Chapter 6Committee view
6.1It was made clear for the committee by the numerous first-hand accounts of the toll school refusal is taking on young people and their families that more work and research needs to be conducted into school refusal. Again, the committee would like to express its sincere gratitude to those parents and young people who invested significant time and emotional energy in providing evidence to this inquiry.
6.2During the course of the inquiry, the committee heard that school refusal has a profound effect on young people's health and wellbeing, their sense of self‑worth, their connection to friends and family, and their aspirations for life beyond school. The committee heard that many young people require mental health support as a result of school refusal. In the worst cases, parents reported instances of self-harm, as well as suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. Thelimited research available shows that these impacts are not short-lived, with some evidence linking school isolation and poorer life outcomes.
6.3The impact of a child's school refusal also has significant ripple effects, with many families operating from day to day under considerable emotional strain and financial pressure. Parents and carers reported high levels of stress, exhaustion and social isolation. Many have reduced their work hours, or given up work entirely, to support their child or children. Some parents have had to make choices between meeting their own care needs and those of their children. Sadly, in some cases, school refusal—including misconceptions about it—has fractured families; creating tension between siblings, between parents, and between the family and other relatives.
6.4For the young people at the centre of school refusal, the impact on their families is another source of anxiety and shame. The committee heard that these are young people who want desperately to go to school. They are young people who want an education, who want to succeed, to connect with their peers, share experiences and friendships, and feel a sense of hope and excitement for their future. For these young people, however, school itself has become a source of trauma and anxiety. They simply can't go.
6.5While the committee understands that the drivers behind school refusal can be complex and multifactorial, it is clear that disability—especially neurodivergence—and mental health challenges such as anxiety are clear individual risk factors for school refusal. However, risk factors alone do not guarantee the outcome. Evidence provided to the committee suggested that for some children, school itself that was the catalyst for refusal. More than once the committee heard from parents whose bright, happy and engaged child had become anxious, fearful and depressed after starting school.
6.6A lack of data means it has been difficult for the committee to find clarity about the prevalence of school refusal. However, evidence provided to the committee suggests that numbers are on the rise. While the COVID-19 pandemic has played a part in this increase, there appears to be a general consensus that numbers were rising well before the pandemic.
6.7The increasing cases of school refusal have had flow on effects for schools, health care professionals and other service providers. While desirous to support young people, principals and teachers report they are stretched and struggling to keep up with ever increasing workloads. Other providers, including in healthcare, report significant wait times for their services and an increase in both the number and complexity of cases. Overall, the situation seemed best summed up by a submitter who described the health and education systems as overwhelmed by demand but bound by policies and models of practice that are unresponsive to the needs of young people and families.
6.8However, there were also success stories. Some young people and their families were able to find a way through and reconnect to education. For some, the route back to education was via smaller alternative schools, distance education or home schooling. Other parents reported being 'lucky enough' to find a supportive principal or teacher who understood their child's needs and helped them stay engaged with school—even if it was not on a full-time basis.
6.9The solution to school refusal shouldn't be dependent on luck—the solutions are out there—a more systematic and evidence-based approach is required. However, before work can begin on implementing solutions, a clear and universally accepted definition of school refusal is needed. This can help inform a framework to guide evidence-based intervention approaches and expenditure to support the capacity of the education and health sectors to address school refusal.
6.10The committee is cognisant that current awareness levels and understanding about school refusal within schools, the health sector, and the wider community is low. Students feel judged and ashamed about their inability to attend school—their 'failure' to be able to do what so many of their peers take in their stride. Parents, too, feel judged and ashamed about their perceived 'failure' in relation to their child's education. Apart from the impact of this judgement on the mental health of young people and their families, the committee recognises that feelings of failure and shame can prevent young people and their parents from seeking help and can drive further social isolation.
6.11While the committee recognises that school refusal is only one of the ways that young people can become disengaged from school, it hopes that the recommendations in this report will improve the educational experiences of all Australian school students.
Improving awareness and understanding of school refusal
6.12The need for better awareness and understanding of school refusal was a recurring theme throughout the course of the inquiry.
6.13The committee heard that misconceptions about school refusal—including that it arises from student misbehaviour or poor parenting—appear common within the health and education sectors, as well as the wider community.
6.14In addition to being a source of stress for young people and their families, these misconceptions about school refusal are a significant barrier to intervention and support. They allow the underlying causes of school refusal to go unaddressed.
6.15A lack of understanding of school refusal appears to underlie many of the poor experiences of students and families. This includes multiple instances where health and education professionals have provided advice that is either outdated or inappropriate for school refusal. The committee heard that, when implemented, this advice often led to a breakdown in trust between the affected young person and adults, heightened anxiety, and increased school refusal.
6.16The committee heard about a range of research-based practices that could better inform responses to school refusal, with support for Collaborative and Proactive Solutions and the Polyvagal Theory, as well as other trauma-informed and inclusive education practices.
6.17The committee agrees with suggestions that action be taken to improve awareness and understanding of school refusal among teachers, school leaders and health professionals.
6.18As an initial step in the broader school refusal research agenda, the committee recommends that Education Ministers task the Australian Education Research Organisation with research into:
the drivers and prevalence of school refusal in Australia; and
the use, cost, and effectiveness of school refusal interventions used in Australia and overseas, including flexible approaches to school education.
6.19This research should inform the Australian Education Research Organisation's advice to Education Ministers on the causes of declining school attendance and evidence-based approaches to support educational outcomes (arising from the 27 February 2023 Education Ministers Meeting). It should also inform future school refusal research projects, as well as the development of national school refusal resources (see Recommendation 2). This research should also inform the establishment of a nationally agreed definition of school refusal (see Recommendation 6).
6.20The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory education authorities and the non-government school sector to develop and promote resources about school refusal, once a nationally agreed definition has been established, for parents, teachers and school leaders.
6.21These resources should be informed by the research undertaken by the Australian Education Research Organisation as part of Recommendation 1.
Early identification of school refusal and evidence-based interventions
6.22Through the many stories told to the committee during the inquiry, it became clear that intervention for school refusal often arrives too late. This appears to arise from a combination of:
late identification of school refusal, which may relate to a lack of awareness about school refusal, including its early signs and risk factors (such as neurodivergence);
high school absence thresholds for program eligibility; and
a model that targets resources at 'the pointy end' rather than prevention.
6.23Given that school transition points appear to be a time of increased risk for school withdrawal, which can escalate to school refusal, the committee sees an opportunity for schools to focus identification efforts around these points—in particular, the transition into kindergarten and the transition between primary school and high school.
6.24The committee recommends that state and territory governments review their child health and development screening programs to identify opportunities to improve early identification of autism, ADHD, specific learning disorders, and anxiety disorders, in order to provide the classroom support these students might need.
6.25The committee recommends that state and territory education authorities and the non-government school sector identify opportunities for earlier identification of students at risk of school withdrawal, particularly at key school transition points. This may include—but should not be limited to—analysis of school absence data and the use of screening tools.
6.26The committee encourages state and territory education authorities and the non-government school sector to broaden data collection to account for differences in attendance. The committee acknowledges that there is a difference between absences due to truancy, school withdrawal, or school refusal.
A national approach to school refusal
6.27There was significant support for a coordinated national approach to school refusal, particularly given the respective roles of the Commonwealth and state and territory governments in delivering education and health services.
6.28In particular, the committee heard that the lack of a national approach to data collection and reporting has hindered efforts to understand the prevalence of school refusal. It has also contributed to a lack of research, collaboration and information sharing in relation to the underlying causes of school refusal, and the cost and effectiveness of existing interventions. The committee notes that better data and research will also be critical to understanding the appropriateness of current resourcing levels (see Recommendation 1).
6.29The committee also heard that the lack of an overarching framework to guide investment in school refusal interventions can result in the allocation of resources to severe need. While important, this can divert resources away from the preventative measures that might have averted the need for intervention later on.
6.30The committee agrees with the proposition that improving school refusal data and research will require consistent definitions and terminology, and a nationally consistent approach to recording school absences which allows disaggregation by type of absence, including school refusal.
6.31The committee also agrees with participants who underscored the importance of the Unique Student Identifier (USI) in facilitating information sharing between schools, sectors and jurisdictions, as well as identifying at-risk students and building a national evidence base around school refusal. It was extremely disappointing to hear that—despite it being on the national policy agenda since 2009—progress on a USI has been impeded by the inability of governments to agree on a way forward. While the committee is reassured to hear that Education Ministers have now agreed a way forward, it urges all governments to put the wellbeing of students front and centre and progress implementation of the USI as an immediate priority.
6.32However, the success of any new method of recording student absences will depend on the willingness of parents to report school refusal, in combination with increased knowledge and understanding of school staff who monitor attendance. For this reason, any new approach will need to be accompanied by information for parents and schools. It may also require governments to revisit the current messaging around school attendance to reflect a more nuanced view that makes room for school refusal and similar forms of disengagement.
6.33Accordingly, the committee believes that a national action plan on school refusal can help to drive coordinated action and ensure collaboration across sectors and between levels of government.
6.34The committee also agrees with suggestions that a multi-tiered system of support should be used to guide the approach to, and investment in, school refusal interventions. While this may require agreement to the approach at a national level, the principle of subsidiarity means that flexibility for local implementation is also important.
6.35While the committee believes the national action plan should be developed under the auspices of the Education Minsters meeting, consultation should also involve the health sector (including health service providers), experts in school refusal, teachers and principals. Most importantly, it should consult with people with lived experience of school refusal—including students and their parents—with a particular focus on young people with disability and mental health challenges.
6.36The committee recognises the upcoming development of the new NationalSchool Reform Agreement (NSRA). This includes the opportunity to fully embrace the recommendations arising from the Productivity Commission review of the NSRA in relation to a greater focus on student wellbeing.
6.37The committee recommends that state and territory education authorities and the non-government school sector investigate ways to increase the flexibility of education delivery, including by:
identifying ways to enhance flexibility in mainstream school settings for children going through school refusal;
facilitating easier access to distance education and home schooling for students experiencing school refusal; and
facilitating the provision of more alternative and specialist school settings that cater for students experiencing school refusal.
6.38The committee recommends that Education Ministers develop a national action plan on school refusal (national action plan), informed by research that has been conducted by the Australian Education Research Organisation (see Recommendation 1). The national action plan should be developed within 12 months and should include:
a nationally agreed definition and terminology for school refusal;
a nationally consistent approach to recording school absences, as well as an agreed approach to public reporting of school refusal absences;
a nationally agreed approach to messaging in relation to school attendance, school refusal, and the recording of school absences;
a nationally agreed approach to provide support to parents and students going through school refusal by increasing accessibility and awareness of alternative methods of schooling;
a national commitment to prioritise implementation of the Unique Student Identifier (USI) and agreement about how the USI will be used to identify students at risk of school refusal, facilitate information sharing about those students, and support research into school refusal;
nationally agreed research priorities, as well as an information sharing and dissemination strategy, particularly to reduce stigma and support understanding of school refusal;
agreement that a multi-tiered system of support approach be used to guide approaches to, and investments in, school refusal interventions (noting this would be implemented largely at a local level); and
agreed roles and responsibilities, an implementation timeline, key performance indicators, and a monitoring and evaluation strategy.
6.39Development of the national action plan should be a collaborative process involving health and education professionals, service providers, and people with lived experience of school refusal—with a particular focus on neurodivergent young people and those with mental health challenges. The national action plan should also align with existing national strategies, where appropriate, and be informed by the recommendations of this inquiry.
6.40The committee encourages the expert review panel on the National School Reform Agreement to take into consideration the recommendations of this report.
6.41The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to identify ways to improve awareness and understanding of school refusal—once a nationally agreed definition has been established—within the health sector, with a particular focus on general practice, psychiatry, psychology and other relevant allied health fields.
6.42Once a nationally agreed definition has been established, the committee would welcome the option to embed school refusal training within relevant tertiary education courses, as well as ongoing professional development requirements.
6.43To that end, the committee encourages the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership to work with state and territory regulatory authorities to ensure teacher education and training courses incorporate modules on school refusal, once a nationally agreed definition has been established. This could include modules for ongoing professional development requirements.
Increasing the focus on student wellbeing in schools
6.44Many participants told the committee that a student's ability to learn is linked to their sense of wellbeing. Essentially, the committee heard that student wellbeing is a foundation upon which academic success can be built.
6.45The committee heard that, over time, academic achievement has become the dominant focus in schools, driven at least in part by the increased focus on the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR), as well as assessment regimes such as the National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
6.46The committee suggests that a return to a more balanced focus between wellbeing and academic achievement could benefit all students but particularly those struggling with school refusal.
6.47Similar findings have been made by the Productivity Commission in its review of the NSRA, as well as its recommendation that the next NSRA include an explicit focus on supporting student wellbeing, along with a commitment to annual reporting.
6.48A more systemic focus on wellbeing in schools may also help to address what the South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People referred to as an overreliance on the 'goodwill of individual teachers or school leaders at a classroom or school level' to support students who are at risk of disengagement.
6.49With specific reference to school refusal, it was made clear to the committee that current messaging about the importance of school attendance was a source of stress for parents.
6.50The committee believes that messaging around attendance should be more nuanced. While still highlighting the importance of attendance, it is important to destigmatise the idea that sometimes students will struggle with attendance and that help is available when this happens.
6.51The committee recommends that state and territory education authorities and the non-government school sector review and update current messaging about the importance of school attendance to ensure that it:
reflects a nuanced view of attendance that does not further alienate families dealing with school refusal; and
provides information about how to access support for attendance difficulties such as school refusal; and
recognises that for some students, where attendance is not possible, that delivering tailored educational outcomes through an alternative method of schooling is the priority.
6.52The committee received a high level of support for the use of trauma‑informed practices in schools.
6.53This was in contrast to the widespread criticism of behaviourist approaches, which were seen as unsuitable for young people experiencing school refusal as they ignored the underlying causes of a child's distress.
6.54Participants also highlighted the difference that effective family-school engagement can make to supporting students experiencing school refusal. However, current practice was described as hit-and-miss, with a lack of training, time and support for school staff to undertake effective engagement practices.
6.55In addition to the training for teachers and school leaders proposed in Recommendation 6, the committee believes education authorities should work together to provide additional resources and support to support both trauma‑informed practice and effective family engagement, where possible.
6.56Given the existing pressures on teacher workloads, this should include consideration of the use of additional specialist staff. It should also involve collaborating across state boundaries and school sectors wherever possible to maximise the effective use of limited resources.
6.57The committee recommends that state and territory education authorities and the non-government school sector work together to develop resources to support the use of trauma-informed practices in schools, so they can implement best-practice methods to support students to continue with their education.
6.58The committee recommends that state and territory education authorities and the non-government school sector work together to develop and promote stable and ongoing resources to support effective family engagement. This should include the provision of specialist family engagement support staff in schools.
6.59Participants told the committee of numerous instances where schools either did not offer, or refused to provide, adjustments to support their child.
6.60Under the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE), schools are required to provide 'reasonable adjustments' to ensure that students with disability can access and participate in education on the same basis as students without disability.
6.61The committee recognises that determining what is 'reasonable' can only be done on a case-by-case basis and that there may be situations where an adjustment is not considered reasonable on the basis of cost (versus benefit), or the impact of the change on staff or other students.
6.62The committee encourages education authorities to work together to build the capacity of schools to make reasonable adjustments.
6.63Given the existing pressures on teacher workloads, this should include consideration of the use of additional specialist staff. It should also involve collaborating across state boundaries and school sectors wherever possible to maximise the effective use of limited resources.
6.64The committee acknowledges that the process of receiving a formal disability diagnosis is expensive and can have extended wait times. To this end, the committee recommends that state and territory education authorities and the non-government school sector work together to identify and implement measures to build the capacity of schools to provide reasonable adjustments for students in line with the requirements of the Disability Standards for Education 2005. This could include the provision of additional specialist support staff in schools and/or providing teachers with the opportunity to acquire Universal Design in Learning skills through additional professional development.
6.65For some young people experiencing school refusal, the traditional mode of delivering education simply does not appear to work.
6.66In line with this, a range of participants highlighted the impact that greater flexibility had made to their child's experience. This included interest-led learning, part-time attendance, small school settings, remote learning, home schooling—or a combination of approaches.
6.67The committee supports education authorities considering ways to increase the flexibility of education within mainstream school settings, but also recognises that there will always be a need for alternative education settings. Currently,demand for places in alternative settings is exceeding supply. Parents have also reported difficulties in accessing distance education and home schooling options. Accordingly, the committee believes more could be done to improve access to alternative education settings.
Improving cross‑sector collaboration
6.68Addressing school refusal requires collaboration between governments and across the education and health sectors. Accordingly, the committee heard multiple suggestions for how collaboration could be improved, including the use of multidisciplinary teams to bridge the divide between schools and health professionals, the co-location of health services within schools, or embedding clinical teams within education departments.
6.69However, the committee also notes that the ability to implement such measures will be affected by existing workforce pressures in both the health and education sectors. Accordingly, the committee believes that further work needs to be done on identifying effective collaboration models that could be adapted for implementation at local levels.
6.70The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to identify and promote effective models for collaboration between the education and health sectors in relation to school refusal.
Improving support for parents
6.71The committee recognises that parents dealing with school refusal are often overwhelmed with the task of identifying pathways and supports, applying for assistance, seeking out health care services, and advocating for their child with schools and health professionals.
6.72Often, parents reported finding out about the options available to them via word of mouth. This includes options relating to both education for their child and financial support for their family.
6.73The committee strongly believes there is a need for a central repository of information about school refusal to help parents navigate the available options and supports, including financial supports such as the Carers Payment and Carers Allowance, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme.
6.74The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to explore funding sources for an independent peer support network for families and schools going through school refusal to receive resources and support. This could include improving resources for parents, including a 'one-stop shop' for information about school refusal and the support options available to students and families.
6.75The committee recognises the current situation where there is no nationally recognised school refusal advocacy and support group for parents. To this end, the committee encourages the Australian Government to consider the importance of such support groups for parents.
6.76The committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate increasing the number of subsidised mental health care visits for students experiencing school refusal.
Senator Matt O'Sullivan
Chair
Liberal Senator for Western Australia