Content uploaded by Benzar Glen Sacragon Grepon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Benzar Glen Sacragon Grepon on Apr 12, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 17
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4459797
ABSENTEEISM AND PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN HOME AND
SCHOOL AMONG MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL
IN NORTHERN MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES: BASIS FOR
INTERVENTION
Charry Mae P. Cepada
charrymaecepada25@gmail.com
&
Benzar Glen S. Grepon
Northern Bukidnon Community College
ben.it2c@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Educational attainment is an important determinant of one’s success. Yet, absenteeism among
adolescents jeopardizes chances of achieving their educational goals. Absenteeism can lead to an
increasing disinterest in school and the chance of dropping out in school. Thus, this study
determined how parental involvement affects absenteeism among 60 Middle school students of a
public school. Specifically, it tested the extent of absenteeism of the respondents and the extent of
parental involvement in school. Also, this study correlates students’ absenteeism and parental
involvement both at home and school. This study used descriptive–correlational method. A
validated researcher-made questionnaire was used to determine the extent of absenteeism, extent
of parental involvement and the respondents’ perception towards parental involvement. Further,
frequency, weighted mean, Pearson R correlation, and t-test for Two Independent Means were
used as statistical tools in analyzing the gathered data. The study disclosed that parents were greatly
involved at home but were moderately involved in school which contributed to the absenteeism of
the students. Parental involvement in school was deemed important in terms of giving support and
monitoring their children’s attendance and performances in school. The findings revealed that
parental involvement in school had a strong negative relationship with absenteeism. This meant
that as parental involvement decreased, absenteeism among students increased. With α=0.05, there
was a significant relationship between parental involvement and absenteeism both at home and in
school. Conversely, there was no significant difference on how the students and their parents
perceived parental involvement. As gleaned in the data, both parents and students considered
parental involvement as one of the important factors that enabled the students to pursue their
studies. This study concludes that parental involvement in school and at home is correlated with
absenteeism of the Middle school students in a public school. Parental involvement at home
enables the parents to take good care of their children and show support in the learners’ academic
endeavors. Parental involvement in school also provides a big impression to the students. The
presence of the parents in school boosts self-esteem and self-worth among their children.
KEYWORDS: Parental involvement, Absenteeism, Middle School Students, Public School,
Philippines.
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 18
INTRODUCTION
Educational attainment is an important determinant of one’s success. Yet, absenteeism
among adolescents jeopardizes chances of achieving their educational goals (Siziya, 2007).
Too much student absenteeism can lead to an increasing disinterest in school.
Schoenegerger (2011) states in his study that excessive absenteeism increases the chance
of the students to drop out from school. The incidence of drop outs can lead to long term
consequences such as lower average incomes, unemployment and higher rate of
incarceration. It is also asserted that the students who drop out from school face a higher
risk of poverty due to their inability to secure quality paying employment due to their lack
of education and resources (Obrador, 2014).
Recent statistics from the Department of Education publicized that the overall student
absence rate in the Philippines is 4.5%. This means that one in ten school children are
classified as "persistently absent". Accordingly, middle schools had a higher rate of
persistent absence compared to primary schools. Moreover, unauthorized absence or
absenteeism, whether persistent or not, also increased. Hence, surveyors asked children
why they skip classes. The respondents enumerated anxiety, depression, bullying and
having diminutive interest in the subjects taught in school among others led them to be
absent from their classes.
Absenteeism is the tendency, chronic absence, practice or habit of being absent or to be
away from school without a good reason. Thus, it has been viewed as an indicator of poor
individual performance, as well as an indirect gap-building between students and teachers
(Malcolm, 2003).
Absenteeism has become a major and continuous problem among high school students in
many countries (Teasly, 2004). Indeed, several studies were conducted to answer why high
school students miss classes. He also noted numerous risk factors that contribute to student
absenteeism such as family, health, low income, poor school climate, drug and alcohol use,
transportation problems, and community attitudes towards education. Furthermore,
(Pehlivan , 2006) found that the major reason given by students for their non-attendance at
school is that they were bored; they dislike the school and the lessons; they lacked
encouragement from friends; and, they lack expectations about education.
Since absenteeism is one of the biggest problems faced in almost all of the public schools
and that absenteeism could lead to students’ drop-out, the Department of Education adheres
to lessen the truancy among students by identifying the possible factors that contributes to
absenteeism. Through DepEd Order, they have deepened the analysis of the students’
excessive absenteeism from school. This enabled the department to point out some factors
which include: teaching strategies, anxiety when at school, lack of interest, economic
status, classroom environment, and lastly, the reason considered to be a critical factor is
parents who do not value education or lack of parental involvement (Miguel, 2017).
Parental involvement is a combination of a parent’s commitment and active participation
to the school and to the student (LaBahn, 1995). Parents have the direct contact and
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 19
provision to the learners. Hence, parental involvement plays an important role in learning.
However, not all parents are active partners and supporters in the education of their
children. This is probably due to the fact that schools do not always know what parental
involvement really means or simply parents do not know the importance of their role in
their children’s learning progress.
Thus, several possible reasons can be drawn to deduce the parents’ lack of involvement in
any school activity. The following reasons are proffered: diverse school experiences among
parents, diverse economic and time constraints–parents often do not feel welcome in
school, some parents do not believe that they have any knowledge that the school is
interested to know especially that they don’t have enough and high educational attainment;
and diverse linguistic and cultural practices–they do not have great deal of interest in school
or in education, and/or they feel embarrassed as they themselves may be illiterate or unable
to speak English that could possibly make communication difficult (Finders & Lewis
1994).
Green, et. al. (2007) stated that children education differs significantly when their parents
actively participate or involve themselves in school activities compared to those children
whose parents do not take part in school activities. In addition, Mcneal (1999) revealed that
there is a differential effect of parental involvement across learners’ cognitive and
behavioral outcomes. These include learners’ achievement in school as well as truancy or
absenteeism and tendency of dropping out. Thus, it can be considered that parental
involvement is a salient factor in explaining both cognitive and behavioral aspects in
students learning processes.
With this, the study aimed to show a correlation between absenteeism of middle school
students and parental involvement.
METHODOLOGY
The descriptive – correlational method was used in the study. This design was chosen by
the researcher to examine the relationship between absenteeism and parental involvement.
The descriptive method can describe with emphasis what actually exists such as current
conditions, practices, situation, or any phenomenon. Freud (1939) states that any scientific
process started with description, based on observation, of an event/s, from which theories
may later be developed to explain the observations. Co-relational in other hand is designed
to discover relationships among variables and to allow the prediction of future events from
present knowledge. Shuttleworth (2008) supported the statement of Freud and he stated
that the above-mentioned method will be used to obtain a general view of the research.
In this particular study, the current situation of the respondents defined and disclosed their
parents’ involvement in school.
Research Locale
This public secondary school is one of the well-known secondary school located the
Northern part of Bukidnon. This learning institution started its operation as a Municipal
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 20
High School on August 1988. By a resolution of the Municipal Council, the legislation was
authorized by Councilors converting the Municipal market into a secondary school.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of this study were the 60 identified grade 9 students of a public secondary
school enrolled in school year 2018-2019 who have chronic and frequent absences and
their parent. The students and their parent were purposely chosen by the researcher to
correlate absenteeism and parental involvement. The grade level of the students was
intentionally chosen because according to the attendance record of the school, it is the
identified level that has the most numbered students who are at risk of dropping out. Table
1 indicates the distribution of the respondents.
Table 1: The Respondents
Respondents
Frequency
Students
60
Parents
60
Total
120
Data Gathering Procedure
For gathering data of this study, the researcher has undergone the following procedures.
The researcher sent letters to the Schools Division Superintendent, Schools Division
Supervisor and School Principal asking permission to conduct the study to the respondents.
Since the study uses researcher-made questionnaire, the researcher searched for students
who are also in grade 9 level to answer the questionnaires for the validation of instrument.
However, the result has the Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.77 and 0.85 for absenteeism and
parental involvement respectively, which were interpreted as valid.
The questionnaire was given accomplished by the chosen respondents – students and their
parents. This includes gathering of information profile of the respondents, attendance
record, checklist on possible causes of absenteeism, extent of parental involvement at home
and school, and interview for both students and parents. The gathered data were tallied and
analyzed using statistical tools.
Research Instrument
The study used an instrument that measures the extent of absenteeism and parental
involvement of the student- and parent-respondent respectively. Since the instrument is a
researcher-made questionnaire, it was validated (with the Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.77 and
0.85) to other grade 9 students who were not chosen as respondents of the study.
The extent of absenteeism questionnaire has three parts. Part 1 is the Learner’s Profile
which contains the information such as their name (which was optional to maintain
confidentiality), gender, age, grade level, parents’ educational background, family income
and number of days the student present in school. Part 2 contains the survey on the extent
of absenteeism among the learners (based on their personal perception and attitude which
possibly caused absenteeism). Each question statement is categorized into four namely:
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 21
Always, Often, Once in a while, and Never which are to be used in interpreting learners’
responses. Part 3 is about parental involvement of respondents’ parents both at home and
in school. This includes how their parents provide them their daily needs that helps them
in their learning development at home and how their parents participate in school activities
and monitor them in school with the same category: Always, Often, Once in a while, and
Never.
The parental involvement questionnaire is composed of two sets. The first one contains the
survey on how extent the parents are being involved on their child’s learning development
at home. These include the needs of the learner in terms of mental, psychological, financial
and health aspects. The second set is the survey on parental involvement in school. These
refers to how the parents follow-up the learning growth of their child’s, attend meeting in
school, and keep updated on the needs and performances of the learner in school. Also,
each question statement is categorized into four namely: Always, Often, Once in a while,
and Never which are to be used in interpreting parents’ responses.
Scoring Procedure
In this research, the researcher used a fair-point scale to categorize and interpret the extent
of absenteeism among grade 9 students and the involvement of their parents.
A. Absenteeism
Monthly Absent
Interpretation
10 days absent and above
Evident
Below 10 days absent
Not Evident
B. Extent of Absenteeism
Scale
Range
Level
Interpretation
4
3.26 – 4.0
Always
Great Extent
3
2.51 – 3.25
Often
High Extent
2
1.76 – 2.50
Once in a while
Moderate Extent
1
1.0 – 1.75
Never
Less Extent
C. Parental Involvement
Scale
Range
Level
Interpretation
4
3.26 – 4.0
Always
Greatly Involved
3
2.51 – 3.25
Often
Highly Involved
2
1.76 – 2.50
Once in a while
Moderately Involved
1
1.0 – 1.75
Never
Less Involved
D. Correlation of Absenteeism and Parental Involvement
r – value
Interpretation
-1 to -0.5
Strong Negative Relationship/ Correlation
-0.4 to -0.1
Negative Relationship/ Correlation
0
No Relationship/ Correlation
+0.1 to +0.4
Positive Relationship/ Correlation
+0.5 to +1
Strong Positive Relationship/ Correlation
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 22
Statistical Tool
The following statistical tools were used in analyzing and interpreting the data
gathered from the survey:
Frequency (F) – This was used to summarize statistical counts and arranged data in
categories.
Weighted Arithmetic Mean – This was used to interpret how extent is the
absenteeism of the learners and parental involvement of their parents.
Formula:
Where: - weighted mean
- rating
- score
Pearson’s R Correlation – This was used in interpreting the relationship between
the extent of absenteeism and parental involvement.
Formula:
T-test for Two Independent Means – This was used to determine if there is a
significant difference in the perception between students and parents on parental
involvement.
Formula:
, for equal size
, for unequal size
Where: -
- number of scores, Group 1
- number of scores, Group 2
- mean of Group 1
- mean of Group 2
- variance of Group 1
- variance of Group 2
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 23
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Profile of the respondents
The profile of the respondents was presented through the use of frequency and percentage
distribution. It disclosed the age and gender of the respondents, their parents’ educational
background, family income as well as the record of their attendance in class.
Table 1 showed the ages of the respondents which ranged between 12 to 19 years old.
Table 1: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Age
Age Range
Frequency
Percent
12-13 years old
6
10.0
14-15 years old
27
45.0
16-17 years old
19
31.7
18-19 years old
8
13.3
Total
60
100.0
As indicated in the table, there were 6 or 10% aged 12-13 years old; 27 or 45% aged 14-15 years
old; 19 or 31.7% aged 16-17 years old; and, 8 or 13.3% aged 18-19 years old out of 60 respondents.
Furthermore, this figure showed that Middle school students had different age range even though
they belonged to the same level. Meanwhile, majority of the respondents were in the age range 14-
15 years old expected in a Middle school class. This suggested that students in the class were
generally in their right age group when they started first grade in the elementary years. On a note,
6 students whose age ranged between 12-13 years old were tallied due to a discrepancy in their
birth record. On the other hand, some students whose age reached 18-19 years old were repeaters
and were under the open high school program before proceeding to the next grade level.
Manabilang (2015) stated in her studies that students’ absenteeism is a problem in school that
involves all ages both male and female students.
Table 3 presented the frequency distribution of the respondents according to gender.
Table 2: Frequency and Percent Distribution of Respondents by Gender
Gender
Frequency
Percent
Male
48
80.0
Female
12
20.0
Total
60
100.0
The table revealed that there were more males with 48 or 80% in number compared to the 12 or
20% females reported from the total respondents in this study. This meant that there were more
male students who were prone to absenteeism than females. This reflected the findings in the study
of Davies (2005) where on average, girls were observed to be more motivated than the boys to
perform well in school, at least during elementary school. More male students remained absentee
of school compared to female students in the causes of absenteeism sourced from school, students
and psychology sub-dimensions.
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 24
Table 3: Frequency and Percent Distribution of Fathers’ Educational Background
Education Level
Frequency
Percent
Elementary Level
9
15.0
Elementary Graduate
5
8.3
High School Level
21
35.0
High School Graduate
13
21.7
College Level
3
5.0
College Graduate
5
8.3
Others
4
6.7
Total
60
100.0
Table 3 summarized fathers’ educational backgrounds of the respondents. There were 9 (15%)
respondents who did not finish elementary, 5 (8.3%) were elementary graduates, 21 (35%) reached
high school level, 13 (21.7%) were high school graduates, 3 (5%) reached college level, 4 (6.7%)
were college graduates and 4 (6.7%) had no education. The findings revealed that almost one half
of the respondents who were involved in the study reached high school level. This implied that as
the breadwinner or provider in the family, they could not have high-paying jobs because of the
lack of higher educational attainment.
On the other hand, mothers’ educational background of the respondents was shown in Table 4. It
could be gleaned from the table that 11 or 18.3% of the mothers did not finish elementary level.
11 or 18.3% of the total number were elementary graduates.
Table 4: Frequency and Percent Distribution of Mothers’ Educational Background
Education Level
Frequency
Percent
Elementary Level
11
18.3
Elementary Graduate
11
18.3
High School Level
10
16.7
High School Graduate
15
25.0
College Level
3
5.0
College Graduate
9
15.0
Others
1
1.7
Total
60
100.0
Further, 10 or 16.7% reached high school level, 15 or 25% were high school graduate, 3 or 5%
reached college level, and 9 or 15% were college graduates respectively. It was also noted that
there is 1 or 1.7% of the respondents who had no education. As shown, majority of the respondents
had attained elementary and high school education. This disclosed that only a few among the
mother-respondents reached or finished tertiary education.
A comparative view of both parents’ educational attainment revealed that majority of the fathers
did not finish high school while majority of the mothers were not able to reach college level. This
condition lead to lesser parental involvement in home and/or school since most parents who do not
have enough education could not help their children in doing their homework and projects because
of the limited and/or lack of knowledge. Also, it could be inferred that they would be ashamed to
extend help to their children because they felt they could not relate to school homework. As
mentioned by The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement (2005), parents are
sometimes uncertain to become involved in school because they can't give good communication
regarding school matters. This uncertainty comes in part from their own education history. They
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 25
often have had an unsatisfactory experience with their own schooling, and so they don't feel being
involved is a good experience.
Moreover, studies have made known that one of the factors contributing to parental involvement
was parents’ educational background (Pena, 2000). Lee and Bowen (2006) found in their study
that parents’ higher educational levels had more attendance in meetings and other school activities
and could talk more about educational issues with their children. Conversely, parents with low
level of education were less involved in school because they lack confidence to talk and discuss
school matters with school staff.
In addition, Finders and Lewis (1994), cited in the study of Manabilang (2015), stated that parents
often did not feel welcome in school, some parents were not aware that the school was interested
in their presence considering that they had not reached very high educational attainment; and
diverse linguistic and cultural practices - they did not have great deal of interest in school or in
education, or they felt embarrassed because of illiteracy or inability to speak English that could
possibly make communication difficult. Reasons also included diverse school experiences among
parents, diverse economic and time constraints.
Table 5 illustrated the financial capacity or family income of the respondents.
Table 5: Frequency and Percent Distribution of Monthly Family Income
Income Range
Frequency
Percent
P1,000 below
3
5.0
P1,001 – P5,000
29
48.3
P5,001 – P9,000
18
30.0
P9,001 – P13,000
5
8.3
P13,001 – P17,000
3
5.0
P17,001 – P21,000
2
3.3
P21,001 – P25, 000
0
0.0
Above P25,000
0
0.0
Total
60
100.0
The data disclosed that 3 or 5% of the families had a monthly income P1,000 or below, 29 or
48.3% of the families income ranged between P1,001 to P5,000 per month, 18 families or 30%
ranged between P5,001 to P9,000, 5 families or 8.3% fell between P9,001 to P13,000, 3 families
or 5% received P13,001 to P17,000, 2 or 3.3% had P17,001 to P21,000 and none of the families
had an income of more than P21,000 per month.
The figures in Table 5 clearly delineated the poor financial capacity of the respondents and its
significant impact on the attendance of the students in school. Relative to that, the school is far
from their respective homes, hence parents failed to provide fare and sustenance for their daily
needs. Consequently, most of the students chose not to go to school. Low-income areas suffer the
most from chronic absenteeism. Some students felt the need to enter the workforce early to help
their families (Scungio, 2016). In addition, parent’s income factored in the numerous reasons of
their lack of involvement in the students’ learning activities at home and in school. They needed
to spend time more on working than attending to school activities. They said, “sayang ang adlawan
if mag absent” (It’s a waste of time and money to be absent from work), “mas priority ang mag
trabaho para naay kaonon ang pamilya” (Work is prioritized so they can buy food for the family),
“usahay walay eplete” (They can’t pay the fare), and “ang among eplete, amo nalang ipalit ug
pagkaon o ipabalon sa among mga anak (It’s better to use the money to buy food instead of
spending it for the children’s fare)”. At home, some of the parents who go home late from work
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 26
had no time to help their children do their homework. They could not support their children’s
school projects due to financial constraints. The reasons “usahay dili ma budgetan ilahang
project”, “walay ikapalit ug gamit para project”, (There is not enough budget for school
requirements), “ulahi na makauli” (They reached home very late at night), and “dili mi kabalo
unsaon ilang project” (They do not know how to help the children with their school projects).
These reasons reduced parental involvement in children’s school activities at home.
Furthermore, Jafarov (2015) found that high-income parents took part more often in the activities
organized by school compared to low-income parents. Furthermore, parents with high socio-
economic status tried more effectively to get involved than parents with low socio-economic status
(Domina, 2005). Poverty at home was attributed as the main cause of absenteeism (Manabilang
2015).
Table 6 summarized the attendance of the respondents in school from October to December 2018.
The filed showed that the 60 students or 100% of the respondents had incurred 10 days or more
absences per month. The lowest number of absences recorded was 15 days while the highest was
55 days. Table 6: Number of Days Absent from October to December
Respondents
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Respondents
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Number of school days
Number of school days
20
20
15
55
20
20
15
55
Number of days absent
Number of days absent
1
12
10
5
27
31
20
20
15
55
2
11
9
3
23
32
11
7
5
23
3
12
12
2
26
33
20
20
15
55
4
13
9
7
29
34
11
10
11
32
5
15
15
10
40
35
13
5
8
26
6
20
15
9
44
36
13
4
6
23
7
10
7
1
18
37
15
7
5
27
8
20
20
10
50
38
15
6
6
27
9
20
19
9
48
39
12
18
13
43
10
10
8
1
19
40
15
7
3
25
11
10
3
2
15
41
20
11
8
39
12
20
20
10
50
42
20
9
9
38
13
20
18
10
48
43
20
9
8
37
14
20
20
15
55
44
13
5
1
19
15
10
10
2
22
45
13
4
6
23
16
10
8
10
28
46
20
20
15
55
17
10
10
10
30
47
20
15
15
50
18
10
2
5
17
48
20
7
7
34
19
16
4
7
27
49
16
7
8
31
20
15
5
2
22
50
13
20
11
44
21
10
5
2
17
51
20
18
2
40
22
12
5
6
23
52
20
3
8
31
23
12
10
15
37
53
12
7
4
23
24
10
5
1
16
54
12
5
4
21
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 27
25
12
5
3
20
55
10
2
7
19
26
16
5
6
27
56
10
3
7
20
27
16
5
6
27
57
10
2
5
17
28
18
5
8
31
58
10
3
3
16
29
10
6
1
17
59
10
3
4
17
30
10
2
4
16
60
10
4
6
20
In the given data, one or 1.67% had a record of 15 days absences and four or 7% of students had
garnered the highest record of absences of 55 days.
The following information showed the percentage distribution of the respondents whose absences
were within 15 to 31 days: 3 students or 5% recorded 16 days; 5 or 8.33% had 17 days; 1 student
or 1.67% 18 reached days; 3 students or 5% incurred 19 days; 3 students or 5% got 20 days; 1
student or 1.67% showed 21 days; 2 students or 3.33% recorded 22 days; 6 students or 10%
reached 23 days; 1 student or 1.67% 25 days; 2 students or 3.33% had 26 days; 1 student or 1.67%
reached 28 days; 1 student or 1.67% had 29 days; 1 student or 1.67% got 30 days; and, 3 students
or 5% showed 31 days.
The following figures presented beyond 31 days of absences incurred by the respondents: 1 student
or 1.67% got 32 days, 1 student or 1.67% had 34 days, 2 students or 3.33% showed 37 days; 1
student or 1.67% reached 38 days; 1 student or 1.67% had 39 days; 2 students or 3.33% got 40
days; 1 student or 1.67% 43 recorded days; 2 students or 3.33% showed 44 days; 2 students or
3.33% had 48 days; and, 3 students or 5% reached 50 days. These data implied that absenteeism
was widespread among the respondents.
According to Student’s School Attendance Monitoring Act of 2016, absenteeism meant that a
student has been absent from school without a valid excuse for 10% or more of the school days in
one year from enrollment to the current date. This confirmed that absenteeism existed among
Middle school students of public school.
An interview with the respondents revealed that the students with the highest absences missed
classes because some of them need to work to provide and sustain their personal and family needs.
Another reason, forwarded by some students was the distance between their home and school; the
lack of money to pay for the fare and unavailability of passenger vehicles; and the lack of time to
prepare the food. Meanwhile, some students who incurred 10 days of absences revealed they just
missed classes because they simply felt lazy and had no interest in going to school. Others claimed
they were sick or their parents asked be absent to help in their business.
Zhang (2008) stated that the family is an important factor to be considered as one of the motives
of the student’s absences from school. Scarcity experienced by poor families included poor
housing condition which could cause higher incidence of illness among learners. This was
mentioned in the study of Manabilang (2015) where the families lived in dire need of basic
necessities such as food, electricity and water which kept them from school and pushed them to
child labor.
Health-related issues were one of the factors why students tend to absent. This condition included
hunger, respiratory illness, dental pain and others. Moreover, students who belonged to the family
who have these cases are more likely at risk of dropping out (Henderson and Henderson 2014).
Causes of students’ absenteeism
Middle school students offered various reasons to the cause of the absences or their tendency to
miss classes. Table 7 presented the level, extent and rank of students’ absenteeism in each
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 28
indicator. It displayed the level of absenteeism among Middle school students considering the
different indicators or causes that affected their absenteeism.
Table 7. Mean Values of the Extent of Absenteeism
Indicators
Mean
Level
Interpretation
Rank
1. I feel tired of going to school because
our house is far from the school.
2.43
Once in a
while
Moderate Extent
2
2. I feel that it is unsafe to go to school.
1.48
Never
Less Extent
11
3. Nobody accompanies me in going to
school since it is far.
1.43
Never
Less Extent
13
4. I am not interested in my studies.
2.33
Once in a
while
Moderate Extent
3
5. I feel lazy and I didn’t wake up early
2.78
Often
High Extent
1
6. My friends influence me to be absent
from my classes.
1.67
Never
Less Extent
8
7. I can’t concentrate in my studies.
1.52
Never
Less Extent
10
8. I did not study/make my assignments
the night before.
1.53
Never
Less Extent
9
9. I got fond of playing computer games.
1.07
Never
Less Extent
19.5
10. I don’t like my teacher because he
will just scold me.
1.22
Never
Less Extent
16
11. I am being bullied by my teachers.
1.07
Never
Less Extent
19.05
12. Our classroom is hot and
uncomfortable.
1.33
Never
Less Extent
14
13. I have no friends in our classroom.
1.15
Never
Less Extent
18
14. I am being bullied by my classmates
1.23
Never
Less Extent
15
15. My parents did not prepare foods
for us before we go to school.
2.02
Once in a
while
Moderate Extent
7
16. My parents don’t give me money to
buy snacks and lunch.
2.30
Once in a
while
Moderate Extent
4
17. I’m too pre-occupied with
household chores.
2.05
Once in a
while
Moderate Extent
5.5
18. My parents ask me to be absent
from class.
2.05
Once in a
while
Moderate Extent
5.5
19. No one follows me up in school.
1.45
Never
Less Extent
12
20. My parents don’t care about my
studies.
1.18
Never
Less Extent
17
General Weighted Mean
1.67
Never
Less Extent
Legend: 1.0-1.75 – Never, 1.76-2.50 – Once in a while, 2.51-3.25 – Often, 3.26-4.0 – Always
The overall data indicated that absenteeism had a general weighted mean of 1.67 which was
interpreted as “Less Extent”. The five prominent indicators that contributed to absenteeism of the
respondents were as follows: I feel lazy and I didn’t wake up early ranked first and had a mean of
2.78 interpreted as “High Extent”; I feel tired of going to school because our house is far from the
school ranked second and had a mean of 2.43 interpreted as “Moderate Extent”; I am not interested
in my studies ranked third and had a mean of 2.33 interpreted as “Moderate Extent”; My parents
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 29
don’t give me money to buy snacks and lunch ranked fourth and had a mean of 2.30 interpreted as
“Moderate Extent; I’m too pre-occupied with household chores and my parents ask me to be absent
from class ranked fifth and had a mean is 2.05 interpreted as “Moderate Extent”; and, My parents
asked me to absent from class ranked fifth and had a mean 2.05 interpreted as “Moderate Extent”.
The indicators of absenteeism leaned towards the respondents’ attitude, home’s distance from
school and parents’ capacity of providing them financial support. First, the primary reason
contributing to the students’ absences were laziness and failure to wake up early. Most of the
students came from far flung and remote areas and they had to be awake at 2 in the morning to
catch the only vehicle plying in their area. And for others, waking up so early and walking a long
distance from home to school was an everyday struggle and challenge. Most of the respondents
missed classes because they were not interested in their studies due to boredom in school, not
learning anything in school, and attending school is just a compliance. On the other hand, several
respondents stated that the cause of their absences from school were due to their parents’ failure
to prepare food or the lack of allowance they can use to buy snacks and lunch. They claimed they
could not sustain themselves being in school with an empty stomach (Mu absent kung walay
balon”, “usahay wala mi plete ug balon maong dili mi mag skwela). Also, some of them also were
absent from school since their parents told them to do so. They were tasked to be the minders of
their younger siblings.
On the other hand, other important indicators attributed to absenteeism ranked very low and had
an interpretation “Less Extent”, namely: I don’t like my teacher because he will just scold me
ranked 16th and had a mean of 1.22; My parents don’t care about my studies ranked 17th had a
mean of 1.18; I have no friends in our classroom ranked 18th and had a mean of 1.15; I got fond of
playing computer games ranked 19.5th and had a mean of 1.07; and, I am being bullied by my
teachers ranked 19.5th and had a mean of 1.07.
The indicators which ranked low in the survey and interpreted “Less extent” were viewed by the
respondents as something that did not really or seldom caused their absences in school. Only a few
of the respondents considered it unsafe to go to school when nobody accompanied them in school.
This happened during heavy rainfall when the roads got dangerous in going to school. Peers did
not always influence them to miss classes not even computer games since there was only limited
access of computers in the place. The inability to finish assignments or concentrate in their studies
were never a reason for some respondents to miss classes because they could still attend school
even if they had not accomplished their assignments (gasulod man gyapon mi bisan wala mi
assignments). Teacher-student relationship did not hinder them from attending classes as well.
They felt comfortable with their friends in the classroom.
In addition, the lack of parental updates or involvement in their studies were not seen as factors
contributing to their absenteeism. According to some of the students, they prefer not to be followed
up in school so that they can develop independence among themselves and besides, seeing their
parents in school made them uneasy (mas okay kung wala among ginikanan kay mahadlok mig
naa sila kay mabantayan among lihok ug mabal-an among batasan diris skwelahan”, “mas tsadag
wala sila diri para ma independent mi, makabuhat mis among gusto”).
The study of Balkis (2015) revealed that student absenteeism was negatively related to academic
self-perception, attitudes towards teacher and school, motivation/self-regulation, and academic
performance. Results also showed that student absenteeism differed in respect to parents’
educational level and income.
Information gathered specifies that disinterest in schooling of some of the respondents, whose
home were near from school, makes them skip classes. This was confirmed by Pehlivan (2006) in
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 30
which he stated that the major reason given by students for non-attendance is that they were bored
at school, they disliked attending school and lessons, they had no encouragement from friends, and
they lacked expectations about education.
Additionally, there were respondents who came from remote areas experiencing transportation
difficulty. Hence, their parents asked them to be absent from classes specially when they could not
give money for fare and for food and allowance. Some of the parents confirmed and expressed
their sentiments of having a hard time providing for their children’s need for school and in
supporting them specially in school activities. Postiglione et.al. (2006) presented that in some
cases, high school students contributed to raise their family earnings and did labors which affected
their attendance in school.
Extent of students’ and parents’ perception on parental involvement
There were two ways parents could show their support in their children’s studies and be involved
at home and in school. It was observed that not all parents had the same level of involvement at
home and in school.
Table 8 showed that the general weighted mean of parental involvement in both home and school
is at 3.32. The level indicated that the parents’ involvement is interpreted as “Greatly Involved” as
the level reached the category “Always”. The data revealed the top indicators, to wit: I ensure the
good health of my child which had a mean of 3.70 and interpreted as “Greatly Involved”; I maintain
good relationship in our family especially with my child had a mean of 3.67 and interpreted as
“Greatly Involved”; and, I pay attention to their emotional and physical needs had a mean of 3.52
interpreted as “Greatly Involved”. On the other hand, the lowest tier showed: I remind my child to
study their lesson and make their assignments and projects at home with a mean of 3.23 and
categorized as “Highly Involved”; and, I helped them in making their assignments and projects
with a mean of 2.37 and categorized as “Moderately Involved”.
At home, parents believed that they were able to provide the necessary and primary needs of their
children such as food, money for allowance even in the smallest amount, ensuring security for
their children, and attention to their different needs and good relationship were given and maintain
by them for their children. According to them, they did their best to support their children with
their essential needs at home since it was their duty to be responsible for the necessities of their
family (“among responsibilidad ang among mga anak” and “isip ginikanan, among
gapaningkamotan mapakaon ug mahatagag pagtagad among anak diri sa balay”). They tried their
best to remind to study their lessons, make their assignments and other school related work. They
admitted that they could not help their children to do their homework. Hence, they tried to
encourage their children do well so they could live better lives in the future. (Ang pag remind
permanente, pero ang pagtabang dili gyud kay unsa raman among nahuman? Maong
maningkamot mi dili sila mapareha namo. Dili mi kasinati unsaon pagbuhat sa uban projects ug
assignments sa among bata). Hence, the data disclosed that the parents are moderately involved
in helping their children do their assignments and projects.
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 31
Table 8: Extent of Parental Involvement as Perceived by Parents
Indicators
Mean
Level
Interpretation
Home-Involvement
1. I prepare foods for my child before they go to
school.
3.50
Always
Greatly Involved
2. I packed them food to bring and/or give them
money to buy foods in school.
3.30
Always
Greatly Involved
3. I ensure that they go and come home from school
on time and safe.
3.30
Always
Greatly Involved
4. I remind my child to study their lesson and make
their assignments and projects at home.
3.23
Often
Highly Involved
5. I helped them in making their assignments and
projects.
2.37
Once in
a while
Moderately
Involved
6. I pay attention to their emotional and physical
needs.
3.52
Always
Greatly Involved
7. I ensure the good health of my child.
3.70
Always
Greatly Involved
8. I maintain good relationship in our family
especially with my child.
3.67
Always
Greatly Involved
9. I ask my child “how is he?” as soon as he got home
from school.
3.30
Always
Greatly Involved
General Weighted Mean
3.32
Always
Greatly Involved
School-Involvement
10. I ask my child’s teacher about his/her performance
in school.
1.47
Never
Less Involved
11. I actively attend meetings in school.
2.67
Often
Highly Involved
12. I ask the subject teachers on the possible and
additional intervention to enhance my child’s learning
abilities.
1.50
Never
Less Involved
13. I ensure that my child has a good relationship with
his classmates and teachers.
1.60
Never
Less Involved
14. I monitor my child’s attendance in school.
1.98
Once in
a while
Moderately
Involved
15. I help the teachers in making my child
comfortable in their classroom.
1.45
Never
Less Involved
General Weighted Mean
1.78
Once in
a while
Moderately
Involved
Legend: 1.0-1.75 – Less Involved, 1.76-2.50 – Moderately Involved, 2.51-3.25 – Highly
Involved, 3.26-4.0 – Greatly Involved
The general weighted mean of the parents’ involvement in school is at 1.78, which reached the
level “Once in a While” and categorized as “Moderately Involved”. The data revealed that the
highest indicator was: I actively attend meetings in school with a mean of 2.67 and categorized as
“Highly Involved”. Meanwhile the other indicators were: I monitor my child’s attendance in
school had a mean of 1.98 and categorized as “Moderately Involved; I ensure that my child has a
good relationship with his classmates and teachers showed a mean of 1.6 and categorized as “Less
Involved”; I ask the subject teachers on the possible and additional intervention to enhance my
child’s learning abilities yielded a mean of 1.5 and categorized as “Less Involved”; I ask my child’s
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 32
teacher about his/her performance in school showed a mean of 1.47 and categorized as “Less
Involved”; and I help the teachers in making my child comfortable in their classroom had a mean
of 1.45 and categorized as “Less Involved”.
The parents acknowledged their active attendance in meetings to comply with the government’s
project of helping children finish their studies. Still, they also said they could not always monitor
their children’s attendance in school. Also, they admitted that they had not asked teachers about
their children’s academic performance of; inquired from the teachers about their students’ comfort
in school; or, ensured a good relationship with their classmates and teachers. They usually hurried
back home after parent-teacher’s meeting because they just left their work behind or they had other
people take care of their little children back home.
Moreover, being less involved in school contributed to absenteeism of their children. Students with
parents who were involved in their school tended to have fewer behavioral problems and better
academic performance, and were more likely to complete high school than students whose parents
were not involved in their school (Child Trends Data Bank, 2013)
Table 9 indicated the extent of parental involvement as perceived by the students.
Table 9: Extent of Parental Involvement as Perceived by Students
Indicators
Mean
Level
Interpretation
Home-Involvement
1. My parents prepare foods for us before we go to
school.
3.45
Always
Greatly Involved
2. My parents packed us food to bring and/or give us
money to buy foods in school.
3.47
Always
Greatly Involved
3. My parents ensure that we go and come home from
school on time and safe.
3.17
Often
Highly Involved
4. My parents remind us to study our lesson and make
our assignments and projects at home.
2.6
Often
Highly Involved
5. My parents helped us in making our assignments
and projects.
2.12
Once in
a while
Moderately
Involved
6. My parents pay attention to our emotional and
physical needs.
3.22
Often
Highly Involved
7. My parents ensure our good health.
3.32
Always
Greatly Involved
8. My parents maintain good relationship in our
family especially with us.
3.52
Always
Greatly Involved
9. My parents ask “how are you?” as soon as we got
home from school.
3.05
Often
Highly Involved
General Weighted Mean
3.1
Often
Highly Involved
School-Involvement
10. My parents ask my teacher about my performance
in school.
1.92
Once in
a while
Moderately
Involved
11. My parents actively attend meetings in school.
2.43
Once in
a while
Moderately
Involved
12. My parents ask my subject teachers on the
possible and additional intervention to enhance my
learning abilities.
1.57
Never
Less Involved
13. My parents ensure that I have a good relationship
with my classmates and teachers.
1.93
Once in
a while
Moderately
Involved
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 33
14. My parents monitor my attendance in school.
1.9
Once in
a while
Moderately
Involved
15. My parents help my teachers in making me
comfortable in our classroom.
1.52
Never
Less Involved
General Weighted Mean
1.878
Once in
a while
Moderately
Involved
Legend: 1.0-1.75 – Less Involved, 1.76-2.50 – Moderately Involved, 2.51-3.25 – Highly
Involved, 3.26-4.0 – Greatly Involved
The table disclosed that the general weighted mean of parental involvement at home as perceived
by the students had a mean of 3.1 categorized as “Highly Involved.
The top objectives were interpreted as “Greatly Involved”, to wit: My parents maintain good
relationship in our family especially with us had a mean of 3.52; My parents packed us food to
bring and/or give us money to buy foods in school with a mean of 3.47; and, My parents prepare
foods for us before we go to school had a mean of 3.4. ).
Meanwhile, the following objectives garnered the interpretation “Often” to wit: My parents ask
“how are you?” as soon as we got home from school with a mean of 3.05; My parents remind us
to study our lesson and make our assignments and projects at home with a mean of 2.6; and, My
parents helped us in making our assignments and projects with a mean of 2.12.
Meanwhile, parental involvement in school as perceived by the students had a mean 1.878
interpreted “Moderately Involved”.
The objectives in this table were as follows: My parents actively attend meetings in school with a
mean of 2.43 showed that they are “Moderately Involved.” This is followed by My parents ensure
that I have a good relationship with my classmates and teachers with a mean of 1.93; My parents
ask my teacher about my performance in school with a mean of 1.92; My parents monitor my
attendance in school with a mean of 1.9. These four objectives showed that the frequency of
parents’ involvement in school was rated “Once in while.”
Meanwhile, the following objectives were given an interpretation of “Never”: My parents ask my
subject teachers on the possible and additional intervention to enhance my learning abilities with
a mean of 1.57; and, My parents help my teachers in making me comfortable in our classroom
with a mean of 1.52 categorized as “Less Involved”.
It can be deduced that parents and students almost had the same perception in terms of parental
involvement at home and in school. The data revealed that the students’ perception about their
parents’ involvement at home was high. This were evidenced by the parents’ ability to provide
the things needed in their day-to-day living which included the provision of food, money, good
family relationship, good health and security within the family. They also said that though their
parents reminded and supported them in their school tasks, though not all of the parents gave
hands-on help in their homework and projects. In addition, the students expressed that their parents
were moderately involved in school in terms of asking their teachers about their performance and
how to improve it, attending meetings in school, monitoring their attendances and ensuring their
good relationship with their teachers and classmates. Furthermore, the respondents believed that
their parents never asked their subject teachers on the possible intervention to enhance their
learning nor helped their teachers in making them comfortable in their classroom. According to
them, they seldom saw their parents coming to school for them. They did not even see their parents
talking with their teachers, helping them in coping up with their low grades and asking for
intervention to increase their academic performance.
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 34
Significant relationship between the extent of absenteeism and parental involvement
Table 10 presented the r – value, decision and the interpretation of the value computed correlating
absenteeism and parental involvement.
Table 10: Correlation Coefficient between Absenteeism and Parental Involvement
Variable
r - value
Decision
Interpretation
Absenteeism and
Parental Involvement at
Home
-0.2977
Reject Null
Hypothesis
Negative Relationship
Absenteeism and
Parental Involvement in
School
-0.5123
Reject Null
Hypothesis
Strong Negative Relationship
-1 (Strong) Negative Relationship, 0 No Relationship at All, +1 (Strong) Positive Relationship
The result exhibited the Correlation Coefficient between Absenteeism and Parental Involvement.
Parental involvement at home had an r-value of -0.2977 which indicated that parental involvement
at home had a negative relationship with absenteeism. Thus, from the gathered data, parents of the
respondents were greatly involved at home. On the other hand, parental involvement in school had
the r-value of -0.5123 which pointed out that it had a strong negative relationship with absenteeism.
Since parental involvement at home and in school had a negative relationship, the null hypothesis
was rejected at alpha 0.05. Therefore, there was a significant relationship between the extent of
absenteeism and parental involvement. Furthermore, it can be deduced that when parental
involvement was low, absenteeism was high. Consequently, if parental involvement increased,
absenteeism decreased.
This data further revealed the findings that the parents of the respondents were highly involved at
home but were moderately involved in school which contributed to absenteeism of their children.
This meant that if parents would not monitor their children in their studies by reminding them to
study and make assignments at home as well as monitor their attendance in school, their children
would be at risk of missing their classes. According to some parents interviewed, their incapability
of not following up their children in school and having less communication with their teachers
made their children’s absenteeism more extensive. It was noted also, that as much as they desired
to participate in school activities, financial constraints hindered and they needed to work.
Moreover, Jafarov (2015) stated in his study that when parents became involved, they would have
made a contribution to their children’s emotional and behavior development, well-being, social
skills and even school attendance. Also, parents’ participation in school activities would create
connections between teachers and parents that will have had a positive impact on teachers’
impressions of and views about student.
Significant difference in the perception between students and parents on parental involvement
Parents and students sometimes had different views and perspective in many things. Table 11
elucidated the t-value, p-value, decision and interpretation between students’ and parents’
perception on parental involvement.
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 35
Table 11: Test Value on Perception between Students’ and Parents’ on Parental Involvement
Variable
t - value
p – value
Decision
Interpretation
Students’ and Parents’
Perception on Parental
Involvement at Home
1.09
0.29
Accept Null
Hypothesis
Not significant
Students’ and Parents’
Perception on Parental
Involvement in School
-0.42
0.68
Accept Null
Hypothesis
Not significant
Students’ and Parents’
Perception on Parental
Involvement (in general)
0.31
0.76
Accept Null
Hypothesis
Not significant at
For students’ and parents’ perception on parental involvement at home, the t-value was 1.09 and
the p-value at 0.29. For parental involvement in school, the t-value was -0.42 and p-value at 0.68.
Generally, the students’ and parents’ perception on parental involvement had the t-value and p-
value of 0.31 and 0.76 respectively which were greater than the level of significance. Since the p-
value was greater than the alpha, 0.05, the result was not significant at p < .05. This meant that the
null hypothesis was accepted, to wit, “There is no significant difference in the perception between
students and parents on parental involvement”.
Both students and their parents perceived parental involvement as one of the most important
factors that affected the attendance of the students. Students viewed parental involvement as one
of the things that motivated them to be present and to do well in school. Furthermore, parents
considered it as their responsibility and right to be involved in the studies of their students that
would enable their children to be motivated and inspired in school. But though they perceived it
as they were involved, most of the parents still could not perform that responsibility in school
because the reasons such as the distance and the need to work hard to provide for their primary
needs.
According to Green et. al (2007), family conditions and parents’ work situations could be major
barriers to parental involvement. Examples would include a solo parent, those with young families,
or large families who would find it harder to get involved in parental involvement because of their
caretaking responsibilities. When parents were unemployed, money could be an issue as they
would not be able to afford to pay babysitters in order to attend to school meetings. For gainfully
employed parents, regardless if both parents work, there would be less time available for both
home-based and school-based parental involvement.
CONCLUSION
This study arrived at the conclusion that parental involvement in both school and home was
correlated to absenteeism of the Middle school students of public school. Parental involvement at
home enabled the parents to take good care of their children, follow up their studies, monitor their
status and show them support within their capacity. This would also enable the students to be more
motivated and inspired in going to school upon knowing their parents’ care for them and their
studies. Parental involvement in school also gave a big impact to the students. The presence of the
parents in school, whether to attend meeting, voluntarily visits them, follow up them boost self-
esteem and self-worth among their children. The knowledge students would sense and feel that
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 36
their parents gave their time for their studies would motivate and inspire them to do and exert more
effort in their studies and make their parents proud.
REFERENCES
Balkis, M. et.al. (2016). The School Absenteeism among High School Students: Contributing
Factors. Research Article. Retrieved. October 12, 2018 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307088341_The_School_Absenteeism_among_
High_School_Students_Contributing_Factors.
Chang, H. and Romero, M. (2008). Present engaged and accounted for: The critical importance
of addressing chronic absence in the early Grades. Report National Center for Children
Poverty. Retrieved. January 15, 2018 from
http://www.ncp.org/publications/pdf/text_837.pdf.
Child Trends Data Bank (2013). Parental Involvement in Schools: Indicators of Child and Youth
Well-Being. Retrieved. February 14, 2019 from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/39_Parent_Involvement_In_Schools-1.pdf
DeSocio, J. et.al. (2007). Engaging truant adolescents: Results from a multifaceted intervention
pilot. Preventing School Failure. Houston House of Books.
Duckworth, A. and Seligman, M. (2005). Research article: Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting
academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science. pp 939-944, 16(2).
Elis, J. C. (2016). Effect of Absenteeism to the Learning Performance of Fourth Year Students to
School and Individual Learning of one National High School in Batangas City. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences. Pp.41-47. (3). Retrieved. October 01, 2018 from
http://oaji.net/articles/2016/1710-1475122036.pdf.
Epstein, J.L., and Sheldon, S.B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving Student attendance
through family and community involvement. The Journal of Educational Research. pp.
95(5), 308-319.
Genteroy, E. C. (2016). Effect of Absenteeism among Fourth Year High School Students to School
and Individual Learning Performances: Basis for Conference Dialogue. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences. Pp.41-47. (3). Retrieved. October 01, 2018 from
http://oaji.net/articles/2016/1710-1475121572.pdf
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents'
motivations for involvement in children's education: An empirical test of a theoretical
model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 532-544.
Henderson, T., Hill, C., and Norton, K. (2014). The connection between missing school and health:
A review of chronic absenteeism and student health in Oregon. Retrieved. February 1, 2018
from:http://www.opstreampublichealth.org/sites/Default/files/chronic%Ansence%20and2
0health%Review%20FINAL%2010.10.2014.pdf.
Jafarov, J. (2015). Factors Affecting Parental Involvement in Education: The Analysis of
Literature. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, v4, 35-42.
LaBahn, J. (1995). Education and parental involvement in secondary schools: Problems, solutions,
and effects. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
Retrieved. August 13, 2018 from http://www.edpsycinteractive/files/parinvol.html
Lumban, R.H., Lacsi, D.G., and Guiling, H.M.E. (2015). The Effect of HomeVisitation in
Minimizing Students’ Absenteeism: Protocol for Teachers’ Home Visitation. Capitol
University.
Asian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020
ISSN 2311-6080
Multidisciplinary Journals
www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com 37
Malcolm, H., et.al. (2003). Absence from School: A study of its causes and Effects in seven LEAs.
United Kingdom: Queen’s Printers.
Manabilang, J.A. (2015). Incentive Motivational System: A Process in Improving Pupils’ School
Attendance. Capitol University.
McNeal Jr., R.B. (1999). Parental Involvement as Social Capital: Differential Effectiveness on
Science Achievement, Truancy, and Dropping Out. University of North Carolina Press.
Retrieved. August 13, 2018 from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-
abstract/78/1/117/2233864.
Ocak, G., Ocak, I., and Baysal, E. (2017). The Causes of Absenteeism of High School Students.
Afyon Kocatepe University.
Postiglione, G., Jiao B., and Gyatso, S. (2006). Educational Review: Household perspectives on
school attendance in rural Tibet. pp 317-337, 58(3).
Reid, K. (2005). The harsh truth about truancy. Educational Journal [Electronic version]. pp 38-
40, 105. Retrieved. January 16, 2018 from
http://www.edjournal.edu/harsh_truth_about_truancy/.
Scungio, L. (2016). How Guidance Counselors and Teachers Can Play a Role in Reducing
Absenteeism. Retrieved February 16, 2019 fromhttps://fosteredu.pennfoster.edu/how-
guidance-counselors-and-teachers-can-play-a-role-in-reducing-absenteeism.
Sivertsen, J. (2015). The Importance of Parental Involvement in Your Child’s Education.
Retrieved. October 11, 2018 from http://www.washingtonchristian.org/blog/the-
importance-of-parental-involvement-in-your-childs-education.
Teasley L.L. (2000). Student Absenteeism and Truancy. Technology and Intervention to Reduce
Chronic Problems among School Age. Journal Of Children. pp. 23-24.
The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement (2005). Getting Parents Involved
in Schools. February 09, 2019 from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/getting-parents-
involved-schools.
Villamor, M.J. (2016). Planned Visitation in Minimizing Absenteeism. Capitol University.
Zhang, M. (2003). Links between school absenteeism and child poverty. Retrieved. January 15,
2018 from http://onlineLibrary.willey.com/doi/10.1111.1468-0122.00249/abstract.
