Reducing Student Absenteeism in the Early Grades by Targeting Parental Beliefs
Robinson, Carly D.; Lee, Monica G.; Dearing, Eric; Rogers, Todd (2018). American Educational Research Journal, v55 n6 p1163-1192. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1196789
-
examining10,504Students, gradesK-5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Attendance mailings K-5 - Robinson [et al.,] (2018))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Attendance mailings K-5 - Robinson [et al.,] (2018) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.64 |
5.45 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Absences |
Attendance mailings K-5 - Robinson [et al.,] (2018) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.37 |
6.90 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Attendance mailings K-5 - Robinson [et al.,] (2018) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Mailing + Supporter;
|
4.09 |
5.45 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Absences |
Attendance mailings K-5 - Robinson [et al.,] (2018) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Mailing + Supporter;
|
6.34 |
6.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Absences |
Attendance mailings K-5 - Robinson [et al.,] (2018) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Mailing Only;
|
6.40 |
6.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Attendance mailings K-5 - Robinson [et al.,] (2018) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Mailing only;
|
5.19 |
5.45 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
32% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
-
Race Other or unknown 63% White 37% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 18% Other or unknown 82% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in elementary schools across 10 school districts across urban, suburban, and rural settings in a California county.
Study sample
The study randomly assigned 6,578 students to the intervention condition, including 3,306 in the "Mailing Only" group and 3,272 in the "Mailing + Supporter" group, and 4,388 students to the comparison condition across the participating schools. The study sample included all students in kindergarten through fifth grade who were in the bottom 60th percentile of attendance of participating districts based on attendance records from the previous school year. Students with extreme absences during the previous year, students with inconsistent records of absences and students with very small school by grade combinations were excluded. The analytic sample excluded 4% of the eligible students due to missing outcome data, resulting in a final sample of 10,504 students: 6,302 in the combined intervention group (3,166 in the "Mailing Only" group and 3,136 in the "Mailing + Supporter" group) and 4,202 in the comparison group. Eighteen percent of the students came from Spanish-speaking households, 32% were English Language Learners, 18% were socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 37% identified as White.
Intervention Group
The intervention consisted of sending mailings targeting commonly-held parental beliefs about the importance of regular K–5 attendance as well as the number of school days their child has missed. Households of students assigned to the intervention conditions received six mailings over the course of the school year (between November and May). For the main outcome analyses, the intervention group was comprised of students in both "Mailing Only" and "Mailing + Supporter" conditions. The ‘‘Mailing Only’’ intervention group received mailings that emphasized the importance of regular school attendance during the earlier grades and the utility value of early years schooling and reported the total number of days the student had been absent to-date that year. In addition to receiving the same treatment as the ‘‘Mailing Only’’ condition, the ‘‘Mailing + Supporter’’ intervention group included a supplementary insert that encouraged parents to reach out to their ‘‘attendance supporters’’ (e.g., relatives, friends, and other community/school members who support parents with attendance-related issues), beginning with the second mailing.
Comparison Group
Households assigned to the control group received no additional communications beyond what is typically administered by schools and districts.
Support for implementation
The study does not include information on the support provided for the implementation of the program.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).