To Attend or Not to Attend: Why Some Children Attend Schools and Others Don’t

1. To Attend or Not to Attend: Why Some Children Attend Schools and Others Don’t Professor John Dwyfor Davies & John Lee Reader in Education University of the West of England Bristol

2. Present position 1 • High on government’s agenda • High on education agenda of many states ‘Non attendance is a national issue and not just confined to areas of disadvantage’. It goes on to state that ‘At post primary level, students miss an average of 15 days each out of 167 (9%) (NEWB, Every Day Counts, Strategic Plan) (2005) (p.6)

3. Present position 2 • Substantial resources provided (Denny,K. (2004) • Many new initiatives introduced • More pupils truant (New Philanthropic Society, 2005)

4. Not unique to Britain: The National Educational Welfare Board here in Ireland in its Strategic Plan (2005)confirms that ‘Non attendance is a national issue and not just confined to areas of disadvantage’. It goes on to state that ‘At post primary level, students miss an average of 15 days each out of 167 (9%) (p.6)

5. Emphasis to-date • Much is known about why pupils choose to truant • Few of the initiatives to combat the problem adopt a comprehensive approach • Less work done on evaluation or efficacy of intervention initiatives • Too little work into ‘what works’

6. Within-home causal factors • Poverty • Parental lack of appreciation for value of education • Parents themselves were truants • Family instability (parental discord, poor parent-child relationships, frequent moving) • Child abuse or neglect • Substance abuse; alcoholic parents • Parental convenience (babysitting etc.) • Lack of parental supervision/guidance

7. Within-school causal factors • Inadequate early identification & support • ‘boring’ curriculum (Nardi et al, 2002) • Curriculum seen to lacks relevance to present or future life • Teaching methods discourage cooperation

8. Some school factors • Failure to identify and provide services for ‘problem’ pupils • Poor pupil-teacher relationship • High student/teacher ration • Low teacher expectation • Lack of parental/school communication and involvement • Too weak or too rigid administrative policies

9. In short • Parents & pupilsblame the schools – bullying, problems with teachers, peer-pressure • LEAs & teachers blame the parents – attitudes to school, home environment etc. (Malcolm et al, 2003)

10. Non-attenders in Bristol SchoolsStudents Student sample: • Identified by EWOs & attendance officers Interview process: • ‘paired-pal’ interviews • Informal, semi-structured interview • Description of school careers provided • School staff and EWOs interviewed • Parents interviewed at home

11. Student characteristics • Tended not to come from families within which there is a history of non-attendance. • Articulate • Able to argue logically and present a case • Reticent and quiet

12. Reasons provided by students • Bullying • Student/teacher relationships • Curriculum – not seen as a big problem by many • Inability to engage with a large organisation – and teachers • Illness • Transitions and transfers

13. Reasons provided by students - relationships • They see the quality of personal relationships at school primarily in terms of relationships with staff, rather than the subjects individuals teach. • They identify the quality of relationships with staff in terms of what they see as ‘mutual respect’ and being treated in an ‘adult fashion’. • They perceive teaching as an individual, rather than a group activity and see teaching as explanation rather than instruction. • The male students reported that relationship problems were mainly with the staff of schools (as opposed to peers). • Peer relationships are more significant for female students.

14. Parental perspectives (general) • No evidence of an anti-school/ education culture in the home • The majority of parents wanted their children to attend school and felt they themselves had been deprived of education. • Similar views to students re. significance of student/teacher relationships

15. Parental perspectives (2) • Poor home/school communication systems • School seen as arrogant towards parents and students. • Education Welfare Service not seen as a major source of support. • Learning mentors, Connexions personnel, alternative providers and individual EWOs identified as helpful.

16. Senior Manager • Curriculum too rigidly and narrowly defined • More local control of its content is needed. • Close relationships needed between F.E. and school for many 14+ students • Local circumstances means employment is easy to find - school seen as irrelevant • Points of transition are triggers to non-attendance

17. Senior Manager (2) • LEA policy is needed, to stop non-attenders transferring between schools • Funding alternative provision is a resource problem because funding follows pupils • Curriculum content is inappropriate • Positive rewards for attendance needed • Problems with relationships often used as an excuse for non-attendance

18. EWOs – new to the service • The law needs to be tightened up on attendance (newer officers). • The deterrents to non-attendance should be publicised more effectively (newer officers).

19. EWOs – with longer service • Those who had been longer in the service identify welfare work as important and significant. • There should be more surveillance to locate truants – and to prevent it initially. • Older EWOs see their role as that of acting as a go-between between school and parents. • They also believe that they act as an advocate on behalf of the truanting students and the parents (older officers)

20. Phase 2 – Selection criteria Years 9 and 10 students students who are: • entered for the lowed tier in GCSE mathematics. • in the lowest sets of for English and Science • not those identified as having SEN • likely to attend part-time FE provision • Regular school attenders

21. Phase 2 – Methods • Interviewed in pairs or in small groups • Students from 2 schools in very different communities were selected • 18 students in school A (8 girls and 10 boys) interviewed • 17 students in school B (5 girls and 12 boys)

22. Early responses • There was a remarkable similarity in the views of both sets of students and these tended to fall into a set of themes

23. Early findings • School provides a social space • School provides a safe place • Good teacher/pupil relationship • Teaches things of value • Curriculum needs to include academic & vocational elements • Curriculum needs to relate to world of work • Teaches you a work ethic • Without it there would be problems • School structure seen as helpful

24. Priorities 1 • Professionals & policymakers need to engage with the pupil voice • Need to create opportunities for students to review and communicate their views on their educational context • Professionals & policy makers need to be willing to act on these views

25. Priorities 2 • Schools need to be supported in ensuring that they provide a safe environment • Professional development needs to focus on the ‘softer’ skills to ensure that relationships across the school are positive • consideration must be given to the nature of the nature and content of the curriculum and assessment

26. Possible futures • Closer, systematic identification of ‘at risk’ pupils in EY& primary • Increase school & parent awareness of importance of school attendance • Schools better resourced to address absenteeism from early stages • Better evaluation of experimental initiatives

27. Possible futuresSchool features • Schools need to be student and parent centred • Pupils viewed as active, participative learners • Better differentiation • High quality vocational education • Full recognition of student achievement e.g ASDAN • Aim to achieve parity and esteem for vocational course & qualifications • Partnership school/F.E/industry & commerce

28. Government strategy • Many strategies are ‘reactive’ & untested • Too short-termed & under funded • Need to disseminate proven ‘good practice’ • Appropriately funding for key initiatives – over extended period