Imagine a fourth grader rushing to get ready for school in the morning. “Please, Mama, we have to go,” Roberto implores as he zips his backpack. He and his mother are staying with a family friend miles from his elementary school, with no access to a bus route. His mother has been working nights, sometimes too tired to drive him safely to school in the morning. Roberto knows his class is trying to earn a perfect attendance pizza party, and he is eager to do his part. On this day, his mother’s friend drops him off mid-morning. When he walks into the classroom, a few students glare at him. Someone whispers that the class across the hall won because Roberto wasn’t there. Roberto slides into his seat, cheeks flushed, unsure whether he should explain what happened or just stay quiet.
Roberto is not alone in struggling to make it to school. Across the U.S., more than one in five students ended the 2024–25 school year chronically absent (Malkus, 2025). For some student groups, such as homeless and foster youth, the number is closer to one in three (Lambert et al., 2025). Chronic absenteeism, typically defined as missing 10 percent or more of school days, has well-documented long-term consequences, including lower academic achievement, reduced engagement, and increased risk of dropout (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2012; Gottfried, 2019; Ready, 2010). Although absenteeism has declined from pandemic-era highs, rates remain far above pre-pandemic levels and progress has slowed (Lambert et al., 2025; Chang et al., 2025).
Many schools and districts have responded to this challenge by ramping up attendance incentives such as prizes, parties, or special privileges intended to draw students to school. These approaches often withhold a positive experience until an absent student behaves differently, reflecting a common belief that the right reward will motivate students to attend more consistently. Unfortunately, research points to a mismatch between this solution and the nature of the problem. The most frequent drivers of absenteeism include illness, transportation gaps, housing instability, economic hardship, and immigration-related concerns, often in combination (Gottfried & Hutt, 2019; Shankar et al., 2025; Schreiber, 2024). When schools treat attendance as a behavior to reward rather than as a signal to investigate, they limit their ability to learn why students are absent and how to respond.
Some districts are beginning to take a more relational approach to attendance, focusing on building trust with students and families in order to better address systemic barriers. For example, in the Raising Attendance and Improving Student Engagement (RAISE) Network, a multi-district improvement network in California, schools use data-driven outreach routines to identify which barriers most affect their students. While schools cannot eliminate all of the conditions that impact attendance, they can build trusting relationships that make effective responses possible. Incentives are not a pillar of this approach; in some cases, they may even undermine it. This article examines why attendance incentives can be so appealing, why research suggests they should largely be avoided, and why relationship-centered approaches better support lasting and equitable improvements in attendance.
Incentives are a common response to absenteeism because they feel practical and positive in the face of a complex challenge. They offer educators a tangible action step that feels caring rather than punitive. Yet this intuitive appeal can obscure a key question: Do incentives actually work as intended?
Research across multiple fields suggests incentives often fail to produce sustained change in complex behaviors. For example, an analysis of recent evidence on incentives and children’s food choices found that while rewards increased consumption in the short term, children’s eating patterns returned to baseline once incentives were removed (Belot & James, 2022). Attendance research shows similar patterns. Robinson et al. (2021) found that pre-announced attendance awards had no impact, and that students with strong attendance who received surprise awards actually attended less afterward.
Even setting aside the question of whether incentives reliably produce sustained changes in behavior, there are additional reasons incentive-based approaches can undermine relationships and hinder schools’ attendance improvement efforts. The following table explains why:
| WHY INCENTIVES ARE APPEALING | WHY THEY SHOULD BE AVOIDED |
| Incentives are intuitive…
Rewarding desired behavior aligns with common assumptions about motivation and familiar traditions in schooling. Many educators themselves received those perfect attendance certificates or “my child made honor roll” bumper stickers and understandably carry those traditions forward. |
… but they don’t uncover or address systemic barriers.
Students facing systemic barriers don’t come to school for a prize; they come when their families’ needs are met and school feels valuable. The mismatch between root causes and incentives as a solution is most evident in elementary schools, where students have little control over how and when they get to school. |
| Incentives feel good…
Educators trying to address attendance with compassion would much rather rely on praise than punishment. Seeing students smile when they get a treat or earn a privilege provides instant positive feedback for caring adults. In the face of a complex, demoralizing problem, those joyful moments can feel hopeful. |
…but only for those who get to participate.
Incentives typically reward students facing fewer systemic barriers while undermining belonging for the most vulnerable. This matters as rates of chronic health conditions rise: Nearly 30 percent of U.S. youth now live with a chronic condition such as asthma, diabetes, or lupus, with higher prevalence among families facing economic hardship (Wisk & Sharma, 2025). Classwide-incentives can publicly shame students who miss school for legitimate health reasons or external barriers beyond their control. Holding fun activities only for some students undermines efforts to make school a place where all kids can feel they belong. |
| Incentives are intended to target individual motivation…
Schools often believe absences stem from students not wanting to attend school. While illness is the most frequently recorded reason for absence, educators sometimes suspect families are not being fully honest. Without strong relationships, it is difficult to distinguish between a lack of desire to attend and unspoken needs. When the problem is viewed as a motivational one, incentives seem to be a reasonable way to entice students to school. |
…but they send problematic messages and erode norms.
Motivation researchers have found that students are more motivated when they see school as meaningful, relevant, or connected to their lives and goals (Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016). When schools offer rewards for showing up, students learn that the reason to attend school is the reward, not the learning or relationships school provides. At the secondary level, when students have more agency over getting to school, incentives can backfire by unintentionally signaling that consistent attendance is exceptional rather than expected (Robinson et al. 2021). |
| Incentives are affordable and easy…
For schools with limited capacity, it is far easier to offer a small reward than to meet students’ material needs or address the deeper issues with instruction, school culture, and belonging that can lead to disconnection. |
…but they consume our most precious resources: time and attention.
Administrators and attendance teams often spend significant time planning and managing the logistical details of incentive initiatives—time that could instead be used to understand and address students’ circumstances. When teams are lucky to meet for an hour per week, investing that time in low-impact incentive strategies is costly. What other, more effective strategies are they not leaving energy for? |
Some educators, including those in networks like RAISE, are already questioning whether incentives are worth the effort. During a recent RAISE convening, teams noted that reward programs are complicated to manage, produce uneven results, or lose momentum over time. Some schools quietly phase them out after a few cycles when participation drops, the impact is unclear, or other initiatives take priority. Even when incentives do produce short-term compliance, they rarely deepen understanding of why students were absent or improve conditions shaping future attendance. The skepticism educators express toward incentives is a sign that they are paying attention to results and looking for approaches that produce more meaningful and lasting change. If incentives fall short, the question becomes: What does a more effective approach look like in practice?
The first step toward reducing reliance on incentives is to shift from asking, “How do we incentivize students to come?” to “How do we build the trust and understanding needed to help students be here?” Research consistently links attendance to school climate, belonging, and relationships, and a recent study from the University of Chicago found attendance is now even more strongly associated with school climate than before the pandemic (Allensworth et al., 2026). Rethinking attendance incentives shifts the focus away from individual student motivation and toward the environment created by school practice. Students are more likely to want to be at school when they feel safe, seen, and connected, and when learning feels meaningful. Strong relationships with students and families also give educators the insight and access needed to identify and address material barriers such as transportation, health needs, or housing instability. Engagement and trust are not just outcomes of good attendance work; they are fundamental to schools’ ability to detect needs and respond effectively.
These approaches are not theoretical. Schools across contexts are already testing ways to make their attendance improvement strategy more relational and responsive.
| Case Study: Using Resources to Address Systemic Barriers
A week before the start of the 2025–26 school year, Reef-Sunset Unified held a Back to School Extravaganza where all families were offered free resources targeted to specific barriers to attendance. Resources included:
Instead of offering incentives to a select few, this district created a relational community experience that also made vital resources accessible to all families who needed them, addressing some of the material, logistical, and social barriers students face in getting to school. |
Below are four strategies that support attendance through relationships, rather than incentives:
Examples:
Why it works: Rituals create joy, predictability, and shared responsibility, without relying on extrinsic rewards. Everyday fun experiences make being at school its own reward. This strategy differs from the way schools commonly use attendance incentives by making positive experiences accessible to every student who is at school, not just those who have achieved a particular attendance threshold or won a competition. While fun rituals themselves do not necessarily uncover or address barriers to attendance, they do help build the trusting relationships with adults that chronically absent students need.
| Case Study: Making Learning the Reward
Chico Country Day School created “Wonder Hour,” a schoolwide twist on the more widely known Genius Hour model often used in high school settings (Krebs & Zvi, 2025). On designated days, students choose from a menu of hands-on, curiosity-driven projects guided by teachers, with older students supporting younger peers. Students choose from activities throughout the building, working across grade levels and even visiting their prior teachers. Importantly, the school schedules Wonder Hour on days with historically lower attendance, such as Mondays, Fridays, and days near school breaks. Rather than offering prizes for attendance, Chico Country Day redesigned the learning experience itself, creating a routine that students eagerly anticipate and making school a place students want to be. |
Example:
Why it works: Trusted relationships increase belonging and surface attendance barriers that can be addressed. A rigorous evaluation of the Check & Connect program within the Chicago Public Schools showed that sustained mentoring relationships reduced absenteeism for students in grades 5–7, suggesting mentoring can be effective for older students (Guyran et al., 2020).
Examples:
Why it works: Warm, personal contact encourages two-way communication between families and school. When systemic barriers emerge, an existing trusting relationship allows families to feel more comfortable telling school personnel what is happening.
| Case Study: Investing in Relationships with Families
School administrator Claudia Trout had a pack of gift cards from a local cafe set aside for attendance rewards, but none had been earned—students simply weren’t motivated by them! Claudia had done her research—the cafe was a popular spot for students—and yet there they sat, untouched. She instead invited the mother of a chronically absent student to meet for coffee at the school. Claudia used a gift card to pick up the mother’s favorite drink, and unlike prior attempts to hold a meeting, the mother came to the school at the appointed time. Over the course of a wide-ranging conversation, she learned more about the family’s systemic barriers and prior experiences that had eroded their trust in institutions. The free coffee mattered not as a reward, but as a kind gesture that opened the door to a completely different mode of interaction. The money that had been allocated to motivate kids instead was used to put a parent at ease and build the foundation of a trusting relationship between that family and the school. |
Examples:
Why it works: Students don’t want to miss time with their peers. After surveying students and families about what motivates school attendance, Tacoma Public Schools found the top reason students come is to see their friends. In response, the district invested in building clubs, affinity groups, peer mentorship, and extracurricular opportunities, especially for demographic groups that felt less connected. The district’s philosophy was summarized by one official: “We believe the relationship is the intervention.” (Stone, 2024)
As schools work to improve attendance, incentives cannot replace the learning stance needed to understand and address the root causes of absenteeism. Reward systems tend to produce limited long-term impact, can alienate the very students schools most hope to reach, and often shift responsibility for change onto students and families rather than prompting critical reflection on school practice. Removing the time-consuming work of managing incentive programs from a team’s plate can create space for more impactful approaches.
The central challenge is not how to motivate students to show up, but how to build the relationships and routines that help educators understand and respond to what students need. An absence is not just a behavior to correct. It is a signal to investigate and act on. When schools invest in relationships, belonging, and responsive support, they both reduce barriers to attendance and create environments students want to be part of. This work calls for fewer prizes and more listening, fewer competitions and more connection, and a commitment to treating every absence as an opportunity to learn.
Roberto zips his backpack closed, careful not to catch the edges of the photo tucked inside. He steps outside to meet the district van that has picked him up each morning since school staff learned his family no longer had reliable transportation. “Have a good day,” his mother calls after him. “I hope I get another message from your teacher this week about how well you’re doing!”
When the van pulls up to school, Roberto hops down and gives a high five to the principal, who greets students by name every morning at the front gate. Roberto’s teacher has invited students to bring objects from home as part of a daily opening practice meant to help students learn about each other. Roberto gingerly places the photo of his grandparents on the table in the center of the classroom and joins the sharing circle as class begins.
Allensworth, E. M., Antony, M., Delgado, W., & de la Torre, M. (2026, January). Connection, Trust, and Learning Student Attendance in the Middle and High School Grades Following the COVID-19 Pandemic. UChicago Consortium Research Brief.
Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2012). The Importance of Being in School: A Report on Absenteeism in the Nation’s Public Schools. Johns Hopkins University Center for Social Organization of Schools.
Belot, M., & James, J. (2022). Incentivizing dietary choices among children: Review of experimental evidence. Food Policy, 111(2022). 10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102319.
Chang, H. N., Chavez, B., & Hough, H. J. (2025). Unpacking California’s chronic absence crisis through 2023–24: Seven key facts [Infographic]. Policy Analysis for California Education. Retrieved November 24, 2025, from edpolicyinca.org/publications/ unpacking-californias-chronic-absence-crisis-through-2023-24
Gottfried, M. A. (2019). Chronic Absenteeism in the Classroom Context: Effects on Achievement. Urban Education, 54(1), 3-34.
Gottfried, M. A., & Hutt, E. L. (2019). Absent from School: Understanding and Addressing Student Absenteeism. Harvard Education Press.
Guyran, J., Christenson, S., Cureton, A., Lai, I., Ludwig, J., Schwarz, C., Shirey, E., & Turner, M. C. (2020). The Effect of Mentoring on School Attendance and Academic Outcomes: A Randomized Evaluation of the Check & Connect Program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 40(3), 841-882.
Krebs, D., & Zvi, G. (2025, November 7). Here’s Our Short Definition of “Genius Hour”. The Genius Hour Guidebook – A Resource Site. Retrieved February 6, 2026, from https://www.geniushourguide.org/
Lambert, D., Márquez Rosales, B., & Willis, D. J. (2025, November 13). California School Dashboard shows progress and challenges. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2025/california-schools-graduation-rates-gains/745050
Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602-640.
Malkus, N. (2025, June). Lingering Absence in Public Schools: Tracking Post-Pandemic Chronic Absenteeism into 2024 [White Paper]. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED673951.pdf
Robinson, C. D., Gallus, J., Lee, M. G., & Rogers, T. (2021). The demotivating effect (and unintended message) of awards. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 163(2021), 51-64. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.006.
Schreiber, M. (2024, November 4). Chronic Absenteeism: An Overlooked Vital Sign. Hopkins Bloomberg Public Health. https://magazine.publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/chronic-absenteeism-overlooked-vital-sign
Shankar, M., Joseph-Lumpkin, G., Costa, D. K., Cebert, M., Fenick, A. M., Sharifi, M., & Suttiratana, S. C. (2025, Nov-Dec). Health-related and social drivers of chronic absenteeism in an urban school district. Academic Pediatrics, 25(8), 103113.
Stone, M. (2024, April 14). 4 Case Studies: Schools Use Connections to Give Every Student a Reason to Attend. EdWeek. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/4-case-studies-schools-use-connections-to-give-every-student-a-reason-to-attend/2024/04
Wisk, L. E., & Sharma, N. (2025). Prevalence and Trends in Pediatric-Onset Chronic Conditions in the United States, 1999–2018. Academic Pediatrics, 24(4), 1-17. 10.1016/j.acap.2025.102810
