Conference Agenda

It has been internationally argued that many contextual factors contribute to the promotion of students’ well-being (Ben-Arieh et al., 2014; Hernández-Torrano et al., 2021). This perspective allows us to focus on possible strengths within education systems rather than looking at schooling only from a deficit perspective. Compulsory education and a right to education is a general feature of modern welfare states, but there is a constant shadow of non-attendance. School attendance problems have been a frequent topic in the international research over decades (e.g. Heyne et al., 2019; Kearney et al., 2019; Reid, 2008, 2013; Ricking, 2003) and poor educational outcomes have been described as an important risk factor for future social and health problems, especially for children in social vulnerable situations (Forsman et al., 2016; Gauffin et al., 2013). However, salutogenic perspectives have also come into focus and there is a need to critically discuss how school and related systems can in a sustainable way address attendance problems and break pattern of exclusion (Bodén, 2013; Strand, 2013). Yet there is still very little research available that can help us comprehend the situation and guide school leaders and student health teams in their preventive work (Ekstrand, 2015). With this research on organisational strategies for and professional perspectives on school attendance we want to provide understandings of conditions for learning and well-being of diverse student groups in different European countries.

There are few studies that compare school attendance problems and organisational strategies in different European contexts (Keppens & Spryt, 2018). School systems answer to challenges and shape preconditions for school attendance in accordance with the overall logic within the respective school and welfare systems. That makes it interesting to study similar phenomena in different education systems. The here proposed symposium builds on an international comparative research project, financed by the Swedish Research Council on national, organisational, and individual dimensions of school attendance problems in four countries. The project applies a mixed method approach. The quantitative studies within the project on school attendance statistics showed that the countries we study have different ways of recording and reporting statistical information on absence, different ways of publishing relevant information, and different judgements on which level of absence is considered to be problematic. Some countries – in our sample, England (and also Japan) – have developed a system for collecting and disseminating information about school absence on a regular basis, while other countries have no national system (Germany), or collect national data occasionally on a non-regular basis (Sweden) (Kreitz-Sandberg et al., forthcoming).

With a starting point in some of the quantitative results of the project, this symposium will preliminarily engage with the qualitative case studies from three of the four studied countries, Sweden, Germany and the UK. The here introduced multi-site case studies explore and critically discuss dynamic relations between education and health and wellbeing. Multi-cite case studies are part of the empirical evidence gathered in the participating countries, many of them from urban contexts. The choice of countries can be related to welfare state systems in the tradition of Esping-Andersen (1990) who distinguished between so-called social democratic, conservative and liberal welfare state systems. The three countries have also different school systems: differentiated secondary education, single-track and comprehensive systems. The age group in focus are 15- to 17 year-old youths, in the transition between different school stages, including also academic and vocational tracks. The presentations provide preliminary results from studies in Sweden, Germany and the UK (England) and will be discussed from a critical and creative perspective with focus on the question what we as researchers from various fields can contribute through empirically grounded research.

How data on school absenteeism and school attendance are registered, recorded and published varies greatly between countries. This makes it difficult to compare the situation and the trends concerning absenteeism between countries. If a comparison were to be made between the levels of absenteeism and the trends concerning them in different countries, it would be difficult to rely solely on national statistics; it would instead be necessary to either collect specific data in international surveys designed to do this, or explore whether other international studies contain this information. One way of comparing students´ absenteeism between countries could be to use data from the PISA studies. This presentation will explore how PISA-data can be used to make such comparisons. The presentation compares student absenteeism between Germany, Japan, Sweden and United Kingdom using data from the PISA-studies. In the PISA-studies students were asked about whether they had skipped school in the student questionnaires in 2000, 2012, 2015 and 2018. As the wording was partly different in 2000 than in the other years the data from 2012, 2015 and 2018 are used for the comparison. PISA data can be used to see the proportion of students who have indicated in the student questionnaire that they in the last two full weeks of school prior to their completion of the PISA student questionnaire had skipped at least a whole school day at one time. The students who have reported that they have been absent are compared with all the students in the countries in relation to their results on the PISA test (reading comprehension, mathematics and science) and on some background variables (gender, socio-economic background and migration background). PISA data can be used to analyse and compare school attendance in different countries and explore how different factors are related to school attendance and how this may differ between countries. By comparing and analysing school attendance in different countries it is possible to identify and discuss factors that influence school attendance and issues that may be of importance to advance school attendance. However, we also can see limitations and possibilities to interpret the differences in results only on the basis of the survey data alone are limited. That is where we suggest qualitative case studies to gain a more holistic understanding and for critically discussing the dynamic relations between education and health and wellbeing of school youth.

Avvisati, F. & Keslair, F. (2014). REPEST: Stata module to run estimations with weighted replicate samples and plausible values. Statistical Software Components S457918, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 06 Jan 2020 Kreitz-Sandberg, S., Backlund, Å., Fredriksson, U., Isaksson, J., Rasmusson, M. & Gren Landell, M. (2022) Understanding School Attendance Problems through Attendance Statistics: International Comparative Views on the Situation in Sweden, Germany, the UK (England), and Japan. Manuscript submitted for publication. OECD (2014a) PISA 2012 Results: Ready to Learn. Students’ Engagement, Drive and Self-beliefs. (Volume III). Paris: OECD OECD (2014b) PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV). Paris: OECD OECD (2016) PISA 2015 Results: Policies and Practices for Successful schools (Volume II) Paris: OECD OECD (2019a) PISA 2018 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Volume I. Paris: OECD OECD (2019b) PISA 2018 Results: Where All Students Can Succeed. Volume II. Paris: OECD OECD (2019c) PISA 2018 Results: What School Life Means for Students’ Lives. Volume III. Paris: OECD

All schools need to provide every single child with quality education, and school attendance problems have been described as a serious challenge that needs to be counteracted and prevented (Thornton, Darmody, & McCoy, 2013). Swedish schools have been famous for their inclusive character. During recent decades, however, students have not performed as well as earlier in international tests like PISA (OECD, 2013). While Swedish schools were earlier known for their small differences between students from high or low socioeconomic strata (SES), social differences are now rising (Karlsson & Oskarsson, 2018). The inclusive character of schools has diminished since the 1990s (Vislie, 2003). A report by the Swedish government shed light on school non-attendance, and its risk of no longer being included into the classroom environment as a phenomenon that has received little attention in Sweden (SOU 2016:94). Both theoretically informed and empirically grounded studies on school attendance are rare in the Swedish context and on the background on this research desideratum, we planned the here introduced study. We know little about how practical work with school absence is conducted in Sweden (Gren Landell et al. 2015; Gren Landell, 2018), and studies with child perspectives on school attendance are very rare (Keppens & Spryt, 2017). By studying and comparing cases of how school attendance is handled in the various contexts, the study wants to provide a better understanding of different ways of looking at problems and solutions regarding school attendance. This presentation contributes results from the case studies in three Swedish municipalities. It presents an analysis of the support systems from the perspective of professionals and students. The presentation analyses data from individual interviews with school leaders as well as focus group interviews with teachers and student health professionals in and around school. Interviews with students focus on their perspective on support they have received or would have hoped for. In the presentation we investigate questions like: How are support systems structured and practiced? How are problems and solutions formulated in policies and by professionals, and in support systems? What are teachers’ and other professionals’ experiences of and perspectives on existing support systems and preventive strategies for school absenteeism? And finally: What is the students’ perspective on support systems and preventive work in schools?

Gren-Landell, M., Allvin, C. E., Bradley, M., Andersson, M., Andersson, G., Allvin, C. E., & Bradley, M. (2015). Teachers’ views on risk factors for problematic school absenteeism in Swedish primary school students. Educational Psychology in Practice31, 31(4), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1086726 Gren Landell, M. (2018). Främja närvaro: Att förebygga frånvaro i skolan. Litauen: Natur & Kultur. Karlsson, K. G. & Oskarsson, M. (2018). Likvärdighet. In Fredriksson, U. A., Pettersson, A. & Karlsson, K.-G. (Eds.) Pisa under 15 år: resultat och trender (pp. 115-130). Stockholm: Natur och kultur. Keppens, G. & Spruyt, B. (2017) The development of persistent truant behavior: an explanatory analysis of adolescents´ perspectives. Educational Research, 59(3): 353-370. OECD (2013). PISA 2012 Results (Volume IV): What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices. Paris: OECD Publishing. SOU 2016:94. (2016). Att vända frånvaro till närvaro – en utredning om problematisk elevfrånvaro. Stockholm. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga.../01/sou-201694/%0A%0A Thornton, M., Darmody, M., & McCoy, S. (2013). Persistent absenteeism among Irish primary school pupils. Educational Review, 65(4), 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.768599 Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1), 17–35.

The presentation reflects the present situation in Germany, where compulsory school attendance is anchored in state constitutions or education acts and claims regular attendance in school for 12 years (Ricking & Rothenburg, 2020; Grewe, 2005). Defiance of compulsory school attendance usually leads to disciplinary measures, such as fines, school attendance under compulsion by the police and – in serious cases – arrest sentences (Böhm, 2011; Ricking & Hagen, 2016). However, a punitive approach to non-attendance has only limited effects in the reduction of absence patterns (Pendon, 2016). In contrast, school-based programs of prevention and intervention are published and discussed (f.ex. Adenaw et al., 2020). Consequently, several educational authorities and school boards settled on a plan of action to change laws, principles and ways of management of school absenteeism in the last years (Sutphen et al., 2010). Several German states reorganized policies of punishment towards structures of pedagogical support (Enderle et al., 2023, in review; Behörde für Schule und Berufsbildung Hamburg, 2013). The paradigm shift has been adopted by schools in Hamburg (Ricking & Team, 2020). The supportive approach is the result of a study that was conducted in Hamburg 2019-2022. The study was applied in the context of scientific monitoring and in collaboration between 4 Schools, 2 Foundations, the Hamburg School Board and the University of Oldenburg. The aim was to strengthen schools in their capacities to act, to support students’ learning engagement or well-being and to reduce school absenteeism and dropout. Selected results and the aspects of pedagogical support within the guiding manual of Hamburg are presented (Ricking & Team, 2020). The presented findings of Hamburg show that school structures and practices can contribute to participation and prevention of school absenteeism. As an outlook, the aim and design of a qualitative case study within the international research project SAPIC will be shortly presented. It connects to the previous research in Hamburg as it provides further understanding on support systems of attendance in and around school. Interviews are conducted to investigate perspectives of school leaders, social education professionals and teachers as well as individual perspectives of adolescents on school-based practices and experiences of pedagogical support regarding school attendance in Hamburg.

Adenaw, C., Löffler, A., Rackowitz, M., Steinheider, P., Schmidt-Böcking, U. & Jeck, S. (2020). Pädagogisch-psychologische Maßnahmen zum Umgang mit Schulvermeidung. Handreichung für Schulen. https://kultusministerium.hessen.de/publikationen-a-z [22.12.2022] Behörde für Schule und Berufsbildung Hamburg. (Ed., 2013). Schulpflicht. Handreichung zum Umgang mit Schulpflichtverletzungen. 22083 Hamburg. https://www.hamburg.de/bsb/schulpflichtverletzungen/ [22.12.2022] Böhm, T. (2011). Erziehungs- und Ordnungsmaßnahmen in der Schule. Schulrechtlicher Leitfaden. Kronach: Carl Link. Enderle, C., Ricking, H. & Schulze, G. C. (2023, in Review). School Absenteeism in Germany: A Shift from Punishment to Support. European Education. Grewe, N. (2005). Absenteeism in European Schools. Münster: Lit. Pendon, G. P. (2016). Are Fines An Effective Sanction? IRA-International Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.21013/jmss.v3.n3.p2 Ricking, H. & Rothenburg, E. (2020). Schulabsentismus – Ein komplexes Phänomen aus rechtlicher und pädagogischer Perspektive. Recht der Jugend und des Bildungswesens, 1, 104-118. Ricking, H., & Hagen, T. (2016). Schulabsentismus und Schulabbruch: Grundlagen - Diagnostik - Prävention (1. Auflage). Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Ricking, H., & Team, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg. (2020). Jeder Schultag zählt. Praxishandbuch für die Schule zur Prävention und Intervention bei Absentismus. (Joachim Herz Stiftung, Ed.; 1. Auflage). Druckwelten. Sutphen, R., Ford, J. & Flaherty, C. (2010). Truancy Interventions: A Review of the Research Literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(2), 161 – 171.

The presentation will focus on the first stage of a qualitative study, exploring changes in educational policies related to school attendance. It aims to understand how schools address attendance problems within the context of pupil wellbeing. Schools in England are required to record and monitor pupil attendance data and must show how they improve attendance and punctuality (Ofsted, 2022). School absence has been primarily addressed as a safeguarding risk factor (DfE, 2022a) but this is changing, with the publication of the 2022 DfE attendance guidance and recent government ambitions to improve mental health support and provisions for young people. School Attendance Support Teams and Mental Health Support Teams are being introduced (DfE, 2022b; Ellins et al, 2021) to work with schools, signifying a shift from a more procedural and punitive approach to a more supportive and integrated one, alongside current systems of monitoring and sanctions. Policies outline the roles of stakeholders in understanding risk and protective factors, developing a whole school culture and supporting children’s mental health. In this presentation, focus is on research questions such as: What are the key changes in policies related to attendance, especially in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic? How do relevant policies inform school practice and how are they informed by evidence? How does the school culture promote attendance? What support and funding is in place within and for schools to implement sustainable changes? Government policies and guidance related to pupil wellbeing, welfare and school attendance will be reviewed. Inspection reports, school policies and attendance data will be examined. Document analysis and attendance data trends will inform further research questions for subsequent focus group interviews with teachers and non-teaching staff and interviews with secondary school pupils, experiencing school attendance problems. Absence rates have increased since 2019, and are higher among secondary school pupils, pupils with special educational needs and pupils with mental health problems (gov, 2023; John et al, 2022). The interviews will explore the views and experiences of secondary school staff and pupils of the support, strategies and interventions available and their effectiveness. Changes in relevant policies and guidance documents and agreement and discrepancies between policy and practice are compared. School policies and procedures will reveal contextual approaches of schools.

DfE. (2022a). Keeping children safe in education 2022. Statutory guidance for schools and colleges. September 2022. London: Department for Education DfE. (2022b). Working together to improve school attendance. Guidance for maintained schools, academies, independent schools and local authorities. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-improve-school-attendance Ellins, J., Singh, K., Al-Haboubi, M., Newbould, J., Hocking, L., Bousfield, J., McKenna, G., & Fenton, S.-J. M., Nicholas. (2021). Early evaluation of the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Trailblazer programme. Interim Report. gov.uk. (2023). Pupil Attendance in Schools. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/pupil-attendance-in-schools/2022-week-50 John, A., Friedmann, Y., DelPozo-Banos, M., Frizzati, A., Ford, T., & Thapar, A. (2022). Association of school absence and exclusion with recorded neurodevelopmental disorders, mental disorders, or self-harm: a nationwide, retrospective, electronic cohort study of children and young people in Wales, UK. Lancet Psychiatry, 9(1), 23-34. Ofsted. (2022). School inspection handbook. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-inspection-handbook-eif/school-inspection-handbook