Carrie Ballantyne, Claire Wilson, Martin K Toye & Carrie Gillespie – Smith, 2022

Humphrey (2008) reported that autistic children are 20 times more likely to be excluded from school than those without additional support needs. Studies have also reported high levels of school absence in the ASD population.

Research suggests that teachers who have greater knowledge about ASD are more positive about inclusion.

Teacher self-efficacy is also highlighted as an important element of successful inclusion, teachers must believe that they have the ability to create effective learning environments for all learners.

Through the questionnaire 5 themes were identified as important to staff as being barriers to the successful inclusion of pupils with ASD. These were:

·       Limited training

·       Lack of support

·       Lack of knowledge about ASD

·       Difficulties in managing ASD

·       Parental involvement.

Staff from all groups surveyed did not believe they had appropriate knowledge of ASD. Across all staff groups participants reported a lack of training opportunities and felt under- supported to work effectively with children with autism.

The survey results suggest there is a need to focus on the efficacy beliefs of early years staff when supporting children with ASD. Staff responses suggested that they were keen to learn from colleagues with specific ASD training. This is highlighted as a low cost approach to improving efficacy in staff working in mainstream schools.

Early Years and Pupil Support staff scored higher in the knowledge domains than class teachers, with secondary teachers showing the lowest level of knowledge in the questionnaire domains. This suggests that behaviours linked to ASD are poorly understood by teachers, especially in the secondary environment where teachers typically spend much less time with individual pupils.

Participants in the study reported the need for more flexible and individualised approaches to teaching and learning to improve relationships and attainment.

4 themes were identified around the supports required for successful inclusion of pupils with ASD. These were:

·       Individualising educational experiences

·       Changes to learning spaces

·       Opportunities to learn about ASD

·       Communication

These themes link with further international research recommendations on improving inclusion and should be key considerations for staff when identifying and addressing barriers to inclusion for pupils with ASD.

How confident are our staff in their knowledge and understanding of how to support pupils with ASD in a mainstream setting?

How flexible are our learning environments and offers to meet the needs of pupils with ASD?

and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder at a Higher Risk?” Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 41: 31–38.

The MSS survey is administered to students across the state, with students and parents having the choice to ‘opt out’ if they desire. Students had the opportunity to skip questions within the survey. 10 questions from the survey were chosen to represent the prevalence of ACEs, 3 questions were chosen linked to the identified education outcomes outlined above and 7 questions were used to measure school connectedness. The survey is used by the state as a planning tool to inform future resourcing.

Hardcastle et al suggest education may play a critical role in moderating the impact of adversity and addressing the associated inequalities. One factor related to improving education related outcomes is fostering an environment based on school connectedness. School connectedness is defined as ‘the belief held by students that adults and peers in school care about their learning as well as about them as an individual.’ (US Center for Disease Control and Prevention).

Survey results

·       5% of the respondents to the survey reported having >4 ACEs (females 6.4%, males 3.7%). Report of having >4 ACEs was associated with having more than 4 times the likelihood of having on of the 3 education-related outcomes which were measured.

·       Among males who reported sexual abuse or food insecurity there was strong association with responding that they had no plan to graduate.

·       Among males and females who reported sexual abuse there was a strong association with responding that they had cut school for more than 3 days in the past month.

·       Experience of any ACEs was associated with males being 1.5 times more likely to have below average grades.

·       Marginal effects were reduced by school connection. These effected differed between male and female students.

The study did not conclude that school connection can improve on the impact of ACEs and education –related outcomes, however the author does suggest that there would be scope to explore these relationships further with younger students within the 6^th – 8^th grades. The author concludes that while the results of the study did not show a link between school connectedness and mitigating the impact of ACEs that school contextual factors may still promote youth wellbeing, a sense of belonging and resilience to challenge adversity.

Are staff aware of pupils within their setting who have >3 ACEs?

Do we have effective tools for screening pupils for ACEs and to gather data based on planning for future outcomes?

What knowledge do senior leadership teams and pastoral care staff have on school connectedness?

What role do EP colleagues have to play in gathering data on ACEs and future education outcomes?

experiences and educational and employment success in England and Wales: findings from a retrospective study. Public Health. 2018;165:106-116.

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School connectedness: strategies for increasing protective factors among youth.

(PDF) Assessing Reasons for School Non-attendance (researchgate.net)

This study used a self-report questionnaire for students recruited from schools in seven municipalities in Norway. The municipalities included a relative large Norwegian city, towns, and rural districts. The survey was conducted at the end of the autumn term in 2012. A total of 5,465 students from the sixth to the tenth grades from 45 schools participated (ages 11–15; 51% males and 49% females). The response rate was 84%.

This study recommends that school refusal and truancy should be treated as two separate dimensions, despite other studies noting considerable overlap and recommending an integrated approach, through use of the term ‘school refusal behaviours’ (Kearney et al.) Findings from this study show that school refusal and truancy constitute different reasons and risk factors for school non-attendance, which may require different interventions.

The report highlights that school refusal is more likely during key transition periods (e.g. primary to secondary).

The study found that subjective health complaints was the most prevalent reason for school non-attendance in primary and secondary school, with 1 in 5 students reporting that as their reason for absence. More attention should be given to this type of non-attendance because it may often reflect unnecessary non-attendance that could negatively affect learning results and because it could contribute to undesirable attitudes concerning non-attendance that could carry over into work life.

The study also highlights how parents’ attitudes towards sickness-related absences are transmitted to their children (Josephson et al. 2013) and therefore suggest that parents should be actively involved in interventions to prevent and improve school non-attendance.

Truancy-related reasons were the most prevalent reasons recorded by pupils with special educational needs. This result may indicate the need to make special education a primary predictor of truancy. The report suggests that feelings of failure could push such pupils towards truancy.

Students who report somatic and subjective health complaints as reasons for legitimate non-attendance, can be indicative of later illegitimate non-attendance, which could incur serious long-term consequences. Early robust monitoring and investigation of somatic and subjective health complaints is therefore important in preventing later refusal and truancy.

Furthermore, a concern raised in the report is that the risk of refusal or truancy is increased when subjective heath complaints are accepted by schools as a reason for legitimate non-attendance, as this makes illegitimate non-attendance seem acceptable and, also, makes it more difficult for teachers to identify these pupils, delaying the response of necessary early intervention. Having good routines for recording non-attendance and its causes and creating individual follow-up plans for students who do not attend school could be effective measures for reducing illegitimate non-attendance.

Can we use the featured measurement model to assess reasons for school non-attendance to implement appropriate interventions?

Should the attendance of children with specific learning difficulties and special educational needs be closely monitored to avoid potential illegitimate school non-attendance?

The driving question for this functional model: Why does my child not want to go to school?.   

Academic disagreement if we should differentiate over reasons for absenteeism – leave with parental consent, with social anxiety and those who truant. Recommend using the term ‘school refusal’.  

School refusal may be linked to diverse mental health disorders – separation anxiety disorder (SAD), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), schooling-related events (ridiculed, criticised in front of others, sent to HT) or depression 

4 main reasons that justify school refusal (Kearney & Spear 2014): 

1. Avoiding negative affect provoked by school stimuli (negatively reinforced) -avoid school because when you do you feel sad/depressed? Do you have negative feelings towards school thinking about it at the weekends? 

1. Escaping social aversion situations (negatively reinforced) – if easier to make new friends, would it be easier to go to school? How often do you avoid people from school, compared to others your age? 

1. Seeking significant others’ attention (positively reinforced) – would you prefer if your parents went to school with you?  Would you prefer being taught by parents at home than teachers in school? 

1. Seeking tangible reinforcements outside of school setting. (positively reinforced) – how often refuse to go as want to have fun outside of school? Prefer to do things out of school than most boys & girls your age? 

PISA – student attitude towards educational centre. (PISA – student satisfaction) 

School refusal for children –  SAD, GAD, school phobia. Adolescents – also related to depression 

Defined terminology: 

School anxiety or stress is defined as a set of unpleasant physical and cognitive symptoms that appear as a response to global and specific school stressors.  

School phobia – specific situation (educational institution) phobia  

School truancy – repeated unjustified absence (not based on anxiety or with parental consent)  

Absenteeism was more prevalent in areas of deprivation.  

Complexity of issues – requires partnership interventions – students, parents, teachers, specialists need to participate in the intervention with the same aim of achieving schooling for all students in the shortest time possible.  

Many interventions based on CBT – gradual exposure, and contingency management. In vivo exposure, social skills training, therapeutic contract, coping skills.  

Identify main factors of school refusal: 1) sociodemographic variable, 2) anxiety, 3) depression, 4) academic factors & 5) family factors. 

Suggest further exploration of digital in supporting school refusers to access learning.  

Recommends the design of a new assessment instrument and an intervention programme.  

Looking at 3-5 year olds to catch any absenteeism early and prevent habitual patterns being created.  

How could/does digital support school refusers? 

Have the scales with specific measures to assess school refusal behaviour been updated or is there a prevalent one used in Scotland? (SRAS-R-C(main international one) , FSA, SAS, SRPE) p40 

PISA student satisfaction data.  

A Multidimensional, Multi-tiered System of Supports Model to Promote School Attendance and Address School Absenteeism | SpringerLink 

Tier 1

Tier 2 interventions are designed to target emerging individual cases of school absenteeism, or those of mild/moderate absence severity. These include interventions designs to improve family functioning, including psychological therapy approaches linked to emotional distress, student engagement approaches and teacher/peer/other person-based mentoring programmes.  

 Tier 3 interventions include those designed to address individual cases of chronic and severe absence, through a multi-agency approach. Such interventions include expanded Tier 2 therapies, alternative education programmes and family involvement strategies. Kearney et al. recommend the introduction of a Tier 4 to include very intensive interventions for youth with psychopathology, which may involve a blend between education and inpatient/residential facilities.  

Domain cluster 1 – The paper defines and explains different types of absenteeism;  

School refusal – reluctance to attend due to emotional distress, child-initiated 

Truancy – related to behaviour, illegal absenteeism, child-initiated  

School withdrawal – parent-initiated, often withdrawn for economic/caregiving purposes  

School exclusion – disciplinary reasons, school-initiated  

Common interventions mainly include cognitive-behavioural-oriented practices, which address internalising and externalising behaviour problems, and family interventions such as parenting skills training and family therapy.  

Domain cluster 2 – functional profiles and analysis (what are the motivating factors of a child’s absenteeism?)  

As outlined in the report, a common functional profile is based on the motivating conditions of child’s absenteeism. An example of this was developed by Kearney et al. who referred to the following aspects;  

1. Avoid school-based stimuli that provoke a general sense of negativity or anxiousness  

1. Escape aversive social and/or evaluative situations at school  

1. Seek attention from significant others  

1. Pursue tangible rewards outside school  

The report recommends that these factors should be considered at each tier to adopt preventative, targeted and nuanced interventions and provides research-backed examples of these.  

Other domain cluster options:  

Domain cluster 3 – preschool, elementary, middle and high school  

Domain cluster 4 – ecological levels of impact on school attendance and its problems 

Domain cluster 5 – low/ moderate/ high absenteeism severity 

Do we value universal interventions enough as a preventative measure to avoid or reduce the risk of school attendance problems arising?  

Kearney, C. A. (2018). Helping school refusing children and their parents: A guide for school-based professionals (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. 

These can serve as a foundation for future research and clinical work in this area. Key themes were- 

–Defining and Classifying Attendance Issues– Kearney et al. (a) and Kearney et al. (b) The authors also provide a multidimensional multi-tiered system of supports pyramid model as a potential mechanism for reconciliation. (Please refer to our summary of the article- Reconciling Contemporary Approaches to School Attendance and School Absenteeism: Toward Promotion and Nimble Response, Global Policy Review and Implementation, and Future Adaptability (Part 1)   

 Christopher A. Kearney1*, Carolina Gonzálvez2, Patricia A. Graczyk3 and Mirae J. Fornander1 for further information regarding the pyramid model) 

– Framing student absenteeism Gentle-Genitty et al. recommend a change to better leverage attendance data toward proactive support of young people.  

– Depression and Absenteeism–Askeland et al. expand on the well-established relationship between depression and school attendance problems. 

– Parent and Family Variables-Several articles in the Research Topic focus as well on that impact school attendance problems. Fornander and Kearney (b) examine family environment variables across different levels of absenteeism severity. 

 – Parenting and Family Environment Wang et al. find intricate patterns related to school engagement, a key predictor of absenteeism. 

 - Cyberbullying Delgado et al. examine profiles to explore school attendance problems. 

– Perceived Teacher Support Filippello et al. examine student satisfaction and frustration at school with regards to support from teachers. 

–Broader Community Issues– most notably those related to migrant and immigration status. Rosenthal et al. found that many immigrants confront systemic challenges following migration. 

-Residential mobility. Green et al. report that more than one-third of students in their American sample when studying absenteeism, moved at least once in the past year. 

Intervention aspects for youth with school attendance problems were also outlined. 

–Rapid Return to School Approach Maeda and Heyne report on a rapid approach implemented by education staff. A significant percentage (72%) of intervention cases were classified as treatment responders and 89% of these cases demonstrated a return to school in 1 week. 

– Cognitive Behavioural Intervention Lomholt et al. report on a feasibility study for Back2School, a CBT intervention used with Danish youth with school attendance problems. Initial outcomes of the feasibility study revealed a significant increase in school attendance and decrease in psychological symptoms, as well as a significant increase in youth and parent self-efficacy. 

In examining the approaches and research outlined in this article what are the key themes and universal approaches? 

What could be tailored for your specific establishment or individual learners expressing school avoidance issues? For example, how could you populate the pyramid of support to personalise it for your setting? 

Back2School Study 

Jing Liu, Susanna Loeb. Journal of Human Resources, Volume 56, Number 2, Spring 2021, pp. 343-379 

Looks at unexcused class level attendance and Californian standardised tests data for Maths  & ELA from 2003/4 to 2013/14 in America.  

Focuses on five core subjects – Maths, English language arts (ELA), science, social studies & foreign languages.  

Correlates with student demographic variables – race/ethnicity, gender, English learner status (EL) special education status and gifted status.  

Estimate teachers’ contributions to student class attendance in secondary school.  

Evaluate statistical properties of their new measure  

Link this measure with several student long-run outcomes 

Examine long-run effects of high value-added attendance teachers by students; prior absenteeism & prior achievement 

Tests variability of multidimensional teacher effects based on several student characteristics.   

5 research questions on: variance, stability, similarity, effects 

• Study found systematic variation in teacher effectiveness at reducing unexcused absence.  
• Teacher effectiveness on attendance only weakly correlates with their effects on achievement  
• High value added to attendance effective teachers have stronger impact on rates of finishing school than high value added to attainment teachers 
• High value added to attendance teachers can motivate students to pursue higher academic goals.  
• Positive effects of high value added to attendance teachers particularly help low-achieving and low-attendance students.  

Impact of low attendance – less learning, drug & alcohol use and crime 

Absenteeism among strongest predictors of long-term outcomes – school drop out rate 

Black, Hispanic and low-income students are more susceptible to absence which aggravates the achievement gaps.  

Factors causing absence 

Individual and family factors – student illness, residential mobility 

School factors which reduce absenteeism – positive and safe school environment along with effective, supportive and engaging teachers. 

Student miss 44% fewer Maths and 54% fewer English classes if have a high value added to attendance teacher.  

High value added to attendance teacher has stronger effects on a student’s opportunity to graduate from school and meaningful effects on pursuit of higher academic goals. This is particularly strong for students with lower prior achievement, lower prior attendance and high predicted probability of dropping out.   

Different ethnic groups have variable attendance patterns.  

Attendance varies by the timing of the class.  – most common to skip first period and then last period.  

Different grades have variable attendance patterns.  

Absence varies less by class subject 

Are these particular groups of pupils who are more affected by absenteeism than others?  

Gershenson 2016 – 3 to 5 graders in North Carolina. Doesn’t differentiate between excused and unexcused absence.  

.  

& Tamsin Ford (2020) Secondary school practitioners’ beliefs about risk factors for school 

attendance problems: a qualitative study, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 25:1, 15-28, To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2019.1647684 

Reflection of existing academic research exploring interplay of risk factor, including the results of quantitative studies around the beliefs of primary teachers and other primary school staff. It also covers the terminology around ‘school refusal’ and ‘truancy’. Recommend similar study for secondary staff. 

Data collection – focus groups, sampling from 16 secondary staff in 3 schools in England.  

2017/18 – 8.7% primary and 13.9% secondary learners had persistent absences (missing 10%) 

Risk factors for attendance problems but there are complex interplays. Successful interventions will involve interdisciplinary collaboration between professionals in education and healthcare and our families: 

Individual – poor physical health, mental health problem, ASN, drug or alcohol use. 

Family – neglectful parenting, lack of parental involvement in school, unemployment, family conflict, family history of attendance problems. 

School – poor school climate, poor pupil-teacher relationships, school transition periods 

Peers – social isolation, lack of peer support, peer conflict, bullying and pressure from peers to skip school  

Findings suggest a perceived lack of agency by school practitioners in terms of their ability to influence risk factors for attendance problems. 

Findings suggest that secondary school practitioners are aware of many of the most common 

causes of attendance problems, but in general factors related to the individual and their family were 

highlighted, while school factors were de-emphasised. 

Recommendations:  

Schools implement anti-bullying policies, supplemented with the use of evidence-based bullying interventions  

Schools should take steps to encourage pupils to develop healthy relationships with peers and engage in positive activities, for example through peer mentoring schemes or links to voluntary sector activities. 

Schools should address academic stress and look at providing additional support  

Schools should look at supporting mental health and at their impact on ‘behavioural difficulties’.  

Schools should look at pupils with caring responsibilities  

Schools could support resilience through PSE lesson 

How are ACES impacting on our learners’ attendance? 

.  

 Christopher A. Kearney1*, Carolina Gonzálvez2, Patricia A. Graczyk3 and Mirae J. Fornander1 

Reconciling Contemporary Approaches to School Attendance and School Absenteeism: Toward Promotion and Nimble Response, Global Policy Review and Implementation, and Future Adaptability (Part 2)  

Christopher A. Kearney1*, Carolina Gonzálvez2, Patricia A. Graczyk3 and Mirae J. Fornander1 

Part 2 sets out a framework for early prevention and intervention of attendance problems.  

Problems with school attendance are linked to internal behaviour problems such as anxiety, depression, suicide as well as external behaviour problems such as use of alcohol, drugs, poor peer relationships and involvement with the criminal justice system.  

“Students who drop out of high school are 24 times more likely than graduates to experience 4 or more negative life outcomes” (Landsford et al, 2016).  

School attendance problems have no consensus definition and can be complex due to the fact that risk factors for these are multi-layered. General definitions are grouped into a categorical (sorting students into defined groups to try to better understand the underlying behaviour) or dimensional approach (recognising the diversity and complexity of behaviours on a scale or continuum).  

The article examines the definitions of terminology relating to school attendance problems including truancy, school refusal, school phobia and school dropout (p3-6). Further research on the definitions and terminology around school attendance can be found in the summaries of the following research article: School non-attendance: definitions, meanings, responses, interventions, Dario W Pellegrini, March 2007.  

Through using a dimensional approach to school attendance a school should consider a spectrum from full presence to complete absence as shown in the diagram below.  

Understanding early warning signs such as frequent requests to leave the classroom or avoidance of classes or areas of the school can be used to highlight potential absence problems before they arise.  

Kearney and Graczyk (2016) advocate the use of a Multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) model (see figure 2) to boost school attendance and address school attendance problems at different severity, risk factor and context levels. This model can be used flexibly  and adaptably across a range of contexts and is based on evidence based best practice interventions. 

Part 2 

Following on from part 1, this article states the need for the design of a framework for school attendance which unites and blends both the categorical and dimensional approaches as they have overlapping qualities and purposes.  

The authors suggest that the Multi-tiered system of support model (MTSS) as suggested in part 1 can be further evolved to account for greater heterogeneity through used of a multi –tiered, multi-domain system of supports (MTMDSS). In this model the support is associated with multiple domains who are making simultaneous efforts to address the same issue (e.g educational psychology, school pastoral care staff, CAHMs etc). The used of a pyramid system rather than the 1 dimensional triangle shown in figure 2 allows for greater cross-sector working and enhances creativity and innovation in the use of preventative and intervention strategies.  

The base of the pyramid as shown in figure 3 focuses on promoting school attendance rather than preventing absenteeism. This involves consideration of factors such as work experience, smaller class sizes, access to mental health support, anti-bullying policies.  

The second tier of the pyramid is focused around early warning systems and nimble responses to absenteeism, perhaps through the use of screening such as data collection systems.  

Tier 3 approaches for students who are disconnected from school should focus on the opportunities for alternative pathways for career-readiness or use of virtual or project based learning to provide alternative or blended pathways.  

 As education and technology rapidly change use of a pyramid system to address problems with school attendance allows for flexibility and adaptability in responses through prevention and intervention.  

Do we understand attendance problems on a spectrum or continuum that is changeable over time?  

Are our staff, pupils and parents aware of the negative future impact of non-attendance?  

Kearney, C. A. (2016). Managing school absenteeism at multiple tiers: An evidence-based and practical guide for professionals. Oxford: New York. 

Stoiber, K. C., and Gettinger, M. (2016). “Multi-tiered systems of support and evidence-based practices” in Handbook of response to intervention. eds. S. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, and A. M. VanDerHeyden (Boston, MA: Springer), 121–141. 

Sugai, G., and Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality 17, 223–237. doi: 10.1080/09362830903235375 

Xie, H., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., and Wang, C. C. (2019). Trends and development in technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: a systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017. Comput. Educ. 140:103599. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103599  

Zaff, J. F., Donlan, A., Gunning, A., Anderson, S. E., McDermott, E., and Sedaca, M. (2017). Factors that promote high school graduation: a review of the literature. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 447–476. doi: 10.1007/s10648-016-9363-5 

– The study discussed that addressing absenteeism among older children would probably require some combination of relevant curriculum, classroom interventions as well as monitoring and supervision by schools.  

– The study reported that the role of the teacher also needs to be leveraged in encouraging students to attend school regularly.  

-When the Delhi government provided free sanitary products to girls enrolled in grades 6–12 between 2011 and 2016, it found relative success in improving attendance (Agarwal, 2018).  

-A framework more comprehensive than the demand- supply framework is needed for a holistic understanding of the reasons behind school non- attendance. It is perhaps more useful to categorize factors of absenteeism as “pull, push” and “opt out” (Murphy-Graham et al., 2020). “Push” factors are those that operate at the level of school pushing children to absent themselves from school while “pull” factors operate at the level of the household. “Opt-out” factors are intrinsic to the child such as lack of interest in pursuing schooling/ education. In short to medium term, school and educational administrators should focus on “push” factors that cause the child to be absent from school regularly. “Pull” factors typically do not fall within the domain of the schooling system. However, if children are not able to attend school on account of their family’s circumstances, then financial incentives reducing the costs of education could be a way forward for ensuring regular attendance of these children. * 

-Local Authorities could also enlist initiatives that improve children’s health if it emerges as a significant reason for absenteeism.  

*Demand Factors Cited- Demographic Household Characteristics, Gender, Age, Parental Education, Economic and       Cultural Background, Marital Status and Physical Aspects 

Supply Factors Cited- Infrastructure (including toileting facilities) School Experience  

Is it the case that school absenteeism starts early in primary school (Reid, 2005)?  

Do children who have higher absenteeism in primary school continue to have higher absenteeism at higher levels of schooling? Or do they drop out of the schooling system? 

Is absenteeism higher at times of transition e.g., from primary to upper primary school etc.? 

Ballantyne, C., Wilson, C., Toye, M.K., & Gillespie-Smith, K. (2022). Knowledge and barriers to inclusion of ASC pupils in Scottish mainstream schools: A mixed methods approach. International Journal of Inclusive Education. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2022.2036829 

Cunningham, A., Harvey, K., & Waite, P. (2022). School staffs’ experiences of supporting children with school attendance difficulties in primary school: A qualitative study. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, DOI: 10.1080/13632752.2022.2067704