Electronic Identification Cards for Students as a Mechanism for Reducing Truancy: The Swipe of the Future

Electronic Identification Cards for Students as a Mechanism for Reducing Truancy:

The Swipe of the Future

a report prepared by the
Memphis Shelby Crime Commission
at the request of
Dr. Carol Johnson, Superintendent, Memphis City Schools

Introduction and Methodology
At the request of Dr. Carol Johnson, Superintendent, Memphis City Schools, the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission agreed to review the literature and investigate the use of electronic identification cards for students as a mechanism for reducing truancy. The purpose of the review and investigation is to determine the efficacy of using an electronic identification card system in Memphis City Schools (MCS) in an effort to increase student attendance and reduce truancy.

The staff of the Crime Commission conducted a search of available literature on the subject and conducted telephone and personal interviews with providers and users of electronic identification systems in schools in the United States, Great Britain and Israel. Reports regarding the experiences schools in Great Britain and Israel that have used electronic identification cards specifically for tracking student school attendance and reports regarding the experiences schools in the United States have had with the use of electronic identification cards to perform other functions were examined for their outcomes and for their relevancy to forming an opinion regarding the benefits of using electronic identification cards for tracking attendance and reducing truancy in MCS.

The Issue
Back on May 11, 1984, then President Reagan commenting at a ceremony marking the anniversary of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, explained that the Commission’s report had, "documented 20 years of decline, 20 years of declining academic standards and declining discipline," and stated, "...(w)e’re taking a new look at truancy ... across the country, there are efforts to cut back on it by using everything from greater discipline to new incentives."¹ Twenty years later, school districts across the country are still struggling with low performing schools and students and they are still taking a look at truancy and trying a vast array of methods and programs to increase attendance and reduce truancy. Fundamental to the success or failure of any of these methods or programs, is, at the outset, the ability to accurately tally, report and analyze student attendance.

The use of electronic identification cards for students has emerged as a promising strategy to help larger schools and school districts efficiently, accurately and expeditiously record student school and classroom attendance. While available in several different formats, the general principle behind the system is that students use a personal identification card to record their entrance and exit to the school campus, as well as, their entrance to each class. The information is electronically transmitted to a central station where it is available within seconds or minutes (depending upon the system used) for a variety of different applications. The system can generate individual and aggregate attendance reports; be programmed to automatically generate a notification phone call and/or letter to parents or others when a certain absentee threshold is met; and it can analyze the data, compare it to data from another system and generate reports.

The use of electronic identification cards to track students’ attendance has gained wide acceptance in Europe, but has not been widely experimented with in the U. S. While a number of explanations have been offered to account for this differential, the best account seems to point to three factors.² The first difference between the U. S. and Europe appears to be the priority placed upon education and the cost involved, which can be substantial, in establishing an electronic system to track attendance. It is suggested that European governments have traditionally assumed a greater responsibility and have spent more attention and therefore invested more dollars in K-12 education than the U.S. federal government. This argument appears to be confirmed by looking at the state of the art in Great Britain where last year alone the government made available £1.4 million (equivalent to approximately three million U.S. dollars) to each of two local educational authorities to help them with behavior and attendance measures targeting primary and secondary schools as part of a £470 million (equivalent to almost one billion U.S. dollars) National Behaviour Improvement Program and Attendance Strategy.³

A related point that has significant bearing on the cost factor is the size of the issue in the U.S. versus the size in the various European countries. The size of the student body, and therefore the size of the issue and the costs involved, in the U. S., where one school district could be responsible for educating more students than live in an entire region in Great Britain or even an entire country, is vast as compared to the student body in all European countries. For example, there were only 591,272 Basic Education students in Finland in 1997 while there are 1,082,000 K-12 students in the New York City School system and 175,463 K-12 students in the Memphis area.

Finally, while there is a federal department of education in the United States, it does not function as the same centralized management authority as do the departments of education in European countries. Additionally, while general standards for student achievement and educational bodies is established at the federal level in the U.S., there has historically been wide latitude for state and local interpretation and certainly there is a very broad array of choice evidenced in the instruction, programs and services offered at the state and local levels. This degree of decentralization and autonomy results in no national standard or movement for many educational issues, including those related to tracking attendance and reducing truancy. An example used to illustrate this point is the fact that community-based youth organizations in the United States with strong national leadership have in recent years at the local level more uniformly embraced the use of electronic identification cards to track participant attendance.

According to many in the field, the advent of the accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is changing practice in the U. S. While the use of electronic identification cards to track students in K-12 public school systems is still in it’s nascence in the U. S., some schools are in the process of installing systems (see discussion of various systems below) while a number of districts are making plans to do so and others are investigating the possibility. There is clearly a ground swell of interest and movement in the U.S.⁴ apparently based upon the NCLB reporting and performance demands and the success European governments and school districts report they have had in reducing truancy from 10-50% in one to three years after installing electronic identification systems for students.⁵

What is an Electronic Identification Card System?
Basically there are four different types of electronic identification card systems: bar-coded cards, magnetic striped cards, proximity cards and cards with microchips imbedded in them commonly referred to as smart cards.

The bar-code and magnetic stripe cards rely on the card-holder being assigned a personal identification code (commonly, but not necessarily, some part of their social security number) which is held in the bar-code or under the magnetic stripe. A machine, called a reader, reads the personal identification code transmitting the information to a database where information about the card-holder is stored allowing either additional information to be recorded such as their entrance into a room or building on a particular date and time thus tracking attendance or allowing information about the card-holder to be retrieved from the database such as their eligibility to be allowed into a particular classroom thereby increasing security. Whereas the bar-code card holds the card-holder’s personal identifier in the bar-code providing a rather low level of security for those who may be inclined to try to copy the code to use it without the card or for those adept at reading the bar-codes, the cards with magnetic stripes do not allow the bar-code underneath the stripe to be readily accessed, requiring a special solution to remove the magnetic striping, thus providing a higher level of security against misuse. A disadvantage of the magnetic stripe card, however, is the card’s tendency to become dysfunctional due to the fragile nature of the magnetic stripe, specifically when exposed to the magnetic clasps on many purses. An alternative method for increasing the security of a simple bar-code card is to encase the bar-code in a red colored box thus making it impossible to photocopy the card.

Proximity cards, traditionally used for gaining access to buildings, rely on a radio frequency being transmitted from the card to the card reader, thus initiating the same process for sending and retrieving information as described for the bar-code or magnetic stripe cards. While manufacturers of this technology state that the system is now being used for identification and tracking purposes in addition to facilitating entry, this is not a system for tracking attendance or truancy that is being used or considered by school districts either in the U.S. or Europe.

Whereas the other electronic identification systems use the code on the card to initiate a system of information gathering and sharing that depends on an established, generally centralized, database, smart cards contain the information about the card-holder on the card in a microchip that is built into the card. Smart cards still require readers to read the stored information and they still transmit any new information such as the card-holder’s time and entry into a room to a database where it is stored, but the imbedding of the information into the card increases the security of the card and expedites the transmitting of the information.

Individual cards may employ all or a combination of the different systems. While the manufacturers of smart cards claim that the smart card allows for multi-applications and, in fact, are generally used for multi-applications, manufacturers of the other types of cards make similar claims explaining that the information required to provide the various applications may be stored in the central data system and the ability to allow for multi-applications is a function of the data collected and software used rather than the type of card itself.

What materials are used to make the cards?
In the case of bar-code, magnetic stripe or proximity cards, the material the cards are made of may range from regular paper stock to a polyester laminate that creates a barrier against scratches, abrasions, dye migration and chemical agents. Most of these cards are made of laminated plastic and have a life of 6 months - 2 years. Depending upon the material and thickness of the card, these cards may or may not survive repeated visits to the washing machine and dryer and may be more easily subjected to a degree of tampering or defacement.

Smart cards must be made of very high-quality, secure materials such as teslin, a micro porous, plastic film produced in different thickness in order to secure and protect the microchip. These cards have a life of 6 - 10 years and generally endure endless washing machine and dryer cycles. Smart cards are commonly considered tamper-resistant as any success in reaching the microchip would require destroying the card.

Most cards include a photo of the card-holder and identification regarding the issuing organization. Although it is conceivable that space on the card may also be used to post a return mailing address for lost cards and/or a promotional message from a company in exchange for underwriting the cost of the card, smart cards may have more space for these options when no space is used for a bar-code or magnetic stripe.

How do the readers work?
Other than readers for proximity cards, which work by radio frequency, readers for the other types of identification cards work with either a swipe card system or with a scan system. The swipe card reader entails the card-holder actually swiping the card through a slot in the reader (as is done with credit and ATM cards). The card has actual contact with the reader. Using the scan reader, the reader identifies the card with an infrared red light mechanism that is protected behind a glass and requires no actual contact with the card. While many systems operate on the swipe card system, this system is not highly recommended for use with a student population because it is easily damaged by food and other objects poured into the reader making it an easy target for tampering and vandalism.⁶ In addition, the fact that the card must have contact with the reader each time it is used decrease the life of the card.

The more frequently used scan readers require no external power supply. They come in a variety of different sizes with differing numbers of read lines depending upon the cards they are designed to read and the applications sought for the system. Scan readers function either through a cable attachment to a computer or by wireless transmission. It is common to have a reader placed at the entrance to a school or a classroom, although in the case of readers that require a cable connection, a more cost saving option may be to place the reader on or near the teacher’s desk to minimize the amount of cable needed. For both smart card and bar-code or magnetic stripe systems, portable readers are available and used for functions such as sporting or cultural events, field trips or service learning projects that take place away from the school campus.

How do the cards work to track attendance and reduce truancy?
Basically, all of the tracking systems follow the same general protocol by most appearances. A student enters the school grounds with an electronic identification card and either holds the card to a reader or swipes the card through a reader. The reader is directly connected to a computer or the data collected is passed through a web-based wireless system. In either case, the system relies on a window-based computer⁷ and the information collected is sent to a database and/or is available to be viewed on the reader. Based on the information collected in the database regarding absenteeism, tardiness, etc. aligned with specified segments (i.e.: by class, teacher, day), the school can program automatic dialing directly to the parents whose child was absent or late leaving a voice message, or a letter or email can automatically be sent to parents and others (i.e.: the Juvenile Court, the District Attorney General’s office, Department of Health and Human Services or service organizations) with the information. Parents can record a reason for their child’s absenteeism, and schools can register the parent’s response and act accordingly.

A student’s attendance in each classroom during the school day may also be monitored by a similar method, with the information sent to the teacher’s desk, to the school’s database and/or even to the parents and others simultaneously. In fact, to assure accuracy and hamper the ability of students’ ability to "beat" the system, a truancy tracking system requires that cards be used for attendance purposes upon entering each classroom. This cuts down on students who come to school in the morning and then "skip" or "cut" class and reduces the likelihood that students might be inclined to give a friend their card to mark their attendance for them. Whereas it would be impossible for staff to stand at the entrance to school to verify that no student registers more than their own card, in the classroom the verification system is very simple. After all students are seated, the teacher may simply count heads to see if the number on their screen equals the number of heads in the classroom. It is not likely that a student given a choice of using their card or a friend’s to mark attendance would be inclined to use the friend’s.

The system collects the time the students use their cards as they enter and leave school or the classroom. Reports are accurate and may be generated in literally seconds. Data can be analyzed immediately in a variety of increments and overlaid with an endless possibility of other variables allowing rigorous evaluation, real evidence-based planning and programming and immediate intervention or consequences for truant students.

What is the best system?
There are basically three options MCS could consider when seeking an electronic identification system for students to track attendance and reduce truancy. The first option is to contract with a company offering a turn-key bar-code card system, the second option is to contract with a company offering a turn-key smart card system and the third option is to build on the existing staff and student identification system currently operating in a number of Memphis City Schools.

While there are a number of companies internationally who offer a turn-key bar-code system for tracking attendance and truancy and many companies currently offering security systems for schools state they could readily provide an electronic identification card system for tracking attendance, the company most widely identified with this system in the U.S. today is nFocus. nFocus provides a system using their KidTrax and/or StudentTrax software⁸ and provides both the software and hardware. The KidTrax program collects time and attendance data through the use of a bar-code card and reader system designed to gather and analyze the attendance and other demographic information and generate reports. StudentTrax provides the same applications as the KidTrax but also allows students to view and submit assignments online, participate in virtual study groups, access the school calendar and class schedules and track their grades in real time as they are posted. Parents, caseworkers and other approved participants can also access a student’s attendance and other vital information online with StudentTrax. The information is stored in a centralized server with different levels of access available to the different approved participants.

A special feature of the nFocus programs is a built in random pop up message system. These messages may act as a "lottery," an incentive and reward for students who participate in the system by offering prizes and rewards on a random basis to students whose names pop up. The random pop up feature can also be used to provide a spot check on students by randomly calling for a particular student to report to the office.

While the nFocus systems have yet to be used in schools to track attendance and truancy, the manufacturer claims that the KidTrax system is being used by thousands of youth programs, including 40% of the nation’s Boys & Girls Clubs and a number of Police Athletic Leagues, to track program attendance and participation. A number of school systems participate with the community-based organizations in using the KidTrax system by making their database available to the system and/or by tracking students’ participation in the community-based programs for analysis of student performance.⁹ Staff at nFocus report that they have recently received several inquiries regarding the StudentTrax system from school districts seeking to meet NCLB requirements.

Generally, the cards for the bar-code system are relatively inexpensive and are easily replaced either by schools themselves or at the school district’s central office. To produce the cards, all that is required is the necessary printer and materials (ink and paper). While the manufacturer considers the ability of schools to produce their own cards a benefit of the system, it may be argued that this is not a feature that would actually increase the efficiency of the system. Relying on staff at local schools to make new cards as needed may place a burden on school staff and may result in delays in the delivery of new cards or a lack of consistency throughout the school district. It may be easier for school staff to be able to order new cards to be delivered by mail (from the school district central office or the manufacturer) with a simple push of a button on a computer screen.

The scanners and software for a bar-code system are fairly expensive, costing $500 -600 per scanner and $2,500. per school for the software. Portable scanners are ruggedized palm pilots with bar-code scanners and cost $1,500. each. nFocus estimates the cost to install their system in a school the size of Central High School where there are 1,275 students, 65 classrooms and each teacher has at least one computer to be approximately $40,000. for the software and readers. This price does not include the cards or the system to produce them.

The second option available to MCS is to contract with a company offering a turn-key smart card system. The smart card system is by far the more popular system being used in Europe where bar-code systems had been tried and rejected. There are a number of companies in Great Britain and in other countries that provide this system, however, in the U.S. the only smart start turn-key system for tracking student attendance and truancy appears to be the EduGate system. The EduGate system is a contactless smart card system that offers a modular plan whereby each school or school district chooses the models and applications that fits it’s needs. As with the KidTrax and StudentTrax systems, EduGate tracks time and date of entrance and exit of students, allows for instant access to the information by multiple participants with varying levels of security access, allows students and parents to access lessons and participate in online learning and allows the school system to analyze attendance and other demographic data to detect school-wide trends, as well as, the patterns of individual students.

Advocates of the smart card system talk about the smart card’s superiority to other electronic identification and tracking systems in two specific areas. The first area is security and the second is in the area of multi-applications. Smart card advocates claim that smart cards offer a much higher level of security to the card holder and to the system in that bar-codes can be read while microchips are imbedded and require equipment to access the stored information. The cards, they claim, are much more tamper resistant and cannot be altered without effecting the card. Smart card advocates also tout the cards versatility stating that one card may have endless uses including, among other things, the ability to easily access remote locations and the ability to make purchases from vending machines. Advocates of bar-code cards respond that storing and accessing information from a centralized database enables bar-code cards to equally provide for multi-applications by accessing the information for the application from the database rather than from the card and that a higher level of security is provided by all of the information being housed on the centralized database rather than being carried on individual cards.

The expense of the smart card system is in the card rather than in the software and readers. While the cost for bar-code cards range from .10¢ - .60 each, smart cards may cost $2. - 4. each. While at first glance this may appear to be a disadvantage, this actually may be a positive aspect to smart cards. Cards that are more costly to replace will be less often lost or damaged. In addition, placing the expense in the cards rather in than in the readers and software, philosophically and practically, places the burden for attendance where it should be placed- on the students and their parents. For those students from families who would consider it a burden to pay the high cost (usually $5. – 10.) to replace a lost card, it is common practice to have a fund available to pay for the card and to have the student work community-service hours in exchange for the new card.

In a school the size of Central High, it is estimated that the EduGate system would cost $36,396. to install including the price of the cards.¹⁰ The EduGate provider manufactures the cards and the price includes installation and training. The manufacturer of the EduGate system claims that it is successfully being used in Israel and Canada. It is presently being installed in a school in Chicago and is being considered by the Charlotte, North Carolina school system.

The third option to consider is to build on the existing staff and student identification system currently operating in a number of MCS. In December 2000, MCS awarded a Public Bid (Requisition # 577273) to Elliott Data Systems for a centralized employee and student identification platform. It was the intention of the MCS Security Department to identify all MCS employees and secondary students. Soon after the bid was awarded, MCS implemented a web-based identification system to reside in the District IT Data Center. The Security department purchased two web servers (enough capacity to service the entire district) and four complete identification systems for the purpose of identifying all employees. They also purchased enough user licenses to allow for all of the secondary schools to utilize this system and enough supplies for 75,000 badges. Elliot Data Systems staff claims that the platform already is capable of allowing:

Security personnel to view and print employee/student information and photos in case of an emergency and distribute them as needed.
MCS administration the ability to control the badge formats to achieve consistency and control regarding the data on the ID card is used.
Elimination of data entry errors and duplication of work by integrating with MCS’ mainframe computer.
Automatic update of demographic data changes for employees or students.
Authorized personnel to view student or employee data from any networked PC inside the board’s ATM network.
Student/Employee information to be accessed with the use of a VPN (virtual private network) and the ViaNet Data View interface over the internet by other participants (i.e.: Memphis Police, Shelby County Sheriff).
Centralized administration simplifying backup, maintenance and support.
All data housed in a single location facilitating easier input and updates.
Selected vendor to remotely administer and support the server application as needed through its VPN connection with the board.

While these are all features that any student electronic identification and attendance tracking system would have, it is important to note what capabilities already exist within MCS current structure. The system currently generates bar-code cards, however, the manufacturer claims that cards can be upgraded to generate magnetic stripe cards, smart cards, proximity cards or any combination of the machine readable technologies. A centralized identification system platform was purchased to accommodate the entire district. The manufacturer claims that as schools decide to come on-line with individual systems, the procurement, integration and support services are all streamlined by this project design and the integration with the existing backbone infrastructure provides the ability to interface with the board’s mainframe computer system.

While the manufacturer states that 13 MCS are currently generating student IDs, a survey of the schools listed as using the system conducted by Crime Commission staff (see Appendix II) indicates that eight of the schools are actually using the identification cards. The badges are used primarily for visual identification of the student as a security mechanism. It is reported that attempts, in the past, to use the card for purchasing lunch met resistance from the food service supervisor.

The option to build on the MCS existing infrastructure would require an upgrading of the identification cards, the integration of a bar-code reader with each classroom computer and the purchasing or development of software to provide the desired applications to leverage MCS’ existing ID platform investment.

electronic-id-1.gif (19998 bytes)

How do student, parents and teachers respond to the use of electronic identification cards?
While many might think that there is a great deal of resistance on the part of students and parents to the introduction of a student identification system, there is a surprising lack of documentation that this is the case. In fact, nothing in any of the research conducted or the literature reviewed mentioned specific problems encountered with any population when introducing an identification or tracking system. In fact, to the contrary, mention was made of parents responding very positively to the increase of knowledge they were provided regarding their child’s daily activities at school and the appreciation they had for the added security and discipline that tracking systems provide. After all, it was pointed out repeatedly, as a society, we use cards for everything these days.

When asked specifically about how parents responded to the increased sharing of their child’s information and the potential intrusion into their lives, one principal explained that at a meeting he had with parents prior to implementing the new system, he introduced the system as being more friendly and democratic than teacher administered attendance with the following illustration: "How many times do you believe a prisoner’s name is called in roll call every day in prison? Three times. Well, in school the teachers do roll call six times a day. The electronic card system will eliminate the roll calls and actually make the school less prison-like and more friendly for the children."¹¹

For students, there are two elements that greatly increase their ability to adapt and succeed with any self-administered card attendance system. The first element is to "incentivize" the system. Most schools in Europe go beyond the KidTrax lottery system and build in a wide range of incentives for using the card and for attendance in school, in class, at after-school enrichment programs and even for selecting healthy food in the lunchroom. Some tie increased attendance to higher grades, while others provide access to internet use and sports activities and discounts or credit for purchases at stores, etc. The possibilities for successful incentives is endless, however, the importance of building in an incentive program should not be minimized.

The second element that is key to students successfully using an electronic card system for attendance is the need to make the card useful for multi-applications. The literature and all providers clearly indicated that the more activities for which the students must use the card, the more the students will value and not lose or deface the card. The applications, as with the incentives, are endless. Some of the more common applications are: purchasing food in the lunchroom, access to and checking out books from the library, use of the photocopy machine, and access to the school bus and after-school activities. More creative uses include, as mentioned above, the ability to purchase food from vending machines and the ability to use the Internet. In Memphis, a possible creative use of the card might be to post the Grizzlies or the Redbirds schedule on the back, although, of course, the phone number to a Homework Hotline might be more suitable.

While there was nothing in the literature to confirm that teachers are wholly supportive of an electronic card attendance system for students, there was repeated reference to the time teachers save in no longer being responsible for calling roll. It is reasonable to assume that most, if not all, teachers would be delighted with this feature although there is certainly the possibility that some teachers might perceive the system to be a negative comment on their ability or an intrusion into their classroom. Reiterating the message that using electronic identification cards for students places the responsibility for being marked present in school solely in the hands of the student, leaving teachers with more time and energy to focus on teaching, should resonate with teachers.

As with the introduction of any major change, it is important to include key stakeholders, including teachers, parents and students, in both the planning and implementation stages. The opportunity to understand the details and benefits of the system and the rationale for using it, along with having a say in some of the fine points of it’s implementation does a great deal to assuage fears and gain "buy in" and cooperation. Specifically, it would be advisable to consult with and include teachers and other school staff in decisions made concerning the selection of the type of system to be employed. Parents and students should be consulted and included in making potential application decisions and in the selection of incentives for the program. The more opportunities that are made to include stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the system, the more they perceive the change as a positive, fun opportunity for all parties to succeed, rather than as a ploy to encumber them with an additional burden laden with possibility for failure.

Conclusion:
President Reagan included in his remarks twenty years ago a reiteration of a statement made in the National Commission on Excellence in Education Report completed in 1983. Reagan quoted the report as saying, "If a foreign nation had done to our schools what we ourselves have done to them, we would be justified in calling it an act of war."¹² The use of electronic identification cards for tracking student attendance and reducing truancy is an opportunity for the U.S. to do the opposite. It is an opportunity for us to engage and learn from the experiences and success of our foreign counterparts. Success will require not just modeling the systems that have proven so successful in Europe, it will also require embracing aspects of the culture. The installation of an electronic identification system is an expensive proposition that will require placing a significant priority on K-12 education. It will require a strong central management system that sets and enforces policy and a standard of application system-wide.

A final lesson to be learned from our foreign counterparts is the context in which an electronic identification system for tracking attendance succeeds in reducing truancy. The system will almost certainly, with an extremely high degree of precision and expediency, provide an accurate tally, report and analysis of student attendance. What is done with this information is key to the success of the school district’s ability to reduce truancy and increase student success in meaningful ways. In all European school districts where the system has been employed, it has been part of a broader, more comprehensive effort to address student attendance, truancy, performance and behavior issues. As in the U.S., successful comprehensive efforts employ incentive and disincentive pieces and the collaboration and continued cooperation of a number of partners. Eventually, as it is elsewhere, success in Memphis will be a function of gathering accurate and timely information and then working together to do the right thing with the information.

Notes

^{1. Ronald Reagan, Remarks at White House Ceremony, May 11, 1984, p.1.

2. Don Pruitt, Vice President, nFocus Software in a telephone conversation, explained
these factors.}

3. United Kingdom Excelsior website, Improving Behaviour and Attendance in Local Schools, January 4, 2003, pp 1-2.

4. Ken Seeley, Evaluator, Colorado Foundation for Families and Children explained this in a telephone conversation and suggested that there may be funding available from OJJDP to pilot an electronic identification card system for students due to the level of interest and lack of experience with the systems in the U.S.

5. In Great Britain, the government’s Behaviour Improvement Program claimed that, "electronic registration systems which confirm the attendance of each pupil in every class...can reduce unauthorised absence rates by up to 10%." Lewis, Improving Behavior and Attendance, p.3. Also in Great Britain, the Department for Education and Safety claimed that, "(w)here e-registration systems have been adopted, a 10% reduction in unauthorised absences has been documented." www.london-systems.co.uk. In Israel, the principal at HaMagid High School claims a 50% reduction in truancy over three years. Telephone conversation with Abraham Ravid, Principal, HaMagid High School, Netanya, Israel.

6. Several principals described this in phone conversations including Principal Ravid.

7. Providers stated that their programs could be adapted for use on Apple computers but this would be substantially less desirable.

8. See List of Providers and Other Resources in Appendix I.

9. Marty Bell, Deputy Superintendent, Jefferson County School District explained the success of this strategy in a telephone call adding that there are plans being made to expand the use of this system city-wide but no plans to introduce the system as an attendance and truancy tracking system within schools.

10. The EduGate representative stated that a 20% discount would be available if purchased district wide and that the company would be interested in working with the school system to conduct beta testing of the product.

11. Principal Ravid.

12. Reagan, Remarks at White House, p.1.

Appendix I

List of Providers and Other Resources

Adt Security Services, Inc. Tyco International Ltd. ADT Security Services One Town Center Road Boca Raton, FL 33486 1-888-238-7088 www.adt.com Provides a security system called SecurVision to a number of schools throughout the U.S.	FortressGB Devonshire House Devonshire Street London, England W1W 5DP +44 (0) 20 637 876 www.fortressgb.com Provider of smart card truancy reduction system and other applications.
D.A.E. Consulting Inc. 1635 Acorn Lane Claremont, Ontario, Canada LIY 905-649-1963 www.truancytracking.com Website claims to have a software program called Truancy Tracking for Windows 95/98 that is being used in over 80 high schools in the Toronto area, but repeated phone messages and emails were not returned and no confirmation was received from the Ontario Board of Education.	London Systems UK Ltd. 514 ChannelSea House Canning Road Stratford London, England E15 3ND +44 (0) 85 348030 www.london-systems.co.uk. Provider of the e-registration system recommended by the UK DfES.
DTA Computer Systems 58 Norbiton Avenue Kingston, Surrey England KT1 3QR +44 20 8974 5114 www.dta.co.uk Provider of smart card system in Great Britain.	Microsoft School Safety Software 1-800-422-3267 Provides software system to track and analyze data, but does not include a card.
EduGate % SuperCom Group 212.554.4002 www.supercomgroup.com Contact: Rafael Ferry	NFocus Software 2400 E. Arizona Biltmore Circle Building One, Suite 1170 Phoenix, AZ 85016-2029 602-964-9557 www.nFocus.com Contact: Don Pruitt
Elliot Data Systems 5045 Covington Way Memphis, TN 38134 901-372-4600 www.elliotdata.com Contact: Kris Mathesen	Pearson Phoenix Cross Keys House Queen Street, Salisbury Wiltshire, England SP 1 EY\ +44 (0) 17 22 344 800 Phoenix.support@pearson.com Uses a unique scanning system in conjunction with a truancy tracking system that allows doctors and parent’s notes to be scanned into the system.
Elonex Truancy Control 2 Apsley Way London, England NW2 7LF +44 (0) 1293 524 424 www.elonex.co.uk Provider of e-registration system in Great Britain, France and Belgium.

Appendix II List of Memphis City Schools With Student Identification System
Name of School	Contact Info:	Do they use the card and if yes, start date of use	Comments from Contact Person:

Carver High School	(901) 416-7594	No	They don't have an identification system, because they have a strict enforcement of the uniform policy.
Central High School	Debbie Dobson* (901) 722-2237 *Ms. Dobson expressed a particular interest in participating in any planning or work within Memphis City Schools regarding the use of electronic identification cards for students.	Yes Jul-01	The cards display the grade level, lunch period, and whether or not the student has internet privileges. It enhances security at school. This would be a good system for tracking attendance, but it will only work if attendance is taken by swiping the barcode on the id card (as opposed to teachers recording attendance electronically).
East High School	(901) 416-6160	No	They have never have used the identification card system.
Hamilton High School	Ms. Lillie Burse (901) 416-7838	Yes	Ms. Burse was unavailable for comment and the Interim Principal and other staff was unfamiliar with the way the identification cards were being used.
Melrose High School	Mr. McClain (901) 416-5974	Yes 1-Aug	This system lets us know who attends our school. If a student does not have their badge they are sent home.
Mitchell Road High School	Mr. Brown (901) 416-8174	Yes Aug-01	Identification cards allow us to provide our students with security while they are attending school.
South Side High School	Mr. Perry (901) 416-7380	Yes Aug-02	Replacement cards cost $10. and they must be worn to school everyday.
Westwood High School	Mrs. Johns (901) 416-8519	Yes Jul-01	We issue cards for the purpose of recognizing our students. This will only work for tracking attendance if faculty and staff enforce the wearing of identification badges whenever a student is on school premises. If students lose their id, they are sent to the library to get another one made. This costs the students $10.00
Whitehaven High School	Mr. Jones (901) 416-3000	Yes Aug-01	We have not used our students' id cards as a means of monitoring their attendance. If a student loses their id then they must pay $10.00 for another card.
Woodale High School	Mr. Smith (901) 416-2440	Yes Aug-01	Our students' identification badges also display which lunch period they are supposed to be in. This prevents students from skipping class to eat at both lunch periods. The identification card is also a security measure. If a student does not come to school wearing their id, they are sent home immediately.

Bibliography

BBC News, Education the Successful Bidders. June 23, 1998, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/118525.stm.

Curtis, Polly, Truancy Strategy Success, Say Ministers, Guardian Unlimited, July 2, 2003, www.educationguardian.co.uk.

Department for Education and Skills, United Kingdom, E-Registration. January 2004, www.dfes.gov.uk/schoolattendance/eregistration/index.cfm.

Department for Education and Skills, United Kingdom, Schools and LEAs Across England Benefit From Allocation of £174 Million to Tackle Truancy and Bad Behaviour. January 3, 2001, www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2001_0007.

Finnish IT Center for Science, Project on Electronic Identification in Finnish Higher Education. May 20, 2002, http://www.csc.fi/tiedotteet/hstya_200502_en.phtml

Food Management, High School Adopts Integrated Smart Card Solution. July 1999, Looksmart, Ltd., http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0BGE/7_34/55261219/p1/article.jhtml.

Gambone, Michelle and Adena M. Klem, Wiliam P. Moore and Jeane Ann Summers, First Things First: Creating the Conditions & Capacity for Community-Wide Reform in an Urban School District. Gambone & Associates; Philadelphia, Pa., January 2002.

Guardian Unlimited, Government Claims Progress in Truancy Battles. February 27, 2003, www.educationguardian.co.uk.

Lewis, Ivan, Improving Behaviour and Attendance in Local Schools, Department for Education and Skills, United Kingdom. April 1, 2003, www.dfes.gov.uk.

Mogulescu, Sara, Approaches to Truancy Prevention, Vera Institute of Justice. October 2002, www.vera.org.

Nair, Prakash, School Safety-Problem or Goal?, Design Share, Inc, November 2001, www.designshare.com.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, East Riding of Yorkshire Council. www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_localgov/documents/page/odpm_locagov.

Oliver, Emmet, Swipe-card System to Combat Growing Truancy Problem, The Irish Times. January 22, 2004, www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2002/1216/2741232021HM1MITCHERS.html.

Reagan, Ronald, Remarks at White House Ceremony Marking the First Anniversary of the Report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education. May 11, 1984, www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1984/51184a.htm.

Schneider, Mark, Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?, National Clearinghouse for Educational Fcailities. November 2002, www.edfacilities.org.

SchoolWorks Press, Space Rage taken from The Guardian. September 1, 2001. www.school-works.org.

Smart Card Alliance, SCM Microsystems Supports the First Nationwide Retail Loyal Students, October 21, 2002, www.smartcardalliance.org/industry_news/industry_news_item.cfm?itedmID=402.

Strayhorn, Carole Keeton, Texas School Performance Review, Chapter 11: Safety and Security. Galena Park Independent School District, March 2003, www.window.state.tx.us.

| Back to Research |