Your Child Missed Learning the Alphabet Today: A Randomized Trial of Sending Teacher-Written Postcards Home to Reduce Absences
Himmelsbach, Zachary; Weisenfeld, Dana; Lee, Jihyun Rachel; Hersh, David; Sanbonmatsu, Lisa; Staiger, Douglas O.; Kane, Thomas J. (2022). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v15 n2 p263-278. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1349892
-
examining5,552Students, gradesPK-2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total number of absences |
Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.97 |
5.42 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Total number of absences |
Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students identifying with two or more races;
|
4.36 |
5.14 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Total number of absences |
Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Hispanic or Latino students;
|
6.98 |
7.93 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Total number of absences |
Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Kindergarten students;
|
4.54 |
5.28 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Absent at least 10% of school days |
Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.49 |
29.89 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Total number of absences |
Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 1 students;
|
4.71 |
5.17 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total number of absences |
Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Black students ;
|
5.02 |
5.32 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total number of absences |
Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
White students;
|
4.52 |
4.78 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total number of absences |
Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 2 students;
|
3.69 |
3.91 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total number of absences |
Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Pre-kindergarten students;
|
6.89 |
6.99 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Total number of absences |
Teacher-written postcards – Himmelsbach et al. (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English learners;
|
5.31 |
5.30 |
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.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
Urban
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 11% Not Hispanic or Latino 89% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 65% No FRPL 35%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 28 schools in two urban school districts in the United States. The intervention was implemented in early elementary settings where schools and district staff were trying to reduce student absenteeism.
Study sample
The sample included students in pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, grade 1, and, in one school district, grade 2. In one school district, 20% of students had individualized education plans. In the other school district, 13% of students had individualized education plans. The findings were based on 5,552 students. Researchers randomly assigned 9 schools to the intervention group and 9 schools to the comparison group in one school district, and 54 classrooms to the intervention group and 53 classrooms to the comparison group in the other school district.
Intervention Group
Families of students in the intervention condition received teacher-written postcards to tell families when a student had been absent and what academic content the student missed. The postcards were intended to help families understand both how many days of school their child had missed and what learning the child missed during each absence. After a student was absent, school staff added the student’s name and cumulative number of absences to a postcard, and the student’s teacher wrote a short note about the academic content covered during the absence. In one school district, central office staff mailed postcards weekly for absences that occurred during the week. In the other school district, teachers gave postcards to students on their first day back after an absence and asked them to take the postcards home. The postcards differed slightly between the two school districts in the way they presented overall attendance for the year.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition continued with the school districts’ usual approach to addressing absences. Comparison schools and classrooms did not change how teachers addressed absences, and families of students in the comparison condition were not assigned to receive the postcard intervention. The study did not specify whether and how teachers in the comparison condition notified students and families about missed academic content.
Support for implementation
District and school staff developed the intervention with support from the research team. The school districts also consulted parents and teachers before finalizing the postcard designs. School office staff were expected to write student names and absence counts on postcards, and teachers were expected to add handwritten notes about missed academic content. The study did not provide detailed implementation data, but the school districts reported that teachers completed the postcards.
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).