The causes of truancy 27% of the 662 primary school
children said that at some time they had truanted without their parents’
knowledge. They highlighted school-related reasons for their truancy. Being
bullied was the most likely cause. Other reasons included boredom, dislike of
teachers and avoidance of tests. Most pupils thought their parents would keep
them off school for reasons which schools would consider acceptable, but a few
indicated that their parents authorised absences which were unacceptable to the
school. Personal reasons to miss school included the desire to impress friends
and moodiness. 16% of the 528 secondary school pupils admitted to having
skipped school at some time. In schools with all-white intakes, girls in Years
7, 8 and 9 were more likely to truant than boys. Very few pupils from ethnic
minority groups admitted to truancy.
Secondary pupils’ reasons for absence focused on
school rather than home and included boredom, problems with lessons and
teachers, anticipation of trouble, frustration at school rules, the size and
complexity of secondary schools and fear of returning after a long absence.
Bullying, having no friends and peer pressure to ‘bunk off’ were also
mentioned. Some pupils mentioned home-related factors such as distress when
parents split up, and a few noted personal factors such as laziness and the
habit of poor attendance. LEAs and teachers suggested a wide range of causes of
truancy. Most mentioned home factors, which included parents putting a low
value on education, disorganised lifestyles and inadequate parenting. Primary
school teachers believed that parents condoned most truancy. In contrast, LEA
representatives and secondary school teachers thought that school factors were
an important cause of absence. These included inappropriate curriculum,
teaching, school attitudes, racial harassment, bullying and peer pressure. In
addition, secondary school teachers noted the influence of personal factors
such as low pupil self-esteem and embarrassment at perceived inadequacies. The
effects of truancy LEAs and teachers believed truants spent their time near
home or with their parents.
They would most often be relaxing but some were
occupied as carers of their parents or younger sibling. Even when out of the
house, absentees were most likely to be with their parents or in parks, woods
or public places, such as shopping centres. Only a few truants were thought to
become involved in crime. Evidence from self-reported truants gives a similar
picture. Almost all the LEAs and teachers thought that truancy affected pupils’
academic achievement. It could also isolate pupils from their classmates.
Teachers pointed out that truancy could affect regular attenders. When truants
returned to school, they were more likely to be disruptive, and demand
teachers’ attention. This not only disrupted the work of other pupils but also
caused resentment. Secondary school pupils were resentful that truants appeared
to go unpunished and some Executive Summary ix teachers worried that regular
attenders might emulate truants. Many teachers believed poor attenders added to
teachers’ workloads as they tried to help them catch up. Some teachers were
frustrated and saw little return for their efforts. They were also concerned
that poor test or examination results might reflect badly on their teaching and
impact on the schools’ reputations. Most primary school truants said they were
glad to have missed school. In contrast, most secondary school truants were
bored: they reported that staying away had not been worth it. Pupils used an
inventive range of tactics to fool parents and take advantage of supply
teachers. In half the LEAs many secondary school truants had escaped detection.
They held mixed views about whether their schoolwork
had suffered. Measures to improve attendance Most LEAs encouraged schools to
take responsibility for dealing with attendance issues. Several discouraged
them from authorising term-time absences, and were revising their guidelines on
this. All LEAs provided Educational Welfare Service (EWS) assistance to schools
but this varied. Some LEA representatives stressed the need for the EWS to
remain independent of schools. Schools were encouraged to support parents and
prosecution was seen as a last resort. Most LEAs conducted public
awareness-raising campaigns and all had links with other agencies. Multiagency
links were considered to be essential but were also problematic because other
agencies had their own priorities. Headteachers and teachers varied in the
evidence they required to authorise absence. Nearly all used electronic
registration systems and most undertook ‘first day calling’. Those with staff
dedicated to supporting school attendance were more likely to call on the first
day of a pupil’s absence. More secondary than primary schools had this
capacity. Schools promoted good attendance in five main ways. These included
group awards, individual awards, improvements to school ethos and facilities,
closer primary–secondary school links and building good relationships with
parents. The success of these was increased by the use of staff dedicated to
supporting school attendance. Strategies to deal with poor attendance included
use of the EWS and input from other agencies, such as the social services. The
frequency of EWO visits to schools varied, being more frequent to secondary
schools. Many teachers appreciated the work done by LEA-based EWOs but some
wanted more of their time. Schools engaged a wide range of measures to support
and reintegrate truants. Most utilised pastoral systems; some had installed
tight security systems, and others organised truancy sweeps. Views varied about
the efficacy of these measures and few were able to provide evidence of
improved attendance. Several teachers expressed doubts about the sustainability
of reward.
Source:
