The evidence behind strategies to reduce absenteeism

Phyllis Jordan at FutureEd, a US think-tank, recently wrote Attendance playbook: Smart solutions for reducing chronic absenteeism, a report outlining strategies for reducing chronic absenteeism and the evidence behind each suggested strategy. The strategies are presented by Tier I, II, and III intervention levels as follows:

  • Tier I
    • Effective messaging and engagement (eg, nudging parents and pupils)
    • Removing barriers to attendance (eg, school-based health services)
    • Improving school climate (eg, relevant – and culturally relevant – curriculum)
  • Tier II
    • Effective messaging and engagement (eg, early warning)
    • Removing barriers to attendance (eg, addressing asthma)
  • Tier III
    • Including truancy courts, interagency case management and housing

Each strategy described is followed by a list of the evidence supporting it, ranked by US’s ESSA evidence strength (strong, moderate, promising, emerging), with a link to each report. Short descriptions of schools and districts using the strategies are also included.

Source: Attendance playbook: Smart solutions for reducing chronic absenteeism (July 2019), FutureEd

Small class size vs. evidence-based interventions

The Ministry of Education in France introduced a policy in 2002 that reduced class size to no more than 12 pupils in areas determined to have social difficulties and high proportions of at-risk pupils, called Zones d’Education Prioritaire (ZEP). In order to evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of this policy, researcher Jean Ecalle and colleagues in France examined the results of the policy-mandated class size reduction on the reading achievement of first grade (Year 2) pupils (Study 1), and compared them to the effects of an evidence-based literacy intervention on the reading achievement of at-risk children in normal-sized classes (20 pupils) (Study 2).

Study 1, reducing class size, involved assigning classrooms to either small (12 pupils/class n=100 classes) or large (20–25 pupils/class, n=100 classes) class sizes (with the support of the Ministry). At the start of the 2002–03 school year, 1,095 children were pre-tested on pre-reading skills and matched at pre-test. At the end of the school year, children were post-tested, with results favouring the small-class-size group on word reading (effect size=+0.14) and word spelling (effect size=+0.22).

In Study 2, researchers separated 2,803 first grade (Year 2) pupils in ZEP areas into an experimental group who received an evidence-based reading intervention, and a control group who did not. The intervention was a protocol developed by the Association Agir pour l’Ecole (Act for School), who developed a hierarchy of teaching reading based on evidence-based methods of learning to read, progressing from training phonological skills, to learning letter sounds, decoding, and fluency. Act for School monitored compliance with the protocol weekly. Class size for both groups was 20 pupils. Experimental teachers received one day of training, and provided 30 minutes of teaching a day to average or high readers in groups of 10 to 12, and one hour a day for lower readers in groups of four to six. Again, children were pre-tested on reading skills and matched between groups. All areas post-tested favoured the experimental group, with significant effects in word reading (effect size=+0.13) and word spelling (effect size=+0.12).

Researchers stated that based on the results of both studies, the optimal recommendation to improve literacy skills for at-risk pupils would be a double intervention, combining evidence-based practices within small classes.

Source: Effects of policy and educational interventions intended to reduce difficulties in literacy skills in grade 1 (June 2019), Studies in Educational Evaluation, Volume 61