters determining if the individual questions as well as the total survey produced the type of information desired for the data analysis. The raters strove to align the questions in the survey with the researcher questions of the study. Adjustments and modifications were made to the survey questions to ensure the reliability of the data derived from the survey. The creation of the cover letter to the survey was made to standardize the instructions to ensure that all participants received the same information. Data Analysis To address the research questions and the hypotheses, a quantitative, descriptive study using a cross-sectional survey to gather a description of a trend (Creswell, 2005) was used to gather data on potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance by exploring parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, the school’s attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement. Data was disaggregated by seven independent variables: 1) students’ grade level ranges (PreK-2, 3-5, 6-8), 2) number of children parent/guardians had attending the school, 3) parents’/guardians’ gender, 4) parents’/guardians’ age group range, 5) highest level of education, 6) employment status, and 7) ethnicity. Once the surveys had been completed from the parents/guardians, Remark software created by Gravic, was used to capture the responses marked on the survey. Remark is a

Potential Parental Factors 76 computer software used to collect and analyze data from surveys. The data file was cleaned to make sure that all the bubbles were marked appropriately (for example, a check mark may not pick up as it should and needed to be changed to a fully filled-in bubble). After the data file was cleaned, the data was exported to a Microsoft Excel file. The Excel file was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for the analysis of trends and frequency in the responses. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), a computer program used for statistical analysis, was used to analyze the data. To produce the descriptive statistics cross tabulation and frequency distribution was conducted. Cross tabulation provided data on joint distribution of the variables presented on a contingency table using a matrix format. Frequency distribution provided data on frequencies of each of the seven independent variables compared to each of the dependent variables. Bivariate statistics provided the means, z-test results, and crosstabulation correlations. Analysis for frequency percentages and trends was conducted on the data from the survey to investigate the knowledge levels of the parents/guardians. Descriptive statistics, which described the characteristics of the distribution of scores, was one of the tools used to present the data. The descriptive data presented an impression of what the data represents. Whereas the current research study had three dependent variables, the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to analyze the data. Research Questions and Hypotheses Shown in Table 3 are the research questions, hypotheses, independent and dependent variables as well as the statistical analysis used in the study.

Potential Parental Factors 77 Table 3 Statistical Analysis for Research Questions Research Questions and Hypothesis 1. What is the knowledge level of the parents/guardians at Overton School concerning the compulsory education attendance laws? H0 No difference will result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge level of the compulsory education attendance laws.

2.

H1 A difference will result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge level of the compulsory education attendance laws. What is the knowledge level of the parents/guardians concerning Overton’s school-wide attendance program? H0 No difference will result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge level of Overton’s school-wide attendance program.

H1 A difference will result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge level of Overton’s school-wide attendance program. 3. What is the knowledge

Variables Independent Variables 1) students’ grade level range, 2) parents’/guardians’ gender, 3) parents’/guardians’ age group range, 4) highest level of education, 5) employment status, 6) ethnicity

Statistical Analysis SPSS computer software used to identify frequencies and trends.

Dependent Variable Parents/guardians knowledge level of compulsory education laws.

Independent Variables 1) students’ grade level range, 2) parents’/guardians’ gender, 3) parents’/guardians’ age group range, 4) highest level of education, 5) employment status, 6) ethnicity Dependent Variable Parents/guardians knowledge level of Overton’s schoolwide attendance program.

Independent Variables

SPSS computer software used to identify frequencies and trends.

Potential Parental Factors 78 level of parents/guardians at Overton regarding the relationship between student attendance and student achievement? H0 No difference will result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge level of the relationship between attendance and achievement. H1 A difference will result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge level of the relationship between attendance and achievement.

1) students’ grade level range, 2) parents’/guardians’ gender, 3) parents’/guardians’ age group range, 4) highest level of education, 5) employment status, 6) ethnicity

SPSS computer software used to identify frequencies and trends.

Dependent Variable Parents/guardians knowledge level of the relationship between attendance and achievement.

Summary Chapter 3 presented a detailed description of the quantitative, descriptive research study that used a cross-sectional survey to gather a description of a trend (Creswell, 2005). The purpose of the study was to gather data on potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance by exploring parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, Overton’s school-wide attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement. A scan form survey was administered to the parents/guardians of the students at Overton, an inner-city, high poverty, high minority school, PreK-8th grade school, providing information that was analyzed for frequency and trends. Data was disaggregated by seven independent variables: 1) students’ grade level ranges, 2) number of children parents/guardians had attending the school, 3) parents’/guardians’ gender, 4) parents’/guardians’ age group range, 5) highest level of education, 6) employment status, and 7) ethnicity.

Potential Parental Factors 79 The information gathered from this study may add to the body of knowledge regarding the effect parental knowledge level concerning student attendance may have on students’ attendance. Information may be gained on the effect students’ grade level ranges, number of children parents/guardians have attending the school, parents’/guardians’ gender, parents’/guardians’ age group range, highest level of education, employment status, and ethnicity, may have on parental knowledge levels on attendance. The data might also provide ideas for possible training workshops that could increase parental knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, a school’s attendance program as well as explain the impact student attendance might have on student achievement. The information gathered on the potential effect language and ethnicity may have on student attendance might assist the school in potential translation needs. Neuman (2003) supported the use of a survey when seeking information in a descriptive study. A cross-sectional five-point Likert-type scaled survey was used to gather a description of a trend (Creswell, 2005) and data on potential hindrances to student attendance. Attempts were made to ensure internal and external validity by providing multiple opportunities for participants to respond and by the scoring being conducted by the school district’s Research and Evaluation Department. A pilot test using the original survey (see Appendix E), which was created by the researcher, specifically for the study, was conducted to determine if the questions were reliable and valid. Amendments were made to the survey after the pilot test, to increase the reliability and validity of the survey. Care was taken with the Spanish translators to ensure confidentiality and address the reliability and validity of the survey responses. Chapter 4 presents the resulting data from the study as well as the results of the hypotheses.

Potential Parental Factors 80 CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive study was to examine potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance by evaluating parental knowledge levels based on seven demographic characteristics. The study used a 21-item survey created specifically for this study. The sampling frame of potential participants derived from the parents/guardians of the 240 students at an inner-city, high poverty, high minority, PreK-8th grade school in Portland, Oregon of whom 39 completed and returned the survey. This chapter includes the research design and methods, data collection procedures, data analysis procedures, findings, and the presentation of the data from the study. Research Design and Methods The quantitative, descriptive design evaluated if differences were apparent between parental knowledge levels of compulsory education attendance laws, the school’s attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement (the dependent variables) based on students’ grade level ranges, the number of children attending the school, parents’/guardians’ gender, parents’/guardians’ age group range, highest levels of education, employment status, and ethnicity (the independent variables). The survey instrument (see Appendix A: English and B: Spanish) was developed specifically for the current research study. The analysis consisted of reporting the descriptive statistics of the parents/guardians followed by analysis of the data based on the three null hypotheses. Data Collection Procedures Data collection occurred over a 4-month period. Each participant using the mail-in surveys and the in-person surveys signed the Informed Consent Form before completing the survey. Initial data collection began with a presentation to parents/guardians during the Parent-

Potential Parental Factors 81 Teacher Conference Week. The purpose of the study and participants’ right of non-participation were explained to all in attendance. Parents/guardians were then provided with the opportunity to sign up to receive the survey through the United States Postal Service. At the initial contact, 138 parents/guardians signed up to participate in the study with 117 requesting an English version of the survey and 21 participants requesting the Spanish version of the survey. Out of the 138 initial participants 23 participants completed and returned the survey through the United States Postal Service for a response rate of 17%. Five additional surveys were returned by the United States Postal Service because of a non-deliverable address and therefore, dropped from the survey. Two additional data collection opportunities were provided to parents/guardians during a Friday Coffee Chat and a Parent-Teachers’ Association meeting. Sixteen additional surveys were completed and returned. The determination of the total response rate is difficult to determine as the additional 16 surveys may have come from parents/guardians not a part of the original 138 who signed up to participate. Data Analysis Procedures Signed Consent Forms were kept in a secure location separate from the completed surveys. Completed surveys were sent to the Research and Evaluation Department of Portland Public Schools. The surveys were scanned into the computer and cleaned to ensure proper formatting for analysis. The survey data were coded into a format suitable for analysis. Data analysis revealed no serious violations to the assumption for the statistical procedures. Nominal data was used for the descriptive data, while ordinal data was used for the cross sectional analysis for the research questions. An Excel spreadsheet format was used for data analysis and then transferred to SPSS for descriptive and inferential statistic analysis.

Potential Parental Factors 82 Findings The study focused on potential parental factors that might hinder student attendance. The research addressed the following three research questions: 1. What are the knowledge levels of the parents/guardians at Overton School concerning the compulsory education attendance laws? 2. What are the knowledge levels of the parents/guardians concerning Overton’s schoolwide attendance program? 3. What are the knowledge levels of parents/guardians at Overton regarding the relationship between student attendance and student achievement? Presentation of Data Data analysis was separated into three sections. Section 1: Parents’/Guardians’ Demographic Data, presented frequencies and percentages of parental demographics. Section 2: Descriptive Data of Parental Knowledge, Understanding, and Attitudes, provided frequencies and percentages to parental responses to questions relating to compulsory attendance laws, the school’s attendance policy, and the relationship between attendance and achievement. Section 3: Inferential Data, provided information related to the null hypotheses for the three guiding research questions based on the seven independent variables of the parental demographic characteristics. Section 1: Parents’/Guardians’ Demographic Data Parental demographics included gender, age group range, child’s/children’s grade level range, number of children attending the school, parents’/guardians’ highest level of education, employment status, and ethnicity. The data collection procedures produced a random sampling based on the parents/guardians who chose to respond to the survey. Respondents were required

Potential Parental Factors 83 to provide one answer to each question with the exception of Question Four, which permitted respondents to select all categories that applied to the number of children in attendance at the school. Question 1: What is your gender? (N=39) Shown in Table 4 are the percentages and frequencies of males and females that participated in the study. The majority of the respondents, 33 out of 39 reported their gender as female and six out of 39, identified their gender as male. Table 4 Question 1- Gender Male 6 (15.4%)

Female 33 (84.6%)

Total 39 (100.0%)

Question 2: What is your age group range? (N=39) Shown in Table 5 are the frequencies and percentages of respondents’ age range. None of the respondents reported their age group range as 18-24. The majority of the respondents, 20 out of 39, identified their age group range as 35-43, while 10 out of 39 respondents identified in the 25-34 age range. Two age range groups were close in number of respondents. Four out of 39 respondents identified their age group range as 44-54 and three out of 39 reported their age group range as 55-64. One out of 39 respondents identified their age group range as 65 or over and one out of 39 respondents declined to answer the question.

Potential Parental Factors 84 Table 5 Question 2 – Age Group Range Age group range 18-24 25-34 35-43 44-54 55-64 65 or over Decline to answer Total

Number Percent 0 0 .0% 2 10 5.6% 5 20 1.3% 1 4 0.3% 7 3 .7% 2 1 .6% 2 1 .6% 39 100.0%

Question 3: How many children do you have at Overton? (N=39) Shown in Table 6 are the percentages and frequencies of number of children the respondents had that attend Overton School. The majority of the respondents, 20 out of 39, had one child who attended the school. The next highest number of respondents, 13 out of 39, reported that they had two children who attending the school. Five out of 39 respondents identified themselves with three children attending the school. One out 39 of the respondents identified themselves with no children attending the school. None of the respondents reported having four or more children attending the school.

Potential Parental Factors 85 Table 6 Question 3 – Number of Children Attending School Number of Children

Number

None

1

1

20

2

13

3

5

4

0

5+

0

Total

39

Percent 2 .6% 5 1.3% 3 3.3% 1 2.8% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 00.0%

Question 4: Please list your child’s/children’s grade levels. (N=38) Shown in Table 7 is the number of respondents with children in the identified grade level ranges. Respondents were able to select more than one grade level range based on the number of children attending the school. The data revealed that 10 out of 54 responded that they had children in Pre K. The majority of the respondents, 17 out of 54 had children in the K-2nd grade level range. Sixteen out of 54 responded that they had children in the 3rd-5th grade level range. Eleven out of 54 responded that they had children in the 6th-8th grade level range.

Potential Parental Factors 86 Table 7 Question 4 – Child’s/Children’s Grade Level Range

Grade Level

Number

Pre K

10

18.5%

Percent of Survey Respondents (N=38) 26.3%

K – 2nd

17

31.5%

44.7%

3rd – 5th

16

29.6%

42.1%

6th – 8th

11

20.4%

28.9%

Total

54

100.0%

142.1%

Percent of Children (N=54)

Question 5: Which of the following best describes your highest level of education? (N=39) As shown in Table 8, the majority of respondents, 12 out of 39, highest level of education was either some college or a college graduate. Six out of 39 respondents were high school graduates. Three out of 39 respondents highest level of education was either grade school or trade school. Two out of 39 respondents had received a graduate degree and one out of 39 of the respondents declined to answer the question.

Potential Parental Factors 87 Table 8 Question 5 – Highest Level of Education 3 (7.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

Grade school Some high school GED High school graduate Some college College graduate

Trade school Graduate Degree Decline to answer

3 (7.7%) 2 (5.1%) 1 (2.6%)

6 (15.4%) 12 (30.8%) 12 (30.8%)

Question 6: Which of the following best describes your present employment status? (N=39) The majority of respondents, 15 out of 39, were employed full-time while four out of 39 were employed part-time, and four out of 39 respondents were unemployed. Shown in Table 9, eight out of 39 of the respondents were homemakers. Three out of 39 respondents were retired and five out of 39 respondents stated that they were full-time students. Table 9 Question 6 – Employment Status Employed full-time Employed part-time Full-time student

15 (38.5%) 4 (10.3%) 5 (12.8%)

Homemaker Retired Unemployed

8 (20.5%) 3 (7.7%) 4 (10.3%)

Decline to answer

0 (0.0%)

Potential Parental Factors 88 Question 7: What is your ethnicity? (N=39) Shown in Table 10 are the ethnicity statistics of the respondents. Fourteen out of 39 respondents declared their ethnicity as African American. Thirteen out of 39 declared their ethnicity as White. Mixed Race and Latino respondents were four out of 39 for each category. Two out of 39 respondents declared that they were Asian/Pacific Islander and one out of 39 respondents listed their ethnicity as Native American. Table 10 Question 7 – Ethnicity African American Asian/Pacific Islander Latino

14 (35.9%) 2 (5.1%) 4 (10.3%)

Native American White Mixed Race

1 (2.6%) 13 (33.3%) 4 (10.3%)

Decline to answer

1 (2.6%)

Section 2: Descriptive Data on Parental Knowledge Levels, Understanding, and Attitudes Section Two provided data on parental knowledge levels, understanding, and attitudes as related to the three research questions that guided the research study. To gather descriptive data on parental knowledge levels, understanding, and attitudes, parents/guardians were asked to respond to three main questions using the Likert-type scale responses. Data on each of the research questions are presented in Tables 11, 12, and 13. The first research question was: What are the knowledge levels of the parents/guardians at Overton School concerning the compulsory education attendance laws? Question 8 required respondents to state their knowledge levels of the State of Oregon’s attendance laws (see Table 11) by answering three specific questions (A, B, C). Respondents acknowledged knowledge levels by

Potential Parental Factors 89 responding, a) I’m sure this is true, b) I think this is true, c) I think this is not true, d) I’m sure this is not true, or e) Do Not Know. Question 8A dealt with parental knowledge levels of the requirement for parents to send their child/children to school on a regular full-time basis. The data revealed that 22 out of 38 respondents were sure the statement was true, while 10 out of 38 respondents thought the statement was true. Two out of 38 respondents thought the statement was not true, and four out of 38 respondents did not know if the statement was true or not true. Question 8B required respondents to state their knowledge levels of potential penalties to parents/guardians for not ensuring that their child/children attended school on a regular full-time base. The resulting data illustrated that 16 out of 38 respondents were sure the statement was true, while 10 out of 38 respondents thought the statement was true. Believing the statement was not true were four out of 38 respondents with eight out of 38 respondents who did not know if the statement was accurate. Question 8C required respondents to identify their knowledge levels of the legal meaning of the word, tardy. The majority of respondents believed that the statement on the legal meaning of the word, tardy was accurate with 11 out of 38 respondents declaring that they were sure the statement was true and 18 out of 38 respondents stating that they thought the statement was true. Data results identified that five out of 38 respondents did not know if the statement was true or not true, three out of 38 respondents declared that the statement was not true, and one out of 38 respondents were not sure if the statement was true. Question 8: Which of the following are accurate statements about Oregon attendance laws?

Potential Parental Factors 90 Table 11 Research Question 1 A. Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance law requires every person having control of any child between the ages of 7 and 18 to send and maintain the child in regular full-time attendance in a public school, private school, or home schooled. (N=38) B. Failure to comply with the State Compulsory Attendance Law can result in a Class C violation resulting in penalties including the parent/guardian being served with a citation, a potential court appearance, and/or fine. (N=38) C. Tardy means not present at the start of class but arriving prior to the completion of 25% of the class period. (N=38)

I’m sure this is not true.

I’m sure this is true.

I think this is true.

I think this is not true.

Do Not Know

22 (57.9%)

10 (26.3%)

2 (5.3%)

0 (0.0%)

4 (10.5%)

16 (42.1%)

10 (26.3%)

4 (10.5%)

0 (0.0%)

8 (21.1%)

11 (28.9%)

18 (47.4%)

3 (7.9%)

1 (2.6%)

5 (13.2%)

The second research question was: What is the knowledge level of the parents/guardians concerning Overton’s school-wide attendance program? Question 9 required respondents to state their knowledge levels of Overton School’s attendance policy (see Table 12) by answering three specific questions (A, B, C). Respondents acknowledged knowledge levels by responding, a) Fully Aware, b) Somewhat Aware, and c) Not at All Aware. Question 9A required parents/guardians to respond to their awareness of the time the tardy bell rings in the morning. The majority of the respondents, 32 out of 38, were fully aware of the time the tardy bell rang. Somewhat Aware garnered four out of 38 respondents with two out of 38 respondents stating that they were not at all aware when the tardy bell rang.

Potential Parental Factors 91 Question 9B gathered information on parental awareness levels of Overton’s incentive program for student perfect attendance. The majority of respondents, 20 out of 38, were fully aware of the incentive program with nine out of 38 parents/guardians responding that they were somewhat aware, and two out of 38 respondents declaring that they were not at all aware of the incentive program. Question 9C inquired into parental awareness of the yellow card book reward system that provided a free book for students who had perfect attendance. The response for this question presented an even split of 16 out of 38 respondents declaring that they were fully aware and 16 out of 38 respondents stating that they were not at all aware of the yellow card book reward system. Six out of 38 respondents declared that they were somewhat aware of the yellow card book reward system. 9. How aware are you of Overton School’s Attendance Policy? Table 12 Research Question 2 Fully Aware

Somewhat Aware

Not at All Aware

A. Overton students are considered late when the tardy bell rings at 8:45 AM. (N=38)

32 (84.2%)

4 (10.5%)

2 (5.3%)

B. Overton students receive incentives to maintain perfect attendance and are rewarded each week, month, trimester, and at the end of the school year. (N=38)

20 (52.6%)

9 (23.7%)

9 (23.7%)

C. Students receiving three yellow cards for perfect weekly attendance can turn the yellow cards in for a free book. (N=38)

16 (42.1%)

6 (15.8%)

16 (42.1%)

Potential Parental Factors 92 The third research question was: What are the knowledge levels of parents/guardians at Overton regarding the relationship between student attendance and student achievement? Question 10 requires respondents to state their knowledge level of the relationship between attendance and achievement (see Table 13) by responding to three specific questions (A, B, C). Respondents acknowledged knowledge levels by responding, a) Strongly Agree, b) Agree, c) Disagree, d) Strongly Disagree, and e) Do Not Know. Question 10A required parents/guardians to provide their knowledge levels on the affects students’ absenteeism had on academic performance. The majority of respondents, 25 out of 38, strongly agreed that absenteeism negatively affects performance. An additional 12 out of 38 respondents agreed that absenteeism negatively affects performance. One out of 38 respondents disagreed with the statement of a negative impact of absenteeism. Question 10B sought to identify parental knowledge levels of the relationship between parental attitudes on attendance and their child’s/children’s value of school attendance. All respondents strongly agreed, 29 out of 38, or agreed, nine out of 38 that parental attitude influences their child’s/children’s value of school attendance. Question 10C asked respondents to identify their knowledge level of the relationship between parental involvement in their child’s/children’s school and the child’s/children’s behavior in school. All respondents either strongly agreed, 32 out of 39, or agreed, seven out of 39, with the statement that when a parent is involved in his or her child’s/children’s school, an improvement in the child’s behavior occurred. 10. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Potential Parental Factors 93 Table 13 Research Question 3 Strongly Agree

Agree

25 (65.8%)

12 (31.6%)

B. Parents’ attitudes concerning school attendance influence how the child develops an understanding of the value of attending school. (N=38)

29 (76.3%)

9 (23.7%)

C. An increase in parental involvement not only improves student attendance, but also improves student behavior. (N=39)

32 (82.1%)

7 (17.9%)

A. When students are not in school, vital learning opportunities are missed. These cannot be duplicated when the student does return to school. That, in turn, may negatively affect the student’s academic performance. (N=38)

Disagree

1 (2.6%)

Strongly Do Not Disagree Know 0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

Section 3: Inferential Data Section Three discusses the null hypotheses of each of the research question based on the seven independent variables. Each null hypothesis is presented and analyzed for each of the independent variables. The use of cross-tabulation provides data that could prove or disprove the null hypotheses for each research question. Research Question One Research Question 1 focused on parental knowledge levels concerning the Oregon Compulsory Education Attendance laws. Question 8A sought to determine parental knowledge levels of Oregon’s Compulsory Education Attendance Law pertaining to the requirement for parents to send their child/children to school on a regular full-time basis. The null hypothesis premised that no difference would result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of the compulsory education attendance laws based on each of the seven independent variables.

Potential Parental Factors 94 Parents/guardians were to respond either I’m sure this is true, I think this is true, I think this is not true, I’m sure this is not true, or Do Not Know. Variable 1: Gender. Respondents’ choices were male or female. Shown in Table 14 revealed that 18 out of 32 female respondents were sure that the statement on the requirement for regular full-time attendance was true, while four out of six males were sure that the requirement was true. Nine out of 32 female respondents thought that the attendance requirement was true and one out of six male respondents thought the attendance requirement was true. Four of the 32 female respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not. Table 14 Gender * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law

Variable 2: Parental Age Group Range. Respondent choices were 18-24, 25-34, 35-43, 44-54, 55-64, 65 or over, and decline to answer. Shown in Table 15 is the data for parental age group ranges. The focus was to cross tabulate the parental age group range with the knowledge of the Oregon Compulsory Attendance Law. The data revealed that six out of nine respondents from the 25-34 age group range were sure that the attendance requirement was true, while 12 out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range respondents, thee out of four in the 44-54 age group range, and one out of three in the 55-64 age group range were sure that the attendance requirement was true.

Potential Parental Factors 95 When looking at the number of respondents who thought the attendance requirement was true, two of the nine respondents from the 25-34 age group range, five out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range, one out of three respondents in the 55-64 age group range, and one out of one from the 65 or over age group range all thought the attendance requirement was true. One person declined to provide his or her age, but thought the requirement was true. Several of the respondents did not think the attendance requirement was true or did not know if the requirement was true or not true. One out of 20 respondents from the 35-43 age group range and one out of four from the 44-54 age group range did not think the attendance requirement was true. One out of nine of the 25-34 age group range respondents, two out of 20 of the 35-43 age group range, and one out of three respondents from the 55-64 age group range did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Table 15 Age Group * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law

Variable 3: Number of Children Attending the School. Respondents selected from none, one, two, three, four, or five+. Cross tabulation sought to determine if a difference in parental

Potential Parental Factors 96 knowledge levels of the Oregon Compulsory Attendance Law occurred based on the number of children attending the school. As shown in Table 16, the majority of the respondents were sure that the attendance requirement was true. Eleven out of 19 respondents with one child attending the school were sure that the attendance requirement was true. Seven out of 13 respondents with two children attending the school were sure that the attendance requirements were true, while four out of five respondents with three children attending the school were sure. Five out of nine respondents thought the attendance requirement was true. Three out of 13 respondents with two children and one out of five respondents with three children all selected the think it is true category. One respondent with no children attending the school thought the attendance requirement was true. Several respondents thought the attendance requirement statement was either not true or they did not know if the statement was true or not. One out of 19 respondents with one child attending the school and one out of 13 respondents with two children thought the attendance requirement was not true. Two out of 19 respondents with one child attending the school and two out of 13 with two children attending the school did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not.

Potential Parental Factors 97 Table 16 Number of Children * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Laws

Variable 4: Children’s Grade Level Range (see Table 17). Grade level choices were Pre K, K-2, 3rd-5th, and 6th-8th. Table 17 displays the Pre K children’s grade level range data. The grade level range data is cross tabulated with the respondents’ knowledge of the Oregon Compulsory Attendance Law. Ten respondents had children in Pre K. Four out of the 10 respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true. Five of the 10 respondents thought the requirements were true, and one respondent did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not. Table 17 Pre- K * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law

Shown in Table 18, the data from respondents with children in Kindergarten-2nd grade was presented. Sixteen respondents declared that they had children in this grade level range.

Potential Parental Factors 98 Nine out of the 16 respondents were sure that the attendance requirement was true and four out of the 16 respondents thought the attendance requirement was true. Two out of the 16 respondents thought the attendance requirement was not true with one respondent marking do not know. Table 18 K-2nd * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law

Respondents with children in the 3rd-5th grade level (see Table 19) overwhelmingly stated that they were sure or thought the attendance requirement was true. Eleven out of the 16 respondents were sure that the attendance requirement was true while two out of the 16 thought the requirement was true. Two out of the 16 respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Table 19 3rd-5th *Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law

The final grade level range used for the cross-tabulation data was respondents with children in 6th-8th grade. Eight respondents reported having children in the 6th-8th grade level.

Potential Parental Factors 99 The majority, eight out of 11, respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true. Two out of the 11 respondents thought the requirement was true and one respondent did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Shown in Table 20 the results are displayed. Table 20 6th-8th *Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law

Variable 5: Highest level of education. Highest level of education choices were grade school, some high school, high school graduate, GED, some college, college graduate, trade school, graduate degree, and decline to answer. The majority of the respondents stated that they believed the attendance requirement was true (see Table 21). For the category sure true, 100%, three out of three, of the respondents whose highest level of education was grade school were sure the attendance requirement was true. Respondents with the highest level of education of high school graduate reported that 50%, three out of six were sure the attendance requirement was true, two out of six thought the requirement was true, and one out of six did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Out the respondents that attended some college, six out of 11 were sure the attendance requirement was true, two out of 11 thought the requirements were true, one respondent thought the attendance requirement was not true, and one out of 11 respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Three respondents stated that their highest level of education was through a trade school. Of the three respondents, two out of three respondents

Potential Parental Factors 100 were sure the attendance requirement was true and one out of three respondents did not think the attendance requirement was true. Twelve respondents were identified as college graduates. Seven out of 12 respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true, with four out of 12 respondents who thought the requirement was true. One out of 12 responded do not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Two respondents reported that they had a graduate degree. Two out of two respondents thought the attendance requirement was true. One respondent declined to provide his or her highest level of education, but responded that they were sure the attendance requirement was true. Table 21 Highest Level of Education * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law

Variable 6: Present Employment Status. Choices presented to respondents were employed full-time, employed part-time, full-time student, homemaker, retired, unemployed, and

Potential Parental Factors 101 declined to answer. Fifteen respondents for employed full-time. Nine out of 15 respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true. Three out of the 15 respondents answered think this is true. Two out of the 15 respondents marked think this is true, while one out of the 15 respondents did not know if the attendant requirement was true or not true. Three respondents identified their employment status as employed part-time. One out of the three respondents was sure the attendance requirement was true and one out of the three respondents marked think this is true. One out of the three respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Five respondents identified their employment status as a full-time student. Three of the five respondents were sure that the attendance requirement was true, while one out of the five respondents thought the requirement was true. One of the five respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Identified as homemaker were eight respondents. Four out of the eight respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true with three out of the eight respondents who marked think this is true. One out of the eight respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Three respondents were identified as retired. One out of the three respondents was sure the attendance requirement was true, while two out of the three respondents thought the requirement was true. None of the retired respondents marked that they did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Four respondents identified their employment status as unemployed. All four of the respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true. As shown in Table 22 the response data for present employment status

Potential Parental Factors 102 Table 22 Employment Status * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law

Variable 7: Ethnicity. Response choices were African American (Not Latino), Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, Native American, White, Mixed Race, and Decline to answer. As shown in Table 23 the representation of the data is presented. Thirty-eight parents/guardians responded to the question. The data revealed that there was one out of the 38 respondents who was Native American and was sure the attendance requirement was true. Additionally, there was one out of the 38 respondents who was identified themselves as declined to answer who thought the attendance requirement was true. Two out of the 13 respondents were Asian/Pacific Islander. Both respondents, two out of two, were sure that the attendance requirement was true. Thirteen African Americans responded to the question. Nine out of the 13 respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true while one out of the 13 respondents replied think

Potential Parental Factors 103 this is true. One out of the 13 respondents thought the attendance requirement was not true. Two out of the 13 respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Thirteen respondents identified themselves as White. Six out of the 13 respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true. Five out of the 13 respondents marked think this is true. One out of the 13 respondents thought the attendance requirement was not true, while one out of the 13 respondents did not know if the requirement was true or not true. The final identified ethnicity was mixed race. Four parents/guardians identified themselves as mixed race. As shown in Table 23, one of the four respondents was sure the attendance requirement was true. Two of the four respondents answered think this is true. One of the four respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Table 23 Ethnicity * Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law

Question 8B sought to determine parental knowledge levels of Oregon’s Compulsory Education Attendance Law pertaining to the potential penalties to parents/guardians for not

Potential Parental Factors 104 ensuring that their child/children attended school on a regular full-time base. The null hypothesis premised that no difference would result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of the compulsory education attendance laws based on each of the seven independent variables. Parents/guardians were to respond either I’m sure this is true, I think this is true, I think this is not true, I’m sure this is not true, or Do Not Know. Variable 1: Gender. As shown in Table 24, 15 out of 32 female respondents were sure that the statement on the potential for penalties for not ensuring your child/children attended school on a full-time basis was true, while one out of six males were sure that the requirement was true. Nine out of 32 female respondents thought that the attendance requirement was true and one out of six male respondents thought the attendance requirement was true. Seven of the 32 female respondents and one out of six male respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Table 24 Gender * Failure to Comply

Variable 2: Age Group. Respondent choices were 18-24, 25-34, 35-43, 44-54, 55-64, 65 or over, and decline to answer. The focus was to cross tabulate the parental age group range with the knowledge of the Oregon Compulsory Attendance Law. The data revealed that three out of

Potential Parental Factors 105 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range were sure that the attendance requirement was true, while 10 out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range respondents, two out of four in the 44-54 age group range, and one out of two in the 55-64 age group range were sure that the attendance requirement was true (see Table 25). When looking at the number of respondents who thought the attendance requirement was true, three of the 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range, five out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range, one out of two respondents in the 55-64 age group range, and one out of one who was listed as decline to answer all stated that they thought the attendance requirement was true. Several of the respondents did not think the attendance requirement was true or did not know if the requirement was true or not. One out of 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group, one out of 20 respondents from the 35-43 age group range and two out of four respondents from the 44-54 age group range did not think the attendance requirement was true. Three out of 10 of the 25-34 age group range respondents, four out of 20 of the 35-43 age group range, and one out of one respondent from the 65+ age group range did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true.

Potential Parental Factors 106 Table 25 Age group * Failure to Comply

Variable 3: Number of children at the school. Respondents selected from none, one, two, three, four, or five+. Cross tabulation sought to determine if a difference in parental knowledge levels of the Oregon Compulsory Attendance Law occurred based on the number of children attending the school (see Table 26). Eight out of 20 respondents with one child attending the school were sure that the attendance requirement was true. Five out of 12 respondents with two children attending the school were sure that the attendance requirements were true, while three out of five respondents with three children attending the school were sure. Six out of 20 respondents with one child thought the attendance requirement was true. Two out of 12 respondents with two children and three out of five respondents with three children all selected the think it is true category. Several respondents thought the attendance requirement statement was either not true or they did not know if the statement was true or not. Three out of 20 respondents with one child attending the school and one out of 12 respondents with two children thought the attendance

Potential Parental Factors 107 requirement was not true. Three out of 20 respondents with one child attending the school, four out of 12 with two children attending the school, and one respondent with no children attending the school did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Table 26 Number of Children * Failure to Comply

Variable 4: Grade Level Range. Grade level choices were Pre K, K-2, 3rd-5th, and 6th-8th. Pre K children’s grade level range (see Table 27). The grade level range data is cross tabulated with the respondents’ knowledge of the Oregon Compulsory Attendance Law. Nine respondents had children in Pre K. One out of the nine respondents was sure the attendance requirement was true. Three of the nine respondents thought the requirements were true, and one respondent thought the requirement was not true. Four out of the nine respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not.

Potential Parental Factors 108 Table 27 Pre-K * Failure to Comply

Shown in Table 28, is the data from respondents with children in Kindergarten-2nd grade. Seventeen respondents declared that they had children in this grade level range. Nine out of the 17 respondents were sure that the attendance requirement was true and four out of the 17 respondents thought the attendance requirement was true. Two out of the 17 respondents thought the attendance requirement was not true with two out of the 17 respondent reporting that they did not know if the requirement was true or not true. Table 28 K-2nd * Failure to Comply

Respondents with children in the 3rd-5th grade level (see Table 29) overwhelmingly stated that they were sure or thought the attendance requirement was true. Seven out of the 15 respondents were sure that the attendance requirement was true while five out of the 15 respondents thought the requirement was true. One out of the 15 respondents thought the

Potential Parental Factors 109 attendance requirement was not true, while two out of the 15 respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Table 29 3rd-5th * Failure to Comply

The final grade level range used for the cross tabulation data was respondents with children in 6th-8th grade (see Table 30). Eleven respondents reported having children in the 6th-8th grade level. The majority, seven out of the 11 respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true. Three out of the 11 respondents thought the requirement was true and one respondent did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Table 30 6th-8th * Failure to Comply

Variable 5: Highest Level of Education. Highest level of education choices were grade school, some high school, high school graduate, GED, some college, college graduate, trade school, graduate degree, and decline to answer (see Table 31). Three respondents identified

Potential Parental Factors 110 themselves as grade school graduates. Respondents whose highest level of education was grade school had two out of the three were sure the attendance requirement was true, while one out of three respondents thought the attendance requirement was true. Respondents with the highest level of education of high school graduate reported that 50%, three out of six were sure the attendance requirement was true. One out of the six respondents thought the attendance requirement was true and one out of the six did not think the requirement was true. One out of the six respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Eleven respondents identified themselves as attending some college. Out the respondents that attended some college, four out of 11 were sure the attendance requirement was true, four out of 11 thought the requirements were true, and one respondent thought the attendance requirement was not true. Two out of 11 respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Three respondents stated that their highest level of education was through a trade school. Of the three respondents, one out of three respondents was sure the attendance requirement was true and two out of three respondents thought the attendance requirement was true. Twelve respondents stated they were college graduates. Six out of the 12 respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true, with one out of the 12 respondents who thought the requirement was true. Two out of the 12 respondents thought the attendance requirement was not true and three of the 12 responded that they did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Two respondents reported that they had a graduate degree. One out of two respondents thought the attendance requirement was true and one out of the two respondents did not know if

Potential Parental Factors 111 the attendance requirement was true or not true. One respondent declined to provide their highest level of education, but responded that they did not know if the requirement was true or not true. Table 31 Highest Level of Education * Failure to Comply

Variable 6: Employment Status. Choices presented to respondents were employed fulltime, employed part-time, full-time student, homemaker, retired, unemployed, and declined to answer (see Table 32). Fifteen responded employed full-time. Nine out of 15 respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true. Two out of the 15 respondents answered think this is true. Three out of the 15 respondents marked think this is not true, while one out of the 15 respondents did not know if the attendant requirement was true or not true. Four respondents identified their employment status as employed part-time. Two out of the four respondents marked think this is true. Two out of the four respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true.

Potential Parental Factors 112 Five respondents identified their employment status as a full-time student. One of the five respondents was sure that the attendance requirement was true, while three out of the five respondents thought the requirement was true. One of the five respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Identified as homemaker were eight respondents. Three out of the eight respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true with two out of the eight respondents who marked think this is true. One out of the eight respondents thought the attendance requirement was not true, while two out of the eight respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Two respondents were identified as retired. One out of the two respondents was sure the attendance requirement was true. One out of the two retired respondents marked that he or she did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Four respondents identified their employment status as unemployed. Two out of the four respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true. One out of the four respondents thought the requirement was true, and one out of the four respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Shown in Table 32 are the response data for present employment status.

Potential Parental Factors 113 Table 32 Employment Status * Failure to Comply

Variable 7: Ethnicity. Response choices were African American (Not Latino), Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, Native American, White, Mixed Race, and Decline to answer. Shown in Table 33 is the representation of the data. Thirty-eight parents/guardians responded to the question. The data revealed that there was one out of the 38 respondents who was Native American and thought the attendance requirement was true. Additionally, there was one out of the 38 respondents who was identified themselves as declined to answer who thought the attendance requirement was not true. Two out of the 38 respondents were Asian/Pacific Islander. One of the two respondents was sure that the attendance requirement was true, while the other respondents thought the requirement was not true. Fourteen African Americans responded to the question. Four out of the 14 respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true, while five out of the 14 respondents replied think

Potential Parental Factors 114 this is true. Two out of the 14 respondents thought the attendance requirement was not true. Three out of the 14 respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Thirteen respondents identified themselves as White. Eight out of the 13 respondents were sure the attendance requirement was true. One out of the 13 respondents marked think this is true. Four out of the 13 respondents did not know if the requirement was true or not true. The final identified ethnicity was mixed race. Three parents/guardians identified themselves as mixed race. As shown in Table 33, one of the three respondents was sure the attendance requirement was true. One of the three respondents answered think this is true. One of the three respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Table 33 Ethnicity * Failure to Comply

Question 8C required respondents to identify their knowledge levels of the legal meaning of the word, tardy. The null hypothesis premised that no difference would result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of the definition of the word tardy according to the Oregon Compulsory Education Laws based on each of the seven independent variables.

Potential Parental Factors 115 Parents/guardians were to respond either I’m sure this is true, I think this is true, I think this is not true, I’m sure this is not true, or Do Not Know. Variable 1: Gender. Shown in Table 34, 10 out of the 32 female respondents were sure that the statement on the definition of tardy was true, while one out of the six males were sure that the requirement was true. Thirteen out of the 32 female respondents thought that the attendance requirement was true and five out of the six male respondents thought the attendance requirement was true. Three out of the 32 females thought the requirement was not true. One out of the 32 females was sure the definition of tardy was not true. Five out of the 32 female respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true. Table 34 Gender * Meaning of Tardy

Variable 2: Age Group. Respondent choices were 18-24, 25-34, 35-43, 44-54, 55-64, 65 or over, and decline to answer. Shown in Table 35 is the data for parental age group ranges. The focus was to cross tabulate the parental age group range with the knowledge levels of the Oregon Compulsory Attendance Law pertaining to the definition of tardy. The data revealed that three out of the 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range were sure that the definition of tardy was true, while six out of the 20 in the 35-43 age group range respondents, and two out of the four in the 44-54 age group range were sure that the definition of tardy was true.

Potential Parental Factors 116 When looking at the number of respondents who thought the definition of tardy was true, three out of the 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range, 12 out of the 20 in the 35-43 age group range, two out of the four respondents in the 44-54 age group range, and one out of the two respondents in the 55-64 age group range all stated that they thought the definition of tardy was true. Several of the respondents did not think the definition of tardy was true or did not know if the definition of tardy was true or not true. Two out of the 10 respondents from the 23-34 age group range did not think the tardy definition was true. One out of the 20 respondents from the 35-43 age group range did not think the definition of tardy was true. One out of the 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range, one out of the 20 respondents from the 35-43 age group range, one out of the two respondents from the 55-64 age group range, and one out of one from the 65 or over age group did not know if the definition of tardy was true or not true. One respondent who declined to answer age group range did not know if the definition of tardy was true or not true. Table 35 Age group * Meaning of Tardy

Potential Parental Factors 117 Variable 3: Number of Children at the school. Respondents selected from none, one, two, three, four, or five+. Cross tabulation sought to determine if a difference in parental knowledge levels of the definition of the word tardy according to the Oregon Compulsory Attendance Laws occurred based on the number of children attending the school (see Table 36). Six out of the 20 respondents with one child attending the school were sure that the definition of tardy was true. Three out of the 12 respondents with two children attending the school were sure that the definition of tardy was true, while two out of five respondents with three children attending the school were sure that the definition of tardy was true. Nine out of the 20 respondents with one child thought that the definition of tardy was true. Seven out of the 12 respondents with two children and two out of five respondents with three children all selected the think it is true category. Several respondents thought the definition of tardy was either not true or they did not know if the statement was true or not. Two out of the 20 respondents with one child attending the school and one out of 12 respondents with two children thought the definition of tardy was not true. One out of the 12 respondents with two children was sure the definition of tardy was not true. Three out of the 20 respondents with one child attending the school, one out of the five respondents with two children attending the school, and one respondent with no children attending the school did not know if the definition of tardy was true or not true.

Potential Parental Factors 118 Table 36 Number of Children * Meaning of Tardy

Variable 4: Grade Level Range. Grade level choices were Pre K, K-2, 3rd-5th, and 6th-8th. Pre K children’s grade level range data is shown in Table 37. The grade level range data is cross tabulated with the respondents’ knowledge of the definition of the word tardy according to the Oregon Compulsory Education Law. Nine respondents had children in Pre K. Seven of the nine respondents thought the requirements were true, and one respondent thought the requirement was not true. One out of the nine respondents was sure the definition of the word tardy was not true. Table 37 Pre-K * Meaning of Tardy

Potential Parental Factors 119 Shown in Table 38, reports the data from respondents with children in Kindergarten-2nd grade. Seventeen respondents declared that they had children in this grade level range. Six out of the 17 respondents were sure that the definition of tardy was true and seven out of the 17 respondents thought definition of tardy was true. One out of the 17 respondents thought the definition of tardy was not true with three out of the 17 respondents marked do not know if the definition of tardy was true or not true. Table 38 K-2nd * Meaning of Tardy

Respondents with children in the 3rd-5th grade level (see Table 39) overwhelmingly stated that they were sure or thought the definition of the word tardy was true. Four out of the 15 respondents were sure that the definition of the word tardy was true while seven out of the 15 respondents thought the requirement was true. One out of the 15 respondents thought the definition of the word tardy was not true, while one out of the 15 respondents were sure the definition of the word tardy was not true. Two out of the 15 respondents did not know if the attendance requirement was true or not true.

Potential Parental Factors 120 Table 39 3rd-5th * Meaning of Tardy

The final grade level range used for the cross tabulation data was respondents with children in 6th-8th grade (see Table 40). Eleven respondents who reported having children in the 6th-8th grade level. The majority, six out of the 11 respondents were sure the definition of the word tardy was true. Three out of the 11 respondents thought the definition of the word tardy was true. One out of the 11 respondents thought the definition of the word tardy was not true and one respondent did not know if definition of the word tardy was true or not true. Table 40 6th-8th * Meaning of Tardy

Variable 5: Highest Level of Education. Highest level of education choices were grade school, some high school, high school graduate, GED, some college, college graduate, trade school, graduate degree, and decline to answer (see Table 41). Three respondents identified themselves as grade school graduates. Respondents whose highest level of education was grade

Potential Parental Factors 121 school had two out of the three were sure the definition of the word tardy was true, while one out of three respondents did not know if the definition of the word tardy was true or not true. Respondents with the highest level of education of high school graduate reported that two out of six were sure the definition of the word tardy was true. One out of the six respondents thought the definition of the word tardy was true and three out of the six did not think the definition of the word tardy was true. Twelve respondents identified themselves as attending some college. Out the respondents that attended some college, three out of 12 were sure the definition of the word tardy was true, six out of 12 thought the definition of the word tardy were true, and one respondent was sure the definition of the word tardy was not true. Two out of 12 respondents did not know if the definition of the word tardy was true or not true. Three respondents stated that their highest level of education was through a trade school. Of the three respondents, two out of three respondents were sure the definition of the word tardy was true and one out of three respondents thought the definition of the word tardy was true. Twelve respondents stated that they were college graduates. Three out of the 12 respondents were sure the definition of the word tardy was true, with eight out of the 12 respondents who thought the definition of the word tardy was true. One of the 12 respondents marked do not know. Two respondents reported that they had a graduate degree. One out of two respondents thought the definition of the word tardy was true and one out of the two respondents did not know if the definition of the word tardy was true or not true. One respondent declined to provide their highest level of education, but responded that they thought the definition of the word tardy was true.

Potential Parental Factors 122 Table 41 Highest Level of Education * Meaning of Tardy

Variable 6: Employment Status. Choices presented to respondents were employed full-time, employed part-time, full-time student, homemaker, retired, unemployed, and declined to answer (see Table 42). Fifteen respondents marked employed full-time. Six out of 15 respondents were sure the definition for the word tardy was true. Seven out of the 15 respondents answered think this is true. One out of the 15 respondents marked think this is not true, while one out of the 15 respondents did not know if the definition for the word tardy was true or not true. Four respondents identified their employment status as employed part-time. One out of the four respondents was sure that the definition for the word tardy was true, while one out of the four respondents marked think this is true. One out of the four respondents thought that the definition for the word tardy was not true and out of the four respondents did not know if the definition for the word tardy was true or not true. Five respondents identified their employment status as a full-time student. One of the five respondents was sure that the definition for the word tardy was true, while two out of the five

Potential Parental Factors 123 respondents thought the definition for the word tardy was true. One of the five respondents was sure that the definition for the word tardy was not true and one out of the five respondents did not know if the definition for the word tardy was true or not true. Identified as homemaker were eight respondents. One out of the eight respondents was sure the definition for the word tardy was true with five out of the eight respondents who marked thinks this is true. One out of the eight respondents thought the definition for the word tardy was not true, while one out of the eight respondents did not know if the definition for the word tardy was true or not true. Two respondents were identified as retired. One out of the two respondents thought the definition for the word tardy was true. One out of the two retired respondents marked do not know if the definition for the word tardy was true or not true. Four respondents identified their employment status as unemployed. Two out of the four respondents were sure the definition for the word tardy was true. Two out of the four respondents did not know if the definition for the word tardy was true or not true. Table 42 Employment Status * Meaning of Tardy

Potential Parental Factors 124 Variable 7: Ethnicity. Response choices were African American (Not Latino), Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, Native American, White, Mixed Race, and Decline to answer (see Table 43). Thirty-eight parents/guardians responded to the question. The data revealed that there was one out of the 38 respondents who was Native American and was sure the definition of the word tardy was not true. Additionally, there was one out of the 38 respondents who was identified themselves as declined to answer who thought the attendance requirement was not true. Two out of the 38 respondents were Asian/Pacific Islander. One of the two respondents was sure that the definition of the word tardy was true, while the other respondents thought the definition of the word tardy was not true. Fourteen African Americans responded to the question. Three out of the 14 respondents were sure the definition of the word tardy was true, while six out of the 14 respondents replied think this is true. Two out of the 14 respondents thought the definition of the word tardy was not true. Three out of the 14 respondents did not know if the definition of the word tardy was true or not true. Thirteen respondents identified themselves as White. Five out of the 13 respondents were sure the definition of the word tardy was true. Seven out of the 13 respondents marked think this is true. One out of the 13 respondents did not know if the definition of the word tardy was true or not true. The final identified ethnicity was mixed race. Three parents/guardians identified themselves as mixed race. As shown in Table 43, all three of the three respondents answered think this is true.

Potential Parental Factors 125 Table 43 Ethnicity * Meaning of Tardy

Summary of Findings Related to Hypothesis 1 Null hypothesis 1 of the study sought to determine if a difference existed in parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Laws based on the seven independent variables (gender, age range group, number of children at the school, child’s/children’s grade level, highest level of education, employment status, and ethnicity). Respondents were ask to provide their knowledge level of: a) the requirement for parents to send their child/children to school on a regular full-time basis, b) potential penalties to parents/guardians for not ensuring that their child/children attended school on a regular full-time base, and c) the legal meaning of the word, tardy. The low number of returned surveys prevented the identification of a comparison between all seven of the independent variables. On initial analysis, cross tabulated data on child’s/children’s grade level range revealed that a higher percentage of respondents with children in the 6th-8th grade were sure of the requirement for parents to send their child/children

Potential Parental Factors 126 to school on a regular full-time basis as compared with respondents with children in Pre K, Kindergarden-2nd, or 3rd-5th grade. Parental knowledge levels of potential penalties to parents/guardians for not ensuring that their child/children attended school on a regular full-time base identified a difference between the knowledge levels of Pre K parents/guardians compared to the other grade levels. On the contrary, a higher percentage of Pre K parents/guardians were sure of the legal meaning of the word, tardy compared to other grade level ranges. Research Question Two Research Question 2 sought to determine parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of Overton School’s attendance policy. Question 9A focused on the time the tardy bell rang at Overton School. The null hypothesis premised that no difference would result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of the school’s attendance policy based on each of the seven independent variables. Parents/guardians were to respond Fully Aware, Somewhat Aware, or Not at all Aware. Variable 1: Gender. Shown in Table 44, 28 out of the 32 female respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45, while four out of the six males were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Three out of the 32 female respondents were somewhat aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45 and one out of the six male respondents was somewhat aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. One out of the 32 females was not aware at all that the tardy bell rang at 8:45 with one out of the six male respondents stating that they were not aware at all that the tardy bell rang at 8:45.

Potential Parental Factors 127 Table 44 Gender * When Considered Late

Variable 2: Age Group. Respondent choices were 18-24, 25-34, 35-43, 44-54, 55-64, 65 or over, and decline to answer (see Table 45). The focus was to cross tabulate the parental age group range with the knowledge levels of Overton School’s Attendance Policy. The data revealed that six out of the nine respondents from the 25-34 age group range were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45, while 17 out of the 20 in the 35-43 age group range respondents, and four out of the four in the 44-54 age group, three out of the three respondents in the 55-64 group range were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. One out of one of the 65 or over age range and one out of one who declined to provide the age range were both fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. When looking at the number of respondents somewhat aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45, three out of the nine respondents from the 25-34 age group range and one out of the 20 in the 35-43 age group range were somewhat aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Two out of the 20 respondents from the 35-43 age group range were not aware at all that the tardy bell rang at 8:45.

Potential Parental Factors 128 Table 45 Age Group * When Considered Late

Variable 3: Number of Children at the school. Respondents selected from none, one, two, three, four, or five+. Cross tabulation sought to determine if a difference in parental knowledge levels of the time Overton School’s tardy bell rang based on the number of children attending the school. Sixteen out of the 20 respondents with one child attending the school were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Ten out of the 12 respondents with two children attending the school were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45, while five out of five respondents with three children attending the school were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. The respondent who identifies as having no children at the school was also fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. As shown in Table 46, three out of the 20 respondents with one child was somewhat aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. One out of the 12 respondents with two children was somewhat aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Several respondents were not aware at all that

Potential Parental Factors 129 the tardy bell rang at 8:45. One out of the 20 respondents with one child attending the school and one out of 12 respondents with two children were not aware at all. Table 46 Number of Children * When Considered Late

Variable 4: Grade Level Range. Grade level choices were Pre K, K-2, 3rd-5th, and 6th-8th. Pre K children’s grade level range data is shown in Table 47. The grade level range data is cross tabulated with the respondents’ knowledge of Overton School’s Attendance Policy. Ten respondents had children in Pre K. Eight of the 10 respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45 and two respondents were not aware at all that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Table 47 Pre-K * When Considered Late

Potential Parental Factors 130 As shown in Table 48, the data from respondents with children in Kindergarten-2nd grade as to when a student is considered tardy. Sixteen respondents declared that they had children in this grade level range. Thirteen out of the 16 respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45 and three out of the 16 respondents were not aware at all that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Table 48 K-2nd * When Considered Late

Respondents with children in the 3rd-5th grade level (see Table 49) overwhelmingly (15 out of 16) stated that they were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. One out of the 16 respondents stated that they were somewhat aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Table 49 3rd-5th * When Considered Late

The final grade level range used for the cross tabulation data was respondents with children in 6th-8th grade (see Table 50). There were 10 respondents who reported having children

Potential Parental Factors 131 in the 6th-8th grade level. All respondents, 10 out of the 10, were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Table 50 6th-8th Grade * When Considered Late

Variable 5: Highest Level of Education. Highest level of education choices were grade school, some high school, high school graduate, GED, some college, college graduate, trade school, graduate degree, and decline to answer (see Table 51). Two respondents identified themselves as grade school graduates. Respondents whose highest level of education was grade school had two out of the two fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Respondents with the highest level of education of high school graduate reported that four out of six were fully aware the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Two out of the six respondents were somewhat aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Twelve respondents identified themselves as attending some college. Out the respondents that attended some college, 10 out of 12 were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45, one out of 12 was somewhat aware, and one respondent was not aware at all that the tardy bell rang at 8:45.

Potential Parental Factors 132 Three respondents stated that their highest level of education was through a trade school. Of the three respondents, three out of three respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Twelve respondents stated they were college graduates. Ten out of the 12 respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45, with one out of the 12 respondents who was somewhat aware. One of the 12 responded that they were not aware at all that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Two respondents reported that they had a graduate degree. One out of two respondents was fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45 and one out of the two respondents was not aware at all. One respondent declined to provide their highest level of education, but responded that they were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Table 51 Highest Level of Education * When Considered Late

Variable 6: Employment Status. Choices presented to respondents were employed fulltime, employed part-time, full-time student, homemaker, retired, unemployed, and declined to

Potential Parental Factors 133 answer (see Table 52). Fifteen parents/guardians responded employed full-time. Thirteen out of 15 respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. One out of the 15 respondents answered somewhat aware. One out of the 15 respondents replied not aware at all that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Four respondents identified their employment status as employed part-time. Two out of the four respondents was fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45; while one out of the four respondents marked somewhat aware. One out of the four respondents was not aware at all that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Five respondents identified their employment status as a full-time student. All five of the respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Identified as homemaker were seven respondents. Five out of the seven respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Two out of the seven respondents were somewhat aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Three respondents were identified as retired. All three of the respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Four respondents identified their employment status as unemployed. All four of the respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Shown in Table 52 is the response data for present employment status.

Potential Parental Factors 134 Table 52 Employment Status * When Considered Late

Variable 7: Ethnicity. Response choices were African American (Not Latino), Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, Native American, White, Mixed Race, and Decline to answer (see Table 53). Thirty-eight parents/guardians responded to the question. The data revealed that there was one out of the 38 respondents who was Native American and was fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Additionally, there was one out of the 38 respondents who was identified themselves as declined to answer who was somewhat aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Two out of the 38 respondents were Asian/Pacific Islander. Both (two out of two) respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Fourteen African Americans responded to the question. Twelve out of the 14 respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Two out of the 14 respondents were somewhat aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45.

Potential Parental Factors 135 Thirteen respondents identified themselves as White. Eleven out of the 13 respondents were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Two out of the 13 respondents was not aware at all that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. The final identified ethnicity was mixed race. Four parents/guardians identified themselves as mixed race. As shown in Table 53, all four of the respondents answered that they were fully aware that the tardy bell rang at 8:45. Table 53 Ethnicity * When Considered Late

Question 9B focused on the incentives students received for perfect attendance at Overton School. The null hypothesis premised that no difference would result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of the school’s attendance policy based on each of the seven independent variables. Parents/guardians were to respond Fully Aware, Somewhat Aware, or Not at all Aware. Variable 1: Gender. Shown in Table 54, 18 out of the 32 female respondents were fully aware of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance, while two out of the

Potential Parental Factors 136 six males were fully aware. Six out of the 32 female respondents were somewhat aware of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance and three out of the six male respondents were somewhat aware. Eight out of the 32 females were not aware at all of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance. One out of the six males was not aware at all of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance. Table 54 Gender * Knowledge of Incentives

Variable 2: Age Group. Respondent choices were 18-24, 25-34, 35-43, 44-54, 55-64, 65 or over, and decline to answer. The focus was to cross tabulate the parental age group range with the knowledge levels of Overton School’s Attendance Policy (see Table 55). The data revealed that five out of the 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range were fully aware of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance, while 10 out of the 20 in the 35-43 age group range respondents, and two out of the four in the 44-54 age group, one out of the two respondents in the 55-64 age group range were fully aware of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance. One out of one of the 65 or over age range and one out of one who declined to provide the age range were both fully aware of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 137 When looking at the number of respondents somewhat aware of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance; one out of the 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range and six out of the 20 in the 35-43 age group range were somewhat aware of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance. One out of the four respondents from the 44-54 age group range and one out of two respondents from the 55-64 age group range were also fully aware of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance. Four out of 10 of the respondents from the 25-34 age group range and four out of the 20 respondents from the 35-43 age group range were not aware at all of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance. One respondent out of four from the 44-54 age group range was not aware at all of the incentives students received for maintaining perfect attendance. Table 55 Age Group * Knowledge of Incentives

Variable 3: Number of Children at the school. Respondents selected from none, one, two, three, four, or five+. Cross tabulation sought to determine if a difference in parental knowledge

Potential Parental Factors 138 levels of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance based on the number of children attending the school (see Table 56). Eleven out of the 20 respondents with one child attending the school were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Five out of the 12 respondents with two children attending the school were fully aware, while three out of five respondents with three children attending the school were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. The respondent who identifies as having no children at the school was also fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. As shown in Table 56, three out of the 20 respondents with one child was somewhat aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Four out of the 12 respondents with two children was somewhat aware, and two out of the five respondents with three children attending the school were somewhat aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Six out of the 20 respondents with one child attending the school and three out of 12 respondents with two children were not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 139 Table 56 Number of Children * Knowledge of Incentives

Variable 4: Grade Level Range. Grade level choices were Pre K, K-2, 3rd-5th, and 6th-8th. Pre K children’s grade level range data is shown in Table 57. The grade level range data is cross tabulated with the respondents’ knowledge levels of Overton School’s Attendance Policy. Nine respondents had children in Pre K. One of the nine respondents was fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. One respondent out of the nine respondents was somewhat aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance and seven of the nine respondents not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 140 Table 57 Pre-K * Knowledge of Incentives

As Shown in Table 58, there were 17 respondents represented in the data from respondents with children in Kindergarten-2nd grade. Ten out of the 17 respondents were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Five out of the 17 respondents were somewhat aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance and two out of the 17 respondents were not aware at all. Table 58 K-2nd * Knowledge of Incentives

Fifteen respondents had children in the 3rd-5th grade level (see Table 59). Seven out of the 15 respondents stated that they were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Six out of the 15 respondents stated that they were somewhat aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Two out of the 15

Potential Parental Factors 141 respondents were not at all aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Table 59 3rd-5th * Knowledge of Incentives

The final grade level range used for the cross tabulation data was respondents with children in 6th-8th grade (see Table 60). Eleven respondents reported having children in the 6th-8th grade level. Eight out of the 11 respondents were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Two out of the 11 respondents were somewhat aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance and one out of the 11 respondents was not at all aware. Table 60 6th-8th * Knowledge of Incentives

Variable 5: Highest Level of Education. Highest level of education choices were grade school, some high school, high school graduate, GED, some college, college graduate, trade

Potential Parental Factors 142 school, graduate degree, and decline to answer (see Table 61). Three respondents identified themselves as grade school graduates. Respondents whose highest level of education was grade school had two out of the three fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance and one out of the three respondents somewhat aware. Respondents with the highest level of education of high school graduate reported that five out of six were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. One out of the six respondents was not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Eleven respondents identified themselves as attending some college. Out the respondents that attended some college, four out of 11 were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance, six out of 11 was somewhat aware, and one respondent was not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Three respondents stated that their highest level of education was through a trade school. Of the three respondents, one out of three respondents was fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. One out of three was somewhat aware, and one out of the three respondents was not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Twelve respondents stated they were college graduates. Seven out of the 12 respondents were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance, with one out of the 12 respondents who was somewhat aware. Four of the 12 responded that they were not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Two respondents reported that they had a graduate degree. One out of two respondents was fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance and one out

Potential Parental Factors 143 of the two respondents was not aware at all. One respondent declined to provide their highest level of education, but responded that they were not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Table 61 Highest Level of Education * Knowledge of Incentives

Variable 6: Employment Status. Choices presented to respondents were employed fulltime, employed part-time, full-time student, homemaker, retired, unemployed, and declined to answer (see Table 62). Fifteen parents/guardians responded employed full-time. Ten out of 15 respondents were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Three out of the 15 respondents answered that they were somewhat aware. Two out of the 15 respondents replied that they were not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Four respondents identified their employment status as employed part-time. Two out of the four respondents was fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect

Potential Parental Factors 144 attendance. Two out of the four respondents was not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Five respondents identified their employment status as a full-time student. Three out of the five respondents were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. One out of five of the respondents were somewhat aware and one respondent was not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Identified as homemaker were eight respondents. Three out of the eight respondents were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Three out of the eight respondents were somewhat aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Two out of the eight respondents were not aware at all. Two respondents were identified as retired. One out of the two respondents was fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. One of the two respondents was somewhat aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Four respondents identified their employment status as unemployed. One of the four respondents was fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. One out of the four respondents was somewhat aware. Two out of the four respondents was not at all aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 145 Table 62 Employment Status * Knowledge of Incentives

Variable 7: Ethnicity. Response choices were African American (Not Latino), Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, Native American, White, Mixed Race, and Decline to answer (see Table 63). Thirty-eight parents/guardians responded to the question. The data revealed that there was one out of the 38 respondents who was Native American and was not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Additionally, there was one out of the 38 respondents who was identified themselves as declined to answer who was fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Two out of the 38 respondents were Asian/Pacific Islander. One of the two respondents was fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance, while one out of the two respondents not aware at all. Fourteen African Americans responded to the question. Eight out of the 14 respondents were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Four out

Potential Parental Factors 146 of the 14 respondents were somewhat aware and two out of the 14 respondents were not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Thirteen respondents identified themselves as White. Five out of the 13 respondents were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. Three out of the 13 respondents were somewhat aware. Five out of the 13 respondents was not aware at all of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. The final identified ethnicity was mixed race. Three parents/guardians identified themselves as mixed race. As shown in Table 63, two out of the three respondents answered that they were fully aware of the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance. One out of the three respondents was somewhat aware. Table 63 Ethnicity * Knowledge of Incentives

Question 9C focused on the yellow cards for a free book incentive. The null hypothesis premised that no difference would result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of the yellow

Potential Parental Factors 147 cards for a free book incentive based on each of the seven independent variables. Parents/guardians were to respond either: Fully Aware, Somewhat Aware, or Not at all Aware. Variable 1: Gender. As shown in Table 64, 14 out of the 32 female respondents were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive, while two out of the six males were fully aware. Five out of the 32 female respondents were somewhat aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive and one out of the six male respondents was somewhat aware. Thirteen out of the 32 females were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Three out of the six males was not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Table 64 Gender * Yellow Cards

Variable 2: Age Group. Respondent choices were 18-24, 25-34, 35-43, 44-54, 55-64, 65 or over, and decline to answer (see Table 65). The focus was to cross tabulate the parental age group range with the knowledge levels of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. The data revealed that three out of the 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive, while nine out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range respondents, and two out of the four in the 44-54 age group, one out of two respondents in the 55-64 age group range were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book

Potential Parental Factors 148 incentive. One out of one who declined to provide the age range was fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. When looking at the number of respondents somewhat aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive; two out of 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range and three out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range were somewhat aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. One out of the four respondents from the 44-54 age group range was also fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Five out of 10 of the respondents from the 25-34 age group range and eight out of 20 respondents from the 35-43 age group range were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. One respondent out of four from the 44-54 age group range, one out of two from the 55-64 age group range, and one out of one from the 65 or over age group range was not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Table 65 Age Group * Yellow Cards

Variable 3: Number of Children at the school. Respondents selected from none, one, two, three, four, or five+. Cross tabulation sought to determine if a difference in parental knowledge

Potential Parental Factors 149 levels of the yellow cards for a free book incentive based on the number of children attending the school (see Table 66). Nine out of 20 respondents with one child attending the school were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Four out of 12 respondents with two children attending the school were fully aware, while three out of five respondents with three children attending the school were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. As shown in Table 66, three out of 20 respondents with one child were somewhat aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Two out of 12 respondents with two children were somewhat aware, and one out of five respondents with three children attending the school was somewhat aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Eight out of 20 respondents with one child attending the school, six out of 12 respondents with two children, and one out of five respondents with three children attending the school were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. The respondent who was identified as having no children at the school was not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Table 66 Number of Children * Yellow Cards Q3. How many children at Overton? Q9C. Three Yellow cards for free book Cross tabulation

Potential Parental Factors 150 Variable 4: Grade Level Range. Grade level choices were Pre K, K-2, 3rd-5th, and 6th-8th. Pre K children’s grade level range data are shown in Table 67. Nine respondents had children in Pre K. Nine of the nine respondents were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Table 67 Pre-K * Yellow Cards

Shown in Table 68 is the data from respondents with children in Kindergarten-2nd grade. Seventeen respondents declared that they had children in this grade level range. Eight out of the 17 respondents were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Four out of 17 respondents were somewhat aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive and five out of 17 respondents were not aware at all. Table 68 K-2nd * Yellow Cards

Potential Parental Factors 151 Fifteen respondents had children in the 3rd-5th grade level (see Table 69). Seven out of the 15 respondents stated that they were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Three out of the 15 respondents stated that they were somewhat aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Five out of the 15 respondents were not at all aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Table 69 3rd-5th * Yellow Cards

The final grade level range used for the cross tabulation data was respondents with children in 6th-8th grade (see Table 70). Eleven respondents reported having children in the 6th-8th grade level. Eight out of the 11 respondents were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. One out of the 11 respondents was somewhat aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive and two out of the 11 respondents were not at all aware. Table 70 6th-8th * Yellow Cards

Potential Parental Factors 152 Variable 5: Highest Level of Education. Highest level of education choices were grade school, some high school, high school graduate, GED, some college, college graduate, trade school, graduate degree, and decline to answer (see Table 71). Three respondents identified themselves as grade school graduates. Respondents whose highest level of education was grade school had three out of three fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Respondents with the highest level of education of high school graduate reported that four out of six were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. One out of the six respondents was somewhat aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. One out of the six respondents was not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Eleven respondents identified themselves as attending some college. Out the respondents that attended some college, three out of 11 were fully aware of yellow cards for a free book incentive. Three out of 11 respondents were somewhat aware, and five respondents were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Three respondents stated that their highest level of education was through a trade school. Of the three respondents, one out of three respondents was fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Two out of the three respondents were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Twelve respondents stated they were college graduates. Five out of the 12 respondents were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive, with two out of the 12 respondents somewhat aware. Five of the 12 responded that they were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Two respondents reported that they had a graduate degree. Both respondents, two out of the two, were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. One respondent

Potential Parental Factors 153 declined to provide their highest level of education, but responded that they were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Table 71 Highest Level of Education * Yellow Cards

Variable 6: Employment Status. Choices presented to respondents were employed fulltime, employed part-time, full-time student, homemaker, retired, unemployed, and declined to answer. Fifteen parents/guardians responded employed full-time (see Table 72). Nine out of 15 respondents were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Two out of the 15 respondents answered that they were somewhat aware. Four out of the 15 respondents replied that they were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Four respondents identified their employment status as employed part-time. One out of four respondents was fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Three out of four respondents was not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive.

Potential Parental Factors 154 Five respondents identified their employment status as a full-time student. Two out of five respondents were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Two out of five respondents were somewhat aware and one respondent was not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Identified as homemaker were eight respondents. Three out of the eight respondents were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Two out of the eight respondents were somewhat aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Three out of the eight respondents were not aware at all. Two respondents were identified as retired. Both respondents, two out of two, stated that they were not at all aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Four respondents identified their employment status as unemployed. One of the four respondents was fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Three out of the four respondents were not at all aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Table 72 Employment Status * Yellow Cards

Potential Parental Factors 155 Variable 7: Ethnicity. Response choices were African American (Not Latino), Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, Native American, White, Mixed Race, and Decline to answer (see Table 73). Thirty-eight parents/guardians responded to the question. The data revealed that there was one out of the 38 respondents who was Native American and was not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. One out of the 38 respondents identified themselves as declined to answer who was fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Two out of the 38 respondents were Asian/Pacific Islander. One of the two respondents was fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive, while one out of two respondents not aware at all. Fourteen African Americans responded to the question. Seven out of the 14 respondents were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Three out of the 14 respondents were somewhat aware and four out of the 14 respondents were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Thirteen respondents identified themselves as White. Four out of the 13 respondents were fully aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. Nine out of the 13 respondents were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. The final identified ethnicity was mixed race. Three parents/guardians identified themselves as mixed race. As shown in Table 73, two out of the three respondents answered that they were somewhat aware of the yellow cards for a free book incentive. One out of the three respondents was not at all aware.

Potential Parental Factors 156 Table 73 Ethnicity * Yellow Cards

Summary of Findings Related to Hypothesis 2 Null hypothesis 2 of the study sought to determine if a difference existed in parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels of Overton’s school-wide attendance program based on the seven independent variables (gender, age range group, number of children at the school, child’s/children’s grade level, highest level of education, employment status, and ethnicity). Respondents were ask to provide their knowledge level of: a) the time the tardy bell rings, b) the incentives students receive for maintaining perfect attendance, and c) Overton’s yellow cards for a free book incentive program. Pertaining to the time the tardy bell rings, the majority, six out of the seven variables, showed little to no difference in parental knowledge levels. When looking at the employment status, only 50% of parents/guardians employed part time and 71.4% of the homemakers were fully aware of the time the tardy bell rang. Question 9B asked parents/guardians to share their knowledge levels of the incentive program. Differences in parental knowledge levels was shown in student grade levels with more

Potential Parental Factors 157 parents/guardians with children in the 6th-8th grade level being aware of the program compared to parents/guardians with children in the lower grade levels. A lower percentage of parents/guardians who were unemployed or homemakers were aware of the program. Ethnicity produced another difference in parental knowledge level. 57.1% of African American parents/guardians were fully aware of the incentive program, while only 38.5% of Whites parents/guardians being fully aware of the incentive program. Research Question Three Research Question Three required parents/guardians to provide their knowledge levels on the affects students’ absenteeism had on academic performance. The null hypothesis premised that no difference would result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels knowledge levels of parents/guardians at Overton regarding the relationship between student attendance and student achievement based on each of the seven independent variables. Question 10A sought to determine parents’/guardians’ attitude on the statement that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Parents/guardians were to respond Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Do Not Know. Table 74 displays the data. Variable 1: Gender. Respondents’ choices were male or female. As shown in Table 74, 20 out of 32 female respondents strongly agreed that vital learning is missed when students are absent, while five out of six males strongly agreed. Eleven out of 32 female respondents agreed that vital learning is missed when students are absent and one out of six male respondents agreed. One of the 32 female respondents disagreed that vital learning is missed when students are absent.

Potential Parental Factors 158 Table 74 Gender * Vital Learning Missed When Absent

Variable 2: Age Group. Respondent choices were 18-24, 25-34, 35-43, 44-54, 55-64, 65 or over, and decline to answer. Shown in Table 75 is the data for parental age group ranges. The focus was to cross tabulate the parental age group range with their attitude on the statement that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. The data revealed that seven out of the 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Thirteen out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range respondents, four out of the four in the 44-54 age group, and one out of one respondents in the 65 or over age group range strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. When looking at the number of respondents who agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school; three out of 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range and seven out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. One out of two respondents from the 55-64 age group range and one out of one who declined to provide their age group range agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. One out of two from the 55-64

Potential Parental Factors 159 age group range disagreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Table 75 Age Group * Vital Learning Missed When Absent

Variable 3: Number of Children at the school. Respondents selected from none, one, two, three, four, or five+. Cross tabulation sought to determine if a difference in parental attitudes on the statement that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school (see Table 76). Thirteen out of 20 respondents with one child attending the school strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Ten out of 12 respondents with two children attending the school strongly agreed, while one out of five respondents with three children attending the school strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. The respondent identified as having no children at the school strongly agreed with the statement.

Potential Parental Factors 160 As shown in Table 76, six out of 20 respondents with one child agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Two out of 12 respondents with two children agreed, and four out of five respondents with three children attending the school agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. One out of 20 respondents with one child attending the school disagreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Table 76 Number of Children * Vital Learning Missed When Absent

Variable 4: Grade Level Range. Grade level choices were Pre K, K-2, 3rd-5th, and 6th-8th. Pre K children’s grade level range data is shown in Table 77. Nine respondents had children in Pre K. Four out of the nine respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Five out of the nine respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school.

Potential Parental Factors 161 Table 77 Pre-K * Vital Learning Missed When Absent

Shown in Table 78 is the data from respondents with children in Kindergarten-2nd grade. Seventeen respondents declared that they had children in this grade level range. Twelve out of the 17 respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Four out of 17 respondents agreed and one out of 17 respondents disagreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Table 78 K-2nd * Vital Learning Missed When Absent

Fifteen respondents had children in the 3rd-5th grade level (see Table 79). Ten out of the 15 respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Five out of the 15 respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school.

Potential Parental Factors 162 Table 79 3rd-5th * Vital Learning Missed When Absent

The final grade level range used for the cross tabulation data was respondents with children in 6th-8th grade (see Table 80). Eleven respondents reported having children in the 6th-8th grade level. Seven out of the 11 respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Four out of 11 respondents agreed. Table 80 displays the results. Table 80 6th-8th * Vital Learning Missed When Absent

Variable 5: Highest Level of Education. Highest level of education choices were grade school, some high school, high school graduate, GED, some college, college graduate, trade school, graduate degree, and decline to answer (see Table 81). Three respondents identified themselves as grade school graduates. Two out of three strongly agreed that vital learning

Potential Parental Factors 163 opportunities are missed when students are not in school. One out of the three respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Respondents with the highest level of education of high school graduate reported that five out of six strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. One out of the six respondents agreed with the statement. Eleven respondents identified themselves as attending some college. Out the respondents that attended some college, seven out of 11 were strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Three out of 11 respondents agreed, and one out of 11 respondents disagreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Three respondents stated that their highest level of education was through a trade school. Of the three respondents, two out of three respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. One out of the three respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Twelve respondents stated that they were college graduates. Eight out of the 12 respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Four of the 12 responded that they agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Two respondents reported that they had a graduate degree. One out of the two respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. One out of two respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. One respondent declined to provide their highest level of education,

Potential Parental Factors 164 but responded that they agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Table 81 Highest Level of Education * Vital Learning Missed When Absent

Variable 6: Employment Status. Choices presented to respondents were employed fulltime, employed part-time, full-time student, homemaker, retired, unemployed, and declined to answer (see Table 82). Fifteen parents/guardians responded employed full-time. Thirteen out of 15 respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. One out of the 15 respondents answered that they agreed with the statement. One out of the 15 respondents replied that they disagreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Four respondents identified their employment status as employed part-time. Two out of four respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are

Potential Parental Factors 165 not in school. Two out of four respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Five respondents identified their employment status as a full-time student. One out of five respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Four out of five respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Identified as homemaker were eight respondents. Five out of the eight respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Three out of the eight respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Two respondents were identified as retired. One out of two respondents stated that they strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. One out of two respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Four respondents identified their employment status as unemployed. Three of the four respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. One out of the four respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school.

Potential Parental Factors 166 Table 82 Employment Status * Vital Learning Missed When Absent

Variable 7: Ethnicity. Response choices were African American (Not Latino), Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, Native American, White, Mixed Race, and Decline to answer (see Table 83). Thirty-eight parents/guardians responded to the question. The data revealed that there was one out of the 38 respondents who was Native American and strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Additionally, one out of the 38 respondents declined to provide their ethnicity and strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Two out of the 38 respondents were Asian/Pacific Islander. Both respondents, two out of two, strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Fourteen African Americans responded to the question. Nine out of the 14 respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Four out of the 14 respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are

Potential Parental Factors 167 not in school. One out of the 14 respondents disagreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Thirteen respondents identified themselves as White. Nine out of the 13 respondents strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Four out of the 13 respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. The final identified ethnicity was mixed race. Three parents/guardians identified themselves as mixed race. As shown in Table 83, one out of the three respondents answered strongly agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Two out of the three respondents agreed that vital learning opportunities are missed when students are not in school. Table 83 Ethnicity * Vital Learning Missed When Absent

Potential Parental Factors 168 Question 10B sought to identify parental knowledge of the relationship between parental attitudes on attendance and their child’s/children’s value of school attendance. Parents/guardians were to respond Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Do Not Know. Variable 1: Gender. Respondents’ choices were male or female. Shown in Table 84, 26 out of 32 female respondents strongly agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance while three out of six males strongly agreed. Six out of 32 female respondents agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance and three out of six male respondents agreed. Table 84 Gender * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes

Variable 2: Age Group. Respondent choices were 18-24, 25-34, 35-43, 44-54, 55-64, 65 or over, and decline to answer. The focus was to cross tabulate the parental age group range with their attitude on the statement that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance (see Table 85). The data revealed that eight out of the 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range strongly agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Seventeen out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range respondents, two out of the four in the 44-54

Potential Parental Factors 169 age group, one out of two respondents from the 55-64 age group range, and one out of one respondents in the 65 or over age group range strongly agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. When looking at the number of respondents who agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance; two out of 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range and three out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. One out of two respondents from the 55-64 age group range and one out of one who declined to provide their age group range agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Table 85 Age Group * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes

Variable 3: Number of Children at the school. Respondents selected from none, one, two, three, four, or five+. Cross tabulation sought to determine if a difference in parental attitudes on

Potential Parental Factors 170 the statement parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance (see Table 86). Sixteen out of 20 respondents with one child attending the school strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Eleven out of 12 respondents with two children attending the school strongly agreed, while one out of five respondents with three children attending the school strongly agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. The respondent identified as having no children at the school strongly agreed with the statement. As shown in Table 86, four out of 20 respondents with one child agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. One out of 12 respondents with two children agreed, and four out of five respondents with three children attending the school agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Table 86 Number of Children * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes

Variable 4: Grade Level Range. Grade level choices were Pre K, K-2, 3rd-5th, and 6th-8th. Pre K children’s grade level range data is shown in Table 87. Nine respondents had children in Pre K. Seven out of the nine respondents strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance

Potential Parental Factors 171 influences how the child values attendance. Two out of the nine respondents agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Table 87 Pre-K * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes

Shown in Table 88 is the data from respondents with children in Kindergarten-2nd grade. Seventeen respondents declared that they had children in this grade level range. Thirteen out of the 17 respondents strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Four out of 17 respondents agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Table 88 K-2nd * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes

Fifteen respondents had children in the 3rd-5th grade level. Ten out of the 15 respondents strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance (see Table 89). Five out of the 15 respondents agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 172 Table 89 3rd-5th * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes

Eleven respondents reported having children in the 6th-8th grade level (see Table 90). Eight out of the 11 respondents strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Three out of 11 respondents agreed. Table 90 6th-8th * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes

Variable 5: Highest Level of Education. Highest level of education choices were grade school, some high school, high school graduate, GED, some college, college graduate, trade school, graduate degree, and decline to answer (see Table 91). Three respondents identified themselves as grade school graduates. Two out of three strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. One out of the three respondents agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 173 Respondents with the highest level of education of high school graduate reported that five out of six strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. One out of the six respondents agreed with the statement. Eleven respondents identified themselves as attending some college. Out the respondents that attended some college, eight out of 11 strongly agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Three out of 11 respondents agreed with the statement. Three respondents stated that their highest level of education was through a trade school. All, three out of three, of the respondents strongly agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Twelve respondents stated that they were college graduates. Eight out of the 12 respondents strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Four of the 12 responded that they agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Two respondents reported that they had a graduate degree. Two out of the two respondents strongly agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. One respondent declined to provide their highest level of education, but responded that they strongly agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 174 Table 91 Highest Level of Education * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes

Variable 6: Employment Status. Choices presented to respondents were employed fulltime, employed part-time, full-time student, homemaker, retired, unemployed, and declined to answer. Fifteen parents/guardians responded employed full-time (see Table 92). Thirteen out of 15 respondents strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Two out of the 15 respondents answered that they agreed with the statement. Four respondents identified their employment status as employed part-time. Four out of four respondents strongly agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Five respondents identified their employment status as a full-time student. One out of five respondents strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values

Potential Parental Factors 175 attendance. Four out of five respondents agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Eight respondents were identified as homemaker. Six out of the eight respondents strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Two out of the eight respondents agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Two respondents were identified as retired. One out of two respondents stated that they strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. One out of two respondents agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Four respondents identified their employment status as unemployed. Four of the four respondents strongly agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Table 92 Employment Status * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes

Potential Parental Factors 176 Variable 7: Ethnicity. Response choices were African American (Not Latino), Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, Native American, White, Mixed Race, and Decline to answer (see Table 93). Thirty-eight parents/guardians responded to the question. The data revealed that there was one out of the 38 respondents who was Native American and strongly agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. One out of the 38 respondents declined to provide their ethnicity and strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Two out of the 38 respondents were Asian/Pacific Islander. One out of two of the respondents strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. One out of two agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance Fourteen African Americans responded to the question. Eleven out of the 14 respondents strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Three out of the 14 respondents agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Thirteen respondents identified themselves as White. Eleven out of the 13 respondents strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Two out of the 13 respondents agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. Three parents/guardians identified themselves as mixed race. As shown in Table 93, two out of the three respondents answered that they strongly agreed parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance. One out of the three respondents agreed that parental attitudes on attendance influences how the child values attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 177 Table 93 Ethnicity * The Influence of Parents’ Attitudes

Question 10C asked respondents to identify their knowledge level of the relationship between parental involvement in their child’s/children’s school and the child’s/children’s behavior in school. Parents/guardians were to respond Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, or Do Not Know. Variable 1: Gender. Respondents’ choices were male or female. As shown in Table 94, 27 out of 33 female respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior, while five out of six males strongly agreed. Six out of 33 female respondents agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior and one out of six male respondents agreed.

Potential Parental Factors 178 Table 94 Gender * Increase in Parental Involvement

Variable 2: Age Group. Respondent choices were 18-24, 25-34, 35-43, 44-54, 55-64, 65 or over, and decline to answer. The focus was to cross tabulate the parental age group range with their attitude on the statement that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior (see Table 95). The data revealed that seven out of the 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Eighteen out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range respondents, four out of four in the 44-54 age group, two out of two respondents from the 55-64 age group range, and one out of one respondents in the 65 or over age group range strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. When looking at the number of respondents who agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior; three out of 10 respondents from the 25-34 age group range and two out of 20 in the 35-43 age group range agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. One out of two respondents from the 55-64 age group

Potential Parental Factors 179 range and one out of one who declined to provide their age group range both agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Table 95 Age Group * Increase in Parental Involvement

Variable 3: Number of Children at the school. Respondents selected from none, one, two, three, four, or five+. Cross tabulation sought to determine if a difference in parental attitudes on the statement that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior (see Table 96). Fifteen out of 20 respondents with one child attending the school strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Thirteen out of 13 respondents with two children attending the school strongly agreed, while three out of five respondents with three children attending the school strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. The respondent identified as having no children at the school strongly agreed with the statement.

Potential Parental Factors 180 As shown in Table 96, five out of 20 respondents with one child agreed an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two out of five respondents with three children attending the school agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Table 96 Number of Children * Increase in Parental Involvement

Variable 4: Grade Level Range. Grade level choices were Pre K, K-2, 3rd-5th, and 6th-8th. Pre K children’s grade level range data is shown in Table 97. Ten respondents had children in Pre K. Ten out of the 10 respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Table 97 Pre-K * Increase in Parental Involvement

Potential Parental Factors 181 Shown in Table 98 is the data from respondents with children in Kindergarten-2nd grade. Seventeen respondents declared that they had children in this grade level range. Eleven out of the 17 respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Six out of 17 respondents agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Table 98 K-2nd * Increase in Parental Involvement

Sixteen respondents had children in the 3rd-5th grade level (see Table 99). Fourteen out of the 16 respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two out of the 16 respondents agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Table 99 3rd-5th * Increase in Parental Involvement

Potential Parental Factors 182 The final grade level range used for the cross tabulation data was respondents with children in 6th-8th grade (see Table 100). Eleven respondents reported having children in the 6th8th grade level. Nine out of the 11 respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two out of 11 respondents agreed. Table 100 6th-8th * Increase in Parental Involvement

Variable 5: Highest Level of Education. Highest level of education choices were grade school, some high school, high school graduate, GED, some college, college graduate, trade school, graduate degree, and decline to answer (see Table 101). Three respondents identified themselves as grade school graduates. Two out of three strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. One out of the three respondents agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Respondents with the highest level of education of high school graduate reported that four out of six strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two out of the six respondents agreed with the statement. Twelve respondents identified themselves as attending some college. Out the respondents that attended some college, 10 out of 12 strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two out of 12 respondents agreed with the statement.

Potential Parental Factors 183 Three respondents stated that their highest level of education was through a trade school. All, three out of three, of the respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Twelve respondents stated that they were college graduates. Ten out of the 12 respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two of the 12 responded that they agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two respondents reported that they had a graduate degree. Two out of the two respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. One respondent declined to provide their highest level of education, but responded that they strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Table 101 Highest Level of Education * Increase in Parental Involvement

Potential Parental Factors 184 Variable 6: Employment Status. Choices presented to respondents were employed fulltime, employed part-time, full-time student, homemaker, retired, unemployed, and declined to answer. Fifteen parents/guardians responded employed full-time (see Table 102). Thirteen out of 15 respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two out of the 15 respondents answered that they agreed with the statement. Four respondents identified their employment status as employed part-time. Three out of four respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. One out of four respondents agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Five respondents identified their employment status as a full-time student. Three out of five respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two out of five respondents agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Eight respondents were identified as homemaker. Six out of the eight respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two out of the eight respondents agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two respondents were identified as retired. Two out of two respondents stated that they strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Four respondents identified their employment status as unemployed. Four of the four respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior.

Potential Parental Factors 185 Table 102 Employment Status * Increase in Parental Involvement

Variable 7: Ethnicity. Response choices were African American (Not Latino), Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, Native American, White, Mixed Race, and Decline to answer (see Table 103). Thirty-eight parents/guardians responded to the question. The data revealed that there was one out of the 38 respondents who was Native American and strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. One out of the 38 respondents declined to provide their ethnicity and agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Two out of the 38 respondents were Asian/Pacific Islander. Two out of two of the respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Fourteen African Americans responded to the question. Ten out of the 14 respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Four out of the 14 respondents agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior.

Potential Parental Factors 186 Thirteen respondents identified themselves as White. Thirteen out of the 13 respondents strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Four parents/guardians identified themselves as mixed race. As shown in Table 103, four out of the four respondents answered that they strongly agreed that an increase in parental involvement improves student behavior. Table 103 Ethnicity * Increase in Parental Involvement

Summary of Findings for Hypothesis 3 The final hypothesis sought to determine a difference in parent attitudes concerning the relationship between attendance and achievement. The majority of parents/guardians either strongly agreed or agreed one all three questions demonstrating a slight variance in parental attitudes. Only 50% of the Latino parents/guardians believed that an increase in parental involvement improved student behavior and student attendance.

Potential Parental Factors 187 Summary Chapter 4 included an analysis of the data derived from the survey information culled from the participants of the study’s sample population. Out of the 240 parents/guardians provided with the opportunity to complete and return the survey, 39 completed surveys were gathered to include in the study. A review of the research method and design, the procedures utilized for data collection and analysis as well as the overall findings was included in this chapter. Data analysis was separated into three sections: 1) Parents’/guardians’ demographic data, 2) descriptive data of parental knowledge, understanding, and attitudes, and 3) inferential data, related to the null hypotheses for the three guiding research questions based on the six independent variables of the parental demographic characteristics. Frequency and percentages were used as statistical testing elements for the study. The focus of this quantitative, descriptive study was to examine potential parental factors that might hinder student attendance by identifying differences in parental knowledge levels based on seven demographic characteristics. Data analysis primarily supported null hypotheses 1 and 3 as the data indicated very little differences in parental knowledge levels. Data analysis revealed differences in parental knowledge levels of Overton School’s attendance policy, thus rejecting null hypothesis 2. Chapter 5 will include interpretive aspects of the research findings including a conclusion and recommendations for future research. Unforeseen finding results, the study benefits, implications for the field of educational, and the benefits the study has for leadership will be included in chapter 5.

Potential Parental Factors 188 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive study was to examine potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance by evaluating parental knowledge levels based on seven demographic characteristics. The potential participants were delimited to the parents/guardians of the 240 students at an inner-city, high poverty, high minority, PreK-8th grade school in Portland, Oregon. The study used a 21-item survey created specifically for this study. The sampling procedures collected a sampling frame of 39 parents/guardians who completed and returned the survey. Chapter 1 established the topic of the study and introduced the affect parental factors had on student attendance. The background, purpose and statement of the problem were established and presented. Schools throughout the United States are searching for strategies and techniques to improve student attendance in order to comply with the demands of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Sheldon, 2007). Not only is school absenteeism detrimental to school funding, student absenteeism hinders student achievement (Gottfried, M., 2009). The theoretical framework that guided this current research study focused on successful interventions developed by schools to increase student attendance and the identification of additional potential interventions. The need for increased parental involvement in their child’s school was established by several researchers as one method to increase student attendance. Sheldon (2007) found that schools with a strong family involvement program saw an improvement in student attendance. Chapter 2 presented research on the need for and the development of compulsory education laws. The introduction of compulsory education laws strove to ―ensure both that educational services are provided and that students take advantage of those services (Christie,

Potential Parental Factors 189 2006, p. 485). The identification of potential hindrances to student attendance and possible reasons students were truant was a main focus of the literature review. A review of the literature demonstrated how the introduction of compulsory laws decreased student absenteeism initially; however over a period of time, absenteeism returned. Student truancy may be an indicator for a potential high school dropout. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) furthered the need for schools with poor student attendance to develop and implement techniques and procedures to improve the school’s overall attendance rate. NCLB placed ―sanctions of schools with chronic student failure and poor achievement-test results‖ (Sheldon, 2007, p. 267). In order for schools to increase student achievement, the students must attend school to receive the instruction. Understanding why some students were not regularly attending school would be beneficial. Parental involvement was one of the strategies found to assist schools in the increase of student attendance rate. Castillo (2003) noted that ―the lack of parental motivation perceived by children can result in early disadvantages (p. 11). An understanding of the difficulties students and families encounter may provide an insight into strategies to increase student attendance (Castillo, 2003). Language barriers could be a potential hindrance to parental involvement. A focus on the home language of the parents/guardians could assist in getting more parents/guardians involved in school. If a parent/guardian is unable to understand, read or speak English, the manner in which the parent/guardian intervenes or gets involved in the education of their child/children may be affected (Castillo, 2003). The focus of chapter 3 was to provide an overview of the research method, the appropriateness of the design, information on the population, and a description of the survey instrument. Information on the strategies used for data collection and analysis for the current

Potential Parental Factors 190 research study were explained. A quantitative research method was deemed appropriate as the quantitative method provides frequencies and percentage data useful when seeking to determine significant differences in variables. The current research study used the descriptive design ―to describe the characteristics of a population by directly examining samples of that population‖ (Glatthorn, 2005, p. 101). The use of a survey in the descriptive design supported the purpose of the study, which sought to determine parental knowledge levels. Chapter 4 presented all the data results generated from this current research study. Three research questions and null hypotheses were addressed through the use of a survey designed especially for the research study. Seven independent variables were analyzed using the Basic Statistical Testing for Significant Differences between percentages to determine if a significant difference existed between the total percentage of responses and the individual independent variables through the use of a z-test. The current research study found significant differences in each of the three null hypotheses based on at least one of the seven independent variables. Chapter 5 includes a brief summary of chapters 1-4. Discussion is presented of the current research study results and study design limitations. Study result implications for leadership and other stakeholders, a summary of the study, and recommendations for future research are included in chapter 5. Findings The findings section is organized to mirror the research design noted in chapter 3. A review of the results of the hypotheses testing begins the section continuing with an interpretation of the results of the chapter 4 statistical analysis. The data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), a computerized program intended for data management and analysis. The analysis provided an in-depth interpretation of the

Potential Parental Factors 191 hypotheses test results that guided this study. Testing for significant differences was determined using the Basic Statistical Testing for Significant Difference between percentages with a 99% confidence level. A z-test was performed for each question using each of the seven variables to determine if a significant difference existed between the overall response percentage of all respondents and the percentage response for each of the seven independent variables. Full score results of all analysis are found in Appendix G. Hypothesis 1 H0 No difference will result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge level of the compulsory education attendance laws based on the seven independent variables: students’ grade level ranges, the number of children attending the school, parents’/guardians’ gender, parents’/guardians’ age group range, highest levels of education, employment status, and ethnicity. Question 8A required respondents to identify their knowledge levels of the attendance requirement for children. 57.9% of all respondents were sure that the statement was true. The percentage breakdown of each of the seven variables showed no significant difference in the percentage of parent/guardians being sure that the statement was true. The results of the Basic Statistical Testing for Significant Differences between two percentages did not reject the null hypothesis for question 8A, the Compulsory Attendance Law requirements for student attendance. Question 8B asked respondents to identify their knowledge levels of the potential consequences for failure to comply with the Compulsory Attendance Laws. 42.1% of all respondents were sure that the statement was true. The results of question 8B showed a significant difference in the knowledge level of Pre K parents/guardians. Only 11.1% were sure

Potential Parental Factors 192 that the statement was true producing a z-test score of 2.156 showing that a significant difference did exist. The null hypothesis was rejected because a significant difference did exist in one of the seven variables. Question 8C sought respondents’ knowledge levels of the official definition of when a student is considered tardy. 28.9% of all respondents were sure of the statement definition. A significant difference did occur at the Pre K level. 77.8% of the Pre K parents/guardians (z =3.705) were sure that the statement definition was true. The data showed that a higher percentage of Pre K parents/guardians were sure of the statement than the percentage of parents/guardians at other grade levels. The null hypothesis was rejected because a significant difference did exist for question 8C. Two out of the three questions (8B and 8C) on the parental knowledge levels of the Compulsory Attendance Laws resulted in rejecting the null hypothesis with one of the seven variables in each question producing a significant difference. The third question (8A) did not show a significant difference with any of the seven variables. However, the total null hypothesis for parental knowledge levels of the Compulsory Attendance Laws was rejected. The findings from this current research study revealed that the mean score of questions 8A, B, and C, for parents/guardians at Overton School who responded to the survey being sure of Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law requirements was 43%, leaving 57% of the responding parents/guardians who were not sure of the law requirements. When dissecting the results through the use of the seven demographic variables, Pre K had a smaller percentage (11.1%) of parents/guardians who were sure of Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law requirements. Pre K parents are possibly having their child attend school for the first time, thus parents/guardians knowledge levels of consequences for not ensuring student attendance may not be known. On the

Potential Parental Factors 193 other hand, a higher percentage (77.8%) of Pre K parents/guardians was sure of the tardy definition. The higher percentage may have occurred due to an increase concern for getting the child/children to school on time as well as parents/guardians bringing the younger students to school versus the older children perhaps walking to school. Hypothesis 2 H0 No difference will result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge level of Overton’s schoolwide attendance program based on the seven independent variables: students’ grade level ranges, the number of children attending the school, parents’/guardians’ gender, parents’/guardians’ age group range, highest levels of education, employment status, and ethnicity. Null hypothesis 2 sought to determine a difference in parental knowledge levels of Overton’s school-wide attendance program. Question 9A asked parents/guardians to identify their knowledge levels of the time the school’s tardy bell rang. 84.2% of all respondents were sure that the statement was true. The Basic Statistical Testing for Significant Differences between two percentages did not determine a significant difference for question 9A, thus the results for question 9A did not reject the null hypothesis. Question 9B requested respondents to reveal their knowledge levels of the school’s incentives provided to students who maintained perfect attendance. 52.8% of all respondents were fully aware of the incentives provided. A significant difference was found with Pre K parents/guardians. Only 11.1% were fully aware of the school’s incentive program producing a z-test score of 2.854. Question 9A rejected the null hypothesis that no difference exists based on each of the seven variables.

Potential Parental Factors 194 Question 9C sought to determine parents/guardians knowledge levels of the yellow cards for a free book system used to reward students with perfect attendance. 42.1% of all respondents were fully aware of the yellow card reward system. The Basic Statistical Testing for Significant Differences between percentages identified a significant difference at the Pre K level. 100% of the Pre K parents/guardians (z = 4.027) were not aware at all of the yellow cards for a free book system. Question 9C rejected the null hypothesis because one of the seven variables displayed a significant difference between percentages. Questions 9B and 9C rejected the null hypothesis for the reason that one of the seven variables showed a significant difference in the percentages using the z-test. Question 9A did not reject the null hypothesis; however, two of the three questions did show significant differences, thus the null hypothesis for Hypothesis 2 was rejected. Questions 9 A, B, and C produced a mean score of 60% of the parents/guardians fully aware of Overton School’s attendance program, leaving 40% not being fully aware. Pre K again demonstrated a significant difference in knowledge level concerning the incentive program with only 11.1% being fully aware that students receive incentives for maintaining perfect attendance. When discussing the three yellow cards for a free book reward system, 100% of Pre K parents/guardians were not at all aware of the system. Each year Pre K students and their parents/guardians were new to the school, thus information concerning the incentive program may not have been received or understood at the time the survey was administered. Hypothesis 3 H0 No difference will result in parents’/guardians’ knowledge level of the relationship between attendance and achievement based on the seven independent variables: students’ grade level ranges, the number of children attending the school, parents’/guardians’

Potential Parental Factors 195 gender, parents’/guardians’ age group range, highest levels of education, employment status, and ethnicity. Hypothesis 3 sought to identify parental attitude concerning the correlation between attendance and achievement. Question 10A solicited respondents to identify their attitude on the statement that vital learning is missed when students are not in school. 65.8% of all respondents strongly agreed that vital learning is missed. The Basic Statistical Testing for Significant Difference between percentages did not produce a z-test score with a significant difference in question 10A. The null hypothesis for question 10A was not rejected. Question 10B required respondents to identify their attitude on the statement that a parent’s attitude concerning the importance of school attendance influenced the child/children. 76.3% of all respondents strongly agreed with the statement. A significant difference in percentage was identified with parents/guardians who had three or more children attending the school. Only 20.0% (z = 3.177) strongly agreed with the statement. Additionally, only 20.0% (z = 3.177) of full-time students strongly agreed with the statement. The significant difference of the parents/guardians with three or more children attending the school and the full-time students rejected the null hypothesis for question 10B. Question 10C sought parents/guardians attitude on the statement that an increase in parental involvement improves student attendance and behavior. 82.1% of all respondents strongly agreed with the statement. The Basic Statistical Testing for Significant Differences between percentages did not determine that a significant difference in the percentages of each of the seven variables existed. Question 10C did not reject the null hypothesis.

Potential Parental Factors 196 Questions 10A and 10 C did not reject the null hypothesis. Question 10B did reject the null hypothesis in two of the seven variables. Therefore, the null hypothesis for Hypothesis 3 was rejected because a difference was determined in at least one variable. Questions 10A, B, and C which discussed parental attitudes concerning the connection between attendance and achievement produced a mean score of 75% of the respondents strongly agreeing in the connection of attendance and achievement. 25% of the respondents did not believe as strongly on the connection. A lower percentage of parents/guardians with three or more children and full-time students strongly agreed with Question 10B which stated that parents’/guardians’ attitude concerning school attendance influences how the child develops an understanding of the value of attending school. Implications The finding from this current research study concluded that parental factors may hinder student attendance. Parents’/guardians’ knowledge levels and attitudes concerning school attendance have an influence on the attitude of the child concerning school (Davies and Lee, 2006). This research study provided several implications for leadership. This section is divided into two sub-sections: implications for leaders and implications for other stakeholders. Implications for Leaders The finding from this current research study fostered a conclusion that parental knowledge levels and attitudes may influence student attendance. An understanding of potential parental factors that may hinder student attendance may empower a school’s leadership team to develop and implement parental classes, workshops, information in newsletters, and the use of other strategies to reach the parents/guardians of students demonstrating poor attendance. Providing parents/guardians with the state Compulsory Attendance Laws is beneficial to the

Potential Parental Factors 197 parents/guardians and the school. The knowledge that it is unlawful for a child to be absent from school may encourage some parents to rectify their child’s attendance issue for fear of repercussions from the state. Additional effort should be engaged to assist parents/guardians of truant students to identify possible reasons for the truancy to aid in rectifying the poor attendance of the student. Many parents believe that their child does not attend school regularly because of concerns with bullies, problems with the teacher, or other school factors (Davies and Lee, 2006). With the identification of potential concerns, the school and parents can work together to generate solutions that may also be beneficial to other students with truancy issues. The development of a school-wide attendance plan that is shared with teachers, students, and parents may work to increase student attendance. Sheldon (2007) states, ―elementary schools in which teachers, parents, and administrators organized action teams, planned family and community-involvement activities linked to school goals, and reached out to involve all families reported a significant increase in the percentage of students attending class‖ (p. 273). School leaders should be mindful to provide information in the home language of the parents/guardians and provide an interpreter at meetings and translate the newsletters for parents who may not understand English or be able to read the information in their home language or in English. A close investigation of the data from this current research study indicated that school leaders must work closely with new families to the school whether they are Pre K parents/guardians or older students transferring to the school. A clear disproportion of knowledge levels were seen at the early level. A leadership team may want to have a beginning of the year meeting with Pre K parents/guardians and explain the state and school attendance policies and programs implemented at the school.

Potential Parental Factors 198 An increase in student attendance allows teachers to have more students in class when content lessons are taught, thus increasing the likelihood that students will produce higher achievement levels. The higher attendance and achievement level enables the school to meet the NCLB requirements preventing the school from receiving sanctions and increase the likelihood of continued school funding. Implications for Other Stakeholders Increasing student attendance should be a concern to community members, business owners, and police services. Sheldon (2007) states ―when students attend school more often, they are less likely to engage in delinquent or destructive behavior‖ (p. 267). Having a strong program with the school, parents, and the community working together may assist the business owners in maintaining a safer environment. Thompson (1998) states, ―there are many challenges in communities stemming from truancy, including higher crime rates (assaults, battery, robbery, drug abuse), gang involvement, defacing property, and homelessness‖ (p. 4). The identification and implementation of strategies and techniques to improve student attendance may ensure that more students are in school and decrease the likelihood of delinquent activities. Through the identification of parental knowledge levels and attitudes, community agencies, working with the schools, may be able to provide information to parents/guardians that participate in the services of the agencies. Community businesses may provide meeting spaces for meetings or trainings. The school and the community businesses can partner to provide students and parents/guardians with information on the important role of attendance when striving to maintain employment.

Potential Parental Factors 199 Study Design Limitations This current research study was limited in several ways. The study was limited to the participants who completed and submitted the survey. The low number of returns may not have provided a broad spectrum of the population, thus may not be representative of the entire parental population. A small number of Spanish-speaking parents/guardians responded to the survey, thus the implications for the affect language had on hindering parental knowledge may not have been fully explored. The school district did not allow access to parents/guardians who did not attend the family event. The parents/guardians who did not attend the event may have been some of the parents/guardians with students showing poor attendance. A connection could not be made between the parents/guardians and the student to analyze the parental knowledge with the students’ attendance. The questions asked on the survey were specific to the outcome desired and did not provide opportunities for the respondents to expand of their responses. Additional information may have been gained through open-ended responses. Recommendations Based on the findings and analysis of the study, it appears that more research is needed to determine parental factors that may hinder student attendance. Recommendations for future research studies include a larger sampling, greater access to parents/guardians, connecting parents’/guardians’ responses with their child/children, the addition of personal interviews, and additional analysis conducted from the survey data. If the school conducted the survey, greater access would be available to contact the entire parental population through family events, meetings, phone calls, and the United States Postal

Potential Parental Factors 200 Service. Greater access to the parental population would provide a larger sampling and allow the school to ensure that a larger sampling of targeted parents/guardians could be included into the sampling frame. A connection could be make between parents/guardians and students to provide information on knowledge levels of parents/guardians with children demonstrating with poor attendance. This information would enable the school to provide specific interventions to meet the needs of each parent/guardian. Interviews could be held with the students and with their parents/guardians to strive to pinpoint the hindrances and address the issues. An increase in data could provide increased results to use in the analysis of the results possibly producing different results of the frequencies and trends. Connecting the parental knowledge levels with the child/children might provide specific information necessary to correct a problematic attendance issue. Summary and Conclusions The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive research study was to identify potential parental hindrances to student attendance by accessing parental knowledge levels of three dependent variables: Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Laws, Overton School’s attendance program, and determining parental attitudes on the connection between attendance and achievement. The results from this current research study could guide educational leaders in the determination of areas of concern for each schools population and dynamics. Seven demographic independent variables were used to disaggregate the data to verify if a difference in parental knowledge levels existed. The findings from the survey data concluded that differences in parental knowledge levels existed in several areas in each of the dependent variables. The null hypothesis of each research question was thusly rejected. Educational leaders

Potential Parental Factors 201 could determine the demographic information pertinent to the school’s specific needs providing the disaggregate data that would align with the school’s population. The survey used in the study could serve as a guide for developing surveys to access parental knowledge levels of factors important to each specific school. The survey design could be expanded or modified to produce the information desired. Interviews and open-ended questions could be added enabling the school to gather specific information. The survey could be translated in to the languages pertinent to each school. The demands of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has increased the urgency for school leadership teams to develop strategies to improve student attendance. The results of this current research study could be valuable to school leadership by demonstrating the importance of accessing and understanding parental knowledge levels as a means to improve student attendance. The frequencies and trends produced by the data results provide a foundation for the identification of potential parental hindrances. The research design and method of the current research study are replicable for all school populations as a foundation for further research. Chapter 5 began with a review of chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4. The findings section presented each null hypothesis and a summary of the data derived from the study results. The null hypothesis of each research question was rejected because a significant percentage difference was determined in at least one of the seven independent variables using the Basic Statistical Testing for Significant Difference between percentages test. The implication for leadership and other stakeholder section included information on the usefulness of the study data. Study design limitations, recommendations, a summary, and conclusion section were included in chapter 5. This current research study strove add to the body of knowledge of educational leaders by

Potential Parental Factors 202 identifying potential parental factors that might hinder student attendance and by providing a foundation for further research.

Potential Parental Factors 203 REFERENCES Abdul-Adil, J. & Farmer, A. D. (2006). Inner-city African American parental involvement in elementary schools: getting beyond urban legends of apathy. School Psychology Quarterly, 21(1), 1-12. Retrieved December 20, 2008, from ProQuest database. Anderson, K. & Minke, K. (2007). Parent involvement in education: toward an understanding of parent’s decision-making. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(51), 311-323. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest database. Applegate, K. (2003). The relationship of attendance, social-economic status, and mobility and the achievement of seventh graders. D.O.E. dissertation, St. Louis University, St. Louis, United States – Missouri. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. Arends-Kuenning, M & Amin, S. (2004). School incentive programs and children’s activities: The case of Bangladesh. Comparative Education Review, 48(3), 295-317. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from Research Library database. Baker, D. & Jansen, J. (2000). Using groups to reduce elementary school absenteeism. Social Work in Education. 22(1). Retrieved December 20, 2008, from ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source database. Bloom, B. & Cohen, R.A. (2007). Summary health statistics for U.S. children: national health interview survey, 2006. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10(234). Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_234.pdf

Potential Parental Factors 204 Branham, D. (2004). The wise man builds his house upon the rock: the effects of inadequate school building infrastructure on student attendance. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1112-1128. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from Research Library database. Burns, E. (2000). Parental involvement in the academic success of the inner-city school child: an analysis of the Stevenson/YMCA community school program. M.S.W. dissertation, California State University, Long Beach, United States-California. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. California Department of Education website. (2007). No child left behind act of 2001, title 1, part a. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1/section1118.asp Calloway, S. (2006, November 21). As easy as abc; parent involvement helps children succeed. Columbia Daily Tribune. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from ProQuest database. Campbell, D. & Wright, J. (2005). Rethinking welfare school-attendance policies. The Social Service Review, 79 (1), 2-28. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from Research Library database. Castillo, R. (2003). Characteristics of chronically truant elementary school and middle school students. M.S.W. dissertation, University of California, Riverside, United States – California. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. Cavazos, J. (2007). An analysis of the impact of parental involvement on at-risk student achievement. D.O.E. dissertation, Texas A&M University, Kingsville and Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, United States – Texas. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.

Potential Parental Factors 205 Christie, K. (2006). Counting the truants. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (7), 485-486. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 1070952161). Christie, K. (2007). The complexity of compulsory attendance. Phi Delta Kappan, 88 (5), 341-342. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 1227751111). Clump, M. A.; Bauer, H. & Whiteleather, A. (2003). To attend or not to attend: is that a good question? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(3), 220. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest Psychology Journals database. (Document ID: 419405511). Corville-Smith, J.; Ryan, B.; Adams, G. & Dalicandro, T. (1998). Distinguishing absentee students from regular attenders: the combined influence of personal, family, and school factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27 (5), 629-640. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global database. Cotton, K (1996). Affective and social benefits of small-scale schooling. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, ED 401088. WV: Charleston. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1 4/c4/bd.pdf Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (3rd ed). Merrill Prentice-Hall. Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (2nd ed). Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Potential Parental Factors 206 Davies, J. D., & Lee, J. (2006). To attend or not to attend? Why some students chose school and others reject it. Support for Learning. 21(4). Retrieved January 10, 2009, from ProQuest database. Department of Education. (2004). Parental involvement: Title 1, part A non-regulatory guidance. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov DeSocio, J., VanCura, M., Nelson, L. Hewitt, G., Kitzman, H., & Cole, R. (2007). Engaging truant adolescents: results from a multifaceted intervention pilot. Preventing School Failure, 51(3). Retrieved May 25, 2009, from ProQuest database. Druger, M. (2004). Being there: a perspective on class attendance. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 33, 70-71. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest Biology Journals database. (Document ID: 772490321). Engec, N. (2006). Relationship between mobility and student performance and behavior. The Journal of Educational Research, (99)3, 167-180. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from ProQuest database. (Document ID: 976654521). Epstein, S. & Sheldon, B. (2002). Present and accounted for: improving student attendance through family and community involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(5), 308. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest Psychology Journals database. (Document ID: 147232491). Everhart, R. (2006). Why are schools always begging for money? Phi Delta Kappan. 88(1), 70. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from ProQuest database. (Document ID: 1125382801). Garcia-Mondragon, N. (2003). The relationship between school absenteeism, grades, and test scores among elementary school students. M.S.W. dissertation, California State

Potential Parental Factors 207 University, Long Beach, United States -- California. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 1415454). Glatthorn, A. & Joyner, R. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: a step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gump, S. E. (2005). The cost of cutting class: attendance as a predictor of student success. College Teaching, 53(1), 21-26. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 761703331). Gump, S.E. (2004). The truth behind truancy: student rationales for cutting class. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(2), 50-58. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest Educational Journals database. Iyamu, E. O. & Obiunu, J. (2006). The dilemma of primary school attendance in Nigeria. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(2), 147-153. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from ProQuest Psychology Journals database. Hallfors, D.; Vevea, J.; Iritani, B.; Cho, H.; Khatapoush, S. & Saxe, L. (2002). Truancy, grade point average, and sexual activity: a meta-analysis of risk indicators for youth substance use. The Journal of School Health, 72(5), 205-211. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 134083681). Hartley, S. L. & MacLean, W. E. (Nov 2006). A review of the reliability and validity of Likerttype scales for people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 50(11). 813-827. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from ProQuest database. Havsy, L. H. (2004). Effects of school climate, student belonging, student coping and home support for learning on student attendance. D.O.P. dissertation, University of Minnesota,

Potential Parental Factors 208 United States – Minnesota. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. Henry, K. (2007). Who’s skipping school: characteristics of truants in 8th and 10th grade. Journal of School Health. 77(1). Retrieved December 1, 2008, from ProQuest database. Infoplease website. (2007). Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112617.html Iyamu, E. & Obiunu, J. (2006). The dilemma of primary school attendance in Nigeria. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 33(2), 147-153. Retrieved on June 15, 2008 from ProQuest Psychology Journals. Jacobson, E. (2005). Increasing attendance using email: effects on developmental math performance. Journal of Developmental Education, 29 (1), 18-26. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 907464481). Joronen, K., & Astedt-Kurki, P. (2005). Adolescents’ experiences of familial involvement in their peer relations and school attendance. Primary Health Care Research & Development, 6(3), 190-198. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from the Academic Search Premier database. Kearney, C. & Bensaheb, A. (2006). School absenteeism and school refusal behavior: a review and suggestions for school-based health professionals. The Journal of School Health, 76 (1), 3-7. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from Research Library database. Kube, B., & Ratigan, G. (1992). Does your school have a clue? Putting the attendance policy to the test. The Clearing House, 65 (6), 348-350. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 5219612).

Potential Parental Factors 209 Legislative Counsel Committee of the Oregon Legislative Assembly website. (2007). Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/339.html Ledman, R. E. & Kamuche, F., Jr. (2003). Improving student attendance. Academic Exchange Quarterly. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest database. Leggett, J. (1993). The relation between self-reported maternal behaviors and beliefs and the early success of preschool head start children. D.O.E. dissertation, University of Houston, University Park, United States – Texas. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. Lounsbury, J.; Steel, R.; Loveland, J. & Gibson, L. (2004). An investigation of personality traits in relation to adolescent school absenteeism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(5), 457-466. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID : 815872431). Marburger, D. R. (2006). Does mandatory attendance improve student performance? Journal of Economic Education, 37(2), 148-155. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1038089401). Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mc Caslin, M. (2006). Student motivational dynamics in the era of school reform. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 479-491. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from Research Library database. (Document ID : 1039669031). McCray, E. D. (2006). It's 10 a.m.: do you know where your children are? Intervention in School and Clinic, 42 (1), 30-33. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Potential Parental Factors 210 McKay, M; Atkins, M; Hawkins, T; Brown, C & Lynn, C. J. (2003). Inner-city African American parental involvement in children's schooling: racial socialization and social support from the parent community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(1/2), 107-14. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 679242741). Moore, R. (2005). Attendance: are penalties more effective than rewards? Journal of Developmental Education, 29(2), 26-32. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 943405491). Moore, R. (2004). Does improving developmental education students’ understanding of the importance of class attendance improve students’ attendance and academic performance? Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 20(2), 24-39. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from ProQuest Education Journals database. National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education. (2004). NCLB action briefs: parental involvement. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.ncpie.org/nclbaction/parent_involvement.html National Education Association (NEA) Report. (2005). Eleven changes needed to improve NCLB. Retrieved July 5, 2006 from http://www.nea.org/lac/esea/tenchanges.html?mode=print Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Norman, S. (2005). Parental involvement: an effective strategy for secondary alternative discipline schools’ student achievement and compulsory student attendance. D.O.E.

Potential Parental Factors 211 dissertation. Sam Houston State University. United States – Texas. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. Ola, J. A. (1990). Attendance policies: are they effective in reducing student absenteeism? D.O.E. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, United States – Pennsylvania. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No.AAT 9106778). Pai, Y., & Adler, S. (2001). Cultural foundations of education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall. Pepukayi, S. (2004). The perceptions of parents, staff, and students concerning the improvement of third grade DSTP reading scores at a public urban elementary school in a Delaware school district. D.O.E. dissertation. Wilmington College, United States -- Deleware. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. Provasnik, S. (2006). Judicial activism and the origins of parental choice: the court's role in the institutionalization of compulsory education in the United States, 1891-1925. History of Education Quarterly, 46 (3), 311-347. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from ProQuest database. Portland Public Schools website. (2002). Title 1 handbook. OR: Portland Public Schools. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.pps.k12.or.us/ Portland Public Schools website. (2007). Board policy 7.10.040-P Parental and Family Involvement in Support of Academic Achievement. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.pps.k12.or.us/

Potential Parental Factors 212 Reid, K. (2006). Raising school attendance: a case study of good practice in monitoring and raising standards. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 199-216. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest database. Reid, K. (2005). The causes, views, and traits of school absenteeism and truancy: an analytical review. Research in Education, (74), 59-84. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from ProQuest database. (Document ID: 988993481). Riding, R. J. & Baker, G. (2003). Cognitive style and school attendance, conduct behavior and attainment. Research in Education, (69), 99-103. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 352092441). Roberts, L. A. (2006). Student attendance in supplemental education services: a provision of the No Child Left Behind Act as it relates to parental satisfaction. D.O.E. dissertation, University of Connecticut, United States -- Connecticut. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3249553). Roby, D. E. (2004). Research on school attendance and student achievement: a study of Ohio schools. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(1), 3-14. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 900683871). Salkind, N. (2006). Exploring research. (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Sattes, B. (1985). Parent involvement: a review of the literature. Charleston, NC: Appalachia Education Laboratory. Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community partnerships. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 267-328. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest Psychology Journals database. (Document ID: 1286913441).

Potential Parental Factors 213 Simieou, F. (2005). The alleged invisible parent: examining practices and perspectives of African American parent involvement in Title I schools. D.O.P. dissertation, Michigan State University, United States—Michigan. Retrieved January 10, 2009 from, ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. Simpson, B. D. (2003). Compulsory education in America: its history and determinants. D.O.P. dissertation, Auburn University, United States -- Alabama. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3112414). Sleigh, M. & Ritzer, D. (2001). Encouraging student attendance. APA Observer, 14(9). Published by the American Psychological Society. Retrieved October 8, 2007, from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/1101/tips.html Stanca, L. (2006). The effects of attendance on academic performance: panel data evidence for introductory microeconomics. Journal of Economic Education, 37(3), 251-266. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1122034491). Sunderman, G., & Kim, J. (2004). Inspiring vision, disappointing results: four studies on implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. The Civil Rights Project. Harvard University. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/esea/nclb.php?Page=2 Swamp, S. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved on October 24, 2007, from ProQuest database. Technology Horizons In Education. (1993). Automated phone system keeps parents, teachers, & kids informed. T H E Journal, 50(3). Retrieved November 21, 2006, from Academic OneFile. Thomason Gale. University of Phoenix. (Document ID: A14354270).

Potential Parental Factors 214 Thayer-Smith, R. A. (2007). Student attendance and its relationship to achievement and student engagement in primary classrooms. D.O.E. dissertation, The College of William and Mary, United States – Virginia. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. Thompson, V. C. (1998). The School Attendance Review Board: A study of a strategy to improve student attendance. Ed.D. dissertation, Pepperdine University, United States -California. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 9902995). The White House website. (2006). Retrieved June 30, 2006, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html Tozer, S., Violas, P., & Senese, G. (2002). School and society: historical and contemporary perspective.s (4th ed.). New York, NY: Mc Graw-Hill. United States Department of Education website. (2006). Testing for results: helping families, schools and communities understand and improve student achievement. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from, http://www.U. S. Department of Education/print/nclb/accountability/ayp/testingforresults.html United States Department of Education website. (2006). Statement of purpose. Retrieved July 10, 2006, from, http://www.U. S. Department of Education/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html#sec1001 Ventura, H. & Miller, J. (2005). Finding hidden value through mixed-methodology: lessons from the discovery program’s holistic approach to truancy abatement. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(1). Retrieved November 3, 2006, from the SocINDEX with full text database.

Potential Parental Factors 215 Volkmann, B. & Bye. (2006). Improved school attendance through adult volunteer reading partners. Children & Schools, 28 (3). Retrieved October 23, 2007, from ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source database. (Document ID: 1123372061). Warren, P. (2004). Automated notification system improves California School district’s crisis management, attendance. (Grossmont Union High School District). T H E Journal (Technological Horizons In Education), 39(2). Retrieved November 21, 2006, from Academic OneFile. Thomson Gale. University of Phoenix. (Document ID: A125486067). Wright, H., Jr. (2000). Compulsory school attendance and its effects on student absenteeism. M.A. dissertation, Pacific Lutheran University, United States – Washington. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 1400461). Zhang, M. (2004). Time to change the truancy laws? Compulsory education: its origin and modern dilemma. Pastoral Care, 27 - 33. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Potential Parental Factors 216 Appendix A: Amended from Original Survey Created by Researcher

Overton Parent Survey 2008-09 Please bubble in the information below. Thank you. Demographic Information 1. What is your gender?

 Male

 Female

2. What is your age group?

 18-24

 35-43

 55-64

 25-34

 44-54

 65 or over

 Decline to answer 

3. How many children do you have at Overton? (Bubble one)

 None

 2

 4

 1

 3

 5+

4. Please list your child’s/children’s grade levels? Bubble all that apply)



Pre K

 K – 2nd

 3rd – 5th

 6th – 8th

5. Which of the following best describes your highest level of education? (Bubble one)

 Grade school

 High school graduate

 Trade school

 Some high school

 Some college

 Graduate degree

 GED

 College graduate

 Decline to answer

6. Which of the following best describes your present employment status? (Bubble one)

 Employed full time

 Homemaker

 Decline to answer

Potential Parental Factors 217

 Employed part time

 Retired



 Full time student

 Unemployed



OVER… 7. What is your ethnicity? (Bubble one)

 African American (Not Latino)

 Native American

 Decline to answer

 Asian/Pacific Islander

 White



 Latino

 Mixed Race



Parental Knowledge, Understanding, and Attitudes The following information will provide data to Overton's Site Council and Leadership Team on parents' knowledge of the State of Oregon attendance laws and on Overton's attendance program. The Site Council and Leadership Team will use the information to develop parent workshops and information sessions to improve our student attendance program. 8. Which of the following are accurate statements about Oregon school attendance laws? (bubble one response per statement.) I’m sure this is true.

I think this is true.

I think this is not true.

I’m sure this is not true.

Do Not Know

A. Oregon’s Compulsory Attendance Law requires every person having control of any child between the ages of 7 and 18 to send and maintain the child in regular full-time attendance in a public school, private school, or home schooled.











B. Failure to comply with the State Compulsory Attendance Law can result in a Class C violation resulting in penalties including the parent/guardian being served with a citation, a potential court appearance, and/or fine.











C. Tardy means not present at the start of class but arriving prior to the completion of 25% of the class period.











9. How aware are you of Overton School’s Attendance Policy? (bubble one response per statement.)

Potential Parental Factors 218 Fully Aware

Somewhat Aware

Not at All Aware

A. Overton students are considered late when the tardy bell rings at 8:45 AM.







B. Overton students receive incentives to maintain perfect attendance and are rewarded each week, month, trimester, and at the end of the school year.







C. Students receiving three yellow cards for perfect weekly attendance can turn the yellow cards in for a free book.







Next Page… 10. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (bubble one response per statement.) Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Do Not Know

A. When students are not in school, vital learning opportunities are missed. These cannot be duplicated when the student does return to school. That, in turn, may negatively affect the student’s academic performance.











B. Parents’ attitudes concerning school attendance influence how the child develops an understanding of the value of attending school.











C. An increase in parental involvement not only improves student attendance, but also improves student behavior.











11. How important do you feel it is for a student to be to school on time? (Bubble one)

 Very important

 Somewhat important

 Not important

 No opinion

12. Not all students get to school on time every day. If that is sometimes true for your child, what obstacles get in the way of your child getting to school every day and on time? (Bubble all that apply)

 Child does not get up on time

does not have an  Family alarm clock

goes to work and child gets  Parent up on his/her own

 Transportation issues

stays up too late at  Child night



 Parent oversleeps

does not want to go to  Child school

Attracting More Students to Overton School



Other (please specify) ________________________

Potential Parental Factors 219

Below are questions to provide the Site Council with information regarding issues affecting parents’ choice to have their child attend Overton School. Please share your thoughts. 13. What is your overall impression of Overton School? (Bubble one)



Positive impression; my child/children enjoys attending this school.



Negative impression; my child/children does not enjoy attending this school.



Undecided. Need more information.



Other (please specify) ____________

OVER… 14. What do you feel would help Overton School attract more students? (Bubble all that apply)

 Improvement in test scores

enrichment classes such as  More theatre, music, and sports

 More science

 Offer Spanish instruction

 More parent involvement

 More math

attractive classrooms  Organized, and school grounds

 More field trips



Other (please specify) ___________________

Getting involved at Overton 15. Do you receive the monthly parent newsletter, the “Comet”? (Bubble one)

 Yes, every or almost every month

 Sometimes

 No

16. Do you read the monthly parent newsletter, the “Comet”? (Bubble one)

 Yes, every or almost every month

 Sometimes

 No

17. Overton wants to increase the number of parents attending our parent meetings and workshops. Which time would work best for you to attend? (Bubble one)

 Morning (9:00 – Noon)

 Afternoon (1:00 – 4:00)

 Evening (5:00 – 8:00)

18. Would you need childcare if you were to attend a parent meeting or workshop? (Bubble one)

 Yes

 No

Potential Parental Factors 220

19. If you were able to help improve your child’s school by volunteering in the classroom, how would you like to assist? Answering this question does not commit you to volunteering. We are just trying to learn about parents’ or guardians’ major areas of interest. (Bubble all that apply)

 Read books to students

 Share a hobby

 Assist in the classrooms

 Correct papers

 Go on field trips

 Other (please specify)

Next Page… 20. If you were able to help outside the classroom, how would you like to be involved? Answering this question does not commit you to volunteering. We are just trying to learn about parents’ or guardians’ major areas of interest. (Bubble all that apply)



Help supervise children during recess/lunch or breakfast



Assist in the After-School Academy



Other (please specify) _________________

Assist with the morning or

 afternoon arrival or departure of

 Help in the office



beautify schools by planting  Help trees, shrubs, flowers, etc.

 Help with safety patrol



children

21. How much time would you be able to commit to volunteering at the school doing one or more of the activities you checked above? (Bubble one)

 None

 5-10 hours a week

 Up to 1 hour a week

 10 or more hours a week

 2-4 hours a week

 projects during the year, but not

I would be able to assist with

on a regular, every-week basis.



Other (please specify) _________________

 

22. If you would like to be contacted regarding opportunities to assist, please fill out your information below: Name Address

Potential Parental Factors 221 City Zip Code Phone Number Email Address

Conclusion 23. Please share any comments/suggestions that you would like to share with Overton School’s Site Council and Leadership Team.

Potential Parental Factors 222 Appendix B: Spanish Translated Survey

Encuesta para los padres de Overton 2008-09 Por favor rellene la burbuja a la par de la información correcta. Gracias

Información demográfica 1. ¿Cuál es su sexo?





Masculino

Femenino

2. ¿En cuál grupo de edades se encuentra usted?

 18-24

 35-43

 55-64

 25-34

 44-54

 65 o más

 declino contestar 

3. ¿Cuántos hijos tiene en Overton? (Rellene una burbuja)

 Ninguno

 2



 1

 3

 5+

4

4. Por favor indique en que grado está su hijo/ hijos? (Rellene las burbujas de todos los grados que necesite).



Pre K

 K – 2nd

 3rd – 5th

 6th – 8th

5. ¿Cuál de los siguientes mejor describe el nivel más alto de su educación? (Rellene solo una burbuja).

 Escuela primaria

de la escuela  Graduado secundaria

 Escuela vocacional

grados de la  Algunos escuela secundaria

estudios de  Algunos universidad

 Diploma de post grado

(Diploma de  GED educación general)

 Graduado de universidad

 Declino contestar

6. ¿Cuál de los siguientes mejor describe el estatus de su empleo actual? (Rellene solo una burbuja) a tiempo  Empleado completo

 Ama de casa

 Declino contestar

Potential Parental Factors 223 a medio  Empleado tiempo

 Retirado



a tiempo  Estudiante completo

 Desempleado



Continúe al reverso… 7. ¿Cuál es su etnicidad? (Rellene una burbuja)

 Afro americano (No Latino)

 Nativo americano

 Declino contestar

las islas del  Asiático/de Pacífico

 Blanco



 Latino

 De raza mixta



Conocimiento de los padres, entendimiento, y actitudes La siguiente información le proporcionará datos al Consejo local de Overton y al Equipo de liderazgo sobre el conocimiento de los padres acerca de las leyes de asistencia a la escuela del estado de Oregon y del programa de asistencia de Overton. El Consejo y el Equipo de liderazgo usarán esta información para desarrollar talleres/charlas educativos para los padres y sesiones de información para mejorar nuestro programa de asistencia de estudiantes. 8. ¿Cuál de las siguientes declaraciones sobre las leyes de asistencia a la escuela del estado de Oregon son correctas? (Rellene una burbuja para cada una de las declaraciones.) Estoy seguro que es cierto.

Yo pienso que es cierto

Yo pienso que no es cierto

Estoy seguro que no es cierto.

No lo sé

A. La ley de asistencia obligatoria a la escuela del estado de Óregon, requiere que cada persona que tenga el control del cuidado de cualquier niño de 7 a 18 años, lo envíe y lo mantenga en asistencia a tiempo completo en una escuela pública, privada o casera.











B. Un fallo en el cumplimiento de la Ley de asistencia obligatoria puede resultar en una violación de Clase C, la cual resultará en una sanción que puede incluir que se les dé a los padres o tutelares legales una orden de la corte, posiblemente tendrán que presentarse a la corte y / o recibir una multa.











C. Tardío significa que no está presente al comenzar la clase pero que llega antes de completarse el primer 25% del tiempo de clase.











9. ¿Qué tanto sabe sobre la política de Asistencia a la escuela de Overton? (Rellene una burbuja para cada declaración.)

Potential Parental Factors 224 Completamente enterado

Algo enterado

No estoy enterado

A. Se considera que los estudiantes de Overton han llegado tarde, cuando la campana de llegar tarde suena a las 8:45 AM.







B. Los estudiantes de Overton reciben incentivos para mantener una asistencia perfecta a la escuela y son premiados cada semana, cada mes, cada trimestre, y al fin del año escolar.







C. Los estudiantes que reciban tres tarjetas amarillas por tener una asistencia perfecta pueden entregarlas para recibir un libro gratis.







10. ¿Hasta que punto está usted de acuerdo con las siguientes declaraciones? (Rellene una burbuja para cada declaración.) Estoy muy de acuerdo

Estoy en desacuerdo

Estoy muy en desacuerdo

No sé

Estoy de acuerdo

A. Cuando los estudiantes no están en la escuela, pierden oportunidades para aprender que son vitales. Estas experiencias no pueden ser duplicadas cuando el estudiante regresa a la escuela. Esto puede afectar negativamente el rendimiento académico del estudiante.











B. La actitud de los padres referente a la asistencia a la escuela tiene una influencia sobre la manera en que los hijos desarrollan un entendimiento del valor que tiene asistir a la escuela.











C. Un aumento en la participación de los padres no tan solo mejora la asistencia del estudiante, sino que también mejora el comportamiento del estudiante.











11. ¿Qué tan importante piensa usted que es que un estudiante llegue a la escuela a tiempo? (Rellene una burbuja)

 Muy importante

 Algo importante

 No es importante

 No tengo una opinión

12. No todos los estudiantes llegan a la escuela a tiempo todos los días. Si ese es el caso a veces para su hijo / hija, ¿Qué obstáculos enfrenta su hijo / hija para ir a la escuela todos los días y a tiempo? (Rellene la burbuja a la par de cada una de sus respuestas) niño/ la niña no se levanta a  El tiempo.

familia no tiene un reloj  La despertador

 Cuestiones de transporte

 despierto hasta muy tarde

El niño/ la niña se queda en las noches

padres van a trabajar y el  Los hijo/hija se levanta por si sólo.



Otro (por favor sea específico) ________________________

Potential Parental Factors 225

 Los padres se quedan dormidos

niño/ la niña no quiere ir  El a la escuela.



Cómo atraer a más estudiantes a la Escuela Overton A continuación hay preguntas para darle información al Consejo local de la escuela sobre las razones/ asuntos que afectan las decisiones de los padres de enviar a sus hijos a la Escuela Overton. Por favor comparta su opinión. 13. ¿Cuál es su impresión general de la Escuela Overton? (Rellene solamente una burbuja)



Una impresión positiva; A mi hijo/hija (hijos) le gusta mucho asistir a esta escuela.



Impresión negativa; a mi hijo/hija (hijos) nos les gusta asistir a esta escuela.



No he decidido. Necesito más información.



Otro (por favor sea específico) ____________

Continúe al reverso… 14. ¿Qué es lo que piensa usted que ayudaría a la Escuela Overton a atraer más estudiantes? (Rellene todas las burbujas que necesite)



Una mejoría en el puntaje de las evaluaciones del estado

 Ofrecer instrucción en español Tener salones de clase y el área

 de la escuela atractivos y organizados.



Más clases de enriquecimiento académico como teatro, música, y deportes

 Más ciencias

participación por parte de los  Más padres

 Más matemáticas

 Más excursiones educativas

 específico)

Otro (por favor sea ___________________

Involucrarse / Participar en Overton 15. ¿Recibe usted el boletín informativo mensual , para los padres de familia”? (Rellene solo una burbuja)

 Sí, todos o casi todos los meses

 Algunas veces

 No

16. ¿Lee usted el “cometa”, el boletín informativo para los padres? (Rellene solo una burbuja)

 Sí, todos o casi todos los meses

 Algunas veces

 No

17. La Escuela Overton quiere aumentar el número de padres de familia que asisten a las reuniones de los padres y a los talleres / charlas. ¿Qué hora es más conveniente para que usted pueda asistir? (Rellene una burbuja)

Potential Parental Factors 226 



En la mañana (9:00 – mediodía)

En la tarde (1:00 – 4:00)



En la noche (5:00 – 8:00)

18. ¿Necesitaría usted servicio de guardería si fuera a asistir a una reunión de padres o a un taller/charla? (Rellene solo una burbuja)

 Sí

 No

19. sí usted pudiera ayudar a mejorar la escuela de su hijo / hija estando de voluntario en el salón de clase, ¿Cómo le gustaría ayudar? Contestar esta pregunta no lo compromete a trabajar como voluntario. Solamente estamos tratando de saber cuales son las áreas principales de interés de los padres de familia y de los tutelares legales. (Rellene una burbuja para cada una de sus respuestas.)

 Leer libros a los estudiantes

 Compartir un pasatiempos

 Ayudar en los salones de clases

 Corregir trabajos

 Ir en las excursiones / paseos

 Otro (por favor sea específico)

20. ¿Sí usted pudiera ayudar afuera del salón de clase, ¿Cómo le gustaría esta involucrado / participar? Contestar esta pregunta no lo compromete a trabajar como voluntario. Solamente estamos tratando de saber cuales son las áreas de interés principales de los padres de familia y de los tutelares legales. (Rellene una burbuja para cada una de sus respuestas) Ayudar a supervisar a los niños durante el recreo/el almuerzo o el desayuno





Ayudar en la mañana durante la hora de llegada de los estudiantes a la escuela, o en la tarde a la hora de salida.



Ayudar en la oficina





Ayudar a embellecer las escuelas sembrando árboles, arbustos, flores, etcétera



Ayudar con la patrulla de seguridad para cruzar la calle.





Ayudar en la Academia-después de clases.



Otro (por favor sea específico) _________________

21. ¿Cuánto tiempo podría usted dedicar a las actividades de voluntariado en la escuela en una o más de las actividades que marcó anteriormente? (Rellene una burbuja)



Nada



De 5 a 10 horas a la semana





Hasta 1 hora a la semana



10 o más horas a la semana





De 2 a 4 horas a la semana



Yo podría ayudar con proyectos durante el año, pero no todas las



Otro (por favor sea específico) _________________

Potential Parental Factors 227 semanas, o regularmente.

22. Sí le gustaría que alguien se pusiera en contacto con usted en relación con las oportunidades para ayudar en la escuela, por favor completar la siguiente información: Nombre Dirección Ciudad Código postal Número de teléfono Dirección de correo electrónico

Conclusión 23. Por favor escriba cualquier comentario o sugerencia que quisiera compartir con el Consejo y el Equipo de liderazgo de la escuela Overton.

Potential Parental Factors 228 Appendix C: Survey Cover Letter Parent Survey Cover Letter Dear Parent/Guardian: My name is Jamila Williams. I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on a doctorate degree in Educational Leadership Specializing in Curriculum and Instruction. Working with the school Principal and the Site Council, I am conducting a research study entitled: A Quantitative, Descriptive Study of Potential Parental Factors that May Hinder Student Attendance. Purpose: The purpose of the study is to examine parental knowledge levels on: compulsory education attendance laws, the school’s attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement. The resulting data may be useful in developing parent meetings, workshops, trainings, and programs to improve school attendance. Participation: Your participation in the study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or choose to withdraw from the study at any time, you can do so without consequences. The research study has been approved by Portland Public Schools’ Research and Evaluation Department and the school’s Principal. What is Involved: Each parent/guardian of the students at Overton will be asked to sign and return the Informed Consent Form and complete the attached survey. Completion of the survey should take approximately 15-20 minutes. The completed survey, plus the signed Informed Consent Form, should be returned to the school in the pre-addressed, postage- paid envelope no later than Friday. The survey will be kept separate from the signed Informed Consent Form to ensure anonymity. Potential Benefits and Concerns: The data gained from this study will provide the school with information on parental knowledge levels, which could be beneficial in developing parent meetings, workshops, or trainings as well as potentially help to improve student attendance. There are no foreseeable risks involved in the study. Confidentiality: Every effort will be made to maintain the confidentiality of all information collected. Only the researcher will see the signed Informed Consent Forms and the completed surveys. The signed Informed Consent Forms will be kept separate from the completed survey. Both the completed surveys and signed Informed Consent Forms will be stored in separate confidential locked areas, will be held for a period of three years, and then destroyed in the most appropriate manner available at that time. Questions: If you have any questions, please feel free to call Jamila Williams (503) 351-3835 or email me at [email protected].

Potential Parental Factors 229

Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey and share your thoughts. Sincerely, ___________________________ School Principal

__________________________ Researcher

Potential Parental Factors 230 Appendix D: Informed Consent Form UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX INFORMED CONSENT: PARTICIPANTS 18 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER Dear Parent/Guardian, Thank you for taking the time to complete the following survey. I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on a doctorate degree in Educational Leadership Specializing in Curriculum and Instruction. Working with Overton’s Site Council, I am conducting a research study entitled A Quantitative, Descriptive Study of Potential Parental Factors that May Hinder Student Attendance The purpose of this is to gather data on parents’/guardians/ knowledge level of compulsory education attendance laws, the school’s attendance program, and relating student attendance with achievement. The data gained from this study will potentially provide the school Principal and the Site Council with information that may help improve the school’s attendance rate. Please read the following list of understandings. Your signature provides permission for your participation in the study. I understand that: 1. I may withdraw or decline at any time without consequences. 2. The research records and interview information will remain confidential. 3. My personal anonymity will be upheld and guaranteed. 4. The researcher will structure a coding process to assure that anonymousness which is described in the proposal document supporting the research design. 5. Data will be stored in a confidential and locked area, will be held for a period of three years, and then destroyed in the most appropriate manner available to me at the time. 6. In this research, there are no foreseeable risks to you or to your child/children. 7. The research data results will be used for publication; however your name and information will remain anonymous. 8. Jamila Williams, the researcher, has thoroughly explained the parameters of the research study and all of my questions and concerns have been addressed. If I have future questions or research-related concerns, I, the participant, may contact the researcher at (503) 351-3835 or (email) [email protected] By signing this form, I acknowledge that I understand the nature of the study, the potential risks to me as a participant, and the means by which my identity will be kept confidential. My signature on this form also indicates that I am 18 years old or older and that I give my permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described

__________________________________

_____________________

Parent’/Guardians’ Signature

Date

Potential Parental Factors 231 Appendix E: Permission to Use Premises, Name and/or Subjects

Potential Parental Factors 232 Appendix F: Original Survey Created on Survey Monkey by Researcher

Potential Parental Factors 233

Potential Parental Factors 234

Potential Parental Factors 235

Potential Parental Factors 236

Potential Parental Factors 237

Potential Parental Factors 238

Potential Parental Factors 239

Potential Parental Factors 240 Appendix G: z-Test Scores Q1. What is your gender?

Female

Count %

Q8A. Oregon's Compulsor y Attendance Law requires... Sure True Think True 18 56.3% 9 28.1%

Male

Count %

4 66.7%

1 16.7%

1 16.7%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

22 57.9%

10 26.3%

2 5.3%

4 10.5%

25-34

Count %

Q8A. Oregon's Compulsor y Attendance Law requires... Sure True Think True 6 66.7% 2 22.2%

Think Not True 0 .0%

Do Not Know 1 11.1%

35-43

Count %

12 60.0%

5 25.0%

1 5.0%

2 10.0%

44-54

Count %

3 75.0%

0 .0%

1 25.0%

0 .0%

55-64

Count %

1 33.3%

1 33.3%

0 .0%

1 33.3%

65 or over

Count %

0 .0%

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Decline to

Count %

0 .0%

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Q2. What is your age group?

Think Not True 1 3.1%

Do Not Know 4 12.5%

Total

z-Test Score

32 100.0 % 6 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.461

Total

z-Test Score

9 100.0 % 20 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 1

0.612

0.476

0.276

0.732

0.899

1.188

1.188

Potential Parental Factors 241 answer Total

Count %

22 57.9%

2 5.3%

4 10.5%

Count %

Q8A. Oregon's Compulsor y Attendance Law requires... Sure True Think True 0 .0% 1 100.0%

Think Not True 0 .0%

Do Not Know 0 .0%

None

1

Count %

11 57.9%

5 26.3%

1 5.3%

2 10.5%

2

Count %

7 53.8%

3 23.1%

1 7.7%

2 15.4%

3

Count %

4 80.0%

1 20.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

22 57.9%

10 26.3%

2 5.3%

4 10.5%

Count %

Do Not Know 1 10.0%

Total

Pre K

Q8A. Oregon's Compulsor y Attendance Law requires... Sure True Think True 4 40.0% 5 50.0%

Total

Count %

4 40.0%

1 10.0%

Q3. How many children at Overton?

Pre K*

K-2nd

Q8A.

10 26.3%

5 50.0%

10 100.0% 10 100.0%

100.0 % 38 100.0 %

Total 1 100.0 % 19 100.0 % 13 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

z-Test Score 1.336

z-Test Score 1.188

0

0.369

1.074

Potential Parental Factors 242

K - 2nd

Count %

Oregon's Compulsor y Attendance Law requires... Sure True Think True 9 56.3% 4 25.0%

Total

Count %

9 56.3%

3rd - 5th

Count %

Q8A. Oregon's Compulsor y Attendance Law requires... Sure True Think True 11 68.8% 2 12.5%

Think Not True 1 6.3%

Do Not Know 2 12.5%

Total

Count %

11 68.8%

2 12.5%

1 6.3%

2 12.5%

Count %

Do Not Know 1 9.1%

Total

6th - 8th

Q8A. Oregon's Compulsor y Attendance Law requires... Sure True Think True 8 72.7% 2 18.2%

Total

Count %

8 72.7%

1 9.1%

3rd-5th

6th-8th

Q5.

Q8A.

4 25.0%

2 18.2%

Think Not True 2 12.5%

Do Not Know 1 6.3%

2 12.5%

1 6.3%

11 100.0% 11 100.0%

Total 16 100.0 % 16 100.0 %

z-Test Score 0.17

Total

z-Test Score

16 100.0 % 16 100.0 %

1.161

z-test Score 1.179

Potential Parental Factors 243 Highestlevel of Education

Grade School

Count %

Oregon's Compulsor y Attendance Law requires... Sure True Think True 3 100.0% 0 .0%

High School graduate

Count %

3 50.0%

2 33.3%

0 .0%

1 16.7%

Some college

Count %

6 54.5%

2 18.2%

1 9.1%

2 18.2%

College graduate

Count %

7 58.3%

4 33.3%

0 .0%

1 8.3%

Trade school

Count %

2 66.7%

0 .0%

1 33.3%

0 .0%

Graduate degree

Count %

0 .0%

2 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Decline to answer

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

22 57.9%

10 26.3%

2 5.3%

Q6. Employmen t Status

Think Not True 2 13.3%

Do Not Know 1 6.7%

0 .0%

1 33.3%

Employed full time

Count %

Q8A. Oregon's Compulsor y Attendance Law requires... Sure True Think True 9 60.0% 3 20.0%

Employed

Count %

1 33.3%

1 33.3%

Think Not True 0 .0%

Do Not Know 0 .0%

Total 3 100.0 % 6 100.0 % 11 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 4 10.5%

Total 15 100.0 % 3

z-Test Score 1.629

0.309

0.212

0.028

0.269

1.793

0

38 100.0 %

z-Test Score 0.18

0.515

Potential Parental Factors 244 part time Full time student

Count %

3 60.0%

1 20.0%

0 .0%

1 20.0%

Homemaker

Count %

4 50.0%

3 37.5%

0 .0%

1 12.5%

Retired

Count %

1 33.3%

2 66.7%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Unemploye d

Count %

4 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

22 57.9%

10 26.3%

2 5.3%

4 10.5%

African American

Count %

Q8A. Oregon's Compulsor y Attendance Law requires... Sure True Think True 9 69.2% 1 7.7%

Think Not True 1 7.7%

Do Not Know 2 15.4%

Asian/Pacifi c Islander

Count %

2 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Latino

Count %

3 75.0%

1 25.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Native American

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

White

Count %

6 46.2%

5 38.5%

1 7.7%

1 7.7%

Mixed Race

Count %

1 25.0%

2 50.0%

0 .0%

1 25.0%

Q7. Ethnicity

100.0 % 5 100.0 % 8 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

Total 13 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 13 100.0 % 4 100.0 %

0.082

0.372

0.513

0

z-Test Score 1.017

1.239

0.732

0.864

1.053

1.409

Potential Parental Factors 245 Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

22 57.9%

10 26.3%

2 5.3%

4 10.5%

Think Not True 1 3.1%

Do Not Know 7 21.9%

Q1. What is your gender?

Q8B. Failure to comply can result in Class C violation Sure True

1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

1.188

Total

z-Test Score 1.384

Female

Count %

15 46.9%

Think True 9 28.1%

Male

Count %

1 16.7%

1 16.7%

3 50.0%

1 16.7%

Total

Count %

16 42.1%

10 26.3%

4 10.5%

8 21.1%

Sure True

Think True

Do Not Know 3 30.0%

Q2. What is your age group?

32 100.0 % 6 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

1.373

Q8B. Failure to comply can result in Class C violation

25-34

Count %

3 30.0%

3 30.0%

Think Not True 1 10.0%

35-43

Count %

10 50.0%

5 25.0%

1 5.0%

4 20.0%

44-54

Count %

2 50.0%

0 .0%

2 50.0%

0 .0%

55-64

Count %

1 50.0%

1 50.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

z-Test

10 100.0 % 20 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 2 100.0 %

0.903

1.04

0.338

0.232

Potential Parental Factors 246 65 or over

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

1 100.0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

16 42.1%

10 26.3%

4 10.5%

8 21.1%

Think Not True 0 .0%

Do Not Know 1 100.0%

Total

z-Test

1 100.0 % 20 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.864

Total

z-Test

9 100.0 %

2.156

Q3. How many children at Overton?

Count %

Q8B. Failure to comply can result in Class C violation Sure True

None

Count %

0 .0%

Think True 0 .0%

1

Count %

8 40.0%

6 30.0%

3 15.0%

3 15.0%

2

Count %

5 41.7%

2 16.7%

1 8.3%

4 33.3%

3

Count %

3 60.0%

2 40.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

16 42.1%

10 26.3%

4 10.5%

8 21.1%

Think True 3 33.3%

Think Not True 1 11.1%

Do Not Know 4 44.4%

Pre K

Pre K

Q8B. Failure to comply can result in Class C violation Sure True Count %

1 11.1%

1 100.0 % 0 .0%

1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.276

0.034

0.87

0.864

0.864

Potential Parental Factors 247 Total

Count %

K-2nd

1 11.1%

Q8B. Failure to comply can result in Class C violation Sure True

3 33.3%

1 11.1%

4 44.4%

9 100.0 %

Think Not True 2 11.8%

Do Not Know 2 11.8%

Total

z-Test

17 100.0 % 17 100.0 %

1.213

Total

z-Test

15 100.0 % 15 100.0 %

0.464

K - 2nd

Count %

9 52.9%

Think True 4 23.5%

Total

Count %

9 52.9%

4 23.5%

2 11.8%

2 11.8%

Think Not True 1 6.7%

Do Not Know 2 13.3%

3rd-5th

Q8B. Failure to comply can result in Class C violation Sure True

3rd - 5th

Count %

7 46.7%

Think True 5 33.3%

Total

Count %

7 46.7%

5 33.3%

1 6.7%

2 13.3%

Think True

Do Not Know

Total

6th – 8th

Q8B. Failure to comply can result in Class C violation Sure True

z-/test

Potential Parental Factors 248 6th - 8th

Count %

7 63.6%

3 27.3%

1 9.1%

Total

Count %

7 63.6%

3 27.3%

1 9.1%

Q5. Highestlevel of Education

Q8B. Failure to comply can result in Class C violation Sure True

11 100.0% 11 100.0%

1,713

Think Not True 0 .0%

Do Not Know 0 .0%

Total

z-Test

3 100.0 % 6 100.0 % 11 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.899

Grade School

Count %

2 66.7%

Think True 1 33.3%

High school graduate

Count %

3 50.0%

1 16.7%

1 16.7%

1 16.7%

Some college

Count %

4 36.4%

4 36.4%

1 9.1%

2 18.2%

College graduate

Count %

6 50.0%

1 8.3%

2 16.7%

3 25.0%

Trade school

Count %

1 33.3%

2 66.7%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Graduate degree

Count %

0 .0%

1 50.0%

0 .0%

1 50.0%

Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 100.0%

Total

Count %

16 42.1%

10 26.3%

4 10.5%

8 21.1%

Q6. Employmen t Status

Q8B. Failure to comply can result in Class C violation

0.427

0.454

0.67

0.322

1.239

0.864

Potential Parental Factors 249 Sure True Employed full time

Count %

9 60.0%

Think True 2 13.3%

Employed part time

Count %

0 .0%

2 50.0%

0 .0%

2 50.0%

Full time student

Count %

1 20.0%

3 60.0%

0 .0%

1 20.0%

Homemaker

Count %

3 37.5%

2 25.0%

1 12.5%

2 25.0%

Retired

Count %

1 50.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 50.0%

Unemploye d

Count %

2 50.0%

1 25.0%

0 .0%

1 25.0%

Total

Count %

16 42.1%

10 26.3%

4 10.5%

8 21.1%

Think Not True 2 14.3%

Do Not Know 3 21.4%

Q7. Ethnicity

Q8B. Failure to comply can result in Class C violation Sure True

Think Not True 3 20.0%

Do Not Know 1 6.7%

African American

Count %

4 28.6%

Think True 5 35.7%

Asian/Pacifi c Islander

Count %

1 50.0%

0 .0%

1 50.0%

0 .0%

Latino

Count %

2 50.0%

2 50.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Native American

Count %

0 .0%

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

White

Count %

8 61.5%

1 7.7%

0 .0%

4 30.8%

Total

z-Test

15 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 8 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

1.805

Total

z-Test

14 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 13

1.287

1.803

1.074

0.297

0.232

0.338

0.232

0.338

0.864

1.747

Potential Parental Factors 250 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

Mixed Race

Count %

1 33.3%

1 33.3%

0 .0%

1 33.3%

Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 100.0%

0 .0%

Count %

16 42.1%

10 26.3%

4 10.5%

8 21.1%

Think True

Think Not True

Do Not Know 5 15.6%

Q1. What is your gender?

Q8C. Tardy means not present at start of class... Sure True

Female

Count %

10 31.3%

13 40.6%

3 9.4%

Sure Not True 1 3.1%

Male

Count %

1 16.7%

5 83.3%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

11 28.9%

18 47.4%

3 7.9%

1 2.6%

5 13.2%

Think True

Think Not True

Do Not Know 1 10.0% 1 5.0%

Q2. What is your age group?

Q8C. Tardy means not present at start of class... Sure True

25-34

Count %

3 30.0%

3 30.0%

2 20.0%

Sure Not True 1 10.0%

35-43

Count %

6 30.0%

12 60.0%

1 5.0%

0 .0%

0.322

0.864

Total

z-Test

32 100.0 % 6 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.754

Total

z-Test

10 100.0 % 20 100.0 %

0.089

0.718

0.158

Potential Parental Factors 251 44-54

Count %

2 50.0%

2 50.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

55-64

Count %

0 .0%

1 50.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 50.0%

65 or over

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

11 28.9%

18 47.4%

3 7.9%

1 2.6%

1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 5 13.2%

Think True

Think Not True

Q3. How many children at Overton?

Q8C. Tardy means not present at start of class... Sure True

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Sure Not True 0 .0%

1

Count %

6 30.00%

9 45.0%

2 10.0%

0 .0%

Do Not Know 1 100.0 % 3 15.0%

2

Count %

3 25.00%

7 58.3%

1 8.3%

1 8.3%

0 .0%

2 40.00%

2 40.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 20.0%

11 28.90%

18 47.4%

3 7.9%

1 2.6%

5 13.2%

None

3

Total

Pre K

Count %

Count %

Q8C. Tardy means not present at

4 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.984

Total

z-Test

1 100.0 % 20 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.646

0.926

0.646

0.646

0.158

0.36

0.588

Potential Parental Factors 252 start of class... Think True Pre K

Count %

7 77.8%

Think Not True 1 11.1%

Total

Count %

7 77.8%

1 11.1%

1 11.1%

Think Not True 1 5.9%

Do Not Know 3 17.6%

K-2nd

Q8C. Tardy means not present at start of class... Sure True

Sure Not True 1 11.1%

Total

z-Test

9 100.0% 9 100.0%

3.705

Total

z-Test

17 100.0 % 17 100.0 %

0.783

Total

K - 2nd

Count %

6 35.3%

Think True 7 41.2%

Total

Count %

6 35.3%

7 41.2%

1 5.9%

3 17.6%

Sure True

Think True

Think Not True

Count %

4 26.7%

7 46.7%

1 6.7%

Sure Not True 1 6.7%

Do Not Know 2 13.3%

Count %

4 26.7%

7 46.7%

1 6.7%

1 6.7%

2 13.3%

3rd-5th

3rd - 5th

Total

6th-8th

Q8C. Tardy means not present at start of class...

Q8C. Tardy means not present at

15 100.0 % 15 100.0 %

z-Test

0.242

Potential Parental Factors 253 start of class... Sure True 6th - 8th

Count %

6 54.5%

Think True 3 27.3%

Total

Count %

6 54.5%

3 27.3%

1 9.1%

1 9.1%

Think True

Think Not True

Do Not Know 1 33.3%

Q5. Highestlevel of Education

Q8C. Tardy means not present at start of class... Sure True

Think Not True 1 9.1%

Do Not Know 1 9.1%

Total

z-Test

11 100.0 % 11 100.0 %

2.222

Total

z-test Score

3 100.0 % 6 100.0 % 11 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

1.505

Grade school

Count %

2 66.7%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Sure Not True 0 .0%

High school graduate

Count %

2 33.3%

1 16.7%

3 50.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Some college

Count %

2 18.2%

6 54.5%

0 .0%

1 9.1%

2 18.2%

College graduate

Count %

3 25.0%

8 66.7%

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 8.3%

Trade school

Count %

2 66.7%

1 33.3%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Graduate degree

Count %

0 .0%

1 50.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 50.0%

Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

11 28.9%

18 47.4%

3 7.9%

1 2.6%

5 13.2%

0.259

0.929

0.36

1.505

0.926

0.646

Potential Parental Factors 254 Q6. Employmen t Status

Q8C. Tardy means not present at start of class... z-test Score

Employed full time

1.219

Count %

6 40.0%

7 46.7%

Think Not True 1 6.7%

Employed part time

0.182

Count %

1 25.0%

1 25.0%

1 25.0%

0 .0%

1 25.0%

Full time student

0.471

Count %

1 20.0%

2 40.0%

0 .0%

1 20.0%

1 20.0%

Homemaker

1.152

Count %

1 12.5%

5 62.5%

1 12.5%

0 .0%

1 12.5%

Retired

0.926

Count %

0 .0%

1 50.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 50.0%

Unemploye d

0.984

Count %

2 50.0%

2 50.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

11 28.9%

18 47.4%

3 7.9%

1 2.6%

5 13.2%

Q7. Ethnicity

Q8C. Tardy means not present at start of class... Sure True

Think True

Sure Not True 0 .0%

Do Not Know 3 21.4%

z-test Score

Sure True

Think True

Sure Not True 0 .0%

Do Not Know 1 6.7%

0.779

African American

Count %

3 21.4%

6 42.9%

Think Not True 2 14.3%

0.676

Asian/Pacifi c Islander

Count %

1 50.0%

1 50.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0.984

Latino

Count %

2 50.0%

1 25.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

1

Total

15 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 8 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

Total

14 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 4

Potential Parental Factors 255 25.0% 0.646

Native American

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 100.0 % 0 .0%

0.941

White

Count %

5 38.5%

7 53.8%

1.151

Mixed Race

Count %

0 .0%

3 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

0.646

Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

11 28.9%

18 47.4%

3 7.9%

1 2.6%

5 13.2%

Q1. What is your gender?

Somewha t Aware 3 9.4%

Not At All Aware 1 3.1%

Total

z-test Score 1.288

Female

Count %

Q9A. Considered late when tardy bell rings Fully Aware 28 87.5%

Male

Count %

4 66.7%

1 16.7%

1 16.7%

Total

Count %

32 84.2%

4 10.5%

2 5.3%

Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

6 66.7%

3 33.3%

Q2. What is your age group?

32 100.0% 6 100.0% 38 100.0%

1 7.7%

1.281

Q9A. Considered late when tardy bell rings

25-34

Count %

Not At All Aware 0 .0%

Total

z-test Score

9 100.0 %

1.648

100.0 % 1 100.0 % 13 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

Potential Parental Factors 256 35-43

Count %

17 85.0%

1 5.0%

2 10.0%

44-54

Count %

4 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

55-64

Count %

3 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

65 or over

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Decline to answer

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

32 84.2%

4 10.5%

2 5.3%

Q3. How many children at Overton?

Q9A. Considered late when tardy bell rings Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

Total

None

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

Not At All Aware 0 .0%

1

Count %

16 80.0%

3 15.0%

1 5.0%

2

Count %

10 83.3%

1 8.3%

1 8.3%

3

Count %

5 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Count %

32 84.2%

4 10.5%

2 5.3%

20 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.143

Total

z-test Score

1 100.0 % 20 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.439

0.916

0.782

0.439

0.439

0.748

0.103

1.039

Potential Parental Factors 257 Pre K

Pre K

Count %

Q9A. Considered late when tardy bell rings Fully Aware 8 80.0%

Total

Count %

8 80.0%

2 20.0%

K - 2nd

Count %

Q9A. Considered late when tardy bell rings Fully Aware 13 81.3%

Somewha t Aware 3 18.8%

Total

Count %

13 81.3%

3 18.8%

3rd - 5th

Count %

Q9A. Considered late when tardy bell rings Fully Aware 15 93.8%

Somewha t Aware 1 6.3%

Total

Count %

15 93.8%

1 6.3%

Q9A. Considered late when tardy bell rings Fully

Total

K-2nd

3rd-5th

6th - 8th

Not At All Aware 2 20.0%

Total 10 100.0% 10 100.0%

Total 16 100.0% 16 100.0%

Total 16 100.0% 16 100.0%

z-test

z-test Score 0.424

z-test Score 0.418

z-test Score 1.384

Potential Parental Factors 258

6th - 8th Total

Count % Count %

Q5. Highest Level of Education

Aware 10 100.0% 10 100.0%

Score 10 100.0% 10 100.0%

1.596

Q9A. Considered late when tardy bell rings Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

Grade school

Count %

2 100.0%

0 .0%

Not At All Aware 0 .0%

High school graduate

Count %

4 66.7%

2 33.3%

0 .0%

Some college

Count %

11 91.7%

1 8.3%

0 .0%

College graduate

Count %

10 83.3%

1 8.3%

1 8.3%

Trade school

Count %

3 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Graduate degree

Count %

1 50.0%

0 .0%

1 50.0%

Decline to answer

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

32 84.2%

4 10.5%

2 5.3%

Q6. Employmen t Status

Q9A. Considered late when tardy bell

Total

z-test Score

2 100.0 % 6 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.629

1.281

0.861

0.103

0.782

1.362

0.439

Potential Parental Factors 259 rings Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

Employed full time

Count %

13 86.7%

1 6.7%

Not At All Aware 1 6.7%

Employed part time

Count %

2 50.0%

1 25.0%

1 25.0%

Full time student

Count %

5 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Homemake r

Count %

5 71.4%

2 28.6%

0 .0%

Retired

Count %

3 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Unemploye d

Count %

4 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

32 84.2%

4 10.5%

2 5.3%

Q7. Ethnicity

Q9A. Considered late when tardy bell rings Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

African American

Count %

12 85.7%

2 14.3%

Not At All Aware 0 .0%

Asian/Pacifi c Islander

Count %

2 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Latino

Count %

2 66.7%

1 33.3%

0 .0%

Native American

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

z-test Score

15 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 7 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.341

Total

z-test Score

14 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 1 100.0

0.194

1.983

1.039

1.028

0.782

0.916

0.629

0.866

0.439

Potential Parental Factors 260

White

Count %

11 84.6%

0 .0%

2 15.4%

Mixed Race

Count %

4 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

1 100.0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

32 84.2%

4 10.5%

2 5.3%

Q1. What is your gender?

Not At All Aware 8 25.0%

Total

Female

Count %

Q9B. Receive incentives to maintain perfect attendance Fully Somewha Aware t Aware 18 56.3% 6 18.8%

Male

Count %

2 33.3%

3 50.0%

1 16.7%

Total

Count %

20 52.6%

9 23.7%

9 23.7%

Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

Q2. What is your age group?

32 100.0% 6 100.0% 38 100.0%

% 13 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.049

0.916

2.339

z-test Score 1.055 1.032

Q9B. Receive incentives to maintain perfect attendance

25-34

Count %

5 50.0%

1 10.0%

Not At All Aware 4 40.0%

35-43

Count %

10 50.0%

6 30.0%

4 20.0%

Total

z-test Score

10 100.0 % 20 100.0

0.192

0.338

Potential Parental Factors 261

44-54

Count %

2 50.0%

1 25.0%

1 25.0%

55-64

Count %

1 50.0%

1 50.0%

0 .0%

65 or over

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Decline to answer

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

20 52.6%

9 23.7%

9 23.7%

Q3. How many children at Overton?

Q9B. Receive incentives to maintain perfect attendance Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

None

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

Not At All Aware 0 .0%

1

Count %

11 55.0%

3 15.0%

6 30.0%

2

Count %

5 41.7%

4 33.3%

3 25.0%

3

Count %

3 60.0%

2 40.0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

20 52.6%

9 23.7%

9 23.7%

Pre-K

Q9B. Receive

% 4 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.11

0.076

0.962

0.962

Total

z-test Score

1 100.0 % 20 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.962

0.312

0.914

0.356

Potential Parental Factors 262

Pre K

Count %

incentives to maintain perfect attendance Fully Somewha Aware t Aware 1 11.1% 1 11.1%

Total

Count %

1 11.1%

K - 2nd

Count %

Q9B. Receive incentives to maintain perfect attendance Fully Somewha Aware t Aware 10 58.8% 5 29.4%

Not At All Aware 2 11.8%

Total

Count %

10 58.8%

2 11.8%

3rd - 5th

Count %

Q9B. Receive incentives to maintain perfect attendance Fully Somewha Aware t Aware 7 46.7% 6 40.0%

Not At All Aware 2 13.3%

Total

Count %

7 46.7%

2 13.3%

K-2nd

3rd-5th

6th - 8th

Q9B. Receive incentives to maintain perfect

1 11.1%

5 29.4%

6 40.0%

Not At All Aware 7 77.8% 7 77.8%

Total 9 100.0% 9 100.0%

Total 17 100.0% 17 100.0%

Total 15 100.0% 15 100.0%

z-test Score 2.854

z-test Score 0.689

z-test Score 0.588

Potential Parental Factors 263

6th - 8th

Count %

attendance Fully Aware 8 72.7%

Total

Count %

8 72.7%

Q5. Highest Level of Education

Somewha t Aware 2 18.2%

Not At All Aware 1 9.1%

2 18.2%

1 9.1%

Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

Total 11 100.0% 11 100.0%

z-test Score 1.584

Q9B. Receive incentives to maintain perfect attendance

Grade school

Count %

2 66.7%

1 33.3%

Not At All Aware 0 .0%

High school graduate

Count %

5 83.3%

0 .0%

1 16.7%

Some college

Count %

4 36.4%

6 54.5%

1 9.1%

College graduate

Count %

7 58.3%

1 8.3%

4 33.3%

Trade school

Count %

1 33.3%

1 33.3%

1 33.3%

Graduate degree

Count %

1 50.0%

0 .0%

1 50.0%

Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 100.0%

Total

Count %

20 52.6%

9 23.7%

9 23.7%

Q6. Employmen t Status

Receive incentives to maintain perfect

Total

z-test Score

3 100.0 % 6 100.0 % 11 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.51

1.641

1.277

0.478

0.698

0.076

1.068

Potential Parental Factors 264 attendance Q9B. Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

Employed full time

Count %

10 66.7%

3 20.0%

Not At All Aware 2 13.3%

Employed part time

Count %

2 50.0%

0 .0%

2 50.0%

Full time student

Count %

3 60.0%

1 20.0%

1 20.0%

Homemake r

Count %

3 37.5%

3 37.5%

2 25.0%

Retired

Count %

1 50.0%

1 50.0%

0 .0%

Unemploye d

Count %

1 25.0%

1 25.0%

2 50.0%

Total

Count %

20 52.6%

9 23.7%

9 23.7%

Q7. Ethnicity

Q9B. Receive incentives to maintain perfect attendance Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

African American

Count %

8 57.1%

4 28.6%

Not At All Aware 2 14.3%

Asian/Pacifi c Islander

Count %

1 50.0%

0 .0%

1 50.0%

Latino

Count %

3 75.0%

1 25.0%

0 .0%

Total

z-test Score

15 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 8 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

1.406

Total

z-test Score

14 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 4 100.0

0.424

0.11

0.356

0.963

0.076

1.169

0.076

0.949

Potential Parental Factors 265

Native American

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 100.0%

White

Count %

5 38.5%

3 23.1%

5 38.5%

Mixed Race

Count %

2 66.7%

1 33.3%

0 .0%

Decline to answer

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

20 52.6%

9 23.7%

9 23.7%

Q1. What is your gender?

Somewha t Aware 5 15.6%

Not At All Aware 13 40.6%

Total

Female

Count %

Q9C. Three Yellow cards for free book Fully Aware 14 43.8%

Male

Count %

2 33.3%

1 16.7%

3 50.0%

Total

Count %

16 42.1%

6 15.8%

16 42.1%

Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

Q2. What is your age group?

32 100.0% 6 100.0% 38 100.0%

% 1 100.0 % 13 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

1.068

1.255

0.51

0.962

z-test Score 0.49 0.476

Q9C. Three Yellow cards for free book

25-34

Count %

3 30.0%

2 20.0%

Not At All Aware 5 50.0%

35-43

Count %

9 45.0%

3 15.0%

8 40.0%

Total

z-test Score

10 100.0 % 20 100.0 %

0.903

0.382

Potential Parental Factors 266 44-54

Count %

2 50.0%

1 25.0%

1 25.0%

55-64

Count %

1 50.0%

0 .0%

1 50.0%

65 or over

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 100.0%

Decline to answer

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

16 42.1%

6 15.8%

16 42.1%

Q3. How man y children at Overton ?

Q9C. Three Yellow cards for free book Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

Not At All Aware 1 100.0%

None

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

1

Count %

9 45.0%

3 15.0%

8 40.0%

2

Count %

4 33.3%

2 16.7%

6 50.0%

3

Count %

3 60.0%

1 20.0%

1 20.0%

Total

Count %

16 42.1%

6 15.8%

16 42.1%

Pre-K

Q9C. Three Yellow cards for free book

4 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.338

Total

z-test Score

1 100.0 % 20 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.864

0.232

0.864

1.188

0.382

0.746

0.87

Potential Parental Factors 267 Not At All Aware

Total

Count % Count %

9 100.0% 9 100.0%

9 100.0% 9 100.00%

K - 2nd

Count %

Q9C. Three Yellow cards for free book Fully Aware 8 47.1%

Somewha t Aware 4 23.5%

Not At All Aware 5 29.4%

Total

Count %

8 47.1%

4 23.5%

5 29.4%

3rd - 5th

Count %

Q9C. Three Yellow cards for free book Fully Aware 7 46.7%

Somewha t Aware 3 20.0%

Not At All Aware 5 33.3%

Total

Count %

7 46.7%

3 20.0%

5 33.3%

6th - 8th

Count %

Q9C. Three Yellow cards for free book Fully Aware 8 72.7%

Somewha t Aware 1 9.1%

Not At All Aware 2 18.2%

Total

Count %

8 72.7%

1 9.1%

2 18.2%

Pre K Total

K-2nd

3rd - 5th

6th - 8th

z-test Score 4.027

Total 17 100.0% 17 100.0%

Total 15 100.0% 15 100.0%

Total 11 100.0% 11 100.0%

z-test Score 0.562

z-test Score 0.464

z-test Score 2.439

Potential Parental Factors 268

Q5. Highestlevel of Education

Q9C. Three Yellow cards for free book Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

Grade school

Count %

3 100.0%

0 .0%

Not At All Aware 0 .0%

High school graduate

Count %

4 66.7%

1 16.7%

1 16.7%

Some college

Count %

3 27.3%

3 27.3%

5 45.5%

College graduate

Count %

5 41.7%

2 16.7%

5 41.7%

Trade school

Count %

1 33.3%

0 .0%

2 66.7%

Graduate degree

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

2 100.0%

Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 100.0%

Total

Count %

16 42.1%

6 15.8%

16 42.1%

Q6. Employmen t Status

Q9C. Three Yellow cards for free book Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

Employed full time

Count %

9 60.0%

2 13.3%

Not At All Aware 4 26.7%

Employed part time

Count %

1 25.0%

0 .0%

3 75.0%

Total

z-test Score

3 100.0 % 6 100.0 % 11 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

2.303

Total

z-test Score

15 100.0 % 4 100.0

1.805

1.33

1.179

0.034

0.322

1.239

0.864

0.732

Potential Parental Factors 269

Full time student

Count %

2 40.0%

2 40.0%

1 20.0%

Homemake r

Count %

3 37.5%

2 25.0%

3 37.5%

Retired

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

2 100.0%

Unemploye d

Count %

1 25.0%

0 .0%

3 75.0%

Total

Count %

16 42.1%

6 15.8%

16 42.1%

Q7. Ethnicity

Q9C. Three Yellow cards for free book Fully Aware

Somewha t Aware

African American

Count %

7 50.0%

3 21.4%

Not At All Aware 4 28.6%

Asian/Pacifi c Islander

Count %

1 50.0%

0 .0%

1 50.0%

Latino

Count %

3 75.0%

1 25.0%

0 .0%

Native American

Count %

0 .0%

0 .0%

1 100.0%

White

Count %

4 30.8%

0 .0%

9 69.2%

Mixed Race

Count %

0 .0%

2 66.7%

1 33.3%

Decline to answer

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

% 5 100.0 % 8 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.102

0.297

1.239

0.732

Total

z-test Score

14 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 13 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 1 100.0 %

0.753

0.232

1.409

0.864

1.017

1.539

1.188

Potential Parental Factors 270 Total

Count %

Q1. What is your gender?

16 42.1%

6 15.8%

16 42.1%

38 100.0 %

Agree

Disagree

Total

11 34.4%

1 3.1%

32 100.0% 6 100.0% 38 100.0%

z-test Score 0.99

Female

Count %

Q10A. Vital learning missed when not in school Strongly Agree 20 62.5%

Male

Count %

5 83.3%

1 16.7%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

25 65.8%

12 31.6%

1 2.6%

Agree 3 30.0%

Disagre e 0 .0%

Q2. What is your age group?

0.985

Q10A. Vital learning missed when not in school

25-34

Count %

Strongly Agree 7 70.0%

35-43

Count %

13 65.0%

7 35.0%

0 .0%

44-54

Count %

4 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

55-64

Count %

0 .0%

1 50.0%

1 50.0%

65 or over

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

1 100.0%

0 .0%

Total 10 100.0 % 20 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 %

z-test Score 0.326

0.11

1.524

2.015

0.731

1.406

Potential Parental Factors 271 Total

Count %

Q3. How many children at Overton?

Q10A. Vital learning missed when not in school

25 65.8%

12 31.6%

1 2.6%

38 100.0 %

Agree

Total

0 .0%

Disagre e 0 .0%

None

Count %

Strongly Agree 1 100.0%

1

Count %

13 65.0%

6 30.0%

1 5.0%

2

Count %

10 83.3%

2 16.7%

0 .0%

3

Count %

1 20.0%

4 80.0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

25 65.8%

12 31.6%

1 2.6%

Pre-K

Q10A. Vital learning missed when not in school Strongly Agree 4 44.4% 4 44.4%

Agree

Total

5 55.6% 5 55.6%

9 100.0% 9 100.0%

z-test Score 1.549

Pre K Total

K - 2nd

Count % Count %

Q10A. Vital learning missed when not in school

1 100.0 % 20 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

z-test Score 0.731

0.11

1.545

2.317

Potential Parental Factors 272

K - 2nd

Count %

Strongly Agree 12 70.6%

Total

Count %

12 70.6%

3rd - 5th

Count %

Q10A. Vital learning missed when not in school Strongly Agree 10 66.7%

Total

Count %

10 66.7%

6th - 8th

Count %

Q10A. Vital learning missed when not in school Strongly Agree 7 63.6%

Total

Count %

7 63.6%

3rd - 5th

6th - 8th

Q5. Highest Level of Education

Agree

Disagree

Total

4 23.5%

1 5.9%

4 23.5%

1 5.9%

17 100.0% 17 100.0%

Agree

Total

5 33.3%

15 100.0% 15 100.0%

5 33.3%

Agree

Total

4 36.4%

11 100.0% 11 100.0%

4 36.4%

z-test Scores 0.561

z-test Score 0.094

z-test Score 0.182

Q10A. Vital learning missed when not in school

Grade school

Count %

Strongly Agree 2 66.7%

High school

Count %

5 83.3%

Agree 1 33.3%

Disagre e 0 .0%

1 16.7%

0 .0%

Total 3 100.0 % 6

z-test Score 0.034

0.985

Potential Parental Factors 273 graduate Some college

Count %

7 63.6%

3 27.3%

1 9.1%

College graduate

Count %

8 66.7%

4 33.3%

0 .0%

Trade school

Count %

2 66.7%

1 33.3%

0 .0%

Graduate degree

Count %

1 50.0%

1 50.0%

0 .0%

Decline to answer

Count %

0 .0%

1 100.0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

25 65.8%

12 31.6%

1 2.6%

Q6. Employmen t Status

Q10A. Vital learning missed when not in school Agree 1 6.7%

Disagre e 1 6.7%

Employed full time

Count %

Strongly Agree 13 86.7%

Employed part time

Count %

2 50.0%

2 50.0%

0 .0%

Full time student

Count %

1 20.0%

4 80.0%

0 .0%

Homemake r

Count %

5 62.5%

3 37.5%

0 .0%

Retired

Count %

1 50.0%

1 50.0%

0 .0%

Unemploye d

Count %

3 75.0%

1 25.0%

0 .0%

100.0 % 11 100.0 % 12 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

0.182

0.079

0.034

0.484

1.406

Total

z-test

15 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 5 100.0 % 8 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 4 100.0

2.193

0.704

2.317

0.221

0.484

0.41

Potential Parental Factors 274

Total

Count %

Q7. Ethnicity

Q10A. Vital learning missed when not in school

25 65.8%

12 31.6%

1 2.6%

Agree 4 28.6%

Disagre e 1 7.1%

African American

Count %

Strongly Agree 9 64.3%

Asian/Pacifi c Islander

Count %

2 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Latino

Count %

2 50.0%

2 50.0%

0 .0%

Native American

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

White

Count %

9 69.2%

4 30.8%

0 .0%

Mixed Race

Count %

1 33.3%

2 66.7%

0 .0%

Decline to answer

Count %

1 100.0%

0 .0%

0 .0%

Total

Count %

25 65.8%

12 31.6%

1 2.6%

Q1. What is your gender?

Q10B. Parents' attitudes influence... Strongly Agree

Agree

Total

% 38 100.0 %

Total 14 100.0 % 2 100.0 % 4 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 13 100.0 % 3 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 38 100.0 %

z-test Score

z-test Score 0.149

1.048

0.104

0.731

0.319

1.236

0.731

Potential Parental Factors 275 Female

Count %

26 81.3%

6 18.8%

1.674

3 50.0% 9 23.7%

32 100.0% 6 100.0% 38 100.0%

Male

Count % Count %

3 50.0% 29 76.3%

Strongly Agree 8 80.0%

Agree

Total

2 20.0%

17 85.0%

3 15.0%

Count % Count % Count % Count

2 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 100.0% 0

2 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 .0% 1

10 100.0% 20 100.0% 4 100.0% 2 100.0% 1 100.0% 1

z-test Score 0.321

.0% 29 76.3%

100.0% 9 23.7%

100.0% 38 100.0%

1.818

Total

% Count %

Q3. How many children at Overton?

Q10B. Parents' attitudes influence... Agree

Total

0 .0% 4 20.0% 1 8.3%

1 100.0% 20 100.0% 12 100.0%

z-test Score 0.565

Total

Q2. What is your age group?

1.651

Q10B. Parents' attitudes influence...

25-34

Count %

35-43

44-54 55-64 65 or over Decline to answer

None

Count %

Strongly Agree 1 100.0%

1

Count % % Count %

16 80.0% 11 91.7%

2

1.329

1.308 0.899 0.565

0.565 1.905

Potential Parental Factors 276 3 Total

Pre-K

Count % Count %

Count % Count %

Q10B. Parents' attitudes influence... Strongly Agree 7 77.8% 7 77.8%

K - 2nd

Count %

Q10B. Parents' attitudes influence... Strongly Agree 13 76.5%

Total

Count %

13 76.5%

3rd - 5th

Count %

Q10B. Parents' attitudes influence... Strongly Agree 10 66.7%

Total

Count %

10 66.7%

Pre K Total

K - 2nd

3rd - 5th

6th - 8th

Q10B. Parents' attitudes influence...

1 20.0% 29 76.3%

4 80.0% 9 23.7%

5 100.0% 38 100.0%

Agree

Total

2 22.2% 2 22.2%

9 100.0% 9 100.0%

z-test Score 0.121

Agree

Total

4 23.5%

17 100.0% 17 100.0%

4 23.5%

Agree

Total

5 33.3%

15 100.0% 15 100.0%

5 33.3%

z-test Score 0.026

z-test Score 1.124

3.177

Potential Parental Factors 277

6th - 8th

Count %

Strongly Agree 8 72.7%

Total

Count %

8 72.7%

Q5. Highest Level of Education

Some college College graduate Trade school Graduate degree Decline to answer

Q6. Employmen t Status

Total

3 27.3% 3 27.3%

11 100.0% 11 100.0%

z-test Score 0.333

Q10B. Parents' attitudes influence...

Grade school High school graduate

Total

Agree

Agree

Total

Count %

Strongly Agree 2 66.7%

z-test Score 0.407

1 33.3%

Count

5

1

3 100.0% 6

% Count

83.3% 8

16.7% 3

100.0% 11

0.439

% Count

72.7% 8

27.3% 4

100.0% 12

0.333

% Count

66.7% 3

33.3% 0

100.0% 3

0.945

% Count

100.0% 2

.0% 0

100.0% 2

1.006

% Count

100.0% 1

.0% 0

100.0% 1

0.81

% Count %

100.0% 29 76.3%

.0% 9 23.7%

100.0% 38 100.0%

0.565

Strongly Agree

Agree

Total

z-test Score

Q10B. Parents' attitudes influence...

Potential Parental Factors 278 Employed full time Employed part time Full time student Homemake r Retired Unemploye d Total

Q1. What is your gender?

Total

Q2. What is your age group?

Count %

13 86.7%

2 13.3%

1.218

0

15 100.0% 4

Count

4

% Count

100.0% 1

.0% 4

100.0% 5

1.178

% Count

20.0% 6

80.0% 2

100.0% 8

3.177

% Count % Count

75.0% 1 50.0% 4

25.0% 1 50.0% 0

100.0% 2 100.0% 4

0.097

% Count %

100.0% 29 76.3%

.0% 9 23.7%

100.0% 38 100.0%

1.178

Agree

Total

6 18.2% 1 16.7% 7 17.9%

33 100.0% 6 100.0% 39 100.0%

z-test Score 0.115

0.899

Q10C. Increase in parental involveme nt improves behavior

Female

Count %

Strongly Agree 27 81.8%

Male

Count % Count %

5 83.3% 32 82.1%

Q10C. Increase in parental involveme nt improves behavior

0.083

Potential Parental Factors 279

25-34

Count %

Strongly Agree 7 70.0%

35-43

Count %

18 90.0%

2 10.0%

44-54

Count % Count % Count % Count

4 100.0% 2 66.7% 1 100.0% 0

0 .0% 1 33.3% 0 .0% 1

10 100.0% 20 100.0% 4 100.0% 3 100.0% 1 100.0% 1

% Count %

.0% 32 82.1%

100.0% 7 17.9%

100.0% 39 100.0%

55-64 65 or over Decline to answer Total

Agree

Total

3 30.0%

Q3. How many children at Overton? Q10C. Increase in parental involvement improves behavior Strongly Agree Total Agree None Count % 1 100.0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 1 Count 15 5 20 % 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% 2 Count 13 0 13 % 100.0% .0% 100.0% 3 Count 3 2 5 % 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% Total Count 32 7 39 % 82.1% 17.9% 100.0%

Pre K Total

Pre-K Q10C. Increase in parental involvement improves behavior Strongly Total z-test Agree Score Count % 10 100.0% 10 1.712 100.0% Count % 10 100.0% 10 100.0%

z-test Score 1.157 1.32

0.986 0.724 0.473

2.17

z-test Score 0.473

1.187 2.062 1.381

Potential Parental Factors 280

K - 2nd

K - 2nd

Count %

Q10C. Increase in parental involveme nt improves behavior Strongly Agree 11 64.7%

Total

Count %

11 64.7%

3rd - 5th Total

3rd - 5th Q10C. Increase in parental involvement improves behavior Strongly Agree Total z-test Agree Score Count % 14 87.5% 2 12.5% 16 100.0% 0.734 Count % 14 87.5% 2 12.5% 16 100.0%

6th - 8th

6th - 8th Total

Count % Count %

Q10C. Increase in parental involveme nt improves behavior Strongly Agree 9 81.8% 9 81.8%

Agree

Total

6 35.3%

17 100.0% 17 100.0%

6 35.3%

Agree

Total

2 18.2% 2 18.2%

11 100.0% 11 100.0%

z-test Score 2.492

z-test Score 0.031

Q5. Highest Level of Education Q10C. Increase in parental involvement improves behavior Strongly Agree Total z-test Agree Score Grade Count % 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 3 0.724 school 100.0% High school Count % 4 2 6

Potential Parental Factors 281 graduate Some college College graduate Trade school Graduate degree Decline to answer Total

% Count

66.7% 10

33.3% 2

100.0% 12

1.07

% Count

83.3% 10

16.7% 2

100.0% 12

0.13

% Count

83.3% 3

16.7% 0

100.0% 3

0.13

% Count

100.0% 2

.0% 0

100.0% 2

0.842

% Count

100.0% 1

.0% 0

100.0% 1

0.678

% Count %

100.0% 32 82.1%

.0% 7 17.9%

100.0% 39 100.0%

0.472

Q6. Employment Status Q10C. Increase in parental involvement improves behavior Strongly Agree Total Agree Employed Count % 13 86.7% 2 13.3% 15 full time 100.0% Employed Count 3 1 4 part time % 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Full time Count 3 2 5 student % 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% Homemake Count 6 2 8 r % 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Retired Count 3 0 3 % 100.0% .0% 100.0% Unemploye Count 4 0 4 d % 100.0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 32 7 39 % 82.1% 17.9% 100.0%

z-test Score 0.592

0.391

1.381

0.588 0.842

0.986

Potential Parental Factors 282

Q7. Ethnicity Q10C. Increase in parental involvement improves behavior Crosstabulation Strongly Agree Total Agree African Count 10 4 14 American % 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% Asian/Pacifi Count 2 0 2 c Islander % 100.0% .0% 100.0% Latino Count 2 2 4 % 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Native Count 1 0 1 American % 100.0% .0% 100.0% White Count 13 0 13 % 100.0% .0% 100.0% Mixed Race Count 4 0 4 % 100.0% .0% 100.0% Decline to Count 0 1 1 answer % .0% 100.0% 100.0% Total Count 32 7 39 % 82.1% 17.9% 100.0%

z-test Score

1.304

0.678 1.768

0.473 2.062 0.986

2.17