Journal of Adolescence 1978, x, 273-282

Teachers' perceptions of school phobic and

truant behaviour and the influence of the
youth tutor
COLIN PRITCHARD* AND ALAN J. BUTLERt
Teachers are often initiators of referrals to either statutory or theraputic
agencies. A perennial problem is that of non-school-attendance which can
be schematically defined as school phobia and truancy. There is considerable
evidence that this categorisation has some validity. Consequently it is
important for teachers to be able to differentiate between the two condi-
tions, as the child probably requires different regimes. This study examined
a sample of teachers drawn from secondary schools in which there was a
Youth Tutor present, and from schools who had no Youth Tutor. It was
found that there were clear statistical significant differences in the per-
ceptions of teachers of school phobia and truancy from the different type
of schools. The teachers from the Youth Tutor Schools were more inclined
to be child, parent, and socially orientated than their couriterparts. The
practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Non-attendance at school is usually seen as containing two broad categories

of distinct types of behaviour. These are of truancy-thought of as a conduct
disorder, where the child absents himself from school, usually without
parental knowledge, and school phobia, a neurotic condition which often in-
volves the parents' complicity in the child's non-attendance (Kahn and
Nursten, 1968, Berg, Nichols and Pritchard, 1969). Either type of persistent
non-attendance at school may be a precurser of later problems. Truancy is
associated with delinquency which has been found to be associated with a wide
range of serious psychiatric and social problems in later life (McCulloch and
Phillip, 1972; Stratta, 1970). In the case of the school phobic, social with-
drawal and phobias are found in adulthood (Coolidge and Brodie, 1974)
(Berg, Butler and Hall, 1976; Berg, 1976).
Some have argued, however, that to consider non-attendance as a child-
centred difficulty is to overlook the interactional possibilities (Lang, 1974).
Factors such as the raising of the school leaving age, the quality and training of
.. Director of Social Work Studies, University of Bath.
t Social Policy Department, University of Leeds.
0140-1971/78/030273+ 10 $02.00/0 © 1978 The Association for the Psychiatric Study of Adolescents
273
274 C. PRITCHARD AND A. J. BUTLER
teaching staff, sympathy and attitudes of teachers, and a whole series of other
aspects may play an important part in contributing to a child being unable to
go to school (Wiseman, 1973; Palfrey, 1973). Nevertheless, this does not
undermine theories which point to some specific pathology within the child or
child-parent relationship.
Maintaining school attendance in a compulsory education system has to be
the responsibility of someone. It is in fact one of the primary functions of the
Education Welfare Officer who may involve legal sanctions which he feels to
be appropriate. In practice, therefore, the Education Welfare Officer is one of
the key figures in determining how a piece of behaviour, in this case, non-
attendance, is interpreted. His approach and understanding often means the
difference between a juvenile court appearance or an interview with a child
psychiatrist. Pritchard (1974a) has described the problems Education Welfare
Officers may have in discriminating between the two types of non-attendance
and how this relates to the inadequacy of their training, their failure sometimes
to appreciate important psycho-social difficulties within the child and the
family, as well as the distorting effects of social class (Pritchard, 1971; 1974b).
In this study we explored another factor that influences the Education
Welfare Officer's decisions, namely, the first link in the referral chain; that is,
the teacher and some of his perceptions of these problems. This report is the
second of a two-part study which sought to determine the influence of factors
affecting teachers' perceptions of some maladjusted behaviour (Pritchard and
Butler, 1976). We have concentrated specifically upon how far the teacher was
able to discriminate between different types of non-attendance and what, if
any, action he might take. \Ve also explored to what extent might the presence
of a youth tutor (or youth counsellor) in the school influence the teacher's view
of these problems.
METHOD
An open-ended, self-administered anonymous questionnaire was devised,containing
brief vignettes of difficulties encountered in school children. Those concerning the
essential features of school phobia and truancy, have been extrapolated and form
the basis of the data for the present study. Teachers were asked their views of the
origin of the behaviour and what action they might take in response to such events.
The former West Riding County Council Education Authority provided the
names of all secondary schools who had had a Youth Tutor in post for at least one
year. There were 12 such "Youth Tutor Schools" and these were matched with 12
"Ordinary Schools" (i.e, those schools which did not have a Youth Tutor), for area
and approximate size.
SAMPLE
Our sample was finally obtained from seven "Youth Tutor" and seven ordinary
schools; the remaining schools were either unable to find time to complete the
 SCHOOL PHOBIC AND TRUANT BEHAVIOUR 275
questionnaire or were excluded because their response rate was less than 50%.\Ve
must admit to some disappointment in the loss of these other schools but this was
probably due to the time we approached them (near the end of the local authority
re-organisation and at the exam period). Also we failed to determine the number of
part-time staff, so some memberswould not be in school on the day the questionnaire
was distributed. Some of the teachers found the questionnaire too open-ended.
Mter excluding incomplete questionnaires, we had a 63% (199 teachers) response
rate from the "Youth Tutor" schools and 6{% (1 59 teachers) response rate from the
ordinary schools. We feel that despite the methodological difficulties such numbers
nevertheless offer useful information and are worthy of study.

FINDINGS
The completed questionnaires were independently rated by each of us. Inter-
rater reliability tests were carried out after the first and last 20 ratings. In both
cases the tests indicated a statistically significant reliability (P <0'01).
The total sample was found to be homogenous with regard to the distribu-
tion between male and female teachers, length of experience and teacher's
educational background.
There were statistically significant differences between teachers from
schools with youth tutors (Y.T.) and teachers from ordinary schools (Ord.) in
their perception of the aetiology and proposed action in regard to school
phobia and truancy. Tables 1 and 2 show the results.
Table I. Schools with Youth Tutors (Y.T.) and Ordinary school (Ord.) teachers'
responses to school phobia and truancy

Origin of non-attendance
Emotional Child's Psychiatric
Social difficulty emotional Problem Physical problem of Problem of
problem of parents difficulty of school illness parent discipline

Schoolphobia
Y.T. No. (164) (41) (49) (30) (26) (16) (26)
% 47% 12% 14% 9% 7% 5% 7%

Ord. % 5 1% 6% 13% 5% 6% 4% 14%

No. (144) (18) (37) (15) (16) (II) (46)

Truancy
Y.T. No. (52) (16) (147) (116) (7) (9) (71)
% 12% 4% 35% 28% 2% 2% 17%

Ord. % u% 0% 3 6% 3 1% 2% 2% 19%
No. (38) (I) (129) (110) (6) (6) (67)

For School phobia Xl (6 d.f.) = 15'4465 (P = <0'02); for Truancy ,,2 (6 d.f.) = 12'8175
(P = <0'05)·
276 C. PRITCHARD AND A. J. BUTLER
Table 2. Suggested action

Contact
Direct Direct Indirect extra- Change Contact
work parent parent . mural school colleague
with child contact contact agency situation teacher

School phobia
Y.T. No. (45) (100) (25) (III) (16) . (31)
% 14% 3 0% 8% 34% 5% (9%
Ord. % 10% 22% 7% 45% 2% 14%
No. (25) (53) (16) (106) (4) (33)

Truancy
Y.T. No. (120) (II 6) (8) (7 0 ) (31) (37)
% 3 1% 3 0% 2% 18% 8% 10%
Ord. % 3 1% 22% 5% 19% 8% 15%
No. (99) (68) (IS) (60) (24) (48)

For School phobia X2(S d.f.) = 15'2443 (P = <0'01); for truancy X2(S d.f.) =
13'2322 (P = <0'05)·

An examination of the X2 tables which compared the two groups revealed

that the Y.T. teachers were more parent orientated than their Ord. counter-
parts. They gave more recognition to the possibility that the parents may have
problems in their own right in regard to the origins of both truancy and school
phobia. The Y.T.s were also more inclined to suggest that the school itself
may have contributed to the development of school phobia and viewed it as
less a disciplinary problem than the Ord. schoolteachers. With regard to the
proposed action, Y.T. teachers would make more parent contact, and rely less
on oth er teacher colleagues, for both truancy and school phobia. Finally the
Y.T. teachers appeared to demonstrate their apparent greater confidence in
handling problem children, in that they would seek extra-mural advice more
frequently in the case of school phobic children than in cases of truancy.
These findings were all of statistical significance.
The variation of responses between teachers with Y.T.s in school and Ord.
teachers has been clearly demonstrated and a further statistical comparison
between the group's perception, comparing school phobia with truancy per se,
would obviously be superfluous. It would be worth while however to analyse
each of the internal group's responses to the two behavioural problems. Table
3 shows the comparison ofY.T. teacher's responses to the origin and proposed
action of school phobia and truancy.
 SCHOOL PHallIC AND TRUANT BEHAVIOUR '2.77
Table 3. Y.T. teachers' responses to origin and action of schoolphobia and truancy

Origin" Actiont
School School
Responses phobia (%) Truancy (%) Responses phobia (%) Truancy (%)

Social problem 47 1'2. Direct work

Emotional with child 14 31
difficulty of Direct parent
parents 1'2. 4 contact 3° 3°
Child's Indirect parent
emotional Contact 8 2
difficulty 14 35 Contact extra-
Problem of mural agency 34 18
school 9 28 Change school
Physical situation 5 8
illness 7 2 Contact
Psychiatric colleague/
problem of teacher 9 10
parent 5 2
Problem of
discipline 7 17

* x· (6 d.f.) = 198'21 (P <0'001).

t X' (5 d.f.) = 54'85 (P <0'001).

It can be seen from Table 3 that there was a considerable difference: in

responses of the Y.T. group towards truancy and school phobia and that the
two conditions are strongly differentiated at a very high level of statistical
significance.
Table 4 shows the Ord. teachers responses to the origin and proposed action
in relation to non-attendance difficulty.
Table 4 shows that there is a marked difference by the Ord. teachers in their
responses towards truancy and school phobia. Indeed the results are even
stronger statistically than with the Y.T. teachers. However, while it may be
said that both groups of teachers do respond differently to the two syndromes,
there is the problem of interpreting these results. \Ve should point out, how-
ever, that we are not trying to establish an essentially statistical argument, as
we view the use of statistics in these attitudinal and perceptual fields as semi-
quantative indicators of qualitative data. Thus, apart from demonstrating the
direction of the trends we do not place any further emphasis upon the statisti-
cal aspects. The question remains as to how best utilise this data in order to
extrapolate more general meaning. As most schools do not yet have youth
tutors, etc., it seems to us more logical to combine the two teacher groups
 C. P RI TCHARD AND A. r, BUTLER
Table 4. Ord. teachers' responses to origin and action of school phobia and truancy

Origin" A ctiont
School School
R esp onses p h obia (%) T ruan cy (%) R espo ns es phob ia (%) Truan cy (%)

Social problem 51 12 Direct work

Emotional with child 10 31
difficulty of Direct p ar ent
p arents (, 0 contact 22 22
Child's Ind ir ect parent
emotional contact 7 5
difficulty 13 36 Contact extra-
Problem of mu ral agen cy 45 19
school 5 31 Change school
Physical situation 2 8
illness 6 2 Contact
Psychi atri c colleagu e
problems of teac h er I4 15
parent 4 2
Problem of
discipl in e 14 19

• X' (6 d.f.) = 206 .846 (P < 0 ' 0 0 1 ) .

t X' (5 d.f.) = 66 '4 (P <0'001) .

Table S. T eachers' response to origin and actio n of scnoot ptiotna an a truancy

Origin Actioll
School School
at
Response phobia % 0/
/0 Truancy Response phobia 0/
/0 / 0 Truancy

Social pr oblem (3 0 8) 47 12 (9 0 ) Direct work

Emotional with child (9 0 ) 12 33 (219)
di fficult y of D irec t p arent
paren ts (59) 9 2 (17) cont act ( 153) 27 28 ( 184)
Emotional Ind irect parent
difficulty of contact (4 1) 7 3 (23)
child (86) 14 36 (27 6) Contact extra-
Problem of mural agen cy (217) 38 19 (130)
school (45) 7 29 (226) Change school
Ph ysical illness (4 2) 7 2 (13) situation (:zo) 4 4 (24)
Problem of Contact
discipline (66) 10 18 (13 8) colleague
Psychiatric teacher (64) II 13 (85)
problem of
p arent (27) 4 2 (IS)
 SCHOOL PHOBIC AND TRUANT BEHAVIOUR 279
responses before drawing broader conclusions, for despite the fact the con-
stituent groups vary in their perceptions, the combined group is probably
much more typical of teachers in the educational system. It could be argued
that the Ord. teachers may be more representative of the opinion of the
majority of teachers, but the merging of the two sets of views would appear to
lessen "the extremes" and dichotomy of teacher's perception. Therefore
Table 5 shows the total sample's views and it is self-evident that a statistical
analysis is neither feasible nor necessary.

ORIGIN OF PROBLEi\IATIC BEHAVIOUR

The total sample thought that in comparison with truancy, school phobia was
more likely to be due to social problems, involved the school less, was not
considered to be much of a disciplinary problem, contained fewer children
with emotional difficulties, but the parents of the school phobics were prob-
ably more emotionally disturbed than parents of truants.
In the light of the various studies from the field of child psychology and
psychiatry, this sample of teachers appear to be at variance with the established
views about school phobia as most authorities give little weight to social
factors, stressing rather the severe neurotic difficulty that involved both
parent and child (Pritchard and Ward, 1974). There is, however, concordance
about school phobic children rarely producing disciplinary problems (e.g.
Berg et al., 1969). In regard to the school's contributory involvement with
these children, it has been found that they are seldom primarily phobic of the
school per se, but display a neurotic separation anxiety, a nosological descrip-
tion that Eysenck and Rackman (1964) believe would be more appropriate.
It is however noteworthy that this sample frequently mentioned the
possible involvement of the school in the development of truancy.

PROPOSED ACTION
Again there were marked differences in the teachers' views in relation to the
action they would take towards the two situations. Fewer teachers would
consider being directly involved with the school phobic child, than with the
truant and twice as many would seek extra-mural advice about him. There
was also some follow-through from views on aetiology, as proportionately
more teachers would seek to alter the school situation in the case of the truant.
In view of the relatively limited freedom of action available to the teacher in the
practical situation, it is particularly significant that outside help would be more
frequently sought for the school phobic child. One might speculate that,
assuming the description and explanation of the phobia from the "therapeutic"
 C. PRITCHARD AND A. J. nUTLER
field is valid, while the teachers may be somewhat inconsistent in their views
of the origins, they do appear to recognise something "special" about the
phobic situation.
It can be argued of course, that, providing the teacher appreciates the
potential seriousness of both types of persistent non-school-attendance, and
the fact that they are more likely to seek help for the complex phobic child, it
is relatively unimportant that there may be differences of opinion regarding
causal factors between teachers and "therapists".. Unfortunately, there is
evidence to suggest that the teacher, understandably, is more likely to seek
help from the most accessible agent to the school, namely the Education
Welfare Officer, who may be equally ill-equipped to understand the ramifica-
tions of the problem.

DISCUSSION
\Ve have shown that teachers in our sample recognised aetiological differences
between school phobia and truancy, and there was variation in the action they
proposed. The influence of the Youth Tutors on both perception and action
confirmed our earlier study and that of Rose and Marshall (1975). Perhaps sur-
prising is the apparent relative lack of sympathy afforded to the school phobic.
His non-attendance appearing the more rejecting, partly because of possibly
"colluding" parents and partly because it is seen in an otherwise conforming
student and able scholar (Kahn and Nursten 1968).
It would seem likely that in many ways the teacher's perceptions are closer
to those of the Education \Velfare Officer and somewhat at odds with the more
therapeutically orientated agencies, like child psychiatry, educational psychol-
ogy and social work. The teacher is of course viewing perforce his "problem
child" in a context of coping with some .35 others in a classroom situation, as
well as having to account to the general organisation of the school, while the
child psychiatrist and others have the prescription to be case specific and to
spend time in exploring family background etc. It would seem that this study
demonstrates that the non-attendance situation is interpreted differently, a
fact that can only increase the vagaries of inter-professional liaison and
collaboration. This gap in understanding is probably accentuated by the
acknowledged deficiencies in teacher training in respect of handling and com-
prehending the maladjusted child, a situation that appears unlikely to be
remedied by the minimal coverage given by the James Report (1973) to the
needs of special education.
The 'York of the Youth Tutor or School Counsellor clearly makes an im-
pression upon his colleagues in that they conceptualise problems in a much
more comprehensive fashion, which in turn appears to positively influence the
ethos of the school (cf. Rose and Marshall 1975). It would appear therefore
 SCHOOL PHOBIC AND TRUANT BEHAVIOUR 281

that there would be merit in expanding this intra-counselling service within

schools, not only as a way of dealing with difficult children but also as an
advisory resource available to the teacher within the school. Rose and
Marshall have called for a school based "social work service" which could be
part of an integrated provision for child and family. Such a development would
be facilitated by first recognising the perceptual gaps between the professions
involved and then initiating some form of integrated education and training.
Thus synthesising the disparate aspects of generic problems which are
experienced by our clients, pupils and patients as a continuity of a "private
sorrow" that is presented as a "social problem" (Cooper, 1976).

We wish to acknowledge the help we received from Sir Alec Clegg, Mr \V. R.
Knight, Mr K. R. Sedgewick, all late of the West Riding County Council Education
Authority; to the Head-Teachers and Teachers who so kindly gave up their time to
complete the questionnaires. Finally, our thanks to Mrs Janet Loder for her patient
and conscientious secretarial assistance.

REFERENCES
Berg, I. B., Nichols, K. and Pritchard, C. (1969). School phobia-its classification and
relation to dependency. JouT11al of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 10, 123-41.
Berg, I. B. (1976). School phobia in children of agoraphobic women. British JouT11al of
Psychiatry 128, 86-().
Berg, I. B., Butler, A. and Hall, C. (1976). The outcome of adolescent school phobia.
British Journal of Psychiatry 128, 80-85.
Coolidge, J. C. and Brodie, D. (1974). Observations. of mothers of 49 school phobic
children. JouT11al of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 13, 275-85.
Cooper, J. (1976). The uneasy response to social problems and private sorrows.
Social Work Today S.ZI, 648-858.
Department of Education and Science (1972). (James Report) Teacher Education and
Training. London: HMSO.
Eysenck, H. J. arid Rachman, S. (1964). Learning theory approach to child psychiatry.
In Modem Perspectives in Child Psychiatry, Howells, J. (Ed.), Boyd Livingstone.
Kahn, J. and Nursten, J. P. (1968). Unzcillingly to School. znd ed. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Lang, T. (1974). Alienated children: the psychologies of school phobia and their
social and political implications. In Reconstructing Social Psychology. Armistead,
N. (Ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
McCulloch, J. W. and Phillip, A. E. (1972). Suicidal Behaviour. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Palfrey, D. F. (1973). Head teacher expectations and their pupils self concepts.
Educational Review, IS. 123-7.
Pritchard, C. (1971). A consumer's approach to child mental health. Medical Officer
12S,3-8.
Pritchard, C. (1974a). The EWO, truancy and school phobia. Social Work Today 5,
130-3·
282 C. PRITCHARD AND A. J. BUTLER
Pritchard, C. (I 974b). The teacher and aspects of child psychiatry. Annual Proceedings
of the Association of the Psychiatric Study of Adolescence. 1973 Conference pp.
52-65.
Pritchard, C. and Butler, A. \V. J. (1976). Influence of youth tutor upon the teacher's
perception of maladjustment. Child Care and Health Development, 1,251-61.
Pritchard, C. and Ward, R. (1974). Family dynamics of school phobia. British fournal
of Social Work 4, 61-94.
Rose, G. and Marshall, A. F. (1975). Counselling and School Social Work. London:
John Wiley. .
Stratta, B. (1970). The Education of Borstal Boys. London: Routledge and Kcgan Paul.
\Viseman, S. (1973). The educational obstacle race. Factors that hinder progress.
Education Research 15, 87-94.