Who's not here...? Working towards keeping "absentee students" at school

Section Three: Concluding Comments

Chapter Nine - Advice from Schools

All those interviewed were asked a series of questions about the effectiveness of the systems operating in their school, any problems they could see with these, and any improvements they felt could be made. They were also asked if there was any advice they could offer to other schools. The answers to these questions have provided the information given here in the form of advice that these schools had for other schools considering setting up or refining their systems for monitoring attendance or following up absences.

The schools participating in the study were generally prepared to assist other schools either by talking to them about the system operating in their school (by phone or by visiting), or by having the other school visit them to observe the system in action. Many schools were also prepared to allow other schools to have copies of the forms or other documents that they used. (Please read the instructions at the beginning of Appendix One before contacting schools.)

One published resource was recommended by the schools. This was The School Attendance and Truancy Kit produced by the South Auckland visiting teachers.

Advice was given by most schools on how to encourage attendance for all children. A positive and warm school climate was seen as an essential element, as was being seen to care about the welfare of the students in the school and establishing good rapport with them so that they wanted to attend school.

Also important was the need to welcome students back when they returned to school and not to be punitive about non-attendance -

‘… they’re not going to be singled out for any special kind of punishment or anything like that because I believe that’s the worse thing that you con do to kids that have got trouble getting to school…’

The need to examine school programmes and to make them more attractive and relevant to student needs, to develop exciting child-related programmes at the primary level, and the introduction at self-esteem programmes for children were also mentioned.

ADVICE OFFERED TO SCHOOLS

A number of schools were reticent about giving advice to other schools emphasising that every situation deserves its own methods. It is important, they stated, for schools to look at their own school, their philosophy, their staff, their resources, and their community, as well as to recognise the uniqueness of problems, and that issues should be dealt with individually. It was suggested that school personnel sit down and look at what other schools do. They should then work out a system suited to the resources they have - trial it with an open mind, and change the approach if it does not work. Schools should not import a system and expect it to work. As one school stated when asked what advice they would offer other schools -

‘Wouldn’t presume to do so. Tailor it (the system) to (your) own needs. Look at what’s happening - think about it.’

The importance of being flexible and innovative and trying things again even it they did not work in the past was highlighted by a few schools -

‘Recognise a good idea, wherever it comes from, and use it.’

Schools first need to admit that there is an attendance problem, then decide the priority they will give it in relation to other problems facing the school -

‘The number of crises we actually deal with are fewer than the number of crises that actually exist. And you’ve got to prioritise where truancy is... Time moved to dealing with truancy means (time) taken away from learning.’

One school considered that it was important not to look at attendance and how non-attendance was dealt with, in terms of ‘winners and losers’, as they felt all the power was ultimately with the students. Building on this, another reasoned that students views should be taken into account when dealing with problems of attendance.

Schools mentioned that truancy should not be seen in isolation - that is an indication that there are other problems. Any system to improve attendance needs to be closely linked with the guidance network and a holistic approach taken to solving problems of non-attendance/absenteeism. It must also be recognised that the process needs to be carried out in a systematic and culturally appropriate way. It is also expensive in terms of time, resources, and funding.

The importance of harmony between community and school, and between two cultures, to achieve success was also stressed by a number of schools.

MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURES

The mere existence of a system will act as a deterrent and improve the attendance of some students. Therefore, it is worthwhile just doing something.

Extensive advice was given by schools as to what makes on effective monitoring and follow-up system. Many schools stressed that the system needed to be simple. This simplicity should extend to the forms in use which should also be kept to minimum. Simplicity also enhanced user friendliness.

Consistency was another feature required of a system by a number of schools. Consistency in applying rules enabled everyone to know where they stood. Persistence was also mentioned along with determination, or as some saw it, ‘bloody mindedness’.

Just over a third of schools stressed the importance of getting on to things quickly -

‘Immediacy - the fact that every hour I can tell anybody whether their kid is here.’

It was considered particularly important for primary schools to establish a system which allows the school to start tracking down absences rapidly. This was particularly so in terms of child safety (eg. if someone was to abduct a child on the way to school). Presenting this view to parents is also a way of gaining their cooperation.

Speed in terms of nipping potentially bad habits in the bud, both early in a child’s school career and at any time as they develop, was also mentioned by some schools.

For just over a third of schools clear communication of the policy to all participants, both within and outside the school was important.

Poor communication between staff was identified as a problem of some the systems. Other communication problems were the increasing number of phones being cut off and the mobility of some parents who were often difficult to track down, especially if they were not on the phone or telephone numbers were out of date. An alternative contact number was suggested as a means of getting around the latter problem such as a work number, or a neighbour’s or another family member’s number. A lack of phone lines both into and out of some schools was also seen as a problem, as was being charged business rates for phone calls made from schools.

Good communication coupled with clear statements of policy, procedures, and strategies was suggested by over half the schools.

‘Once policy is written, all parents should get a copy containing a separate sheet on what they can do if someone is away and what they can expect it they don’t do it’

A third of schools mentioned the need for a time allowance to be built into the system for the person overseeing attendance. However, this time commitment was also seen as a problem by just over half of the schools. The issue of schools feeling that teachers should be teaching and not policing was also brought up by some schools.

While most schools recommended that one person oversee the system, some schools felt that a team approach was more appropriate. The need for effective cross checking and monitoring thereby providing a back-up was also stressed.

Most schools felt that the classroom teachers were the key to the success of the system. Stringent monitoring of rolls and making sure absences are recorded was considered crucial for success. The diligence at all staff was considered crucial by some schools. Not surprisingly, human error was also considered a problem in most schools. A number of schools stated that a system was only as good as the people who operated it -

‘To a degree our system stands and falls on (a) gathering information, and (b) follow-up through whānau teachers.’

To aid the follow-up of poor attenders, an attendance officer was considered essential by some schools which had them, with a number of others suggesting that having one would improve their systems. While the need for an attendance officer was agreed upon, just who should fill this role was in some dispute. Some schools felt that an attendance officer needed to be a member of staff but this was often only possible at the expense of classroom teaching, while others felt that it needed to be someone not directly associated with the school. Some schools considered that it would be advantageous to separate the policing of attendance from the caring role they wanted their school to project. Having an attendance officer who was not part of the school staff would aid this. Whatever option schools choose, it is crucial that the ‘right’ person is selected otherwise it would be a complete waste of time and money. Visiting teachers were also concerned that their role did not become one of a truancy officer. Appointing an attendance officer would stop this trend which was becoming evident in some areas.

Schools with Māori children, it was suggested, may need a wider network of contacts for getting on to problems quickly or for help in solving problems. One school stressed the importance of being careful about who is be involved in these activities; on understanding of ‘who is who’ in Māori society and who can be called on to do things was also considered to be crucial. Another school used the expertise of a whānau member in an in-school support group. This person also undertook home visits which cemented a relationship between home and school. The importance of using other appropriate contacts was also noted in schools with Pacific Islands children.

Other advice offered by schools that would assist in monitoring and follow-up included - having a computerised attendance recording system and a good program, a push bike for use in chasing absentee students (as ‘it can go everywhere including down alleys’), a good car bike rack for use when transporting students with bikes to and from school, and a dog deterrent device for use when visiting homes which had large and often unfriendly dogs. Also mentioned was the need for schools to distinguish between non-compliance of parents in getting the children to attend school and the ‘special needs’ of parents which may affect children’s attendance, and also knowing when to give up.
 

Chapter Ten - Concerns and Issues

There were several clearly defined concerns which gave rise to this study. These have already been outlined at the beginning of this report. The Information, gathered from schools in the course of this study, has served to reinforce those concerns expressed by the School Trustees Association, and others, about the system as if presently exits, and also to highlight other concerns which were more directly related to the school themselves. Some of these were elicited in response to a series of questions on problems that schools faced In monitoring and following up attendance, and any problems they saw within the particular system they had operating in their school. Several of these have already been raised in other sections of this report. This section pulls these together and discusses the areas of concern raised by the schools more fully.

THE ROLE OF THE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES

Boards of trustees under the Education Act 1989 have the responsibility of taking all ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure that students who are required to attend school, do so . Although boards may decide it is practical to delegate most of this responsibility to schools, particularly the day-to-day aspects of monitoring attendance and following up absences, they cannot abrogate their responsibilities altogether. Establishing the respective role and responsibilities of the board and the school should be negotiated and clarified. However, it is clear that, under the Act, the board has ultimate responsibility.

Given the legal responsibilities conferred on boards of trustees, the question arises as to how they can meet these most effectively. One way is to have a person on the board who is assigned particular responsibility for attendance. For instance, some schools in the study said that they had disciplinary committees which involved board members. With formal structures in place, teaching staff and board member are then able to liaise on issues of attendance.

THE EDUCATION REVIEW OFFICE

Few school raised the role of the Education Review Office with regard to school attendance. Within its general review procedures, the Education Review Office is interested in the attendance of students because this is one of the factors that influence student achievement. The Review Office recognises that poor attendance and poor learning are linked. When reviewers detect, or have their attention drawn to, a lack of learning progress, they are likely to focus on the school’s policies and practices to encourage pupil attendance and to discourage absences and persistent truancy.

Where a school has included polices on attendance and truancy within its local goals, the Review Office would be interested in any evaluations of the achievements of those policies carried out by the school.

During a review there may be opportunities for reviewers to discuss informally aspects of pupil attendance of concern to the board, the principal, staff, and community. Such discussions could include suggestions about how improvements could be achieved.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ATTENDANCE

Schools in the study considered they faced a dilemma when they suspected that parents or caregivers were condoning a child’s absence.

Under the Education Act 1989, all parents have a responsibility to ensure their children attend school. Absences must be covered by an explanatory note from parents or caregivers. In most schools such a note is considered ‘sacrosanct’. Where patterns of absence are clearly identified by the school, but are covered by a note from the parent or caregiver, schools may need to look more critically at the notes. Such a step may reveal that some parents are condoning their children’s absence. Schools then need to consider ways they can communicate to parents the importance of education and their responsibilities under the Act.

REMOVAL FROM ROLLS AFTER 20 DAYS ABSENCE

Schools had different understandings of the legal requirements regarding the removal from their rolls of students who have been unjustifiably absent from school for 20 consecutive days. The majority of schools in this study did remove students at this point, but most did it with great reluctance. Most schools went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that students, especially those under 15, were attending another school, or to find out what their plans were before they removed them from their roll. Reference was made to phoning other schools - which were sometimes a considerable distance from the first school; checking with dental nurses; using the itinerant and visiting teachers network; contacting neighbours or relatives; and visiting previously known addresses. The reason schools gave for their reluctance to remove students from the roll was that, once removed, there was no record of that child at that school and possibly not at any other school either. At this point, enrolment and attendance become two separate issues. While the whereabouts of the child becomes the responsibility of the parents, if they are not enrolled in a school, there is no-one who has the responsibility for following this up. Thus children effectively fall through a crack in the present system. Concern was also expressed that removal from the roll after 20 days was too quick especially if the family did not wish to be contacted for domestic or other reasons.

Presently confusion exists between the ‘20 day rule’ and the obligations of schools to try to ensure the attendance of truant children. This is currently being investigated by the Ministry of Education.

Another issue related to the ‘20 day rule’ was the concern expressed by schools about parents who were deliberately abusing this rule. As one principal said -

‘I have a real concern about the fact that they can come for one day in every 20 days and still be on the roll - that’s legally what they can do. They’re from families deliberately working the system. That’s a bad loophole in the system -because we can’t force the child to school. We can only ring the home regularly.’

COMPULSORY SCHOOL ENROLMENT

Under the Education Act 1989, except where exemptions under this Act are granted, every New Zealand citizen and resident between the ages of six years and 15 years is required to be enrolled at a registered school. There has been concern expressed, however, that children are not being enrolled at school from the age at six years; that they are not being re-enrolled in a new school when they shift from one school district to another; or are not enrolling at intermediate school when they move from a contributing primary to an intermediate, or at secondary school when they have completed their primary schooling. Thus there are three ways in which children can become ‘lost’ to the system, and there is no overall systematic way in which schools follow them up. Changes to school enrolment schemes permitted under the Education Amendment Act 1991, should they occur, may also allow some students to ‘become lost’. Under this amendment, schools may operate enrolment schemes if they consider overcrowding of their school would otherwise occur.

The topic of non-enrolment at the age of six years is not addressed in this section, but the other two issues of changing schools and changes to enrolment schemes are discussed.

Chaining Schools

Schools identified gaps in the system for monitoring students moving to and from schools, particularly from form 2 to form 3.

Primary schools were most likely to have an established practice in place for checking on students who they knew or suspected had left, or were coming into their school. This system relied on the progress card for each student being requested by the receiving school. If this card was not requested within a specified length of time, some schools then investigated the student’s whereabouts themselves. This was usually done by phoning local schools; asking peers, siblings, or other relatives if they knew where the student was; or utilising the visiting teacher network or other agencies to try to track down the student. In one education district, the names of students who had left one school but whose cards had not been requested by their new school were sent to the district office. This list was then circulated around schools in the district in a newsletter. In taking this approach, however, care needs to be exercised in publishing the names of possibly truant children, and circulating that list as an incorrectly published name could lead to a defamation case.

Keeping track of student movement between primary/intermediate and secondary schools also relied on students’ progress cards being requested by the new school. Some primary and intermediate schools also went one step further and compiled a list of the students who would be attending various colleges in the area and distributing these to the colleges who would then check whether the student arrived. If they did not, the college would then notify the primary or intermediate of this. The movement of students at this level caused considerable concern for some schools and one principal had this to say -

‘There is a problem that I think needs to be recognised - there is no recorded list of who is in form 2 going to (form 3) so as to know who should be coming into form 3, and suspect there are children who never go from a primary to a secondary school. In fact we know there are (some children) in... They just float out at that stage. So (in those cases) nobody says “you have to go to school” and nobody picks them up. So if they don’t enrol at a school we have no way of knowing that they haven’t enrolled at a school... We will chase up any who are enrolled and don’t turn up but can’t do anything about the others so that is a major worry’

Secondary schools were less likely to have a system in place to check that students leaving their school arrived or enrolled at another. Some secondary schools said that students leaving their school for another are supposed to sign a leaving form at the former and they would be given a letter to take to their new school. However, this did not always happen. Secondary schools often relied on informal means of tracking down students who may not have enrolled at a new school.

Due to time and financial constraints schools considered that they could not check all students. They have to rely on schools requesting progress cards, and parents taking the initiative and ensuring that they enrol their children at a new school. They will only follow up students who had been a problem at their school or who they were told were still in the area, but had not enrolled at another school.

Many schools requested a centralised system, for monitoring the movement of students between schools, because they felt that, otherwise, there was too much opportunity for students to ‘get lost’. They felt that schools should be able to notify someone and one school envisaged a national system whereby schools could not count the student for funding/roll purposes until the school had the progress card.

Legislated Changes to Enrolment

The Education Amendment Act 1991 repeals the existing enrolment scheme provisions for primary and secondary schools and allows boards of trustees to adopt enrolment schemes, if this is considered necessary, to prevent overcrowding of their school. Where an enrolment scheme is in force, a student can only enrol at a particular school if they are entitled to do so. Concern has been expressed that this may allow schools to be more selective about which students they allow to enrol. Such schemes may not only increase opportunities for excluding particular students, but also increase the chances of children slipping through the net.

For these reasons, schools participating in this study were asked If they intended making any changes to their enrolment schemes as a result of this amendment to the Act. It should be noted that as the changes were announced only a short time before the fieldwork was carried out, few schools had had the opportunity to discuss this. Most of the schools said that they could not foresee any changes being made, and some said if any were made this would most likely be a policy of inclusion rather than exclusion. One secondary school did reply that they were proposing to take in form 1 and form 2 students. Permission to do this had been applied for prior to the amendment to the Act being passed.

SOCIAL FACTORS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO AND COMPOUND ATTENDANCE PROBLEMS

Schools pointed out that no matter how good their monitoring and follow-up procedures were, and no matter haw good they tried to make their school environment, they could not always succeed when they had to contend with community or family realities. Frequently cited examples were parents who condoned student absence because they needed their children’s help or company at home; because they did not place a high value on education; or because they covered up for their children.

Schools reported that family circumstances often made it difficult for children to either attend school, or arrive on time. Schools gave examples of families where no-one got out of bed in the morning to get the children ready for school; of older siblings having to deliver their younger siblings to school on their way to school; of some students who lived in abject poverty in motor camps, trucks, and mobile homes: of those who had limited resources for food, clothing, and transportation: and of students in some rural areas who had to travel considerable distances on foot or by horse an poor roads to get to school. Many students had difficulty getting to school as a result of one or a combination of these factors. Conversely there were others also affected by these factors who still arrived at school on time every day.

One school suggested that some of the regulations relating to attendance should be looked at. (In this instance they were referring specifically those relating to bussing students.) They cited the example of a parent who had two troublesome sons. The parent did not have a car and was unable to accompany them to the school gates every day. The only way be could ensure that his children arrived at school every day was to put them on the school bus. However, he did not live far enough out of town to qualify for the free bus and could not afford to pay the fares. Therefore, there was no way that he felt he could ensure that the two boys attended school every day.

A few schools questioned current practices that tell students that absence is ‘okay’; for example, public holidays which do not fall on a Monday or Friday so families take an extra long weekend; stop-work meetings: or days off as a reward for reaching a certain level of performance. Some respondents also questioned the practice of suspension for non-attendance.

Sociocultural differences, especially in schools with a high proportion of Māori students, were mentioned by both Māori and non-Māori respondents. The problems arising from these differences included meeting the needs of these students especially in attending tangi and hui. It was noted by one school that the need to attend class at particular times of the day, week, or year often made it difficult to accommodate the needs of Māori students with regard to attendance at tangi and hui. All the participating schools allowed their students to attend and very few questioned their students about it. If, however, it was felt that the student was taking advantage of the school and abusing the opportunity – some schools would speak to the student about their concern. Some school noted that it tended to be the same students who were involved in every tangi and took a week off school for each one – but generally students were responsible about it -

‘We tell the parents and children that tangi are important - but so is school and we ask them to weigh up the importance of the third, forth, fifth day away.’

Schools with a high proportion of Pacific Islands students mentioned similar problems, with a conflict between the school telling the students that they had to attend school at certain time, and the student’s strict upbringing which tells them that they must obey their parents -

‘That can be difficult for them - if you say to them - “if you’re not sick we expect you at school”. But then you’ve still got to understand they have to do what their parents say. Sometimes that can make it very awkward if you lay too much on the child, because irrespective of what the child knows as best, they’ve still got obey parents.’

Schools may need to consider carefully their provisions for attending such activities as those mentioned above, and the relative freedom with which students are permitted to participate in such things as organised ski trips and sporting events -

‘It is a paradox to see a principal berate two pupils for their absence on Friday and Monday (they attended family reunions) and five minutes later to see the same principal smilingly wish a bus load of pupils well as they set off to watch a rugby test….’

RESOURCES WITHIN THE SCHOOL

When asked what they considered to be problems they faced in monitoring and following up attendance matters, most schools replied without hesitation - time and money. On the subject of costs one principal went on to say -

‘Actually, checking attendance, when I think about it, must actually cost the school quite a lot of money. I’ve got one computer just about full-time on attendance - two hours everyday - that’s about $150 per week in just secretarial time. And then there’s the Dean’s time and all the time teachers spend filling in forms. It’s quite an enormous amount of money.’

Most schools felt that they did not have enough resources to be able to cope with all the problems with which they were faced when trying to get students to, and keeping them at, school. Schools commented on having to weigh up the cost of spending a lot of time and energy on a small number of students - sometimes to no avail - and catering for the majority.

School have made a very big commitment both in professional staff time and in money to any system designed to carefully monitor attendance. Teachers are faced with a dilemma when they have a teaching commitment as well as responsibility for following up absentees/’bunkers’. They need to weigh up this time against the time that is not being spent in teaching and learning. In many schools, but more especially secondary schools, attendance matters would take up two hours or more per day of the designated person’s time. For this reason schools said that it was necessary to have a specific time allocation for this job, and that the government needed to recognise this when considering student/staff ratios.

A small number of schools commented that their system was as effective as it could be given the resources they had available, and several questioned the criteria used to qualify for equity funding.

Schools may need help in either introducing a computerised system of recoding absentees and/or making use of the available system - for example, most schools did not record the reasons for absences on the computer. It was also suggested that the ministry could look at its requirements with regard to attendance and then develop a system which could incorporate the current regulations (The Education (School Attendance) Regulations 1951, Regulation 3) computerised systems must be additional to the marking of the register of daily attendance which is supplied by the Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Education.

Stress, long hours, revisiting old territory, fatigue, financial constraints, and transport difficulties were also alluded to by some respondents. It was noted by one school that, while some systems were good at identifying truants, they were not necessarily as effective in turning truants into good attenders, which was evident from the number of revisits they had to make.

ATTENDANCE OFFICERS

As mentioned previously, a number of schools felt that an attendance officer was essential for following up poor attenders. Community groups felt that it was important that they could support somebody like an attendance officer and referred to dramatic improvements in attendance with the appointment of attendance officers. Schools, however, had appointed voluntary attendance officers.

Some schools participating in the study had overcome the lack of funding by sharing an attendance officer with other schools in their area. No schools, however, had appointed voluntary attendance officers.

Schools suggested that the government needed to look at its funding of schools in the broadest sense. Whether or not schools could afford to employ an attendance officer depended on -

‘… the extra resource assistance schools get for their population. I think the government must look broadly at it too. By funding something like an attendance officer there are so many other social problems that they are not going to be funding. Truancy, crime, all these other things aren’t going to be occurring because the kids are in the classroom - very cost effective. Once they are in the classroom you can then do something about helping them learn.’

Schools also felt that if they applied for equity funding for the specific purpose of employing an attendance officer, they may well lost it once their attendance problems were resolved. This would possibly result in the problems re-emerging after a short period of time. On this basis at least one of the schools visited had argued successfully for their equity funding to be continued.

The role of the attendance officer also needs to be clearly defined. Some school would like to see this as being more that of the former truancy officers and separate from the school. In this situation the attendance officer would have a more disciplinary role. Other schools felt that the attendance officer should definitely be someone within the school.

BACK-UP RESOURCES

Schools identified as a major problem the lack of back-up and assistance from other sources outside the school; ie. visiting teachers who are overloaded; changes of focus in the policy of the Department of Social Welfare mean they no longer assist school as they did previously; and the increased workload of many of the local police which had also resulted in less assistance, in the area of combating truancy, being available to schools.

Many schools expressed concern about the lack of back-up from Social Welfare and felt that there should be a review of truancy provisions and their role in this area. Their assistance in the past was considered valuable and schools regretted that it was no longer available.

Under the Children and Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, truancy on its own is not sufficient grounds for the Department of Social Welfare to take action under the care and protection provisions. It is necessary for schools to demonstrate that truancy actively contributes to a child or young person being in need of care and protection under the Act (s 14). However, section 31 (5 (b)), of the Education Act 1989 states that if the school is not satisfied by a person’s answers that the person has good reason for not being at school, the attendance officer or member of the police shall report the matter to the Director General of Social Welfare. This is an anomaly given the responsibilities of Social Welfare under the new Act and may have contributed to the frustration expressed by schools.

Back-up from the Youth Aid Section of the Police was seen by school as being less forthcoming than it was in the past. Although under the Education Act 1989, the police are able to take certain actions regarding children who are not at school. Whether these are carried out and the extent to which they are carried out varies from one area to another. The police are also facing cutbacks in resources and personnel and have to prioritise their commitments accordingly.

The abolition of Education Boards, which had overall responsibility for monitoring attendance and enrolment, in 1989, and the transfer of the responsibility for attendance to school boards of trustees was seen by school and their boards of trustees to compound the problem -

‘We, as an institution, are in a cleft stick. We have to do everything possible to get students to attend. If they don’t attend, (we) don’t have (the) resources to keep on following them up. (We) don’t have the resources or authority to go to parents and tell them they’re breaking the law. (The) Act itself falls into a grey area - moving central monitoring to individual school monitoring.’

Although back-up resources which were once readily available from other government agencies are now only available on a more restricted basis, there are others within the community which can be called on by the schools. It was noted by some school that there are people in the community who are more than willing to help schools, but who may not know how to initiate contact with the school. Care in selection of these people and clear definition of their role is necessary, but, as noted, it is for the schools to identify and tap these resources.

GOVERNMENT POLICES AND SENIOR STUDENTS

Changes to government policies in both the areas of education and social welfare were considered by schools to have had a profound effect on attendance at secondary school. Changes to the structure of the benefit system and the age of eligibility for benefits has meant that schools are now facing the prospect of having an increasing number of senior students who would otherwise have left school at the age of 15 years. Keeping these students at school according to those interviewed, has become increasingly difficult, as they had been disaffected from school at an early age, but now have no other options available to them -

‘To be quite honest, unemployment encourages them to attend (school) - one, to get grades, secondly, (not attending school for 20 consecutive days and being taken off the roll)… takes people (students’ parents) off the DPB, so that is an incentive for the student to attend school.’

Cuts to LINK and funding for other such courses that schools could utilise for these students has meant that schools are now expected to do virtually everything themselves to keep these students out of trouble, and interested in gaining additional qualifications to improve their prospects of employment.

On a per capita basis these students, because of their need for special programmes were considered to be more expensive to teach and keep at school . Schools, however, saw little likelihood at the time these interviews were carried out, of any increases to their funding to cover the costs involved in this area of education. One of the groups interviewed stated -

‘By retaining these kids in school - we are having to deal with their problems in school. (They are) more expensive to teach. (We are) meeting the needs of these students more effectively by keeping them in school.’

Another policy change that had affected at least one school (an intermediate) was cuts to the RESTART programme run by the New Zealand Employment Service (NZES). This scheme had enabled this particular school to utilise personnel provided for them by NZES to run activities within the school, before and after school, and during the lunch hour. The school had found this support for their student activities very valuable.

RECOURSE TO THE LAW

Despite the provisions to prosecute parents under section 31(7) of the Education Act 1989, school felt the present act ‘lacked teeth’. Ultimately schools felt there was very little that they could do to make reluctant parents send their children to school. Only three schools have prosecuted parents since 1989 and two of these were ‘successful’. It costs the school a great deal in resources to prosecute and if their efforts to get students back to school are not upheld by the law, then, like one school in the study, they will just give up. The fines imposed in the past were criticised by schools as being nominal and certainly did not cover the costs incurred by the school. In some instances, fines have not been paid. This could change if fine recovery was placed in the hands of private credit recovery firms.

The greatest strength seen by schools in this process was its ‘threat value’. Initiating proceedings may cost as little as a postage stamp to the district court. In the past this has been enough to bring back some absentee students. Prosecutions themselves may not get the students concerned back to school, but they served as a warning to other parents and students. Schools themselves must weigh up the value of prosecuting, given the circumstances pertaining to their own school, but it does raise the question of the value, including the threat value, of the law if it is ultimately not used by the schools. Likewise if the fines imposed are of little consequence, the threat value is minimised and schools may be less inclined to initiate prosecution. If the observation that students not attending school are often from poorer families which would be unable to pay the fine is true, then alternative penalties may need to be considered.

CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMUNITY

The involvement of the wider community in matters of school attendance has already been discussed elsewhere in this report. Schools with Māori and Pacific Islands students may need to develop more culturally appropriate means of dealing with the reasons for these students’ non-attendance. For instance, Māori alternatives to pākehā solutions are being developed. The Kirikiriroa Marae based school - Te Kuhuna - is being set up as an attached unit to a local intermediate school for students of intermediate and secondary school age. The unit aims to meet the physical, social, intellectual, and spiritual needs of students and enable them to return successfully to mainstream education. Another example was a ‘Mana of Maoridom’ course being run by one of the participating secondary schools. This course was run in association with the school’s Transition and Māori Studies Departments. Section 3 of the Education Amendment Act (No.2) 1991, repeals the need for schools to employ only registered teachers, thus opening up the possibility of employing a wide range of people from different cultural backgrounds.

One school suggested that it may be necessary for schools to select suitable people from the community to work with the various ethnic groups within the school. However, it was also said that care needed to be taken to ensure that the ‘right people’ were selected. Schools also need to be careful in their use or personnel other than warranted attendance officers to do anything other than simply visiting homes to make enquiries or to inform parents. Activities beyond this could lead to accusations of misconduct. One school gave this as one of the reasons behind their practice of always having two staff members visit homes together. It was further suggested by another school that money should be put aside to train the support people in following up absences and problems. The training could include an understanding of the legal standing of such personnel as well as the actions it is appropriate for them to undertake.