WHAT ARE BARRIERS TO ATTENDANCE?

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PROBLEMS are commonly referred to as ‘school refusal’. This describes the reaction of children who experience severe anxiety and distress in relation to attending school, often resulting in prolonged absences. Children experience a range of psychological and physical symptoms, and in severe cases suffer with depression, self-harm and sometimes attempt suicide. 'School refusal' has been acknowledged as a multi-dimensional, dynamic and diverse emotional reaction, meaning each case is individual and complex to resolve.

Differing terminology has been used over time, since ‘absence from school due to excessive anxiety’ was first noted by Broadwin in 1932. Then in 1941 the term 'school phobia' was used by Johnson, et al. to refer to: 'a type of emotional disturbance in children associated with great anxiety, that leads to serious absence from school'. Since then a variety of labels have reflected developments in thinking about underlying influences, including 'home-bound school absence' (Waller and Eisenberg, 1980); 'school refusal' (Berg, et al., 1969), 'extended non-attendance' (Pellegrini, 2007) and ‘emotionally based school avoidance' (West Sussex Educational Psychology Service, 2018). 

‘School refusal behaviour’ was defined by Kearney and Silverman (1999) as child motivated refusal to attend school and / or difficulties remaining in school for the whole day. This definition related to children who want to attend school, but stay at home due to fear or anxiety and in addition, their parents know they have remained at home. There are also children who do not attend because of defiant behaviour or disinterest in school, and their parents are usually unaware of this absence, this is referred to as ‘truancy’ (Berg, 1997). However, Kearney (2018) acknowledged that the concept of truancy is problematic, as many ‘truants’ avoid school for reasons other than delinquency or disinterest.

The high level of confusion concerning the terms ‘school phobia’, ‘school refusal’ and 'truancy’ highlights tensions that exist in defining the problem and apportioning cause or blame. For instance, Fortune-Wood discussed professionals’ reluctance to use the term ‘school phobia’ because;

It would admit that the problem is in the school rather than in the family. Instead ‘experts’ will tend to opt for the label ‘school refusal’, which denies that school is the problem, denies a medical label and instead puts the onus on faulty behaviour. 

Pellegrini (2007) suggests this variation happens because the problem has been 'conceptualised by different agencies' and so has tended to reflect the related clinical, medical or educational focus. In response, he suggests the term 'extended school non-attendance' would be preferable as a more neutral and less judgmental option to describe the problem.

Heyne et al.(2019) proposed an updated definition of three dominant ways of conceptualising school attendance problems - truancy, school refusal, and school withdrawal, and they add school exclusion as a fourth concept (which is significant as it now acknowledges that school-based actions can create and influence attendance problems). School exclusion is defined by Heyne et al (2019) as an absence from school or from specific school activities. This absence is caused by the school: employing disciplinary measures in an inappropriate manner; ‘being unable or unwilling to accommodate the physical, social-emotional, behavioural, or academic needs of the young person’; or ‘discouraging the young person from attending, beyond the realm of legally acceptable school policy’.

The lack of an agreed standard term or definition can be said to restrict the identification of children requiring support, and cause misunderstandings about the reasons for school absence that effect approaches used to resolve the situation. The range of terminology creates obstacles for families in getting the correct support because the focus on 'within-child' explanations deflects attention from alternative factors. This is significant as Kearney and Silverman (1990) highlighted, the crucial issue in resolving school refusal is to identify the function and need behind the behaviour.  

EBSA (Emotionally Based School Absence) has become more widely used in recent years, having been introduced in guidance written by educational psychologists, however it still draws attention to a within-child explanation for absence. In contrast, barriers to attendance is a form of terminology which has grown in popularity as it does not focus the blame on the child but instead recognises that their are factors which are preventing a child from attending school.

PROSECUTING PARENTS OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE MISSED SCHOOL  (2019)

Epstein, Brown and O’Flynn carried out a study of parents, and in particular, mothers, who are fined or threatened with fines for their child’s non-attendance at school. Many of the children and young people who do not attend school regularly are on the autism spectrum, or have SEND and/or moderate or severe mental health problems.  Many have been bullied and have then become afraid of school and too fearful to attend.

There are parents, often of children on the autism spectrum or with anxiety disorders, who, try as they might, simply cannot get their children in to school.  Many have received repeated fines and threats of prison. The authors call for a change in the law, so that parents are supported, not punished, if their children cannot attend school.

This report contains moving testimony from parents affected by this cruel law. There is at the end a useful section ‘Sources of help’ with some addresses, especially about legal advice, that many may find helpful.

Parents’ views on EBSNA: A solution-based exploration into successful reintegration. (2022)

The aim of this mixed methods study was to further understand how professionals can support ‘emotionally-based school non-attendance’ (EBSNA), through exploring parental experiences. EBSNA is believed to impact one-two percent of children and young people (CYP), presenting as ‘severe emotional upset at the prospect of attending school’ (Berg et al., 1969). Adopting a ‘solution-oriented’ approach, this research gathered retrospective experiences of successful EBSNA support, aiming to uncover ‘what works’ when supporting children and families experiencing this difficulty. Furthermore, as well as understanding the support accessed by parents, and what was useful, this study additionally hoped to explore the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on such support and determine if opportunities to learn from practices during the school closure period may exist. Participants first completed an online questionnaire (Phase One; n=28) following which descriptive statistics were produced, and content analysis techniques were employed. During Phase Two, participants completed semi-structured interviews (n=5), and transcripts were analysed using ‘Reflexive Thematic Analysis’ (Braun & Clarke, 2021). The resulting findings provides insight into the different forms of support accessed by parents when experiencing their child’s EBSNA, identifying areas of both success and improvement, as well as how lessons can be learnt from the Covid-19 pandemic. These have been presented as a framework for professional practice, named SPIRAL, which has implications for schools and local authorities in providing support to both CYP and parents experiencing EBSNA. Recommendations for future research are also discussed, informing developments across multiple systems, and highlighting the potential of the EP role.