Chapter 5Addressing school refusal: other barriers and opportunities
Overview
5.1In addition to the need for a national approach to school refusal, evidence presented to the inquiry revealed a range of factors that currently impede efforts to address school refusal. While not an exhaustive list of the issues raised by participants during the inquiry, the following factors were identified as key barriers to reducing rates of school refusal:
a lack of awareness and understanding of school refusal;
the need for a stronger wellbeing focus in schools;
the need for early identification and a framework to guide evidence-based interventions;
the need for better cross-sector collaboration; and
a lack of availability of information and resources to support parents.
5.2While these factors represent barriers to addressing school refusal, they also present areas of opportunity, where taking action has the potential to make a difference for children and young people experiencing school refusal.
Improved awareness and understanding of school refusal
5.3Numerous participants highlighted the lack of awareness and understanding around school refusal in both the education and health sectors, as well as among parents and the wider community.
5.4The committee heard about the impact of the belief that school refusal results from 'bad' parenting, or that children who experience school refusal are simply misbehaving. Professor Jennie Hudson, of the Black Dog Institute (BDI), reflected on the impact of this belief:
There's a misconception that I think has perpetuated some of the issues that we're seeing today—that students who are unable to attend school do so because they're misbehaving or naughty. Another misconception is a parent-blaming one—that parents just aren't strong enough to get their kids to school and that they've just got to make their kids go.
5.5More than one participant pointed out that centring the issue within students and families ignores what is happening in the school to contribute to school refusal. Ms Lisa Coles, parent and principal of an independent school, told the committee that this placed the responsibility on parents when 'it's not going home that's the problem':
We would say that, if a person doesn't want to go home at the end of the day, we would examine what's happening in that home that makes that young person not want to go home. We have a reverse situation here, when the young person doesn't want to go to school. What is happening in that space that is not making the school an attractive, safe and secure place for them to unlock their potential?
5.6Evidence provided to the committee suggested that misconceptions about school refusal can also be underpinned or amplified by mistaken beliefs relating to some of the underlying risk factors for school refusal. For example, the Tasmanian Association for the Gifted reported that one of its members was told by a school psychologist that 'they didn't believe gifted students existed'.
5.7A lack of understanding about school refusal was identified by families as a key contributor to poor experiences with schools and health professionals and to strained relationships with friends and family members.
5.8Carers ACT described how this lack of understanding can isolate parents and carers at a time when they most need help:
A lack of understanding around the complexities of school refusal can further stigmatise the parents and carers, making it difficult for them to get the support and resources they need. These judgments can be deeply hurtful and damaging, further isolating parents and carers during a time of crisis.
5.9As a result, submitters such as School Can't (School Phobia School Refusal) Australia (School Can't Australia) proposed that the issue of school refusal be reframed as a stress response, rather than a behavioural issue. As it explained, when school refusal is viewed as a behavioural issue:
students are seen as 'wilful or defiant';
health and education professionals are more likely to see the student or their family as the source of the issue; and
professional responses are more likely to focus on attendance compliance, or 'remedying a fault within the child or family'.
5.10According to School Can't Australia, this approach does not facilitate an understanding of the reasons underlying school refusal. In addition, it can also increase the distress and shame felt by students and parents, damage parent-child and student-school relationships, worsen student mental health, and deepen school disengagement.
5.11In contrast, conceptualising school refusal as a stress response encourages adults to look for the reasons behind a child's school refusal. This means:
adults are more likely to identify barriers and provide 'accommodations and supports that meet the student at their point of need'; and
health and education professionals are more likely to collaborate with students and parents in relation to solutions and supports.
5.12According to School Can't Australia, this helps reduce student stress, and makes students and parents 'feel understood, supported and safe in their interactions with teachers and clinicians'. Parents have also reported feeling empowered by this approach to 'connect with their child' and to seek assessments, solutions and supports that can help their child 'recover and thrive'.
5.13School Can't Australia suggested a range of practices that could help inform a better understanding of school refusal. These included Dr Ross Greene's Collaborative and Proactive Solutions, Shanker Self-Reg, The Polyvagal Theory, Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory, and trauma informed and inclusive education practices.
5.14Accordingly, numerous participants advocated for better training for education and health professionals. In addition, more than one participant advocated for a public awareness campaign to reduce stigma and improve understanding of school refusal within the community. School Can't Australia noted that a public messaging campaign would also support efforts to improve data collection in relation to school absences.
Training for education professionals
5.15A number of submitters highlighted difference that individual teachers, principals and schools can make to students experiencing school refusal.
5.16Likewise, another parent attributed their son's only successful year of schooling to a teacher who understood his difficulties, worked to make him feel safe at school, adjusted assessments, and gave him the autonomy to participate in school events at a level that suited him.
5.17Evidence provided to the committee suggested that school leadership can make a profound difference to the way schools respond to children who are struggling with school refusal. One submitter described the 'best day' they could remember as a meeting with the school principal, who acknowledged how difficult the situation was and recognised her efforts as a parent:
As the top authority in this school, he validated my position in an emotionally sensitive way and made it clear he did NOT blame me for where me and my son found ourselves. Furthermore, he said he wouldn't give up on us.
And to this day, almost 5 years later he still keeps in touch, supports our new attempts at school and any new strategy we want to try.
5.18Similarly, another parent explained to TARA how moving to a new school, led by a particular principal, had made an enormous impact:
After spending an hour on a school tour the principal asked my youngest if he liked the school and if so why? His response was there no noisy bells, it's quiet here. No-one knew that the bells were a trigger because no educator had ever asked him.
The year passed peacefully with a few hiccups but nothing disastrous. I could finally let out that breath I had been holding in, I volunteered at a couple of things and I began to feel that our family would be part of the school community.
5.19However, while parents recognised the pressure on schools and acknowledged the efforts of individual teachers and principals to support their child, many also reported poor experiences within the education system. In most cases, these experiences appeared to be underpinned by a lack of understanding of school refusal. For example, one parent described being told that she was the cause of her daughter's problem:
In meetings with my child's teacher, the head teacher of kindergarten and the school psychologist, they told me that she was 'normal', that my anxiety was the problem, that attendance was not negotiable, and that it was traumatising her that I wouldn't just make the choice for her.
5.20Other parents described receiving poor or outdated advice about how to respond to their child's school refusal, including advice to 'just get them to school', to be stricter as a parent (or for the child to be more resilient), to use rewards and punishments—such as restricting access to technology, friends, or extracurricular activities, or to make home as boring as possible so they want to attend school.
5.21Parents also reported that a lack of knowledge about school refusal affected the ability and willingness of schools to provide adjustments for students.
5.22Some participants described how a school's inability to support their child's needs and provide appropriate adjustments contributed to the onset or worsening of school refusal.
5.23This appeared to align with evidence provided by Associate Professor McKay‑Brown, who noted that if schools were more aware of the early signs of school refusal and knew how to intervene, 'maybe we wouldn't see as many young people getting to the point of this chronic disengagement'.
5.24Some participants recognised that teacher workloads and school resourcing both impacted on the ability of schools to address school refusal. One parent described how they improved their son's classroom experience simply by providing the teacher with information about accommodations for students with ADHD—information the teacher had not received anywhere else:
In Grade 3 my son had a caring teacher who was willing to implement a few basic accommodations for kids with ADHD in the classroom that I taught her. I recall her light bulb moment 'He's easier to teach when I do this!' Itwas a revelation to her. She had to be taught accommodations by a parent, she had not learnt them anywhere else.
5.25Accordingly, many participants recommended more training for educators around the issue of school refusal, as well as its underlying risk factors. Additional teacher training was also supported by the results of a survey by School Can't Australia—when asked 'what the education system could do to prevent school can't', one third of respondents commented on the need for teacher understanding and education. This included education around 'disability, inclusion, mental health and school can't, and particularly understanding masking and connection'.
5.26However, some participants also noted that calls for more training were coming from schools and teachers themselves. For example, Mrs Melinda Gindy of the Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented (AAEGT), reported commonly receiving emails from teachers seeking course recommendations related to gifted education. Similarly, Associate Professor McKay-Brown told the committee that she and her colleagues receive 'constant requests for training to better understand this', with a particular focus on picking up early warning signs for school refusal.
5.27In addition to training in early identification, some participants identified the potential for more training in models such as CPS, trauma and trauma‑informed practice, disability (including neurodivergence), mental health, gifted education, reasonable adjustments and individual learning plans, and family engagement. Other participants also highlighted the need to provide additional training for other school staff, including teaching assistants and school support officers, who are often a primary source of support for students with complex needs.
5.28To this end, Ms Julie Birmingham of the Australian Government Department of Education agreed with the suggestion that education on school refusal should be included in initial teacher education courses. Ms Birmingham also informed the committee about 'a Budget commitment to develop professional learning for teachers on some of those things … that will go to … the broader toolkit for teachers and what they need to graduate with to be able to do their job well'.
5.29Although supportive of additional training for teachers, some participants suggested that a careful approach would be needed to avoid creating unreasonable expectations of teachers. For example, Mrs Kristie de Brenni of Queensland Pathways State College explained that while there was 'absolutely' more room for teachers to learn about early identification (both in terms of disability early identification and trauma-informed early identification), teachers needed to be able to 'stay in their lane of teaching and learning':
I don't want to see the PD of teachers and the expectation of parents to be, 'Well, the teacher should have identified that; that's the teacher's responsibility,' because it's not the teacher's responsibility. There is a parent responsibility. There are healthcare responsibilities. … So what are those early identifications that we can take and refer on and let the teacher teach?
5.30A similar point was made by Ms Carolyn Grantskalns of Independent Schools Australia (ISA), who pointed to the need for specialised support in schools, rather than simply continuing to expand the role of teachers:
We already know that teacher workload is a huge issue … While their job is to teach and, inevitably, build a closer relationship with their students—because we know that fosters effective learning—to then ask them to step outside that role to become the counsellor or the psychologist, even with some training, is an unreasonable ask. What is needed are people with specialised skills who can support the classroom teacher, rather than expecting that the classroom teacher will take on that additional role.
5.31The need to increase specialised support was also highlighted by Mrs de Brenni, who referred to her time at Ipswich State High School, where they had 1.5 guidance officers for its 1500 students:
How am I meant to get any data for our young people or even identify if I've got 1½ people? Schools are often using their own funds to increase this allocation of guidance officer funds. It's money well spent, but it's still never enough. For 1500 kids, you need more than one. You need a guidance officer per year level. These year levels often have 300 or 400 students in them as it is, and that's a big client base for that guidance officer.
5.32The potential impact on teacher workloads was also recognised by Mrs Stephanie Hodge of The Therapy Place, who underscored the need to be 'realistic' about demands on educational staff. Mrs Hodge went on to state that 'we certainly don't want to ask them to engage in PD that's of no value or that's excessive'.
5.33In a similar vein, Mrs Fiona Berry, also of The Therapy Place, suggested that the time required for training would be likely to vary, depending on staff member roles. For example, Mrs Berry contended that no more than 'an hour or an hour and a half of online training' would be needed for staff to become 'aware of the fundamentals' but that more training might be required for wellbeing and support staff 'because the teachers cannot do everything in this instance'.
Training for health professionals
5.34As with the education system, parents' interactions with the health sector were also mixed. A number of submitters reported positive interactions with general practitioners, psychologists and other allied health professionals. For example, one parent described having 'an incredible psychologist who has an adept understanding of school can't'. Another explained that their young person is 'now on somewhat of an even keel' after connecting with a psychologist they trust.
5.35However, participants also reported difficulties finding health care providers with an adequate understanding of school refusal. For example, one submitter described how they struggled to find 'psychologists and psychiatrists who are educated about school can't … and when I do find them their waitlists are closed'. This experience was echoed by another parent who noted that 'all books for psychologist that have the potential skill set to see our young adult are closed'.
5.36Other submitters reported health care experiences that were negative. As with education, many of these poor experiences appeared to be underpinned by a view of school refusal as either child misbehaviour or bad parenting. For example, Parents Victoria stated that psychologists are not always helpful 'as they are looking for weaknesses in upbringing and thus find themselves on the shame/blame path'.
5.37This view was reflected in a number of the personal accounts provided by parents. For example, one mother described how an educational psychologist attributed her 'profoundly gifted' child's anxiety and challenging behaviours to 'overindulgence', particularly as the behaviours presented at home, not at school.
5.38Accordingly, a range of participants supported better education and training for health professionals in relation to school refusal. For example, Carers ACT recommended regular professional development for school wellbeing teams, including psychologists. Similarly, Associate Professor Glenn Melvin proposed that health and mental health professionals and allied health professionals working with children need training in 'assessing and managing the factors underlying school refusal and skills in working within and between school and family systems, as well as evidence-based interventions'.
5.39In addition, the Western Australian Council of State School Organisations (WACSSO) recommended that health care professionals receive training aimed at 'understanding school refusal from a stress framework … supported by neuroscience in a holistic approach centred on student well-being'.
A stronger focus on student wellbeing in schools
5.40A range of participants, including various education authorities, noted the link between student wellbeing, engagement and learning. For example, MsJulieBirmingham of the Australian Government Department of Education pointed to research showing that students with mental health concerns are, on average, 1.5 to 2.8 years behind their peers by Year 9, while ISA pointed to research it commissioned which revealed the impact of poor student wellbeing on attendance, learning and academic outcomes. Its study also found that by early secondary school, 'students with a mental health condition can lag almost three years behind their peers'.
5.41The link between student wellbeing, engagement and learning was also highlighted by Save the Children and 54 reasons, which described them as 'the three pillars of quality education':
Student wellbeing and engagement are the foundations for successful learning, healthy development and long-term life outcomes. Better student wellbeing promotes engagement with learning, and better engagement with learning in turn improves wellbeing. Enhanced student wellbeing and student engagement are each strongly associated with improved resilience, educational attainment, academic learning and employment outcomes.
5.42A similar view was expressed by the South Australian Commissioner for Young People (SA Commissioner), who submitted that a balance of academics and wellbeing was required.
5.43For some participants, the weighting of schooling toward academic achievement has been intensified by a focus on the National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR). According to Ms Lisa Coles, parent and principal of an independent school, this has distorted the purpose of education:
At what point did we forget that education is about loving learning and lifetime learning, and that this is an amazing tool that exists in the service of young people, not for PISA scores, not for NAPLAN, not to compare or say, 'My school's doing better than yours because my year 5 literacy results are way up.' That is not good practice. That is not good for growing humans. It brings frustrations for parents and brings frustrations for young people, and they choose not to go.
5.44Professor Jim Watterston contended that the focus on NAPLAN and PISA was also detrimental to alternative government schools that cater for students at risk of disengagement. As an example, Professor Watterson told the committee of a school that had its funding reduced because its NAPLAN results were not strong enough. This was despite the school being one of the best alternative government schools he had seen and 'bringing in students … that would otherwise be lost to education'.
5.45Submitters such as Save the Children and 54 reasons recommended that governments 'urgently focus more on student wellbeing and engagement as critical outcomes of education in their own right'.
5.46The Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH) proposed a vision for schools as 'multi-opportunity communities', which would require shifting from a 'view of learning for academic intelligence only' to an equal focus on 'learning, wellbeing, and health for whole child development and wellbeing'. According to the CCCH, this would be underpinned by four key principles:
focus on the whole student—consider how students' physical, social and emotional conditions relate to their learning, foster high levels of trust and positive relationships between students and teachers and parents and schools, collaborate with families and health and social services, and assess student progress holistically;
health as a 21st century skill—health and wellbeing are learning outcomes in their own right, alongside skills such as literacy and numeracy;
personalised learning and wellbeing—all students are involved in co-designing their own individualised learning plans; and
build a culture of education and health—integrate health and wellbeing in the curriculum and in school routines, for example by offering healthy meals or having health services on site.
5.47Both the CCCH and Ms Birmingham noted that a focus on student wellbeing was also supported by the findings of the Productivity Commission's review of the National School Reform Agreement (see Box 5.2).
Box 5.2 Productivity Commission Review of the National School Reform Agreement (NSRA) The Productivity Commission's review of the NSRA found that many students experience poor wellbeing, and some do not receive effective support. Further, it found that: poor wellbeing directly affects students' capacity to learn; while wellbeing is influenced by a range of factors outside schools, poor wellbeing can be exacerbated by responses from schools; effective school leadership and teacher practices are essential elements for supporting student wellbeing in schools; and while there are many initiatives and resources to support wellbeing, schools have not consistently implemented evidence-based approaches for all students. Accordingly, Recommendation 5.1 of the review called on governments to include a focus on supporting student wellbeing in the next intergovernmental school reform agreement. This should include student wellbeing as an outcome of the agreement, development of a new sub-outcome on improving students' subjective wellbeing, and a commitment to annual reporting. Bilateral agreements should include actions to improve student wellbeing. At a minimum, this should include support for all schools to adopt wellbeing strategies that: provide support and training for teachers to identify students experiencing poor wellbeing and to respond appropriately; articulate the role and responsibilities of wellbeing staff within the school; and clarify student pathways for support, both within and beyond the school. |
5.48As part of a stronger focus on wellbeing in schools, participants advocated for a range of initiatives, including less emphasis on academic results as the measure of a school's worth, dedicated wellbeing teams in schools, and targeted wellbeing programs.
Non-punitive approaches to school attendance
5.49Several parents described encountering punitive and compliance-focused approaches to attendance in schools. These included formal and informal measures and actions, directed toward both parents and children. For example, one mother recounted snide comments made by teachers about school start times, as well as demands to fill in forms explaining her son's absences. At the same time, she reported that teachers refused to call her when her son expressed difficulties and also refused him access to the sick bay and toilets.
5.50Other parents informed the committee that they had been threatened with court action, fines and/or police involvement if their child did not attend school.
5.51This appeared to align with the results of a survey by School Can't Australia, which found that 'small numbers' of respondents had experienced 'punitive threats and actions from Australian education departments and schools' to force their child's attendance. This included:
letters outlining the negative impact of non-attendance;
letters threatening legal action and fines;
threats to terminate enrolment;
threats to refer a family to child protection services; and
threats that school staff or police would be deployed to escort a child to school.
5.52The School Can't Australia survey also found that some students were 'threatened with loss of privileges based on their attendance'. This included being excluded from significant school events and not permitting them to apply for leadership positions.
5.53In addition to the impact of punitive attendance measures on parents' mental health (described in Chapter 3), at least one parent also noted the 'time and emotional energy' they had lost getting their son to school and dealing with the fear of court action, when 'the focus should have been on our son's health and wellbeing as opposed to ticking a box that he was at school'.
5.54The impact on students was highlighted in evidence from the SA Commissioner, who noted that 'punitive and exclusionary "behaviour management" practices' can affect not only a student's educational attainment but also their 'emotional wellbeing, relationships and aspirations for the future'.
5.55Indeed, the BDI noted that the current system—which is designed to respond to students who won't go to school, rather than those who cannot go to school—fails to understand the student's experience and results in 'a response that is likely to lead to greater, rather than less, school refusal'. This appeared to be reflected in evidence from parents who felt that removing their children from the school system was the only way to avoid the threat of court action and reduce the emotional toll on their children and families.
5.56As a result, a number of parents questioned the motivations of schools and education departments in enforcing school attendance. One mother, who was threatened with court action and fines after only two terms of schooling, asserted that the school 'did not care' about her son's education or wellbeing and did not try to meet his needs. Instead, 'all they cared about was compliance and school attendance'. Another parent described being accused of failing their child's education when they felt the school itself was focused only on compliance, rather than education:
Our school can't journey has been quite traumatic for all involved, when senior staff can accuse us as parents for not getting our child to school, as failing them in relation to education I ask the question—is a child sitting in a classroom with internal turmoil really getting an education – no, their attendance is simply ticking a box.
5.57Accordingly, various participants advocated for the removal of punitive, compliance-focused approaches to attendance. For example, one parent argued that it was unrealistic to expect that 'every student fronts up to school every day with the same amount of capacity as every other student'. To this end, they recommended shifting the focus from attendance to wellbeing and encouraging families and schools to be responsive to students 'felt safety'.
5.58In addition, School Can't Australia recommended removing the use of fines and threatening letters. Further, the Peter Underwood Centre proposed mandating the removal of all 'pain-based' punitive policies and strategies. That is, strategies that are deliberately designed to elicit 'negative feelings such as humiliation, fear, shame, rejection, isolation, feelings of being burdensome, reduced self‑esteem, reduced self-efficacy'.
5.59To this end, the Northern Territory Department of Education (NT DoE) noted that its student engagement approach had 'transitioned away from a punitive, truancy operational model' to focus on a partnership approach to identifying and overcoming barriers to attendance.
Nuanced messages about the importance of school attendance
5.60Alongside removing punitive approaches to school attendance, some parents also suggested that a more nuanced approach was needed in relation to messaging about the importance of school attendance.For example, one parent described how their child's school newsletter began including a section titled 'Every Day Counts', which they found lacked 'sensitivity for families struggling with school refusal'. This view was reiterated by a mother who explained how the current messaging causes anxiety:
When attendance tips in the school newsletter include lines such as 'There is no safe number of days for missing school' and 'Talk positively about school and the importance of attending every day', I don't get the impression that the school understands my child's experience. It's not their fault; there are many common narratives around children and school that are accepted in our society. However, narratives are not facts, and this sort of messaging causes anxiety rather than provides support.
5.61Another parent called the 'attendance matters' narrative 'detrimental to the wellbeing of vulnerable students' and identified it as a source of significant stress for both parents and their children. In line with this view, they proposed that the current messaging be reviewed and that 'consideration be given to including education about school refusal alongside messages about attendance 'so that parents who are having difficulty with their child know how to seek help and they feel better understood and supported'.
5.62Similarly, School Can't Australia recommended changes to the messaging 'to reflect the need for wellbeing to be prioritised over compliance with attendance expectations'. It argued that recognising the necessity of staying home sometimes and alerting parents to ways they can access support would 'empower parents to focus on addressing their child's wellbeing needs'.
Trauma-informed approaches to school refusal
5.63Evidence presented to the committee suggested there was broad support for the use of trauma-informed practices in schools, including the Collaborative Proactive Solutions model.
5.64According to School Can't Australia, trauma-informed education practices are informed by neuroscience. They recognise and respond to 'the potential impact of traumatic experiences on student wellbeing, and learning'. In some cases, it is the school system itself that is the source of trauma.
5.65A survey by School Can't Australia found that a lack of trauma-informed staff was one of the top ten stressors impacting school refusal (identified by 62percent of respondents). In addition, the use of trauma-informed approaches was a common theme emerging from parents' answers to questions about how to prevent school refusal, how to reduce stress for students, and what had helped their child re-engage in learning.
5.66A number of participants contrasted trauma informed practices with behaviourist approaches that were viewed as unsuitable—and even harmful—for young people experiencing stress behaviours such as school refusal. According to Mrs Louise Rogers of School Can't Australia, behaviourism is about compliance and incentivising behaviour, which ignores the underlying causes of a child's distress:
Behaviour isn't the problem itself; there's something that triggered that behaviour, and we need to start looking at what's causing children to behave in distressed ways and identify and address those things within the context of school and home and in the whole of our society.
5.67Similarly, Meg & Tara recommended avoiding behavioural systems 'that reward children who can easily conform and punish those who cannot' as these systems do not support children who lack the skills to meet expectations. Instead, they often increase feelings of shame, fracture relationships, escalate behaviours, affect student wellbeing, and lead to increased school refusal.
5.68This point was reinforced by parents who recounted their children's experiences of behaviourist approaches. For example, one parent described how her son's school had required him to sign plans with attendance-based rewards and consequences. This approach led to increased anxiety and reduced self-esteem when he was unable to meet the set expectations.
5.69Similarly, Ms Kamya Foster of the HEN told the committee how this approach had made things worse for her neurodivergent children:
… they didn't feel safe at school; they felt misunderstood. They were being punished for things that—they're both good kids. They were doing their best. They're people pleasers. And yet they were misunderstood and being punished or called out in a classroom, making the situation just so much worse in a world that they just did not understand.
5.70To this end, participants called for more widespread adoption of trauma‑informed approaches in schools and student engagement programs, and the provision of training and resources about trauma-informed practice for both education and health professionals.
Stronger family-school engagement
5.71The committee heard that early and genuine engagement with families was critical to addressing school engagement. For example, ACSSO noted that it is too late to try and form relationships 'in the middle of a crisis'. Rather, 'engaging with families 'from day one, as respected partners' in their child's school journey facilitates 'the trusted relationships needed to discuss a student's wellbeing'. A similar view was expressed by the Queensland Independent Schools Parents Network (QISPN), which described itself as a 'strong advocate for positive and respectful learning partnerships between schools, parents and children'.
5.72The role of family engagement in understanding and improving attendance was also emphasised by various education authorities. However, Ms Lynne Gaal of the APC, noted that despite Australia's fairly long-standing policy focus on parent engagement, it is 'really hit and miss when it comes to being put into practice in school communities'.
5.73This appeared to be supported by the results of a School Can't Australia survey, which found that 33 per cent of respondents found their child's school difficult to communicate with. In addition, 42 per cent of respondents cited poor access to communication between teachers and parents as a contributing factor to school refusal. Parents also reported not being allowed access to teachers' email addresses (or worrying about privacy when using a general email address), as well as meetings 'that are infrequent, too short or only available at times when the parent is the only one home to look after the school can't child'. Other barriers to parent-school collaboration identified by survey respondents included:
difficulty finding supportive people within the school (38 per cent);
difficulty engaging the school in exploring underlying issues (36 per cent);
schools not following the recommendations of experts (29 per cent);
school refusing access to external supports (19 per cent); and
schools denying there is a problem and not providing access to school-based supports (18 per cent).
5.74To this end, the APC highlighted the impact of 'authentic methods of parent engagement' on the success of efforts to re-integrate students back in schools. Ms Gaal explained that authentic engagement meant going beyond parent teacher interviews to understand what is happening in the family unit and the community and asking parents how they would like to engage with the school.
5.75To address school refusal, some participants suggested that family engagement may also need to include outreach into families' homes. For example, MrAndrew Pierpoint of the Australian Secondary Principals' Association (ASPA) advised that, given the importance of community consultation and communication in this area, 'schools need to be comfortable with offering an outreach service'. This view was supported by Ms Coles, who explained the success of her schools' outreach program:
We've had a program running for the last two years where we've visited young people at home. We visited 250 young people. Some of those hadn't left their house for two years ... We have a 100 per cent success rate in getting those young people either back onto campuses and into education or into the workplace, because of building relationships and finding the things that they're passionate about and re-engaging them with learning ...
5.76The Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) also highlighted the role that early learning programs, such as its HIPPY program, could play in fostering relationships between parents and schools and reducing rates of school refusal.
5.77In addition, the APC also urged school leaders to value families' knowledge in relation to 'adjustments, strategies and understanding of their child'. This was supported by a number of parents who argued that their knowledge of their children should be listened to and trusted. A similar view was put forward by Mrs Giblin AM, who noted that parents know their child best:
It's really important for families to be able to express what their child's strengths are. The parent knows the child the best. They know what triggers them and know, if they are anxious, what would be the ways to avoid further anxiety during the day.
5.78While there was a desire for stronger engagement, participants also recognised the existing pressures on schools and teachers. For example, School Can't Australia recognised that difficulties in parent-school collaboration can reflect the stress on schools and teachers, a lack of training and resources to support engagement with complex cases, and 'the emotional workload of working with distressed people'.
5.79A similar view was expressed by Mrs Giblin AM, who pointed out that teachers received very little training in family engagement—either through initial teacher education courses or ongoing professional development.
5.80Accordingly, a range of participants highlighted the need for teachers to be trained in family engagement. This included recommendations for modules in initial teacher education courses, regular professional development, and tools and resources to help teachers engage with families experiencing school refusal.
5.81In addition, Parents Victoria recommended employing dedicated family engagement officers to schools to reduce teachers' workloads and help them to engage with families more effectively. This proposal was supported by MsElliott of the ACT Council of PCA, who noted the pressure on teachers and the need to think 'outside the box as to how we go forward'. School Can't Australia also suggested there was a need for case management and advocacy services to help mediate between families, schools, and other service providers.
5.82To this end, the QISPN reported that it was currently involved in a research project (in partnership with Griffith University and Independent Schools Queensland) that aims to fill 'a gap in the literature about what parent engagement looks like and how it may be achieved in practice by schools'.
More flexible delivery of education
5.83Multiple participants expressed the view that the traditional mode of delivering school education does not work for all children, particularly those who may be at risk of school refusal.
5.84More than one participant noted that the recent experience of the COVID-19 pandemic had demonstrated the potential for greater flexibility in education delivery.
5.85Mr Mark Breckenridge of ASPA argued that both the experience of the COVID‑19 pandemic and the conversation around school refusal provide an opportunity to rethink the constructs around schooling, including the idea that students need to physically attend school for six hours a day:
[Students would] be doing their online work at whatever time of the day. It didn't take the 70 minutes it would normally take at school to do the maths work ... In some ways the school refusal conversation should be challenging us to think about the constructs that education exists within, that we need to think about going forward.
5.86Some participants urged support for greater flexibility in the way education is delivered to help address school refusal. This related to flexibility within mainstream school settings, expanding the provision of alternative education settings, and increasing access to distance education and home-schooling.
5.87There was also support for the idea of providing a range of pathways for students, including the potential for shared enrolments between different contexts. For example, School Can't Australia recommended removing barriers that prevent students moving easily between in person learning, distance education and home schooling, or from combining enrolments across different contexts when needed.
Flexibility within mainstream school settings
5.88Feedback from submitters such as the ACT Council of PCA, suggested that schools need to be provided with the flexibility to be more responsive to student needs. However, the committee also heard that responsiveness to student needs would also improve if schools consistently provided reasonable adjustments for students as required by the Disability Standards for Education 2005.
5.89In terms of flexibility, participants identified a range of areas where they felt changes could be made within mainstream settings. For example, Ms KamlaBrisbane of Carers ACT reported that parents were seeking flexibility around learning environments and spaces, types of school work, and access to online learning.
5.90Similarly, Mrs Gindy of the AAEGT indicated that greater flexibility could be achieved in both the delivery and assessment of the Australian Curriculum. This view was shared by other submitters such as St Joseph's Flexible Learning Centre (SJFLC), which argued that permitting schools more flexibility in outcomes would allow for more personalised learning:
Too often within mainstream settings, due to the rigidity of sanctioned curricula, differentiation is a term for Professional Learning days and not for day-to-day curriculum delivery. Providing schools with more flexibility in educational outcomes would allow for more personalisation and more meaningful metrics of young people success.
5.91Other participants identified flexibility around class sizes and student-to-teacher ratios, hours and days of attendance, modified timetables that include external activities, flexible learning programs, and interest-based and project-based learning as other ways existing school setting could tailor their offerings to meet the needs of students experiencing school refusal.
5.92Further, the SA Commissioner suggested supporting mainstream schools to integrate a range of approaches used by alternative schools, including:
strong connections with local community, organisations and services;
individualised case management and planning models that allow for more personalised learning tailored to young people's needs;
smaller class sizes, higher staff to student ratios and a more diverse staff, including social workers, youth workers and volunteers;
a focus on wellbeing, relationships, cultural safety and high expectations for all students; and
hands on and project-based learning experiences that align with student interests.
5.93Overall, flexibility was seen as critical to the concept of 'meeting students where they are at,' which allows students to find success at school and was raised by a number of participants. For example, one parent explained that every student can build on what they already know, if teachers are prepared to teach them 'where they are at'.
5.94Similarly, Parents for Change noted that flexible learning options allow schools to '"meet the child where they are at," rather than expecting every child to fit into a mould based on the past century of schooling'.
Disability Standards for Education 2005
5.95A number of participants highlighted the relationship between flexibility and the provision of reasonable adjustments, with some submitters concerned about the inability or hesitancy of schools to provide adjustments for students. Forexample, one parent, whose child has ADHD and Sensory Processing Disorder reported that 'at no point' was her son 'offered reasonable adjustments to his learning program'. Another parent told the HEN that a school had refused to provide reasonable adjustments on the basis that 'down the track in [the Victorian Certificate of Education] the examiners won't allow adjustments'.
5.96As a result, some submitters called for training for school staff to increase awareness of students' entitlement to reasonable adjustments under the Disability Standards for Education 2005. Others, such as Carers Australia, suggested that there 'is a widespread lack of resourcing in accommodating diverse needs'.
Alternative education settings
5.97Even with improved flexibility in mainstream schools, a range of participants recognised the ongoing need for alternative education settings, including special assistance schools, specialist secondary schools, and community schools.
5.98However, witnesses such as School Can't Australia and Ms Kerry Milligan of the School Refusal Clinic, noted that accessible alternative settings were currently in short supply.
5.99The shortage of alternative education places appears to be reflected in calls from parents for governments to provide more alternative school settings. As one parent told School Can't Australia:
We need more SMALL, alternative schools … There are so FEW options that these kids have no choice but massive schools. To attend the few alternative schools they have to be on a wait list and I have to give up working to drive them across town to get them there. And—then they feel they are in a 'weird' school and feel excluded from normal life because these schools are so rare they're not seen as 'normal' to a teen. We need many more alternative schools run by the state govt so that kids everywhere have other options.
5.100Similarly, at least one submitter reported long waiting lists for community schools, while Ms Koullas of Yellow Ladybugs questioned why there weren't more community schools:
In Victoria we have community schools where my ladybugs have ended up. That is where they are now. It is small classes. It is interest-base led. It is trauma informed. It doesn't take a punitive approach. They are not perfect; there is still some improvement needed. But they are neuro affirming …
5.101In response, Community School Startup Support Australia (CSSSA) advised that it takes, on average, three to five years to open a new community school. There is also a high attrition rate due to financial considerations, planning requirements and the requirements of non-government school authorities.
5.102In order to facilitate the easier establishment of community schools, the CSSSA recommended the introduction of concessions or exemptions from certain town planning and school authority requirements.
5.103However, the QISPN also reported that the demand for small school places is now placing a strain on these schools' resources. For instance, one small school principal that QISPN spoke to 'takes on the one-to-one work with students and families experiencing school refusal as no other resources are available'.
5.104As well as a shortage of places in alternative settings, submitters noted they can also be extremely resource intensive due to their low student-to-staff ratios. Forexample, Ms Coles informed the committee that her special assistance school has a ratio of one adult for every five students.
5.105Likewise, Dr Jodie Long of the BSL explained that the David Scott School was 'staff heavy' with a maximum of 15 students per class, as well as social workers, youth workers and mental health practitioners. However, while Dr Long acknowledged that it was 'an expensive school to run', she indicated that this type of school was only needed for certain students. In addition, she argued that the cost became 'very cheap' once you factor in 'what it costs us for a young person to not finish school'.
5.106While recognising that alternative schools 'do a great job', Professor Jim Watterson also raised the need for better oversight of these schools to ensure there are minimum expectations in place and to provide greater visibility of their programs.
Distance education and home-schooling
5.107The committee also heard support for expanding access to both distance education and home-schooling options for students experiencing school refusal.
5.108For example, Mrs Rogers pointed to the positive experience of many students during the COVID-19 lockdown periods and suggested that 'maybe we need to start thinking about opening up distance education, making it a bigger service for those people who want to engage with that'.
5.109The need to expand these services was also highlighted by participants who encountered barriers to accessing distance education for their child. Forexample, one mother described waiting almost one term for her application for distance education to be considered by the public system, while another family waited one and a half terms only to be told that the service has no capacity to take on their child.
5.110In addition to long wait times, one submitter told the Catholic Education Diocese of Bathurst how the application process itself can work against students who are experiencing school refusal:
Our child is now enrolled in a public school, but they haven't really seen him often enough to assess if he is a valid candidate for distance education. Wehave been told they cannot use any information his former school was willing to supply to help make this assessment and so the process starts again.
5.111While a number of parents reported positive outcomes from home schooling, most also highlighted the challenge it presents. As one father observed, 'home schooling is not an easy choice. It takes commitment and sacrifice to be able to offer an education to a child which will equip them for a future as an adult'.
5.112However, as noted by WACSSO, home schooling can present challenges for parents, particularly where a child also has an underlying diagnosis or disability. In addition, the funding that a child may have attracted in the school setting, may not be available once they are home schooled.
5.113A similar view was expressed by one parent who stated the 'financial support for parents educating a child at home does not come close to reflecting the cost of educating a child in a mainstream school environment'. Accordingly, she recommended reviewing the financial support available to parents who home school due to disability or school refusal.
Early identification and a framework for evidence-based interventions
Early identification of school refusal
5.114Currently, intervention and support for school refusal can occur too late, often when a young person has reached a crisis point. This was illustrated for the committee by Dr Long of the BSL, who recalled how a young person had told her during an interview that support only become available once he was in desperate need:
… they described it like a first-aid situation where, if someone refuses first aid, you have to wait until they are unconscious to then administer first aid. … that's what it felt like for him. He said, 'It was like I had to just faff around in this terrible state until I became unconscious, until the need was desperate, and then I could get the support I needed.
5.115In a similar vein, one parent described how strict criteria for accessing alternative schools in New South Wales 'precludes students from enrolling … until their condition has significantly deteriorated and the circumstances of school refusal are extreme'.
5.116Participants also noted a disconnect between current thresholds for problematic attendance and criteria for accessing support. For example, multiple submitters drew the committee's attention to the Victorian Government's Navigator program, which has a non-attendance threshold of 70 per cent, while the generally accepted threshold for problematic attendance is ten per cent.
5.117Submitters such as the BSL, suggested that referrals should not be linked to particular absence thresholds at all, Instead, referrals should be based on concerns about risk.
5.118Accordingly, a number of participants raised the need for earlier identification of, and intervention in, school refusal. For example, the ACT Council of PCA asserted that earlier identification of the signs of school refusal could facilitate earlier intervention to prevent situations escalating.
5.119To this end, School Can't Australia recommended the introduction of a mechanism that would allow parents to request a formal review of a student's support needs where there are signs of increasing distress. According to School Can't Australia, this would allow earlier intervention and a reduction in the number of severely impacted students requiring help at a later stage.
5.120In addition, the Melbourne Graduate School of Education Disability Research Collaboration (MGSE DRC) suggested that schools employ dedicated attendance teams to assess absence data for early signs of school refusal.
5.121Other suggestions included introducing set protocols for schools to follow 'as soon as they identify a child with school refusal/school withdrawal'.
5.122According to Mr Pierpoint of ASPA, earlier intervention can save time and resources in later years:
It would save us a lot of time and resourcing if, before the student comes to us, those problems could be 'solved' or addressed before they got to us. Itdoesn't mean that the resourcing of actions by high school ceases when the student comes up. …We would not shy away from that, but early intervention is very important. I might say that it goes to before school. Thezero to five cohort is very, very important …
5.123The need for intervention prior to school was also supported by the CCCH, which argued for 'combining or "stacking" multiple effective evidence-based strategies' from zero to eight years in order to improve children's health, development and wellbeing.
5.124From an economic standpoint, early intervention is also supported by the 'Heckman curve', which illustrates that earlier investments provide greater returns, with investments in early education providing the largest return on investment.
5.125Given the overrepresentation of neurodivergent students among the school refusal cohort, some participants also suggested that earlier identification of neurodivergence could also play a role in preventing severe school refusal. Forexample, one parent stated that a better understanding of autism at their school might have helped 'point our family in the direction of seeking a diagnosis before the school refusal became severe'.
5.126Evidence provided to the committee also suggests that late identification of students with disability may mean schools miss out on funding to support students who may be at risk of school refusal. For example, Mrs de Brenni, principal of the Queensland Pathways State College, told the committee that at the time she takes students into her school, only 37 per cent are identified as having a disability (according to NCCD data). However, by the time her school has done its data collection, that rate has risen to 86 per cent.
Evidence-based interventions
5.127As noted earlier in this chapter, Australia currently lacks a comprehensive evidence-base to inform effective responses to school refusal. In addition, multiple inquiry participants have also pointed to the limited availability of funding for school refusal services and supports.
5.128Australia also appears to lack a framework to help education authorities and schools to maximise the impact of the available funding. For example, Associate Professor Melvin of Deakin University told the committee that there is tendency for schools to allocate resources to severe need. However, this can come at the expense of spending on preventative measures:
I speak to school wellbeing staff, and they are saying: 'We spend half our time with six kids. The other 40 have to make do with the rest.' … I think that's a natural phenomenon when resources are scant; we focus on the pointy end. It'svery understandable. But I think that, if we strengthen the prevention approach, we'll reap the rewards downstream.
5.129As noted earlier in this chapter, the MGSE DRC proposed that a multi-tiered system of support could be used to guide Australia's approach to, and investment in, evidence-based interventions for school refusal.
5.130The MGSE DRC went on to explain that multi-tiered systems are 'particularly useful for determining which students require which level of support' (seeTable5.1). They also provide a 'systemised, structured approach' to planning interventions, as well as 'a pathway when school attendance interventions fail to have the desired impact'.
5.131This view was echoed by Associate Professor Melvin, who observed that multi‑tiered systems can be used to inform nuanced approaches to prevention and early intervention for school refusal, as well as coordinated responses to student attendance problems.
Table 5.1Multi-tiered systems of support
Tier 1 | At Tier 1, every student is supported to attend school through the use of universal evidence-based strategies, which are part of the day-to-day experience for all students. |
Tier 2 | At Tier 2, more intensive supports are provided for those who require additional assistance in addition to Tier 1 supports. |
Tier 3 | At Tier 3, interventions are individualised and intensive. Theyrequire extensive human and material resources and should be reserved for the most chronic and complex cases. |
Source: MGSE DRC, Submission 15, [p. 2].
5.132According to the MGSE DRC, at Tier 1 the focus is on providing:
a positive school climate that promotes belonging, identity and connection;
safety-oriented strategies that promote safety and trust in adults;
health based strategies that promote healthy sleep, nutrition and screen use;
mental health and social emotional learning to build coping strategies and resilience;
parental involvement that promotes shared goals for their children; and
transition supports that provide continuity and predictability and processes to identify students at-risk of non-attendance.
5.133Evidence about the value of multi-tiered support systems was also provided by participants such as Mrs Gindy of the AAEGT, and Dr Greg Elliott of the Catholic Schools Parramatta Diocese, who described how the diocese already used a multi-tiered support system to try and 'match the right resource to the right student at the right time'. Similarly, the Victorian Government explained that its Map of Key Mental Health and Wellbeing Support is underpinned by a framework of muti-tiered systems of support. The accompanying online Schools Mental Health Menu allows users to filter the available interventions by tier, intervention type, strength of evidence, cost, delivery mode, target audience and geographic location (see Figure 5.1).
5.134In addition, Professor Watterson told the committee of plans for a pilot of multi‑tiered support systems that he and Associate Professor McKay-Brown will be running to understand the approach 'in an Australian context and how we can roll it out'.
Figure 5.1Victorian Department of Education – snapshot of the Schools Mental Health Menu showing a selection of interventions by tier
Source: Victorian Department of Education, Schools Mental Health Menu Tiles, www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/health/mentalhealth/mental-health-menu/Pages/Menu-Tiles.aspx (accessed 4 June 2023)
5.135Dr Harrison of the MGSE DRC explained that by providing effective Tier 1 supports, schools can often prevent issues from arising in the first place, particularly for autistic students:
If you get what we call the Tier 1—it's happening in every school and every classroom in Australia—it is about how we can create the conditions that make kids feel safe and so that they're happy to come to school and are learning. We can pre-empt a lot of issues …. It comes back to understanding that what works for autistic kids often will work for a lot of other kids—things like predictable environments and socially inclusive schools.
5.136A similar view was shared by Professor Watterson, who noted that a multi‑tiered system would reduce the numbers of students needing intensive support:
I think the other advantage of that approach is that, once we start looking at prevention and then early detection in Tier 2, we have less of the Tier 3—the pointy end, the highly disengaged students at risk of detaching—to manage.
5.137The scalability of this approach, and its potential positive impact on school resources, was highlighted by Dr Elliott:
Everything that we do—in data collection and analysis, in capacity building, in quality relationships with families and being able to support families with resources when problems are emerging—are very scalable strategies. Themore acute the intervention becomes, the less scalable it becomes. The more individualised, personalised and precise those interventions are, the more expensive it is to take them to scale. At the Marist Learning Zone, for example, we've got six staff supporting 20 students, and that's expensive.
Better cross-sector collaboration
5.138A range of participants highlighted the importance of cross sector collaboration to addressing the growing trend of school refusal.
5.139For example, ASPA stressed that this is not something that the education sector can address in isolation. Indeed, ASPA noted that a holistic approach—involving health, communities, justice, housing and police—would be needed to meet the needs of families and students.
5.140In addition, Save the Children and 54 reasons argued that cross-portfolio challenges and government silos are part of the reason that state education systems have not been able to realise 'the full potential of partnerships with external agencies' in relation to issues such as student wellbeing and engagement.
5.141Although there were calls for inter-government collaboration on addressing school refusal, the majority of participants focused on the need for greater collaboration between the health and education sectors in order to facilitate both the early identification of school refusal, as well as appropriate supports.
5.142While recognising that more can be done in this regard, some submitters identified recent improvements in cross sector collaboration.For example, DrStephen Stathis of Queensland Health pointed to the existence of a range of collaborative health and education initiatives that aim to 'hold kids at school and to identify vulnerable kids so that support services can be provided', including the Student Wellbeing and the GPs in Schools programs.
5.143Similarly, the NT DoE stated that its partnership approach to school attendance centred on 'building relationships with students, families, schools, other agencies and service providers, and wider communities to understand student needs and who is providing what service in response to those needs'. It also indicated it was developing a case management framework to set out 'roles and responsibilities, protocols, and processes' around 'intensive case management for chronically disengaged children and young people.
5.144According to Virtual Schools Victoria (VSV), its attempts to build collaborative partnerships with practitioners are hampered by the dominant service delivery model in the health sector—that is, private practitioners working in a fee‑for‑service environment:
The majority of referring specialists are private practitioners working under a fee for service model that does not cover case plan coordination or consultation. When it does, it is often at the cost of a direct care session for the young client and their family.
5.145While VSV noted the 'invaluable assistance' provided by public health services, which are 'often willing to engage in joint practice', it also acknowledged that the high workload of these services can leave them struggling for time to engage with schools.
5.146Ms Brisbane of Carers ACT also reported that, in these situations, it can then sometimes become the parent or carer's role to try to merge advice from the school and the private provider.
5.147In response, Associate Professor Melvin suggested that school attendance be established 'as a specialist discipline that cuts across health and education with graduate training courses for professionals working in these fields'. He argued that this would provide much needed expertise and leadership within schools and services.
5.148The CCCH advocated for the use of multi-disciplinary teams in order to bridge the gap between school supports and supports provided by GPs, paediatricians and mental health professionals.
5.149Mrs Giblin AM suggested that family engagement officers be deployed 'to facilitate interagency collaboration and support families, and to facilitate that family engagement between home and school'. In a similar vein, Meg & Tara recommended the provision of 'integrated and collaborative support services between families, allied health professionals, support teams and schools'.
5.150Some participants, such as the APC identified the 'collaboration and co-location of services within school communities as imperative'. However, while other witnesses, such as Mrs Hodge argued it would be 'ideal' to be able to locate a mental health clinician in every school, the workforce to do so simply does not exist. Instead, she suggested embedding a clinical support team within each education department in order to provide support to schools.
5.151In addition, the APC also argued that both the health and education sectors were stretched beyond capacity. Accordingly, it suggested that, in addition to cross‑sector collaboration, more capacity 'must be built into the system'.
More support for parents and carers
5.152As outlined in Chapter 3, parents and carers dealing with school refusal experience profound effects on their health and wellbeing, social connections, and employment and financial security. Accordingly, various participants recognised that support for parents is a crucial part of addressing school refusal. The majority of participant recommendations concerning support for parents related to helping parents navigate school refusal information and supports, and increasing the financial assistance available to parents.
Navigating school refusal information and supports
5.153Many participants described the difficulties parents face when trying to navigate the education and health care systems to access support for their child. For example, School Can't Australia reported that parents often spend a lot of time searching for information, aren't sure who to contact for assistance or what support to ask for, and are unsure how to advocate for their child.
5.154Accordingly, various submitters called for the provision of more evidence-based information about school refusal, available supports, alternative education options, navigating the health care system, and where to seek further assistance.
5.155Some participants noted a growing array of online resources related to school refusal but flagged the need for a centralised source of evidence-based information. The need for a single, central source of information was underscored by Ms Amanda Watt of QISPN:
There are lots and lots of websites that are starting to develop resources for parents, and even school websites are developing resources for parents. … Whether there is a central portal where information and guidance can live, which is easy to access and is promoted to parents, it's about speaking to parents respectively and in a really empathetic way.
5.156Similarly, School Can't Australia reported that respondents to its survey suggested that 'an initial point of contact such as a helpline would have assisted them to know what first steps to take'.
5.157Further, the MGSE DRC described the lack of a national information resource 'where families and professionals can access reputable, evidence-based resources and information' as a 'gap in the systemic response to school refusal'.
Financial assistance
5.158As detailed in Chapter 3, multiple parents experienced financial challenges arising from their child's school refusal. In addition, evidence provided to the committee suggests that parents are often not aware of the financial support available to them. Currently, this assistance may include:
Carers Payment, Carers Allowance and Carer Supplement;
National Disability Insurance Scheme;
Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme; and
Jobseeker Payment.
5.159However, these payments are not available to all parents of children with school refusal. As noted by School Can't Australia, parents of students that do not have a disability, or are awaiting assessment for a disability, are unable to access the Carers Payment and Carers Allowance. They are also unable to access the Carers Gateway for counselling support. Similarly, there are restrictions on who can access the Assistance for Isolated Children payment.
5.160A lack of awareness about, or access to, financial assistance appears to be reflected in the results of the School Can't Australia survey, which found that only 14 per cent of respondents were accessing the Carers Payment, with 29percent accessing the Carers Allowance.
5.161Accordingly, participants made a number of recommendations about how financial support could be improved for parents of children with school refusal. For example, at least one parent recommended a broader review of the financial support available to parents and carers of children experiencing school refusal.
5.162Other parents reflected that the Assistance for Isolated Children payment, which equates to approximately $4000 per year, should be reviewed as it does not reflect the real costs of educating children from home. In addition, more than one parent argued that the disability funding a student would have received in the school environment should be available to students who are home schooling because of disability or school refusal.
5.163The committee also heard calls from parents to increase the number of subsidised mental health care visits per year (currently ten).