Finding strategic solutions to reduce truancy

Ken Reid Swansea Metropolitan University

Finding strategic solutions to reduce truancy

What is truancy?
One of the key issues when considering the term ‘truancy’ is to understand
correctly what it means. There are various types of truancy per se. They
include deliberately missing school without good cause but there the simplic-
ity ends. A range of various types of school absenteeism can also be classified
as being truancy. These include specific lesson absence or specific lesson
truancy, post-registration absence or post-registration truancy, psychological
absence or psychological truancy and most controversially, parentally con-
doned absence or parentally condoned truancy. In the literature, some
regard specific lesson absence, post-registration absence and parentally con-
doned absence as not being truancy. Others disagree. Being ‘absent without
good reason’ is often equated with truancy, irrespective of cause (Reid,
1999).
This is one of the reasons why operational definitions of truancy vary
from study to study. In a study of absence, for example, Malcolm et al.
(2003) used three different terms to describe pupils’ non-attendance. For
them, the term ‘truancy’ was defined as ‘absences which pupils themselves
indicated would be unacceptable to teachers’. ‘Unacceptable absences’ were
defined as ‘absences which were unacceptable to teachers and local educa-
tion authorities but not recognised as such by pupils’. Finally, ‘parentally
condoned absences’ were the results of parents and carers keeping pupils
away from school. Different researchers might well have considered that all
three of the definitions used by Malcolm et al. constituted ‘truancy’.
Stoll (1990) defined truancy as being ‘absent from school for no legitimate
reason’ Atkinson et al. (2000) introduced the concept of time into their
definitions as they referred to differences in the extent of the absence, from
avoidance of a single lesson to those of several days, weeks or even, in rare
cases, months. O’Keefe et al. (1993) revealed the difficulties in classifying
post-registration truancy and specific-lesson truancy, as these forms of
absence are normally omitted from official school returns. Kinder et al.
(1996) reminded us that ‘post-registration truants’ are not necessarily absent
from school, as they may be hiding on the premises. 1
No. 84
How indeed can we ever be sure of precisely how many pupils miss school
with the active encouragement or consent of a parent or carer? The Audit
Commission (1999) estimated that at least 50,000 pupils of the then ‘official’
Research in Education

400,000 pupils in England who missed school daily were kept away by their
parent/s or carer/s without the permission of either schools or local authori-
ties (LAs). This was almost certainly a gross underestimation. Munn and
Johnstone (1992) asked how teachers could ever accurately classify absentee
pupils’ reasons for being away from school. After all, how do teachers know
accurately when an absence is parentally condoned or not, as parents’ notes
are highly unlikely to admit their compliance and many parents falsify their
offsprings’ reasons for being away from school? This is another form of
condonement.
It is for these reasons that official statistics on ‘truancy’ or ‘unauthorised
absence’ need to be treated with a great deal of caution. In fact, official
statistics often keep changing their own definitions and timing of data. In
England, for example, data on non-attendance are now produced quarterly.
The category ‘unauthorised absence’ (which equates with ‘truancy’) has been
changed to ‘overall absences’, which appears to fudge issues. Statistics on
non-attendance are now quantified differently not only in the four UK
administrations (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) but also
in other parts of the world such as France, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand,
Canada and different states within the United States. It is difficult therefore,
to compare accurately and contrast statistical returns on school attendance
and truancy between countries with confidence.
Whatever methods are being used to quantify pupils’ absences, two
detailed studies both reported that, despite all the best professional efforts
of schools, LAs, national governments and policy makers in England, overall
attendance had not improved significantly over the last twenty-five years,
irrespective of spending initiatives (NAO, 2005; NYC, 2005a, b). The same
is true in Wales and Scotland (NBAR, 2008, see pp. 25–30). Recent evidence
suggests that as many girls as boys now truant. The onset of truancy is
becoming younger, with up to 36 per cent of all truants beginning their
histories of non-attendance whilst at primary school (Reid, 2005).

Why does truancy matter?

Truanting from school matters for several reasons. First, the Scottish national
study showed that pupils’ non-attendance was directly correlated with aca-
demic achievement. Pupils who truanted from school were regularly out-
performed in terms of academic achievement at every level of schooling
from primary to secondary and sixth-form phases, irrespective of natural
ability as measured by IQ scores (Malcolm et al., 1996). If governments
wish to drive academic standards up to their optimum they must decrease
pupils’ non-attendance, and truancy in particular. It is only by raising
achievement and attainment that widening access and participation, social
2 mobility and better career opportunities will be achieved (DFEE, 1999).
 Finding strategic solutions to reduce truancy
Second, truancy and persistent school absenteeism have been adversely
linked with lower levels of pupils’ self-esteem, behaviour, career ambitions,
and their subsequent quality and economic status in adult life (Reid, 1999).
Managing non-attendance within schools is both time-consuming and, to an
extent, counterproductive, especially as it tends to stretch the capacity of
pastoral care and learning support systems.
Third, the link between truancy and crime has been established for over
100 years (DFEE and Home Office, 2001). There is no evidence that the
importance of the link is diminishing (Social Inclusion Report, 1998). In
one study, for example, the Youth Justice Board found that 65 per cent of
truants had committed criminal offences (Youth Justice Board, 1999). In
another, truants were found to be more likely to smoke, drink and use illegal
drugs than non-truanting pupils. At the age of fifteen, half of all truants in
the study reported using drugs during their last year of schooling. This
increased to two-thirds among long-term absentees (Smith, 2004). In another
study, over 80 per cent of young offenders committed the offence which led
them to being jailed whilst truanting from school (Reid, 1986).
Therefore, communities with high levels of truancy are more likely to
have correspondingly high rates of daytime criminal activity. Research con-
firms a similar trend in the United States (Baker et al., 2001; Eastman et al.,
2007). as in the United Kingdom, truancy rates in the United States tend to
vary from school to school and state to state, with truancy rates in schools
in Wisconsin, for example, ranging between 1 per cent to a staggering
75 per cent (Wisconsin, 2000; 2006).
Fourth, the economic costs of truancy are high not only for the individual
but also for the state. The average school truant in the United States costs
society in excess of $200,000 due to the disproportionately high criminal
justice, social service and health costs (Bell et al., 1994; Vernez et al., 1999).
In England costs range between £200,000 to £300,000, depending upon
individual circumstances (NAO, 2005; NYC, 2005a, b) and whether or not
school exclusion was involved (Parsons and Howlett, 2000).
Fifth, truancy causes harm. Whilst most harm is done to the truants
themselves, their behaviour often has adverse consequences upon others.
This includes teachers and fellow pupils. Returning truants, for example,
often disrupt the learning of other pupils, divert their attention and frustrate
and demoralise staff. When truancy behaviour is linked with bullying or
challenging behaviour this phenomenon becomes worse (NBAR, 2008).

What causes truancy?

The causes of truancy keep changing and becoming increasingly complex.
Tyerman (1968) found that most truants were ‘isolates’ who were ‘feck-
less’. This perception has now changed with the rise of group truancy,
girl gangs and the link with bullying, criminality and disruptive and anti-
social behaviour (NBAR, 2008). Originally, truancy was blamed upon the
adverse home backgrounds of truants (Tyerman, 1968). Over a twenty-year 3
No. 84
period there was a shift in emphasis, with school/institutional factors
becoming increasingly important (Reynolds et al., 1980; Reynolds and
Reid, 1985).
Research in Education

In one of his early studies Reid (1985) found that persistent school absen-
teeism was due to a combination of social, psychological and institutional
factors. Each case was unique. There were, however, some related trends in
a high percentage of cases such as truants having lower levels of general
self-esteem and academic self-concepts than their regularly attending peers
(Reid, 1982).
More recent studies have seen the causes of truancy upon the lack of
child-rearing skills among parent/s or carer/s (Dalziel and Henthorne, 2005)
and the effects of local communities (Eastman et al., 2007), and individual
schools’ policies and practice (Guare and Cooper, 2003; Brown, 2004). In
the Irish Republic, Darmody et al. (2008) have reported the findings of their
study in secondary schools. They found that, as in the UK, truancy was
worse in predominantly working-class schools.
Kinder et al. (1995) found that the prime causes were personal, family,
school and community-based factors. Individual aspects included: lack of
self-esteem, social skills and confidence; poor peer-group relationships; lack
of academic ability; special needs; lack of concentration and self-manage-
ment skills. Family aspects included parentally condoned absences, not
valuing education, domestic problems, inconsistent or inadequate parenting,
and economic deprivation. Community issues revolved around socio-eco-
nomic factors, location, housing, local attitudes, culture, criminality, vandal-
ism and a sense of feeling safe. Within schools, the main issues were poor
management, the ease at which some pupils could slip away unnoticed, poor
teacher–pupil relations, the school ‘ethos’, the perceived irrelevance of some
aspects of the national curriculum, bullying and poor learning–teaching
strategies (cf. Rutter et al., 1979; Reid, 1985, 1999, 2005).
Zhang (2003) has underlined the link between ‘free school meals’ with
pupils’ non-attendance, and this link is now confirmed in official national
statistics (NBAR, 2008, see pp. 27–37). Truancy rates are also dispropor-
tionately much higher amongst single-parent families and those pupils who
have literacy and numeracy deficiencies (Malcolm et al., 2003; Reid, 1999;
2005; NBAR, 2008).
The causes of non-attendance and truancy can also be contested. Malcolm
et al. (2003) found that whilst parents and pupils tend to blame schools for
absences, staff in schools and LAs believe that adverse parental attitudes and
the home environment are more influential.
In his most recent study Reid (2008) differentiated between the main
reasons why some pupils miss school (institutional, home and family and
psychological issues) and the role of society and the government. The
truancy ‘equation’ involves a complex interaction between parents and
carers, society, schools, the government, pupils, local authorities, the local
economy, cultural diversity and research. Reasons for truancy have changed
4 over the last quarter of a century. ‘New’ reasons for pupils’ non-attendance
 Finding strategic solutions to reduce truancy
and truancy included its ‘being cool to miss school’, cyber-bullying, ‘lack of
sleep’ (the TV generation), alcohol and drug abuse.

Finding solutions
Having established the parameters, the remainder of this article will focus
on finding strategic solutions for truancy, based on all the best available
evidence (see: Cole, 2007; Reid, 2009a). The specific issues considered will
be the role of parents, early intervention, literacy and numeracy, the views
of children and young people, the role of schools, pastoral care and the
curriculum, inter-agency and multi-agency practice, the link with bullying
and the law and sanctions.

The role of parents

The role of parents and carers is to look after the well-being of their children
and to raise them in safe, happy and developmentally friendly environments
(Levin et al., 2007). Research clearly indicates that almost all parents in the
United Kingdom and the United States, in all social classes and cultural
groups, value education for their children (Lightfoot, 1978; Desforges,
2003; Brown, 2004). Conversely, parents of truants can be atypical. Dalziel
and Henthorne (2005) have identified four types of parent(s) and carer(s)
who are involved in raising poor attenders and/or truants. These are: those
who try hard to tackle poor attendance; those who appear to be over-
protective or dependent upon their child, those who describe themselves as
feeling powerless to tackle poor attendance and those who are either apa-
thetic about tackling poor attendance or who appear not to engage with the
school or with other support professionals.
Brown (2004) considers that many economically and educationally dis-
advantaged parents have had less positive experiences with schools. This is
true both of their own experience as well as in connection with their chil-
dren’s schooling. When parents (and pupils) receive constantly negative
feedback about their children’s academic and behavioural progress they may
tend to judge teachers and their school as being unsympathetic, ineffective
and even unsafe. On occasion, this can bring parents and schools into con-
flict (Small and Eastman, 1991). Both in the United States and in the United
Kingdom most parents have little direct control over whether their children
attend school regularly or not. Nevertheless, the law still holds them to be
responsible (Eastman et al., 2007).
Governments have tended to shy away from penalising parents too much
for their children’s non-attendance, even when they have been the direct
cause, as in taking their children out of school for a holiday in term time.
Increasingly however, the debate about whether governments or local
authorities should introduce parent–school contracts is becoming more
serious, especially in England. Allied to this is the issue as to whether all
parents, or parents of non-attending and/or badly behaved pupils, should 5
No. 84
attend compulsory parenting classes. If so, at what age should this sanction
be applied? Some protagonists have argued that parenting classes could be
held for parents when their children are aged seven, eleven, fourteen and
Research in Education

sixteen, but other views abound (Reid, 2007a).

Communication between parents and schools and LAs can be extremely
poor. Since the introduction of the Children Act, 2004, and as part of the
new Children and Young People’s Support Plans, all LAs and caring agencies
should perhaps be expected to collaborate to produce a directory of their
services for schools and for parents and carers. Often parents become con-
fused by the range of professional services on offer and by the contradicting
advice which they receive from different agencies (NBAR, 2008, pp. 66–7).
It may be time for the UK government to ask the Basic Skills Agency to
jointly look at how family learning programmes and parenting programmes
can be enhanced so that those parents who want additional support for
parenting and learning can be most effectively engaged, whether in the
home, the school or the community. The NBAR study (2008) considered
that evidence-based parenting programmes should be available to all
parents and carers who request help, especially for those with younger-age
children.
There is, perhaps, a need for a sponsored research study into the effective
use of parenting orders for those parents or carers whose children have a
long-standing history of non-compliance with national school attendance
regulations. This may even include those who have refused or not engaged
with the offer of a voluntary programme. Equally, LAs’ approaches to the
initial assessment, planning, intervention and review of parents and carers
occurs in a single-event activity rather than as a multi-event exercise, as
often occurs at present. Effective research and good practice paradigms on
the most viable approaches to parenting programmes would be welcom.
Some schools need better advice and support on how best to work in part-
nership with parents and carers—in particular on finding appropriate ways
to best engage parents who are less confident in engaging with schools.
Of course, none of this can take away from the fact that mass familial
breakdown is making children’s lives more difficult and helping to fuel the
causes of truancy. Recent evidence suggests that some young people are
becoming increasingly confused by their home–school arrangements, espe-
cially when parents do not live in the same locality (Williamson, 2001).
Some children now routinely stay at different homes with different parents
or carers at different times during the week, month or year. Some pupils
are having to constantly adapt to finding different adults living with them
in their family home and many pupils have to become used to calling these
adults ‘uncle’ or ‘aunt’ or similar terms.

Early intervention, literacy and numeracy

The position on truancy and non-attendance is not being helped by the
6 significant number of pupils at primary or secondary school whose literacy
 Finding strategic solutions to reduce truancy
and numeracy levels are well below the average attainment targets for their
chronological age. All the evidence suggests that pupils with low levels of
literacy and numeracy have a greater tendency to develop into those who
experience attendance problems and/or additional learning needs (ALN)
during either the primary or secondary phase, or both (NBAR, 2008,
pp. 6–7). Much earlier intervention and learning support for pupils with
literacy and/or numeracy difficulties, especially at the primary phase, might
help to prevent some pupils from becoming non-attenders. Such a policy
would eventually help to raise standards.
How to intervene with such pupils is a second order question. In a sense,
additional learning support could be provided either in groups or in one-
to-one situations by learning school mentors (LSMs), classroom assistants,
teachers or other support staff. Such early support would help to provide
confidence to parents and carers.
There has been credible and long-established research evidence from the
influential National Children’s Bureau Study (Davie et al., 1972; West and
Farrington, 1973; Fogelman, 1976; West, 1982) which found that pupils
who were two or more years behind their peers in terms of literacy and
numeracy scores at the age of seven were those who fell increasingly behind
by the age of eleven, fourteen and sixteen and went on to have further
problems in adult life.
These significant pioneering studies were recently endorsed by the KPMG
Foundation Report on the Long-term Costs of Literacy Difficulties (2008).
The evidence showed clearly that literacy difficulties were inextricably
linked with costly SEN provision, truancy, exclusions, reduced employment
opportunities, increased health risks and a greatly increased chance of being
involved with the criminal justice system. These increased risks operated
over and above those associated with social disadvantage in general, and
those associated with a lack of qualifications in later life. The authors con-
sidered that the savings to the public purse in implementing early interven-
tion schemes were potentially enormous. Despite this, some LAs remain all
too slow to implement much earlier intervention schemes (SMU, 2003,
2004, 2005, 2009).

The views of children and young people

The responsibility, motivation and decision making of children and young
people tend to vary by age and developmental stage. Parents bear most of
the responsibility for ensuring their children attend school at the primary
phase. By secondary phase, Guare and Cooper (2003) found, pupils make
sophisticated decisions about whether to attend class or not.
Increasingly, governments around the world, especially in the United
Kingdom and United States, are taking pupils’ wishes and rights into account.
There is a case for involving more children and young people in the dialogue
about truancy and its solution. Certainly the involvement of school councils
could do more and achieve much on this front (Estyn, 2008). 7
No. 84
Evidence from the Cazbah study in Wales (Cazbah, 2008; Reid et al.,
2009a, b) on pupils’ views on attendance found:
Research in Education

1 There was a definite understanding that missing school or choosing

not to attend regularly adversely affected your long-term life
chances.
2 Some older pupils felt they did not learn this in time and that work
should start at an early age with ‘at risk’ children.
3 Bullying was a common concern among all age groups and a frequently
given reason for non-attendance.
4 Most pupils were aware of the legal requirements of attending school
and of the consequences of persistent non-attendance.
5 Many of the older children felt their parents and/or carers were
powerless to make them go to school. The children and young people
believed they should be given more responsibility for their own
attendance.
6 School was seen as a social as well as an education setting, with friend-
ships valued highly.
7 Nearly all young people criticised the use of supply teachers. They were
seen as being powerless and ineffective.
8 There appeared to be a fear of raising the school-leaving age to eigh-
teen, though financial allowances would encourage more to stay. Others
said it would be acceptable if the school regime, style or school ethos
was changed at sixteen to reflect more adult learning.
9 Younger pupils accept, enjoy and appear to respond to school-based
reward systems; school trips and certificates or prizes seem to work
well.
10 Some young people in the more disenfranchised groups (including
truants) felt school was boring and irrelevant.
11 The most common reasons for non-attendance (apart from illness and
holidays) were bullying, tiredness, dislike of the teachers/lessons and
boredom (cf. Reid, 2008).
Another promising development is the use of restorative practices in schools.
In Scotland, McCluskey et al. (2008) found that implementing restorative
practices in schools could have some profoundly positive effects.

The role of schools and the curriculum

One difficulty for schools is that they have to balance the needs of the
many with the needs of the few, such as disaffected pupils (Reid, 1986).
The role of schools is to educate all children, more especially when govern-
ments follow increasingly inclusive strategies (WAG, 2000, 2006). Disrup-
tive and/or absent pupils can make it more difficult to teach others well.
Some teachers and/or schools may overlook or even welcome the absence
of some of their most difficult pupils such as truants (Guare and Cooper,
8 2003).
 Finding strategic solutions to reduce truancy
Recent studies have suggested that many disaffected pupils have become
disenchanted with the content and repetitious nature of the National Cur-
riculum in England and Wales (Reid, 2006a, 2007b). The view is shared by
some professionals (Reid, 2004, 2006b). It is hoped that the recent trend
towards giving more vocational choices will help to reinvigorate some
potentially disaffected youngsters. The Steer report (2005, paras 23–5)
indicated that principles and practice which facilitate a consistent approach
to behaviour management, teaching and learning include effective school
leadership and classroom management, the appropriate use of rewards and
sanctions, the teaching of good behaviour, effective staff development and
support, sound pupil support systems and pastoral care, open liaison with
parents and other external agencies, managing pupil transition and a school’s
organisation, ethos and internal facilities.
In England other key policy documents include the whole-school behav-
iour and attendance policy (DfES, 2003a), the Every Child Matters Green
Paper (DfES, 2003b), The Children Act, 2004, and the revised Special Edu-
cational Needs (SEN) strategy (DfES, 2004). In Scotland core documents
include the report Better Behaviour, Better Learning (SEED, 2001), Circular
5/03, School Attendance (SEED, 2003), and the draft behaviour and atten-
dance guidance (SEED, 2006). In Northern Ireland the report Improving
Pupil Attendance at School (NI Audit Office, 2004) is important, as is the
Martin report in the Irish Republic (DES, Dublin, 2006). In Wales key docu-
ments include the Attendance Task and Finish Group report (WAG, 2003),
the inclusion and pupil support guidance (WAG, 2006), the NBAR report
(2008) and Behaving and Attending: Action Plan responding to the National
Behaviour and Attendance Review (WAG, 2009).
Apart from these reports, there have been a considerable number of over-
view reports from the various UK inspectorates. They include the OfStEd
reports (2001a, b) Improving Behaviour and Attendance in Secondary Schools
and on physical design relating to behaviour and attendance in England. In
Wales they include the Estyn reports on supporting schools with weaknesses,
improving attendance and the report on the inspection of Caerphilly Local
Education Authority (Estyn, 2005, 2006, 2007).
All these reports have been supplemented by a range of recent chief
inspectors’ reports in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which
include sections, usually annually, on attendance and often on improving
attendance (OfStEd, 2007). Similar processes take place in, for example, the
United States and Canada (Eastman et al., 2007) and many give advice to
schools on how to improve attendance.
In addition, there have been a number of sponsored research projects in
the United Kingdom, in the United States and in other parts of the world
on improving school attendance. These include the studies by Epstein and
Sheldon (2002) and Reimer and Dimock (2005) in the United States and
Milne et al. (2002) in New Zealand. In the United Kingdom some of the
most significant studies on the relationship between schools and truancy
have included the work of the Audit Commission (1999), McAra (2004), 9
No. 84
Morris and Rutt (2004), Croll and Moses (2005) and Dalziel and Henthorne
(2005), while Cole (2007) has written a useful review of the key policy
literature.
Research in Education

The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) has under-

taken a great deal of valuable work on specialist aspects of pupils’ non-
attendance and truancy in relation to both school and national policies.
These include the studies by Atkinson et al. (2000), Kinder et al. (1995,
1996), Kendall et al. (2003, 2004) and Halsey et al. (2004).
Finally, the evaluation of the SEAL materials in England on social and
emotional learning showed that these specialist curriculum aides are provid-
ing a helpful route forward (Hallam et al., 2007) for teachers in schools
and are soon likely to be adopted as well in Wales in a modified version
(WAG, 2009).

Inter-agency and multi-agency practice

Since the introduction of the Every Child Matters Green Paper (DfES,
2003b) and The Children Act, 2004 agenda, major changes in the way
schools, LAs and other external agencies react to working with parents and
truants have been taking place. Some of these changes are proving difficult
to implement in the short term (Reid, 2005). In England local education
authorities have been assimilated into reconstituted LAs which embrace
combined children services departments. In Scotland and Wales similar
changes have been taking place but along different lines (Wilson and Pirie,
2000). Thus, for example, in many LAs in England, Education Welfare
Officers have been assimilated within children’s services teams, often as part
of reorganised social service departments and sometimes having a role
within child protection functions. The traditions and philosophy within
social service departments are often very different from those of former
education departments, and the new ‘marriage’ is not always a happy one.
Having statutory responsibility for school attendance regulations does not
always sit happily alongside existing social work paradigms, especially when
it comes to taking court action against some of the most needy families
(often single mothers) in society. This is an area where much further research
is urgently needed, especially into good practice (NBAR, 2008).
At present, there is probably a genuine need for all agencies to map their
roles and responsibilities to set out who does what in terms of managing
pupils’ attendance (and behaviour) at each stage in children’s lives and
careers. A single accessible core directory for pupils, parents, teachers and
inter-agency practitioners, supported by LA guidance and policies to meet
specific local needs, would be of considerable value. Similarly, there is a real
need for more and better professional development inter-agency training for
all service and school staff engaged in pupils’ non-attendance and truancy.
This may help alleviate some safeguarding concerns and facilitate better
inter-agency professional teamwork, understanding and communication
10 (NBAR, 2008, see p. 150;Reid, 2009b, c, g).
 Finding strategic solutions to reduce truancy
The link with bullying
Evidence from court prosecutions of parents (Zhang, 2003, 2004) and from
research (Reid, 2005) suggests that bullying in all its forms (physical, psy-
chological, cyber) is becoming increasingly a cause of pupils’ non-attendance
and truancy (Gastic, 2008). It is also starting to become a justification for
pupils’ non-attendance, being used in the courts by solicitors acting for
parents who are being prosecuted for their children’s truancy. Despite this,
there is no major study of the link between bullying and truancy. The effects
of, for example, cyber bullying on truancy are, as yet, not fully understood
or known (Reid, 2008). This is clearly an omission, as major studies exist
on the link between bullying and behaviour and exclusion (Bradshaw et al.,
2007; Daniels et al., 2003; Epelage and Swearer (2003); Houbre et al.,
2006; Reid, 1989a, b; Swearer et al., 2009, see chapter 8).

The law and sanctions

The application of the law on school attendance in the United Kingdom has
never worked very effectively (Zhang, 2003, 2004). The same is true in the
United States and within individual states (Eastman et al., 2007). In the
United Kingdom a range of schemes and amendments of the law have been
tried over the years (Reid, 1985, 1999). None has proved particularly sat-
isfactory. In the United Kingdom most sanctions operate against parents,
including the potential for jailing. In the United States some punishments
can be taken specifically against the young people themselves. In Wisconsin,
for example, Act 239 permits truants to have their driving licence taken
away.
Many professionals in the United Kingdom now consider the laws on
school attendance to be antiquated, as they are dominated by the 1870,
1944, 1995 and 1996 Education Acts, supplemented by the Children Act
of 2004. As increasingly pupils’ rights move up the educational agenda there
is a professional view among teachers that as the rights of pupils increase,
so should their responsibilities. One suggestion is that teenage pupils should
be held responsible for their own non-attendance rather than their parents
or carers, as students mature much earlier these days than when the laws
were first introduced (Reid, 2009d).
The application of the law in non-attendance cases not only requires
further thought but such consideration should be given in conjunction with
the Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003b) and Children Act, 2004 agenda and
the subsequent reorganised practice within schools and local authorities.

Implications: the need for further research

Persistent absence from school has serious negative consequences, both for
truants themselves and for society, which include criminality and the ten-
dency for truants to endure significant problems in their later adult lives. 11
No. 84
To date, there has been no single solution or panacea to resolve truancy,
despite much good professional practice and effort (Reid, 2000).
All the evidence suggests that different pupils and different schools, LAs
Research in Education

and local communities require their own solutions. Effective solutions to

pupils’ non-attendance and truancy require comprehensive, multi-faceted
strategies, whether they involve individual, local or community-based solu-
tions (Eastman et al., 2007).
Despite much useful research over the last thirty years, further studies are
needed. Two critical issues need to be addressed which involve careful reflec-
tion and possibly new policies at a national, local and school level. First,
these involve young people, families, schools, local communities, policy
makers and the courts coming together to set attendance rules and enforce
consequences that work quickly and are consistent. At present, for example,
jailing parents for their children’s truancy can hit the headlines but appears
to be making no difference to national statistics on school attendance.
Second, schools have to become institutions where pupils wish to attend,
learn and feel safe. Aspects like bullying and staff–student tensions have to
be eradicated. The core curriculum needs to be relevant for all pupils and
involve vocational as well as academic pathways.
The evidence suggests that both primary and secondary-age pupils under-
stand the need for making school attendance regular, even those from disad-
vantaged backgrounds (Reid et al., 2009a, b). Much earlier intervention in
the initial truancy behaviour, with appropriate ‘solutions’ being introduced,
is one way of combating pupils’ non-attendance (Reid, 2002). The evidence
from research clearly suggests that improving pupils’ functional ability to
read and write as soon as possible, operating alongside early intervention
policies, should provide a major step forward. At present, too many interven-
tions occur much too late, often after pupils have reached the persistent
stage. Much earlier detection is essential (NBAR, 2008, see pp. 19–21, 137).
Often, appropriate and effective strategies include one-to-one assistance
with literacy and numeracy and in overcoming pupils’ social, psychological
or behavioural difficulties (Reid, 2007b). The evidence seems to suggest that
imposing tougher sanctions usually does not work effectively (Zhang, 2003).
For example, Eastman et al., 2007, p. 9) state that ‘Interventions with stu-
dents who are chronically truant must focus on helping them become re-
engaged through the provision of educational experiences that youngsters
feel are safe, caring, academically supportive, interesting and relevant.’
There is a real need for further research into how professionals can operate
more effectively with the parents and carers of truants and non-attenders.
This may even extend to a need to review approaches to parental training
(e.g. establishing ‘community mothers’) (Cole, 2007, p. 154).
More research into good practice is needed as to how and why some
schools are able to improve their pupils’ attendance when others are not.
How were they able to achieve it (cf. Reid, 2006a, b, 2007a)? How can we
successfully reintegrate persistent absentees back into school so that they
12 can become successful learners?
 Finding strategic solutions to reduce truancy
School councils throughout the United Kingdom could be asked to con-
sider how their schools could improve attendance. It would be useful for
school councils not only to discuss the issue of improving school attendance
but to have their ideas assessed and, where appropriate, implemented (Estyn,
2008). It may well be that introducing greater relevance and more voca-
tional options into the various national curriculums within the United
Kingdom may be one of the best ways forward (Reid, 2006a).
Better national training and professional development strategies on school
attendance would provide another way forward (Reid, 2009e, f). National
strategies to train all members of those multi-disciplinary and interdisciplin-
ary staff (as well as school and LA staff) who are engaged in work with
disaffected pupils with appropriate professional and qualification recogni-
tion and funding support would provide another worthwhile challenge
(WAG, 2009).
At present, too many staff in schools are confused about when and how
they can intervene and use physical intervention and restraint strategies with
pupils with impunity. Too many teachers now fear that becoming involved
in difficult pupil cases may lead to a backlash against themselves, even to
the point where some staff may face defending themselves against accusa-
tions of professional malpractice (NBAR, 2008, see pp. 45–52, 59–61).
The evidence presented to the NBAR review in Wales from professionals
suggested that an increasing number of pupils are claiming that they truant
(or, technically, stay away from school) because of bullying, whether physi-
cal, verbal or psychological. Parents, too, being prosecuted for their chil-
dren’s non-attendance are increasingly claiming that they are keeping their
offspring away from school because of bullying and the failure by schools
to take action to protect them. It is leading to some parents changing their
children’s schools (e.g. Tom Daley). It may be that UK governments need
to re-examine the law relating to bullying and non-attendance, especially as
many solicitors are citing ‘bullying’ as a defence in court hearings or in cor-
respondence between parents, schools and LAs.
It also would make sense for all UK governments not only to redraft their
school attendance regulations’ guidance and the use of attendance codes but
also to ensure greater consistency in practice. As part of this work, each
government should be asked to draft one overarching school attendance
policy document for implementation by all schools and LAs and thereby
minimise duplication of effort and practice between different schools and
LAs throughout England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, as is the
case at present. The issue of whether to introduce parental contracts for all
pupils or for only those whose children manifest antisocial behaviour also
needs to be resolved.
There also need to be similarly consistent guidelines to advise schools and
LAs on how and when to refer non-attendance cases to the education welfare
service and to other external agencies. Consistent referral practice would
help to raise confidence among parents and carers. In turn, this could lead
to a more consistent practice amongst those cases which are taken to court. 13
No. 84
Finally, more research into good practice in managing pupils’ truancy and
non-attendance is needed at a local as well as a national level. Many suc-
cessful school-based schemes are not reported in the literature. If all these
Research in Education

ideas could be disseminated and implemented, some of them universally,

levels of pupils’ truancy and non-attendance might start to decrease signifi-
cantly. This is something which all UK governments have been failing to
achieve over the last quarter of a century, despite much evidence of consid-
erable effort (NAO, 2005; Cole, 2007).

Bibliography
Atkinson, M., Halsey, K., Wilkin, A., and Kinder, K. (2000), Raising Attendance,
Slough: NFER.
Audit Commission (1999), Missing out: LEA Management of School Attendance and
Exclusion, London: Audit Commission.
Baker, M. L., Sigmon, J. N., and Nugent, M. E. (2001), Truancy Reduction: Keeping
Students in School, New York: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-
tion Bulletin.
Bell, A. J., Rosen, L. A., and Dynlacht, D. (1994), ‘Truancy intervention’, Journal of
Research and Development in Education 27, 203–11.
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L. and O’Brennan, L. M. (2007), ‘Bullying and peer
victimization at school: perceptual differences between students and school staff ’,
School Psychology Review 36, 361–382.
Brown, W. E. (2004), ‘Confronting myths about Hispanics’, Public Education
Network 11 (1), 1–35.
Cazbah (2008), Delivering Children and Young People Focus Groups as Part of the
National Behaviour and Attendance Review, Cardiff: CAZBAH.
Cole, T. (2007), A Review of ‘Attendance and Behaviour’: Reports and Guidance
issued by Government and Government Agencies in the British Isles, Penrith:
SEBDA.
Croll, P., and Moses, D. (2005), The Formation and Transmission of Educational
Values and Orientation, Reading: University of Reading.
Dalziel, D., and Henthorne, K. (2005), Parents’/Carers’ Attitudes towards School
Attendance, Research Report, London: DfES.
Daniels, H., Cole, T., Sellman, E., Sutton, J., Visser, J., and Bedward, J. (2003),
Study of Young People Permanently Excluded from School, Research Report 405,
London: DfES.
Darmody, M., Smyth, E., and McCoy, S. (2008), ‘Acting up or opting out? Truancy
in Irish secondary schools’, Education Review 60, 4, 359–74.
Davie, R., Butler, N., and Goldstein, H. (1972), From Birth to Seven, Harlow:
Longman in Association with the National Children’s Bureau.
DES, Dublin (2006), School Matters: The Report of the Task Force on Student Behav-
iour in Second Level Schools, Dublin: DES.
Desforges, C., with Abonchaar, A. (2003) The Impact of Parental Involvement,
Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A
Literature Review, London: DfES.
DFEE (1999), Social Inclusion: Pupil Support, Circulars 10/99 and 11/99, London:
DFEE.
DFEE and Home Office (2001), Together we can Tackle it: a Checklist for Police
and Schools working together to Tackle Truancy, Crime and Disorder, London:
DFEE.
DfES (2003a), Report on the Special Schools Working Group, London: DfES.
14
—— (2003b), Every Child Matters, Green Paper, London: DfES.
 Finding strategic solutions to reduce truancy
—— (2004), Removing Barriers to Achievement: the Government’s Strategy for SEN,
London: DfES.
Eastman, G., Cooney, S. M., O’Connor, C. and Small, S. A. (2007), Finding Effective
Solutions to Truancy, Research to Practice Series 5, Wisconsin IL: University of
Wisconsin, Madison.
Epelage, D. L. and Swearer, S. M. (2003), ‘Research on school bullying and victim-
ization: what have we learned and where do we go from here?’ School Psychology
Review 32, 365–83.
Epstein, J. L. and Sheldon, S. B. (2002), ‘Present and accounted for: improving
student attendance through family and community involvement’, Journal of Edu-
cation Research 95, 308–18.
Estyn (2005), LEA Strategies to Challenge and Support Schools with Weaknesses,
especially where Pupils are Underachieving or where High Standards could be
achieved for larger Numbers of Pupils, Cardiff: Estyn.
—— (2006), Improving Attendance, Cardiff: Estyn.
—— (2007), Inspection of Caerphilly Local Education Authority School Improve-
ment, including Support for Attendance and Behaviour, Cardiff: Estyn.
—— (2008), Having Your Say: Young People, Participation and School Councils,
Cardiff: Estyn.
Fogelman, K. (1976), Britain’s Sixteen-year-olds, London: National Children’s
Bureau.
Gastic, B. (2008), ‘School truancy and the disciplinary problems of bullying victims’,
Educational Review 60 (4), 391–404.
Guare, R.E. and Cooper, B. S. (2003), Truancy Revisited, Lanham MD: Scarecrow
Press.
Hallam, S., Rhamie, J., and Shaw, J. (2007), Evaluation of the Primary Behaviour
and Attendance Project, Research Report 717, London: DfES.
Halsey, K., Bedford, N., Atkinson, M., White, R., and Kinder, K. (2004), Evaluation
of Fast Track to Prosecution for School Non-attendance, London: DfES.
Houbre, B., Tarquimo, C., Thullier, I., and Hergott, E. (2006), ‘Bullying among
students and its consequences on health’, European Journal of Psychology of Edu-
cation 21 (2), 183–208.
Kendall, S., White, R., and Kinder, K. (2003), School Attendance and the Prosecution
of Parents: Perspectives from the Education Welfare Service Management, Slough:
NFER and Local Government Association.
Kendall, S., White, R., Kinder, K., Halsey, K., and Bedford, N. (2004), School Atten-
dance and the Prosecution of Parents: Effects and Effectiveness, Slough: NFER and
Local Government Association.
Kinder, K., Wakefield, A., and Wilkin, A. (1996), Talking Back: Pupil Views on Disaf-
fection, Slough: NFER.
Kinder, K., Harland, J., Wilkin, A., and Wakehead, A. (1995), Three to Remember:
Strategies for Disaffected Pupils, Slough: NFER.
Levin, H., Belfield, C., Muenning, P., and Rouse, C. (2007), The Costs and Benefits
of an excellent Education for all of America’s Children, New York: Columbia
University.
Lightfoot, S. L. (1978), Words Apart: Relationships between Families and School,
New York: Basic Books.
Malcolm, H., Thorpe, G., and Lowden, K. (1996), Understanding Truancy: Links
between Attendance, Truancy and Performance, Edinburgh: Scottish Council for
Research in Education.
McAra, L. (2004), Truancy, School Exclusion and Substance Misuse, Edinburgh:
Centre for Law and Society, University of Edinburgh.
McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Kane, J., Riddell, S., Stead, J., and Weedon, E. (2008),
‘Can restrictive practices in schools make a difference?’ Educational Review, 60
(4), 405–17. 15
No. 84
Milne, B. J., Chalmers, S., Waldie, K. E., Darling, H., and Poultin, R. (2002), ‘Effec-
tiveness of a community-based truancy intervention’, New Zealand Journal of
Educational Studies 37, 191–203.
Research in Education

Morris, M., and Rutt, S. (2004), Analysis of Pupil Attendance Data in Excellence in
Cities (E, C) Areas, DfES Report RB571, Nottingham: DfES.
Munn, P., and Johnstone, M. (1992), Truancy and Attendance in Scottish Secondary
Schools, Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
NAO (2005), Improving School Attendance in England, London: Stationery Office.
NBAR (2008), The National Behaviour and Attendance Review (NBAR) Report,
Cardiff: WAG.
Northern Ireland Audit Office (2004), Improving Pupil Attendance at School, Belfast:
NIAO.
NYC (2005a), The Financial Cost of Truancy and Exclusion, London: New Philan-
thropy Capital.
—— (2005b), School’s out, London: New Philanthropy Capital.
OfStEd (2001a), Improving Attendance and Behaviour in Secondary Schools, London:
OfStEd.
—— (2001b), Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector for Schools, 2000/2001:
Standards and Quality in Education, London: OfStEd.
—— (2007), Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector for Schools, 2005/2006,
London: OfStEd.
O’Keefe, D., et al. (1993), Truancy in English Secondary Schools, London: DfES.
Parsons, C. and Howlett, K. (2000), Investigating the Reintegration of Permanently
Excluded People in England, Cambridge: Include.
Reid, K. (1982), ‘The self-concept and persistent school absenteeism’, British Journal
of Educational Psychology 52 (2), 179–87.
—— (1985), Truancy and School Absenteeism, London: Hodder & Stoughton.
—— (1986), Disaffection from School, London: Methuen.
—— (1989a), ‘Bullying and persistent school absenteeism’, in D. P. Tattum and D.
A. Lane (eds), Bullying in Schools, Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
—— (1989b), Helping Troubled Pupils in Secondary Schools, 2 vols, Oxford:
Blackwell.
—— (1999), Truancy and Schools, London: Routledge Falmer.
—— (2000), Tackling Truancy in Secondary Schools, London: Routledge Falmer.
—— (2002), Truancy: Short and Long-term Solutions, London: Routledge Falmer.
—— (2004), ‘The views of head teachers and teachers on attendance issues in
primary schools’, Research in Education 74, 60–76.
—— (2005), ‘The causes, news and traits of school absenteeism and truancy: an
analytical review’, Research in Education 74, 59–82.
—— (2006a), ‘An evaluation of the views of secondary staff towards school atten-
dance issues’, Oxford Review of Education 32 (3), 303–24.
—— (2006b), ‘The views of Education Social Workers on the management of truancy
and other forms of non-attendance’, Research in Education 75, 43–61.
—— (2007a), ‘Managing school attendance: the professional perspective’, Teacher
Development 11 (1), 21–43.
—— (2007b), ‘The views of learning mentors on the management of school atten-
dance’, Mentoring and Tutoring 15 (2), 39–55.
—— (2008), ‘The causes of non-attendance: an empirical study’, Educational Review
60 (4), 345–58.
—— (2009a), The Management of School Attendance in the UK: a Strategic Analysis:
Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, in press, to be published
in October 2009.
—— (2009b), ‘The National Behaviour and Attendance Review (NBAR) in Wales:
findings and recommendations on school attendance’, Research in Education 81,
16
20–42.
 Finding strategic solutions to reduce truancy
—— (2009c), ‘The National Behaviour and Attendance Review (NBAR) in Wales:
findings on school exclusion set in context’, Emotional and Behavioural Difficul-
ties 14 (1), 3–18.
—— (2009d), ‘Make truants, not parents, take the rap for absence’, TES Cymru, 24
April, p. 38.
—— (2009e), ‘The professional development needs of staff in Wales on behaviour
management and attendance: findings from the NBAR report’, Journal of In-ser-
vice Education, in press.
—— (2009f), ‘Responding to the National Behaviour and Attendance Review
(NBAR) report: the training and professional development proposals for Wales’,
Journal of In-service Education, in press.
—— (2009g), ‘The National Behaviour and Attendance Review (NBAR) in Wales:
findings on school behaviour from the professional perspective’, Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties, 14 (3), 165–83.
Reid, K., et al. (2009a), The Views of Primary Pupils on Behaviour and School Atten-
dance at Key Stage 2 in Wales, in press.
—— (2009b), The Views of Secondary Pupils on School Behaviour and Attendance in
Wales, in press.
Reimer, M. S. and Dimock, K. (2005), Truancy Prevention in Action: Best Practices
and Model Truancy Programmes, Clemison SC: National Dropout Prevention
Centre, Clemison University.
Reynolds, D., Jones, D., St Leger, S., and Murgatroyd, S. (1980), ‘School factors
and truancy’, in L. Hersov and I. Berg (eds) Out-of-school: Modern Perspectives
in Truancy and School Refusal, Chichester: Wiley.
Reynolds, D., and Reid, K. (1985), ‘The second stage: towards a reconceptualisation
of theory and methodology in school effectiveness studies’, in D. Reynolds (ed.),
Schools, Pupils and Deviance, London: Nafferton.
Rutter, M., Ouston, J., Maughan, B., and Mortimore, P. (1979), 15,000 Hours,
London: Open Books.
SEED (2001), Better Behaviour—Better Learning, report of the Discipline Task
Group, Edinburgh: SEED.
—— (2003), School Attendance, Circular 5/03, Edinburgh: SEED.
—— (2006), Behaviour in Schools: A Synopsis, Insight 34, Edinburgh: SEED.
Small, S. A., and Eastman, G. (1991), ‘Rearing adolescents in contemporary society:
a conceptual framework for understanding the responsibilities and needs of
parents’, Family Relations 40, 455–62.
Smith, M. (2004), Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime, Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh.
SMU (2003), Improving School Attendance in Sefton, Swansea: SMU.
—— (2004), Improving School Attendance in Walsall, Swansea: SMU.
—— (2005), Improving School Attendance in Cardiff, Swansea: SMU.
—— (2009), Improving School Attendance in Lancashire, Swansea: SMU.
Social Inclusion Report (1998), Truancy and School Inclusion Report, London:
Cabinet Office.
Steer Report (2005), Learning Behaviour: The Report of the Practitioners’ Group on
School Behaviour and Discipline, London: DfES.
Stoll, P. (1990), ‘Absent pupils who are officially present’, Education Today 40 (3),
22–5.
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D.L., and Napolitano, S. A. (2009), Bullying: Prevention
and Intervention, New York: Guilford Press.
Tyerman, M. (1968), Truancy, London: University of London Press.
Vernez, G., Krop, R. A., and Rydell, D. P. (1999), Closing the Education Gap: Ben-
efits and Costs, Rand Monograph MR-1036-EDV, New York: Rand; see also www.
rand.org/pubs/monograghreports/MR1036/.
Welsh Assembly Government (2000), The Learning Country, Cardiff: WAG. 17
No. 84
—— (2003), Report of the Attendance Task and Finish Group, Cardiff: National
Assembly for Wales.
—— (2005), Children and Young People: Rights to Action, Stronger Partnerships for
Research in Education

Better Outcomes, Cardiff: WAG.

—— (2006), Inclusion and Pupil Support: Guidance, Cardiff: National Assembly for
Wales.
—— (2009), Behaving and Attending: Action Plan responding to the National Behav-
iour and Attendance Review, Cardiff: WAG.
West, D. (1982), Delinquency: its Roots, Careers and Prospects, London:
Heinemann.
West, D. J., and Farrington, D. P. (1973), Who becomes delinquent? London:
Heinemann.
Williamson, H. (2001), ‘Status zero youth twenty-five years on: “Education, educa-
tion, education”? Aspirations for their own children’, Welsh Journal of Education
10 (2), 34–54.
Wilson, V., and Pirie, A. (2000), Multidisciplinary Teamworking: Beyond the Barrier:
a Review of the Issues, Edinburgh: SCRE.
Wisconsin (2006), ‘Wisconsin Joint Legislative Audit: a Best Practice Review: Truancy
Reduction Efforts’, see www.legis.state.wi.us/lab/reports/00–1besttear.htm.
Youth Justice Board (1999), Annual Report and Accounts, London: HMSO.
Zhang, M. (2003), ‘Links between school absenteeism and child poverty’, Pastoral
Care in Education 21 (1), 10–17.
—— (2004), ‘Time to change the truancy laws? Compulsory education: its origin
and modern dilemma’, Pastoral Care in Education 22 (2), 27–33.

Address for correspondence

Swansea Metropolitan University, Mount Pleasant, Swansea SA1 6ED. E-mail
ken.reid@smu.ac.uk

18
Copyright of Research in Education is the property of Manchester University Press and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.