The $1-a-week school
economist.com
economist.com
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/systematicreviews/Q39Teac...
The primary reasons for absenteeism seem to be personal/family health (which, granted, that could be bullshit if it was self-reported) and work related requirements (training, etc.)
Several studies showed correlation between poverty and absenteeism, which suggests to me that teachers who have less financial resources to deal with personal issues are going to miss work more often to go deal with those issues.
It was also noted that administrators were absent more often than teachers and the author suggested this as being a factor in teacher absenteeism.
The first question I'd ask, I think, is do the teachers have enough money to pay for all the needs of their families. If you can't attend school for all lessons and survive then there's little benefit in assessing other enticements.
Your background assumption outside the first world should be that most people are trying to cheat you, most of the time. If this wasn't true the country would already be at least middle income, absent massive fuck ups, (communism included) or recent wars. If you doubt me I invite you to move to the richest city in any poor country.
All that said education isn't as wonderful as one might naively think. Kerala in South India is anomalously well educated compared to its neighbours but about as poor. The main thing motivating their teachers to show up compared to their neighbours is that Keralan parents beat up teachers who don't at least show up for work.
Why people can't take this obvious fact and apply it to state-mandated monopolies, like education, is perplexing. There should not be 1 provider of education. We need competition and innovation in education.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/january/finnish-schools-r...
It's a model where schoolmasters have Doctorates of Education; local government administrations tend to be relatively less corrupt; the overall cultural identity relatively free from hereditary entitlement; and with a historical ideal of universal franchise.
The idea that education can be provided for $100 per pupil per year doesn't fit the model, and the skew is in economic assumptions in general.