Republic of the Philippines

Department of Education
Region XII
City Schools Division of Tacurong
TACURONG NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
New Isabela, Tacurong City

THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO STUDENT ABSENTEEISM AND THE

EFFECTIVENESS OF HOME SCHOOL-PARTNERSHIP INTERVENTION:
BASIS FOR AN ENHANCED PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

(A Research Funded Through 2016 BERF)

MARISSA D. UY
MASTER TEACHER I

JENNIFER JANE P. FORMACION

TEACHER III

FLORO A. BELANO
TEACHER II

RESEARCH PROPONENTS

FY 2016

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

II. ABSTRACT 3

III. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4

III. CONTEXT AND RATIONALE 5

IV. INNOVATION, INTERVENTION, AND STRATEGY 6

V. ACTION RESEARCH QUESTIONS 7

VI. ACTION RESEARCH METHOD 7

a. Participants 7

b. Data gathering Method 8

c. Data Analysis Plan 8

VII. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND REFLECTION 10

VIII. ACTION PLAN 21

IX. REFERENCES 24

X. FINANCIAL REPORT 27

2
II. Abstract

This action research had determined the contributing factors of absenteeism of

the students and the effectiveness of home school partnership intervention. A

structured questionnaires were prepared, validated by the experts in the field and

administered to the respondents selected for the study. Results revealed that among

the factors, the family greatly influenced the absenteeism of the students. Hence, the

study implemented the Home School Partnership Intervention to minimize the

absenteeism of the students. The study conducted home visitation, parents’ and

students’ seminar, and mobile communication. The data were organized, tallied,

tabulated, and presented in tables and graph. Students’ evaluation showed that HSPI

(weighted mean= 4.28) indicated very effective in improving their attendance.

Parents’ evaluation on the effectiveness of HSPI (weighted mean=4.50) was very

effective in promoting the attendance in class. Teachers’ evaluation revealed that

HSPI (weighted mean=4.72) was found very effective in promoting student

attendance.

The participation of the parents, teachers, and students on the HSPI (overall

mean=4.50) was a great influence in improving the attendance of the student. The

study recommended strong partnership with the parents/guardians in school in

order to have a better improvement on the performance of the students.

Keywords: Factors of Absenteeism, Home–School Partnership Intervention, Home

visitation, Parents’ and Students’ Seminar, improve attendance

3
III. Acknowledgement

The researchers would like to thank DepEd, Regional Office of Region XII,

City Schools Division of Tacurong, and Tacurong National High School for the

opportunity to help the learners in strengthening their active participation in school

through action research.

Appreciation is expressed to the professional expert in the field of research

who validated the instruments.

To the parents/guardians who are very supportive and participative in order

to materializing this action research.

To the respondents who willingly opened their hearts and minds for the

betterment of their studies.

To the family of the proponents who are very understanding and supportive

in making this research a reality.

Lastly to our Almighty GOD who gave us wisdom, strength, perseverance,

power, and determination to make this action research a successful one.

4
IV. Context and Rationale

A major problem facing schools is how to effectively deal with student

absenteeism (DeSocio et al., 2007). These students forgo opportunities to learn. When

a student does not come to school for a lengthy period of time, one may assume these

students are learning elsewhere, but unfortunately in most circumstances this is not

the case (RI Kids Count, 2007).

Student absenteeism have become a large problem with students today and

receives little attention due to the abundance of other issues and priorities that

teachers are faced with (Teasley, 2004). Absenteeism is a period of time when a

student does not attend school (Teasley, 2004). Students who do not attend school

will generally fall behind their classmates in their academic success. They have fewer

opportunities to learn the materials that will help them to succeed (Epstein & Sheldon,

2002).

Researches emphasize four main circumstances for poor attendance. The

main components are family factors, school factors, economic influences, and student

variables (Baker et al., 2001; Peek, 2009; Wall, 2003). Chang and Romero (2008)

add community related issues to this list. To minimize the absenteeism of the students,

there must be a need to strengthen the home-school relationship. According to

Durborow (2017), research shows a gap between desired levels of school and family

connection and the current level of school and family connection. More study needs

to be done on why the gap exists and what could be done to close the gap and

strengthen the relationship between families and schools.

There is substantial evidence to suggest that parents’ involvement in the

education of their children can make a significant difference in the educational

5
attainment of those children (Keane, 2007; Lemmer, 2009; Studsrød & Bru, 2009;

Makgopa & Mokhele, 2013).

Based on the attendance records of the HUMSS academic track senior high

school of Tacurong National High School, the absences of the students were

increasing from the month of June to August. This was reasonably alarming because

senior high school has two semesters in a year, thus students must avoid being absent

in class to improve their academic performance. Hence, this study determined the

contributing factors of absenteeism at Tacurong National High School-Senior High

School HUMSS academic track, and evaluate the effectiveness of Home-School

Partnership Intervention (HSPI).

V. Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy

The researchers computed the absences of the students for three months.

Students who got 12 absences were considered respondents of the study, then

prepared survey questionnaires on the contributing factors of absenteeism of the

students to determine which factor/s truly affect their attendance at school. The tool

was validated by professionals who are experts in the field. After which, the

respondents took the survey and the researchers focused only on one factor which

got the higher average mean. Then, the researchers conducted an intervention

program called Home School Partnership Intervention to minimize the absences of

the students. This was participated by the school heads, guidance counselor, class

advisers, teachers, students, and parents/guardians.

To determine the effectiveness of HSPI, the respondents, parents or guardians,

and teachers evaluated the program through survey questionnaires which were

validated by professionals who were experts in the field.

6
VI. Action Research Questions

The study was conducted, to determine the Effectiveness of Home-School

Partnership Intervention to minimize the absenteeism of the students.

Specifically, it answered the following questions;

1. What factors contributed to the student absenteeism?

2. What Home-School Partnership Intervention plan may be developed based

on the result of the study?

3. How effective was the Home-School Partnership Intervention to improve

student attendance?

VII. Action Research Methods

a. Participants

The population of the study focused on the Grade 12 Senior High School

HUMSS academic track students of Tacurong National High School-Extension. The

researchers applied purposive sampling, students who accumulated 12 absences for

three months were considered respondents of this study. There were 15 students who

qualified to the criteria, nine (60%) are boys and six (40%) are girls. The

parents/guardians of the respondents are also participated in the study as they

undergo HSPI program. The educational attainment of the parents are mostly

secondary graduate. Most of the parents are farmers and housekeeper with an income

of more or less Php.5,000 monthly.

7
b. Data Gathering Method

The researchers sent letter of permission to school division superintendent, to

the school heads of Tacurong National High School to conduct the AR. After which,

the approved letter was given to the class advisers of Grade 12-HUMSS. The students

who accumulated 12 absences for three months were given the survey questionnaire

on the contributing factors of absenteeism. The respondents were provided the Home-

School Partnership Intervention wherein the researchers conducted programs that led

to students to minimize their absences. Then, another survey questionnaire was given

to the respondents to determine the effectiveness of Home-School Partnership

intervention. The survey questionnaires on contributing factors of absenteeism were

validated by three experts in the field and had undergone test-retest reliability. Using

the SPSS program the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reliability was found to be 0.83 for

the entire scale with an implication that the questionnaires had very strong linear

relationship. The HSPI evaluation questionnaires were validated by three researchers’

expert in the field. After which all data was tallied, tabulated, processed, analyzed and

interpreted.

c. Data Analysis Plan

All the data were organized, tallied, tabulated, and presented in a series of

tables and graph. Frequency counts, percentage weight values and weighted mean

were used in the analysis and interpretation of data.

The data on contributing factors of absenteeism and the evaluation of the

effectiveness of HSPI were organized, tallied, computed the mean using the MS Excel

2013, and presented using table. The comparison of attendance of the respondents

prior to HSPI and after the HSPI program was presented using the graph.

8
 The responses on contributing factors of absenteeism and evaluation of HSPI

were analyzed using a Likert scale with the following equivalent shown in table 1 and

2 respectively.

Table 1. Responses scale on Contributing Factors of absenteeism, range,

qualitative and interpretation

SCALE RANGE QUALITATIVE INTERPREPATION

5 4.20-5.00 Strongly The factor of absenteeism is strongly influence

Agree the student

4 3.40-4.19 Agree The factor of absenteeism is influence the

student

3 2.60-3.39 Slightly Agree The factor of absenteeism is slightly influence

the student

2 1.80-2.59 Disagree The factor of absenteeism is not influence the

student

1 1.0-1.79 Strongly The factor of absenteeism is strongly not

Disagree influence the student

Table 2. Responses scale on evaluation of HSPI, range, qualitative and

interpretation

SCALE RANGE QUALITATIVE INTERPREPATION

5 4.20-5.00 Strongly Very effective in promoting student attendance

Agree

4 3.40-4.19 Agree Effective in promoting student attendance

3 2.60-3.39 Slightly Agree Slightly effective in promoting student

attendance

2 1.80-2.59 Disagree Ineffective in promoting student attendance

1 1.0-1.79 Strongly Very ineffective in promoting student

Disagree attendance

9
VIII. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND REFLECTION

Socio-demographic Characteristics of the respondents

The profile of the respondents are described in terms of age, gender, Parent’s

income, parent’s educational attainment, parents’ occupation, and parents’ status.

Table 3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Student Respondents’

Socio-Demographic Profile
Socio Demographic Characteristics f %

Age
17 4 26.67
18 4 26.67
19 4 26.67
20 2 13.33
22 1 6.67
Gender
Male 9 60.00
Female 6 40.00
Parents’ Income
5,000 below 6 40.00
5001- 10000 5 33.33
10001-15000 1 6.67
15001 above 3 20.00
Father’s Educational Attainment
Elementary Level 0 0.00
Elementary Graduate 2 13.33
Secondary Level 0 0.00
Secondary Graduate 10 66.67
College Level 2 13.33
College Graduate 1 6.67
Mother’s Educational Attainment
Elementary Level 0 0.00
Elementary Graduate 5 33.33
Secondary Level 0 0.00
Secondary Graduate 8 53.33
College Level 1 6.67
College Graduate 1 6.67
Father’s Occupation
Farmer 7 46.67
Driver 2 13.33
OFW 1 6.67
Carpenter 1 6.67
Army 1 6.67
Brgy. Kagawad 1 6.67
Business Man 1 6.67
Arabic Teacher 1 6.67
Mother’s Occupation
Housekeeper 10 66.67
OFW 3 20.00
Cashier 1 6.67
Farmer 1 6.67
Parents’ Status
Living Together 4 26.67
Single parent 3 20.00
Separated 4 26.67
Widowed 4 26.67

10
 The table 3 shows the socio-demographic profile of the respondents. The age

of the students (17-19) commensurate to those who should be in Grade 12, the males

are more dominant than females. The educational attainment of the parents are mostly

high school graduates. Most of the parents are farmers and housekeeper with an

income of more or less Php. 5,000. The socio-demographic characteristics have

shown influences to the students’ absenteeism in school.

Contributing Factors of Absenteeism of the Students

The first objective of this study is to identify the contributing factors or the root

causes that have led students to become absent. Table 4 below shows the distribution

of mean to indicate the factors that influence absenteeism among students. The family

factor got the highest average mean of 3.65. This is followed by the financial factor

(mean=2.57), behavior/attitude factor (mean=2.32), health factor (mean= 2.23),

entertainment factor (mean=1.96), electronic factor (mean=1.95), classroom

environment (mean=1.95), peer factor (mean=1.80), and the teacher factor

(mean=1.77).

Table 4. Distribution of Mean for Factors affecting Students Attendance at

School

FACTORS GRAND MEAN DESCRIPTION

Family 3.65 Agree
Financial 2.57 Disagree
Behavior/Attitude 2.32 Disagree
Health 2.23 Disagree
Entertainment 1.96 Disagree
Electronic Media 1.95 Disagree
Classroom Environment 1.95 Disagree
Peer 1.80 Disagree
Teachers 1.77 Strongly Disagree

11
Family Factor

The family factor was found to be the most influential factor related to

absenteeism, with an average mean of 3.65. This an evident that the family influenced

the absenteeism promoting to 61-80%. This support the findings of Asmawati Suhid,

et al (2012) wherein family factor ranked second in their study with an average mean

of 3.01. The most influential item related to the family factor is "My parents/guardians

are not supportive in my studies" (mean = 4.13). Details of items for the family factor

are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 5. Distribution of Mean Scores for Family Factor

No. Items Mean

1 My parents/ guardians are not supportive in my studies. 4.13

2 I am the one who works for my family. 3.60

3 My parents/guardians are always quarrelling. 3.67

4 My parents/guardians are always scolding/hitting me. 3.27

5 I am the one who is responsible of my younger brothers and 3.60

sisters.
GRAND MEAN 3.65

Financial Factor

The second most important factor contributing to absenteeism among students is

the financial. The item related to this factor that has the highest mean score is " My

allowance is not enough to buy my requirements and projects in school " (mean=3.13).

This indicate that financial may also affect the attendance of the students at school.

12
Table 6. Distribution of Mean Scores for Financial Factor

No. Items Mean

1 My parents/guardians are financially unstable. 2.27

2 My parents/guardians’ prioritized their wants/needs than ours. 2.80

3 My parents/guardians income is not enough for my needs. 2.27

4 I am helping my parents to support the basic needs of the 2.40

family.
5 My allowance is not enough to buy my requirements and 3.13
projects in school.
GRAND MEAN 2.57

Behavior/Attitude Factor

The findings of this research show that the overall mean obtained for the

behavior/attitude factor is 2.32 shown in table 5. This means that the attitude of the

students is also not a very strong factor in influencing absenteeism among students.

The item “I have low self –esteem” scores the highest mean of 2.73.

Table 7. Distribution of Mean Scores for Behavior/Attitude Factor

No. Items Mean

1 I am not friendly. 1.93

2 I always sleep late at night. 2.93

3 I am involve in different vices 1.33

4 I(smoking, self –esteem.

have low drinking liquor, taking prohibited drugs) 2.73

5 I am very impulsive. 2.67

GRAND MEAN 2.32

13
Health Factor

The results shown in table 6 implies that health related issues do not strongly

affect the absenteeism of the students. The item “I am suffering from illness( e.g.

headache, toothache, stomach ache ,etc.)” scores the highest mean of 2.87.

Table 8. Distribution of Mean Scores for Health Factor

No. Items Mean

1 I am suffering from illness( e.g. headache, toothache, stomach 2.87

ache ,etc.)
2 I have physical disability ( e.g. hearing impaired, impaired 2.00
vision, polio, etc.)
3 I don’t have proper hygiene. 1.87

4 I am experiencing insomnia. 2.07

5 I always experience depression. 2.33
GRAND MEAN 2.23

Entertainment Factor

The results shows that entertainment factor ranked 5th on the factors affecting

to students’ attendance which scores to 1.96 grand mean. This indicates that

entertainment factor do not much affect the students attendance. The item “I am fun

of going to parks and department stores” scores the highest mean of 2.67.

14
Table 9. Distribution of Mean Scores for Entertainment Factor

No. Items Mean

1 My school does not provide opportunity to showcase my talent. 2.00

2 I am not participating in school activities. 1.53
3 I love to be with my friends in the disco houses and parties. 1.53

4 I am fond of going to parks and department stores. 2.67

5 I am spending my time in the karaoke bars and other gigs. 2.07
GRAND MEAN 1.96

Electronic Media Factor

Based on the results shown in table 8 electronic media factor do not strongly

affect the students’ attendance with a grand mean of 1.95. The item “I am hooked in

social media” scores the highest mean of 2.27.

Table 10. Distribution of Mean Scores for Electronic Media Factor

No. Items Mean

1 I am hooked in social media like Facebook, Tweeter, and 2.27
Instagram.
2 I spend much time to play computer games at internet café. 2.13
3 I love to use different gadgets such as cell phone, computers, 2.00
etc.
4 I always escape from my classes in order to play computer 1.73
games like Dota, Clash of Clan, Call of Duty, and etc.
5 I am spending much time of watching movies, Korean drama, 1.60
and telenovelas.
GRAND MEAN 1.95

15
Classroom Environment Factor

The grand mean of classroom environment is 1.95 which indicates, this factor

do not influenced the absenteeism of the respondents. The item “My

classmates/friends are very noisy” scores the highest mean of 2.53 as shown on the

table 9.

Table 11. Distribution of Mean Scores for Classroom Environment Factor

No. Items Mean

1 My classroom is not conducive for learning. 1.67
2 My classmates/friends are very noisy. 2.53
3 I am not participating in the class discussion. 1.93
4 My classmates are bullying me. 2.20
5 I am not comfortable with my seatmates. 1.40
GRAND MEAN 1.95

Peer Factor

The results indicate that peer factor (grand mean =1.80) do not influenced the

absenteeism of the students. The item “I feel that I don’t belong with my peers” scores

highest mean of 2.33.

Table 12. Distribution of Mean Scores for Peer Factor

No. Items Mean

1 I feel that I don’t belong with my peers. 2.33
2 I always experience cyber bullying. 1.73
3 I am a member of the gang outside the school. 1.27
4 I am always convinced by my friends to absent in the class. 1.87
5 I am influenced by my classmates/friends to do vices. 1.80
GRAND MEAN 1.80

16
Teachers’ Factor

The results on teachers’ factor scores the lowest grand mean of 1.77 which

implies, this factor do not strongly influenced the absenteeism of the students. The

item “My teachers give difficult projects and requirements” scores the highest mean of

2.33.

Table 13. Distribution of Mean Scores for Teachers’ Factor

No. Items Mean

1 My teachers are not punctual. 1.67
2 My teachers give difficult projects and requirements. 2.33
3 I don’t like the attitude of our teacher. 1.73
4 My teachers are not creative in his/her teaching style. 1.53
5 I am not inspired to attend my class. 1.60
GRAND MEAN 1.77

Research question number two. What Home-School Partnership Intervention

plan may be developed based on the result of the study?

Based on the results of the contributing factors of absenteeism, the researchers

found out that family affects the attendance of the students. Scholars have also

suggested that it may be effective to engage parents as part of the team working in

support of improved student attendance (Sheverbush, Smith, & DeGruson, 2000).

Sheverbush and colleagues (2000) specifically note the importance of emphasizing

solutions that come from families as opposed to schools. Implementation of strategies

aimed at developing family and school partnerships has proven effective in increasing

daily attendance rates as well as decreasing chronic absence.

17
 Thus the researchers came up with a possible solution called Home-School

Partnership Intervention.

This plan included the following interventions implemented:

 Home Visitation: According to Okeke (2014) that home visits are very

effective way of establishing good home–school relations as they offer

valuable opportunities for both parents and teachers to get closer in

dealing with the student’s academic and other learning needs and/or

difficulties. The researchers visited the house of the respondents for two

days. They discussed the importance of attendance with the

parents/guardians and reported the school attendance and academic

performance of their son/daughter. Based on the experience of the

researchers, parents brought up that they have difficulty in controlling

their son/daughter. Some parents reported that their son/daughter

always go to school wearing their school uniform assuming that their

son/daughter is attending the class.

 Parents’ and Students’ Seminar: Based on the observation of the

researchers in their home visitation, they realized that there is a need to

enlighten the roles and responsibilities of the parents/guardians and

students. Thus, researchers initiated a one day seminar to strengthen

the roles and responsibilities of the students and parents. This is the

venue for them make a self-realization and commitment on the

importance of attendance in school.

 Mobile Communication: The researchers used mobile cellphones to

communicate directly to the parents/guardians of the students. This kind

18
 of communication saved time, effort, and money. This is also a great

venue to track the attendance of the students and informed parents

regarding the attendance of the students.

Research question number three. How effective was the Home-School

Partnership Intervention to improve student attendance?

Based on the result of HSPI (overall mean=4.50) shown in table 14 evaluated

by the students’, parents’, and teachers’ it’s evident that the HSPI is very effective in

improving the attendance of the student in class. The parents’ and students’ seminar

(overall mean= 4.60) was also found very effective in improving the attendance of the

students. This is an implication that students were enlightened in their roles and

responsibilities. Followed by home visitation (overall mean=4.57) and mobile

communication (overall mean=4.32).

The findings of HSPI support the studies of Epstein (2007) that family

involvement at the high school level is important to improve students’ attendance and

achievement. School, family, and community partnerships can decrease chronic

absenteeism (Sheldon & Epstein, 2004).

Table 14. Level of Agreement on the Effectiveness of HSPI

Home-School Students’ Parents’ Teachers’ Overall

Partnership Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment
Intervention Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description Mean Description

Home Visitation 4.32 Strongly 4.56 Strongly 4.83 Strongly 4.57 Strongly
Agree Agree Agree Agree
Parents’ and
Students’ Seminar 4.34 Strongly 4.57 Strongly 4.89 Strongly 4.60 Strongly
Agree Agree Agree Agree
Mobile
Communication 4.17 Agree 4.37 Strongly 4.43 Strongly 4.32 Strongly
Agree Agree Agree

Weighted Mean 4.28 Strongly 4.50 Strongly 4.72 Strongly 4.50 Strongly
Agree Agree Agree Agree

19
 The graph shown below is an evident of the improvement of the attendance of

the students. The students’ attendance increased by 90 percent during the

intervention. Thus, the HSPI implemented by the researcher found effective in

improving the attendance of the students.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Three Months Prior to Intervention Three Months During the Intervention

Figure 1. Students Attendance prior to intervention and during the intervention

The researchers found out different situations and scenarios regarding the life

of the respondents. Through home visitation researchers had deeper understanding

on real background of the respondents in terms of their family status, income, and

source of living. The presence of the teachers at their home gave positive impact to

the parents/family that their son/daughter is valued and love in school. It was a great

experienced for the researchers to reach out those students who are at risk of dropping

regardless of distance, difficulties of transportation, and security of the place visited

just to bring back the students in school.

Parents’ and Students’ seminar initiated by the researchers, strengthened the

roles and responsibilities of the students and parents to improve students’ attendance

20
in school. The researchers realized that parents/guardians need to be updated with

the new trends of parenting style in dealing with their millennial sons/daughters.

Hence, the researchers found out that HSPI is very effective in promoting

students’ attendance in class. Home and school partnership is essential in

strengthening the presence of the student at school. The researchers recommend

strong partnership with the parents or guardians in the school in order to have a better

improvement on the performance of the students.

IX. ACTION PLAN

Activities Person Target Resources Budget Possible

Involved Date or materials ary results
needed require
ments

Focus group  Researchers June 5- 9,  Laptop Come up with

discussion 2017  Internet 500.00 the possible
connection factors of
 Snacks 232.00 absenteeism
of the
students.
Observation of  Class Adviser June  Photocopy of 75.00 Determined
the students  Grade 12 HUMSS 2017- SF 2 the number of
attendance for Students August  Student’s students who
three months 2017 Attendance accumulated
sheet 12 absences
for three
months.
Letter of  Researchers September  Bond paper 390.00 Approved
permission to  Schools Division 4-5, 2017  Folders letter from
conduct the AR Superintendent  Clips CSDT.
to the Schools  School Heads
Division  Guidance
Superintendent Counselor
and School
Heads

Focus Group proponents September  Bond paper 1,806.00 Developed

Discussion 6-7, 2017  Folder survey
(develop  Printing questionnaires
survey  Binder Clips
questionnaires  Inkjet ink
on contributing  Printer

21
factors of  Snacks and 790.00
absenteeism) lunch

Validation of  Proponents September  Printed 371.00 Validated

the instrument  Guidance 8-9, 2017 questionnaires instrument
Counselor  Binder Clips
 Professionals who  Inkjet ink
are expert in the  Printer
field (Doctoral  Snacks and 478.00
Graduate, lunch
Master’s
Graduate)

Reliability of  Proponents September  Printed Reliability and

instrument  School heads 11, 2017 questionnaires Acceptability
(Test-Retest)  Guidance  Snacks and 354.00 of the
Counselor September lunch instrument
 Class advisers 27, 2017
 Selected Grade 12
Students

Survey  Proponents September  Printed Contributing

questionnaires  Respondents 29, 2017 questionnaires 1,610.00 factors of
given to the  Class Advisers and other absenteeism
respondents school supplies
 Snacks and 529.90
lunch

Data  Proponents September  Laptop Organized,

organization, 30, 2017  Internet tabulated,
tabulation, connection 500.00 computed data
computation  Data collected and presented
and analysis  Bond Papers 500.00 tables of the
 Printer results
 Binder clips
 Pencils/ pens
 Snacks and
571.00
lunch

Focus group Proponents October  Laptop Developed

Discussion 2-3, 2017  Internet plan for the
(Planning for connection 500.00 HSPI
the HSPI)  Snacks and 440.00
lunch
 School
Supplies

Mobile  Proponents October  Cell phone Informed the

Communication  Class Advisers 2017-  Smart and 1,000.00 parents/guardi
 Parents/Guardians January Globe Load ans regarding
 Students 2018  Log sheet the situation of
their
son/daughter.

22
 Invited
parents/guardi
ans and
students.
Home Proponents October  Laptop Informed
Visitation and 7-8, 2017  Cell phone parents/guardi
follow-up  Home visitation ans regarding
Parents’ and form and other the attendance
Students’ school supplies of their
 Smart and son/daughter
Globe load 500.00 in school.
 Fuel 1,500.00
 Snacks and 571.00
lunch

Initiated  Proponents October  Laptop Enhanced the

Parents’ and  School heads 12, 2017  Projector roles and
Students’  Class advisers  School supplies 1000.00 responsibilities
Seminar  Respondents  Certificates of the
 Parents/guardians  Attendance parents/guardi
 Resource Speaker sheet ans and
 Tarpaulin students.
 Snacks and 500.00
lunch
5,545.10
 Smart and
Globe load
500.00
Focus group Proponents October  Laptop Developed
Discussion in 14, 21, 28,  School 500.00 evaluation
developing 2017 Supplies questionnaires
evaluation  Snacks and 520.00 of the
questionnaires lunch effectiveness
on the of HSPI
effectiveness of
HSPI)
Validation of  Proponents November  Printed Validated
the instrument  Guidance 2017 questionnaires instrument of
(HSPI) Counselor HSPI
 Professionals who
are expert in the
field (Doctoral
Graduate,
Master’s
Graduate)

Validated  Proponents December  Printed Data collected

instrument of  Respondents 18-21, questionnaires
HSPI were  Parents/guardians 2017 and other
given to the  Class Adviser school supplies
respondents  Smart and 500.00
Globe load
 Snacks and
lunch 354.00

Data  Proponents December  Laptop Organized,

organization, 23, 2017  Internet tabulated,
tabulation, connection computed data
 Data collected and presented

23
 computation tables of the
and analysis results

Interpretation of  Proponents December  Laptop Interpreted

data collected 28, 2017  Data collected data
 Snacks 263.00

Finalization of  Proponents January 3-  Laptop Final Output

the research 13, 2018  Smart and
manuscript Globe load 500
 Data collected
 Photocopy/
Printing/Hard
bound Output 3,500.00

X. REFERENCES

Baker, M., Sigmon, J., & Nugent, M. (2001). Truancy reduction: Keeping students
in school. Rockville, MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_9_1/ contents.html

Bull, A., Brooking,K., Campbell, R. (2008).Successful Home School

Partnership. Published June 2008. Retrieved
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publication/schooling/28415/28416

Chang, H., & Romero, M. (2008). Present, engaged and accounted for: The critical
importance of addressing chronic absence in the early grades. National Center
for Children in Poverty. Retrieved from http://www. nccp.org/publications/pub
_837.html

Cole, J. F. (2011). Intervention to combat the many facets of Absenteeism: Action

research. p 69-70

Cunningham, C. (2010, June 15). Poor school attendance can be damaging.

Retrieved from http://www.examiner. com/search/google?query=
Poor+school+attendanc e+can+be+damaging&cx=partner-pub7479725245
71969%3A9ze01gmnpyp&cof=FORID%A9&ie=ISO- 8859-
1&sa=Search#1010

DeSocio, J., VanCura, M., Nelson, L. A., Hewitt, G., Kitzman, H., & Cole, R. (2007).
Engaging truant adolescents: Results from a multifaceted intervention pilot
[Electronic version]. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 3-11.

Dube, S. R., & Orpinas, P. (2009). Understanding excessive school absenteeism as

school refusal. Children & Schools, 31(2), 87-95.

24
Durborow, A.( 2017). "Factors Contributing to the Problem of Student
Absenteeism in a Rural School”.Theses and Dissertations. 1887.
http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1887

Epstein, J. L. (2007). Connections count: Improving family and community

involvement in secondary schools. Principal Leadership, 8(2), 16-22. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/233334139?accountid=1230

Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving
student attendance through family and community involvement [Electronic
version]. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(5), 308-319.

Galford et al, (2015). Home-School Partnership. http://population-based-

intervention.wikispaces.com/Home-school+partnership. Retrieved August
2017.

Hocking,C. (2008). The Contributing Factors to student Absenteeism/Truancy and

the Effectiveness of Social Services and Interventions. Social Work
Theses. Paper 18

Keane T 2007. Improving parent involvement in schools: A cultural perspective.

Rivier Academic Journal, 3(2):1-4. Available at
https://www.rivier.edu/journal/ROAJ-Fall-2007/J123-Keane.pd f. Accessed 4
June 4 2013.

Lemmer EM 2009. Teachers’ experiences of parental involvement with diverse

family types. Tydskrif vir Christelike Wetenskap, 45(1&2):87–105.

Makgopa M & Mokhele M 2013. Teachers’ perceptions on parental involvement: A

case study of two South African schools. Journal of Educational and Social
Research, 3(3):219-225. doi: 10.5901/jesr.2013.v3n3p219

Mills, G. E., (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
.
Okeke, C. I. (2014). Effective home-school partnership: Some strategies to help
strengthen parental involvement. South African Journal of Education,
34(3),1-9

Peek, S. D. (2009). Integrating effective and beneficial interventions to increase

student attendance in an elementary school setting. Georgia School
Counselors Association Journal, 16(1), 9-20.

Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and
community involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism. School Community
Journal, 4(2), 39-56.

Sheverbush, R.L., Smith, J.V., & DeGruson, M. (2000). A truancy program: The
successful partnering of schools, parents, and community systems.

25
 Unpublished manuscript, Pittsburg State University, Pittsburg, KS. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED444102)

Spencer, A. M. (2009). School attendance patterns, unmet educational needs, and

truancy. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 309-319.
doi:10.1177/0741932508321017

Studsrød I & Bru E 2009. The role of perceived parental socialization practices in
school adjustment among Norwegian upper secondary school students.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3):529-546. doi:
10.1348/000709908X381771

Suhid, A et al. (2012). Factors causing student absenteeism according to peer.

International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 1(4), 342-350

Teasley, M. L. (2004). Absenteeism and truancy: Risk, protection, and best practice
implications for school social workers. Children & Schools, 26(2), 117-127.

Rhode Island Kids Count Factbook (2007). School attendance. Retrieved

September 23, 2007, from
http://www.rikidscount.org/matriarch/documents/indicator57.pdf

Walls, C. (2003). New approaches to truancy prevention in urban schools. ERIC

Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Institute for Urban Minority Education.
(ERIC Document Re- production Service No. ED480916) Retrieved from
http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-2/truancy.html

26
X. FINANCIAL REPORT

The table below summarizes the expenses incurred before, during and after the

conduct of the study.

Nature of Expenses Amount Spent (Php.)

Schools Supplies 12,882.00

Meals and Snacks 10,118.00

Transportation 3,500.00

Communication (Load, internet) 2,500.00

Binding 1,000.00

TOTAL 30,000.00

27