Causes

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:

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8655/1/RR424.pdf