Submission to School Attendance Bill March 2013 - Good Shepherd ...

Positive Support, Not Punishment:
Improving Student Engagement
in Victorian Schools
Submission by
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service
to the School Attendance Bill: Exposure Draft for Consultation
March 2013
Written by:
Magdalena McGuire
Social Policy Researcher
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service
Contact:
Dr Kathy Landvogt
Manager, Social Policy Research Unit
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service
PO Box 6041, North Collingwood, VIC 3066
03 9418 3015
Mob 0438 266 785
k.landvogt@goodshepvic.org.au
1

Recommendations
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service advises that:
1. The Victorian Government collects and annually publishes disaggregated data about the
school attendance and retention rates of children and young people in Victoria, including
those who are from low socioeconomic backgrounds, who are Indigenous, who are from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, who live in out of home care, and who
have disabilities.
2. The Victorian Government does not introduce the penalty infringement process outlined
in the Education and Training Reform Amendment (School Attendance) Bill 2006.
3. The Victorian Government builds on the range of positive strategies for addressing
student engagement and retention that have already been developed by the Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development, such as those outlined in Effective Schools
are Engaging Schools: Student Engagement Policy Guidelines.
4. The Victorian Government implements the recommendations for schools outlined in the
report by Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service, Jesuit Social Services and MacKillop
Family Services titled I Just Want to Go to School: Stories of Young People Experiencing
Educational Disadvantage.
2

About Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service works to promote the human rights and dignity of
people who are marginalised in the community. Our organisation assists, empowers and
advocates on behalf of those people who are at the very fringes of society. Each year we
directly support over 12,000 young people, women and families in Victoria. We have also
provided innovation and leadership in the microfinance movement throughout Australia for
over three decades.
Central to our work is the strong belief that everyone deserves a stake in their community
and the conditions of life that make participation in community possible. This includes
access to high quality education and training programs, and decent employment.
The communities in and around Melbourne in which Good Shepherd Youth & Family
Service operates experience financial disadvantage, and our programs directly address this
and many of the accompanying challenges. These programs include financial counselling,
microfinance, family support, youth emergency housing, family violence support
services and refuge accommodation, and community education.
Our inheritance of the mission and vision of the Good Shepherd Sisters directly informs our
advocacy and direct service work, especially where it impacts on the lives of disadvantaged
young people, women and girls.
Our organisation has a keen interest in the area of education. We have conducted research
and systemic advocacy around the issues of student engagement with the education
system and the rising costs of education.
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service is linked in with a broader network of organisations,
including Good Shepherd in the United States. Since 1996, Good Shepherd has had a
consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council. This affiliation has
enabled Good Shepherd to further its mission to promote the human rights of vulnerable
groups of people, and to challenge the conditions that condemn people to a marginalised
life.
This practice experience, research and human rights background give us an understanding
of the issues surrounding the engagement of young people and their parents in the
education system. It is from this evidence-base that we draw in making this submission.
3

Introduction
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service welcomes the opportunity to comment on the
Exposure Draft of the School Attendance Bill (the Bill). The Bill seeks to impose fines on
parents of children and young people who do not attend school for five days in one year,
and do not have a “reasonable excuse” for their absenteeism. 1 The Bill also proposes to
fine parents of children who are of a compulsory school age, and who are not enrolled in a
school or in home schooling.
We recognise the importance of children and young people participating in the education
system. Education is consistently identified as the most important pathway out of poverty
and disadvantage. 2 Poor attendance at school can adversely impact on a young person‟s
educational achievements and life chances. 3 Therefore, absenteeism and non-enrolment
are problems that need to be identified and addressed at an early stage. However, this
raises the question: how should these problems best be approached? While there are no
easy solutions in this area, the evidence indicates that we need to implement positive
strategies to support students and parents in engaging with school life. 4 There is certainly
no evidence that punitive mechanisms – such as imposing fines – are effective strategies
for addressing these issues. In fact, these punitive measures are likely to have a
detrimental effect on student attendance and parental participation in the education system.
We believe that, if introduced, the penalty system outlined in the Bill could entrench the
disengagement of disadvantaged young people and their parents from the education
system. In light of these concerns, we question whether the Bill is compatible with the
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. 5
It should be noted that jurisdictions that have introduced these types of punitive measures,
such as the United Kingdom, have found that they seem to have little impact on increasing
student retention in the long-term. 6 Furthermore, it has anecdotally been reported that
these punitive measures have resulted in a host of unintended consequences. For
example, we have had reports that the enforcement of these punitive measures has placed
1 The term „parents‟ is used in this submission to refer to both parents and guardians.
2 Campbell, Lea; McGuire, Magdalena; and Stockley, Che I Just Want to Go to School: Voices of Young
People Experiencing Educational Disadvantage (Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service, Jesuit Social
Services and MacKillop Family Services, 2012) at p.15. Report available at
http://www.goodshepvic.org.au/current_projects#Section1.
3 Withers, Graeme „Disenchantment, Disengagement, Disappearance: Some Recent Statistics and a
Commentary on Non-Attendance at School‟, A paper prepared for the Learning Choice Expo Conducted
by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum, Sydney 23-24 June 2004, at p.5.
4 See, for example: Campbell, Lea et al, I Just Want to Go to School (2012); National Educational Welfare
Board, „School Attendance and Participation: What Works and Why? Report from the National Education
Welfare Board Conference‟ (2008); Emerson, Lance; Fear, Josh; Fox, Stacey; Sanders, Emma; Parental
Engagement in Learning and Schooling: Lessons from Research (Family-School & Community
Partnerships Bureau 2012); and Kendall, Sally; Straw, Suzanne; Jones, Megan; Springate, Iain; and
Grayson, Hilary Narrowing the Gap in Outcomes for Vulnerable Groups: A Review of the Research
Evidence (National Foundation for Educational Research, 2008); Department of Education, Employment
and Training Victoria Keeping Kids at School: Issues in School Attendance (1999).
5 See, in particular, section 17 which protects families and children.
6 Sheldon, Nicola „Tackling Truancy: What Works?‟, History and Policy: Connecting Historians, Policy
Makers and the Media‟ (undated) available at http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-
84.html.
4

additional stress on families that were already socially and economically disadvantaged. In
turn, these measures appeared to contribute to further difficulties experienced by such
families, including the breakdown of relationships or young people leaving home at an early
age. 7 The United Kingdom experience indicates that, while absenteeism and nonenrolment
need to be identified and addressed at an early stage, they should not be dealt
with in a punitive manner.
There is also a lack of evidence surrounding the impetus for the Bill. The Exposure Draft is
not accompanied by any information about what lies behind the perceived need for the
legislative changes. Therefore, some key questions surrounding the Bill are left
unanswered. These include questions such as: Are the rates of student absenteeism and
non-enrolment actually increasing in Victoria? If so, which groups of individuals are
associated with this this increase? And what are the underlying reasons for this increase?
As this data is not readily available, the extent of this problem in Victoria remains unclear. 8
In the absence of transparent, publicly available information in this area, it is difficult to
devise a targeted response to the problems of absenteeism and non-enrolment. Therefore,
the first step to addressing these issues is to produce comprehensive, transparent
information about school attendance and retention rates throughout Victoria. It is important
that this data is disaggregated in order to assess the attendance rates of groups of children
and young people who are at risk of disengaging from the education system. Having said
this, it should be pointed out that, even if the rates of absenteeism and non-enrolment are
increasing in Victoria (and there is no evidence that this is the case) we do not believe that
imposing fines will alleviate these problems. A better strategy is to introduce positive
mechanisms for supporting parents and their children to participate in the education system.
Recommendation
1. The Victorian Government collects and annually publishes disaggregated data about the
school attendance and retention rates of children and young people in Victoria, including
those who are from low socioeconomic backgrounds, who are Indigenous, who are from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, who live in out of home care, and who
have disabilities.
The rest of this submission addresses the questions that accompany the Exposure Draft of
the School Attendance Bill.
7 These reports were made by a Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service youth worker who worked in the
United Kingdom in the area of education, and who had direct experience in monitoring the enforcement of
punitive measures aimed at increasing student attendance and retention at school.
8 The Victorian Child and Adolescent Monitoring System (also known as „VCAMS‟) collects information
about the average rates of student attendance at primary and secondary school. However, this data is
not readily available to the public, nor is it disaggregated. There are also various research reports that
outline the school attendance rates for particular groups of individuals, such as children and young people
living in out of home care in Victoria. See, for example, Wise, Sarah; Pollock, Sarah; Mitchell, Gaye;
Argus, Cathy & Farquhar, Peta, Care-System Impacts on Academic Outcomes (Anglicare Victoria and
Wesley Mission Victoria, 2010). However, in Victoria there is a lack of state-wide data that compares the
rates of school attendance for different groups of individuals the state.
5

Do you support the proposed legislative change?
We understand that the Education Training and Reform Act 2006 already outlines penalties
for parents who do not ensure that their child attends or is enrolled in school without a
reasonable excuse and that, currently, it is necessary to attend court to enforce these
penalties. We note that the proposed legislative changes are seeking to enable “more
effective enforcement” of these penalties. 9 In essence, the proposed changes are seeking
to expedite the process for the imposition of fines on parents whose children are absent
from or not enrolled in school without a reasonable excuse.
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service does not support the proposed legislative changes.
We believe that the proposed changes are driven by assumptions of questionable validity.
Implicitly, they define the problems of absenteeism and non-enrolment as ones of parental
or student negligence. In fact, the available research negates these assumptions. The
research indicates that many young people who have poor school attendance records are
not merely rebellious or „difficult‟, but face genuine hurdles in participating in the education
system. 10 For these young people, being absent from school is “not a lifestyle choice, but
rather a response to profound and complex challenges they face in their lives”. 11
In light of this, we propose that the problems of absenteeism (whether this be truancy or
„parental condoned absenteeism‟) 12 and non-enrolment need to be framed more broadly as
problems of educational disadvantage and disengagement. The evidence indicates that the
key groups of young people who are likely to experience educational disadvantage and
disengagement are those who:
are affected by poverty
are Indigenous
are from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, including refugees
live in out-of-home care
have parents who are involved in the criminal justice system
experience disabilities or mental health issues, or whose parents experience these
issues
have experienced, or whose parents have experienced, domestic and family
violence
are pregnant or parenting. 13
9 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development „School Attendance Bill: Exposure Draft for
Consultation‟ (2013).
10 Campbell, Lea et al I Just Want to Go to School (2012); Randall, Linda; Morstyn, Lisa and Walsh, Kate
Two Way Street: Young People Informing Improvements to Schools and Youth Services (Youth Affairs
Council of Victoria, 2012).
11 Randall, Linda et al Two Way Street (2012) at p.2.
12 On this point, it should be noted that the distinction between „truancy‟ and „parental condoned
absenteeism‟ is not as clear cut as the Exposure Draft implies. For example, some parents may be
aware that their child is truant from school, but lack the capacity to stop this from happening.
13 Campbell, Lea et al, I Just Want to Go to School (2012); Wise, Sarah et al Care-System Impacts on
Academic Outcomes (2010); Shacklock, Geoff „Parenting Students in Secondary School Settings: The
Challenge of the „Dilemma of Difference‟‟ (undated) available at
6

The particular issues faced by some of these groups of young people are highlighted below.
Case Study: Domestic Violence and Intergenerational Trauma
„Darlene‟ is a woman who in her 40s. She has a 10 year old child who attends primary
school named „Sarah‟. Darlene separated from her partner, Sarah‟s father, two years ago.
Darlene‟s former partner was extremely violent towards her and also sometimes towards
Sarah. Darlene is deeply traumatised as a result of the domestic violence and she has
developed mental health issues. Sarah is also traumatised by her experiences and is
finding it difficult to cope with her mother‟s mental health issues.
When Darlene is feeling really bad, she keeps Sarah home from school so her child can
keep her company and look after her. She gets Sarah to make her cups of tea and give her
massages.
There is no doubt that Sarah should be at school rather than staying at home to look after
her mother. However, imposing fines on a traumatised family is not the solution to this
problem. Rather, the family needs support to help them address the trauma they have
experienced.
Poverty
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service recently completed a research project on
educational disadvantage in collaboration with Jesuit Social Services and MacKillop Family
Services. The report is called I Just Want to Go to School: Stories of Young People
Experiencing Educational Disadvantage. 14 The report found that one of the key reasons for
educational disengagement is poverty. School is one of the chief settings in which young
people become aware of – and keenly feel the effects of – poverty. 15 The young people
who took part in our research project reported that their sense of being “different” at school
led to difficulties such as being ostracised, bullied and experiencing violence. Many of
these young people indicated that, while they wanted to get an education, they were often
reluctant to go to school due to the fact that this was not a safe or welcoming environment
for them. In response to these issues, the report recommended that schools should be
supported to provide strong prevention and early intervention responses to student
wellbeing issues, including bullying and mental health issues. The report also
recommended that schools should conduct “equity audits” to promote equal access to
learning experiences for all students – including those from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds. 16
http://www.tasa.org.au/conferences/conferencepapers07/papers/106.pdf; Randall, Linda et al Two Way
Street (2012).
14 Campbell, Lea et al, I Just Want to Go to School (2012).
15 Campbell, Lea et al, I Just Want to Go to School (2012) at p.15.
16 Campbell, Lea et al, I Just Want to Go to School (2012) at p.6.
7

Our practice experience also indicates that children and young people from disadvantaged
backgrounds may stay at home from school if they do not have enough money for food to
take to school, or for transport to and from school, for example. 17 It is also important to be
aware that it is not unusual for children and young people from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds to support their parents to undertake paid work, or to undertake paid work
themselves in order to contribute to the household income. 18 Some children and young
people may also have to act as carers for siblings or their parents (for example, if their
parent is experiencing physical or mental health issues). 19 These family responsibilities can
adversely impact on the ability of children and young people to attend school. Therefore,
addressing these financial and other barriers is a key step to enabling these children and
young people to attend school.
Case Study: No Shoes for School
„Marie‟ is a single mother with two children who are of primary school age, „Sean‟ and
„Jake‟. 20 Marie is committed to ensuring that her children receive an education, but she
struggles to meet the costs of their schooling. Marie reports that her sons‟ public schools
are strict about them wearing school uniforms. However, their uniforms are expensive, and
pose an additional cost that she does not need.
On one occasion, Marie‟s son Sean came home from the pool after having lost a shoe. He
had been wearing his only pair of shoes, so he didn‟t have any others he could wear as a
backup. Marie said that she didn‟t want to send her son to school without shoes as she was
worried about him being reprimanded by the school and ostracised by his peers. Sean
therefore stayed home from school for a few days until Marie got paid. When Marie was
paid, she bought him a pair of shoes and he was able to return to school.
Marie often worries about the costs of the children‟s schooling and their extra-curricular
activities. She says that “the kids really want to go to things like school camps and it‟s hard
to say no”. She occasionally accesses emergency relief to assist with the costs of her sons‟
education.
Marie‟s case illustrates that financial difficulties can be an obstacle to children attending
school. These difficulties would no doubt be exacerbated if Marie was fined for failing to
provide a „reasonable excuse‟ for her children‟s absence from school. What Marie requires
is financial support to enable her children to better engage in the education system.
17 This experience is echoed in research. See, for example, Skattebol, Jennifer; Saunders, Peter;
Redmond, Gerry; Bedford, Megan; and Cass, Bettina; Making a Difference: Building on Young People’s
Experiences of Economic Adversity (Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales,
2012) p.vi.
18 Skattebol, Jennifer et al Making a Difference (2012) pp.4 and 44-45.
19 Campbell, Lea et al, I Just Want to Go to School (2012) at p.32.
20 All the names used in this submission are pseudonyms.
8

Our research shows that the costs of education can exacerbate the difficulties experienced
by lower socioeconomic families. 21 Despite the rhetoric of „free education‟, the reality is that
schools are becoming over-reliant on payments from parents to cover the shortfalls in
government funding. 22 The result is that the cost of education has been shifted from the
state to the individual. In turn, these costs are often shifted a second time, when
disadvantaged families seek help from the community sector. 23 In light of this, Good
Shepherd Youth & Family Service is concerned that, if implemented, the system for fines
outlined in the Bill could represent another cost that is passed on to an already stretched
community sector.
Indigenous Australians
Engagement in education is a particularly important issue for Indigenous people, who are
reported to have lower levels of educational attendance and achievement than non-
Indigenous Australians. 24 The reasons for this are complex, but stem from the systemic
disadvantages that Indigenous Australians continue to face in contemporary society. As
Nola Purdie and Sarah Buckley note, Indigenous students
“are unlikely to be able to fully participate and engage in education if they face a
complex set of circumstances that result in disadvantage across a range of life
experiences”. 25
Data provided by the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Programme reveals that, in
both government and independent schools, the average attendance rates are almost
invariably lower for Indigenous students than for their non-Indigenous counterparts
(regardless of whether the students are in primary or secondary school). 26 In schools where
the programme noted an improved Indigenous attendance, contributory factors that were
identified included:
efforts to make the curriculum interesting, relevant and fun
support networks for secondary students (for example, mentoring)
supportive learning environments
staff who were demonstrably able to build rapport with Indigenous students and
develop flexible, individualised learning plans. 27
21 Campbell, Lea et al, I Just Want to Go to School (2012); Landvogt, Kathy Review of Funding for
Schooling: Submission to the Australian Government (Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service, 2011)
available at http://www.goodshepvic.org.au/policy_research/policy_submissions
22 Landvogt, Kathy Review of Funding for Schooling (2011) at p.7.
23 Bond, Sharon Cost Shifting in Education: Implications for Government, the Community Sector and Low-
Income Families (Equity in Education, 2009) at p.v.
24 Purdie, Nola and Buckley, Sarah „School Attendance and Retention of Indigenous Australian Students‟
Issues Paper No. 1 (2010) at p.1.
25 Purdie, Nola et al „School Attendance and Retention of Indigenous Australian Students‟ (2010) at p.18.
26 Principals Institute Australia „Dare to Lead – Attendance: Research and Approaches‟ (undated)
available at http://www.daretolead.edu.au/RES_IS_ATT.
27 Principals Institute Australia „Dare to Lead‟ (undated).
9

Case Study: Trying to Turn Her Life Around
„Jenny‟ is a 12 year old girl who is Indigenous. She lives at home with her mother and
younger siblings.
Jenny was disengaged from school for approximately one year. During this time, she
abused drugs and alcohol and associated with an older offending peer group. Child
Protection became involved in Jenny‟s case. However, their involvement did not have an
impact on her willingness to attend school.
Last year, Jenny absconded from home and her whereabouts were not known for several
months. When Jenny returned home, she was pregnant.
As a result of her experiences, Jenny has decided that she would like to turn her life around.
She has identified that attending and completing high school is a long-term goal that she
wants to achieve. Supports have been put in place to assist Jenny in achieving this goal.
However, attending school is an ongoing challenge for Jenny in light of the other issues she
has going on in her life.
CALD Backgrounds
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service had conducted research into the challenges faced
by newly arrived migrants in Victoria. 28 This research shows that school staff members
seldom understand the complex issues recent migrants face when entering the Victorian
schooling system, including poor or no English skills, little or no prior access to formal
schooling, and immense family pressures resulting from resettlement. 29 This lack of
understanding, combined with the broader social and economic challenges faced by these
families, can result in disengagement from the education system.
Out-of-Home Care
Children and young people who live away from their families experience a range of
disadvantages that can diminish their educational outcomes. 30 These disadvantages can
include experiencing poverty, the effects of trauma, instability in school, and difficulties
associated with living in out-of-home care (for example, lacking a quiet and private place to
study). As the below case study illustrates, young people living in out-of-home care can
also have difficulties attending school due to financial reasons. Due to these
disadvantages, children and young people living in out-of-home care typically have higher
rates of absenteeism and truancy than their peers. 31
28 Benhadya, Endalkatchew B Gage, Sudanese Scoping Project: The Needs of Sudanese Refugee
Children, Youth and Families in the Cities of Yarra and Brimbank (Good Shepherd Youth & Family
Service, 2012).
29 Benhadya, Endalkatchew B Gage, Sudanese Scoping Project (2012).
30 Campbell, Lea et al, I Just Want to Go to School (2012) at p.18.
31 Wise, Sarah et al Care-System Impacts on Academic Outcomes (2010) at p.18.
10

Walid’s Story: Living in Out-of-Home Care
“Being in care and getting an education can be hard. Once I got into school but had to wait
two weeks to go to school „cos my fees weren‟t paid for. That got me shitty. When you
have to apply for funding for school and wait a long time for a response it gets annoying. I
believe that it shouldn‟t have taken so long to pay for my fees. I got annoyed and
embarrassed when I got kicked out of class in front of everyone because my fees weren‟t
paid. I think that the school should have let me stay „cos it wasn‟t my fault.”
Walid‟s story is extracted from the I Just Want to Go to School report 32
People with Disabilities
The Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission has found that children and
young people with disabilities continue to face significant barriers to participating in the
education system. 33 In spite of the fact that the law requires all students who are enrolled in
school to attend full-time, some schools do not allow some students with disabilities to
attend full-time. According to the Commission, this is a clear case of discrimination. 34 The
Commission has also found that, in some cases, students with disabilities are only allowed
to attend school during the hours that a funded aide is available. In other cases, a student
may be required to attend school part-time following behaviour problems that have not been
well managed. The Commission has advised that these are serious matters that the
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development must proactively address in
order to comply with anti-discrimination laws. 35
32 Campbell, Lea et al, I Just Want to Go to School (2012) at p.44.
33 Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission Held Back: The Experiences of Students with
Disabilities in Victorian Schools (2012).
34 Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission Held Back (2012) at pp.28-35.
35 Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission Held Back (2012) at pp.8-11.
11

Case Study: Responding to Complex Needs
„Ben‟ is a 14 year old boy who has been diagnosed with Asperger‟s Syndrome and a
borderline intellectual disability. Ben has had difficulties attending a mainstream school.
Ben has behavioural issues that are associated with his disability. These behavioural
issues were exacerbated by the fact that his school failed to place him in an appropriate
learning environment that catered for the needs of his disability. Ben‟s behavioural issues
got worse until he was expelled from school.
As no mainstream school was willing to take him on, Ben has enrolled in an alternative
education school. This new school has exposed him to other young people who are
deemed to be „at risk‟. Ben feels threatened by his peers and has missed weeks of school.
Ben‟s parents are working with support agencies to try to find ways to get Ben to attend
school. However, this is an ongoing battle. When Ben‟s mother tries to get him to attend
school, he can get aggressive towards her. Sometimes Ben‟s mother does not push him to
attend school in order to avoid being assaulted by him.
The Way Forward
Educational disengagement is a problem that stems from social and economic inequalities,
as well as difficulties within the education system itself. In light of this, the imposition of
fines on parents will not address the underlying reasons for educational disengagement.
Rather, these punitive measures will only exacerbate the difficulties faced by disadvantaged
families. Accordingly, Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service does not support the
proposed legislative changes. Indeed, we are concerned that these proposals run counter
to the available evidence in this area (including research and policy documents produced by
the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development). 36 The research
emphasises that positive strategies are needed to increase student engagement and
retention. 37 In short, the evidence indicates that effective attendance and engagement
policies need to ensure that:
students have equal access to learning experiences
low income families receive financial support to enable their children to participate in
education
schools are more student and parent centred
parents are treated as their children‟s „partners in learning‟
students are viewed as active, participative learners
the school curriculum includes flexible learning options and high quality vocational
education to suit the needs of all students
schools effectively address bullying and violence
36 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Effective Strategies to Increase School
Completion Report (2008); Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Effective
Schools are Engaging Schools: Student Engagement Policy Guidelines (2009).
37 Campbell, Lea et al, I Just Want to Go to School (2012); Purdie, Nola et al „School Attendance and
Retention of Indigenous Australian Students‟ (2010); National Educational Welfare Board, „School
Attendance and Participation‟ (2008).
12

the needs of Indigenous students and students from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds are catered for. 38
We recognise that the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development has
already conducted a great deal of positive work in the area of student engagement in
education. It would be valuable, therefore, to build on the initiatives that the Department
has already developed, such as those outlined in Effective Schools are Engaging Schools:
Student Engagement Policy Guidelines 39 . These guidelines emphasise the importance of
creating positive and engaging school cultures. This is particularly important given that the
research confirms the obvious fact that if children and young people are happy at school,
they are more likely to attend. 40 We also believe that it would be beneficial for the Victorian
government to implement the recommendations for schools outlined in our report I Just
Want to Go to School: Stories of Young People Experiencing Educational Disadvantage. 41
This report draws together evidence from a range of sources (including current policy and
research, and data collected from young people themselves) to develop holistic
recommendations for addressing educational disadvantage and disengagement.
Recommendations
2. The Victorian Government does not introduce the penalty infringement process outlined
in the Education and Training Reform Amendment (School Attendance) Bill 2006.
3. The Victorian Government builds on the range of positive strategies for addressing
student engagement and retention that have already been developed by the Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development, such as those outlined in Effective Schools
are Engaging Schools: Student Engagement Policy Guidelines.
4. The Victorian Government implements the recommendations for schools outlined in the
report by Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service, Jesuit Social Services and MacKillop
Family Services titled I Just Want to Go to School: Stories of Young People Experiencing
Educational Disadvantage.
38 National Educational Welfare Board, „School Attendance and Participation‟ (2008); Campbell, Lea et al,
I Just Want to Go to School (2012); Purdie, Nola et al „School Attendance and Retention of Indigenous
Australian Students‟ (2010); Macgregor, Rupert „Families in Partnership: A Force More Powerful‟ A Paper
to the Parents Victoria Conference in Melbourne, 25 August 2005 available at
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/partnerships/pages/familypartnerevidence.aspx;
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development „Building Family Partnerships‟ (undated)
available at http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/partnerships/pages/familypartnerbuild.aspx.
39 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Effective Schools are Engaging Schools
(2009).
40 Attitudes to school differ between those students with good and poor attendance records. Those with
better attendance records are likely to report that “school life is a happy one for me”. Students who skip
school are more likely to feel that disengaged from their teachers and learning environment. See
National Educational Welfare Board, „School Attendance and Participation‟ (2008) at p.6.
41 Campbell, Lea et al, I Just Want to Go to School (2012).
13

Do you support the introduction of penalty infringement notices as a last resort?
For the reasons outlined above, we do not believe that penalty infringement notices should
be imposed on families of children and young people who are either absent from, or not
enrolled in, school. Rather, we believe that the government should implement positive
strategies for increasing student engagement in the education system, such as those
outlined in the Effective Schools are Engaging Schools policy guidelines and the I Just
Want to Go to School report.
Do you think that the introduction of penalty infringement notices will improve
parental attitudes to school attendance?
We do not believe that the introduction of penalty infringement notices will improve parental
attitudes to either school attendance or enrolment. If parents are already disengaged from
the education system, it is unlikely that fining them will improve the situation. In fact,
penalty infringement notices are likely to entrench negative parental attitudes to the school
environment, where these exist. Rather than introducing penalty infringement notices, the
policies in this area should focus on engaging parents in the education system. 42 The
evidence shows that parental engagement in education is associated with various indicators
of positive student development, including more regular school attendance. 43
The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development has built on the evidence
in this area by developing resources for building partnerships between schools and parents.
The Department‟s „Building Family Partnerships‟ seven point plan emphasises the
importance of:
facilitating communication between families and school staff
involving families in their children‟s learning at home
schools valuing the diversity of families in their community
recognising families as the primary educators of their children
consultative decision-making
collaboration between schools and the not-for-profit sector, community groups and
businesses to assist families abilities in improving their children‟s learning
including families in school-based activities. 44
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service believes it is preferable for schools build on these
guidelines for engaging parents in their children‟s education, rather than seeking penalty
infringement notices for parents whose children are absent from or not enrolled in school.
42 Emerson, Lance et al Parental Engagement in Learning and Schooling (2012) at p.7.
43 Emerson, Lance et al Parental Engagement in Learning and Schooling (2012) at p.8.
44 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development „Building Family Partnerships‟ (undated).
14

Do you think that the introduction of penalty infringement notices will improve
parental attitudes to school enrolment?
For the reasons outlined above, we do not believe that penalty infringement notices will
improve parental attitudes to school enrolment.
Do you think that the introduction of penalty infringement notices and staged
processes outlined in the guidelines will support schools to address issues of
non-attendance and non-enrolment?
As we have stated, we do not believe that the penalty infringement notices system would be
an effective mechanism for addressing the issues of student absenteeism and nonenrolment.
Rather, schools should be supported in implementing targeted initiatives that
are aimed at improving the quality of school life and learning conditions for those individuals
and groups most at risk of disengagement, absenteeism and non-enrolment.
Do you have any suggestions to facilitate the roll-out of the attendance
improvement strategies outlined in the guidelines?
No; we do not believe that the strategies outlined in the guidelines should be implemented
as they directly contradict the available evidence in this area.
Do you think that this strategy caters to the needs of vulnerable families and
minority population groups?
This strategy does not adequately cater for the needs of families who are disadvantaged,
marginalised and on low incomes. Imposing fines on these families will further entrench
their impoverished circumstances and, in turn, could make it more difficult for their children
to attend school.
We are also concerned about the proposed processes for responding to student
absenteeism and non-enrolment. In particular, the emphasis on written communication
could disadvantage families who have limited English literacy skills (for example, some
families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds). We note that the guidelines
instruct schools to “notify a parent in writing” each time that the school considers that their
child has been absent without a reasonable excuse. Likewise, the Bill requires parents to
respond to these notifications in writing. Requiring parents to read – and respond – to these
notices in writing could lead to some parents being fined simply because they are not able
to understand the information that was provided to them. In addition, the evidence indicates
that letters are an ineffective way of contacting parents from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Rather, personal (phone) contact is vital for connecting with these parents. 45 Therefore, if a
school attendance officer is seeking to impose an infringement notice on parents, they
45 National Educational Welfare Board, „School Attendance and Participation‟ (2008) at pp.12-13.
15

should notify the parent both verbally and in writing to ensure that the parent has received
and understood this information.
Are there any further comments that you would like to make in relation to the
draft guidelines, regulations or Bill?
As we have emphasised in this submission, we do not believe that the proposed legislative
changes should be implemented. However, if they are implemented, these changes need
to be monitored and evaluated to check what effect they are having on students and
parents. This evaluation should ascertain whether the penalties system is having any effect
on student absenteeism and non-enrolment. The evaluation should also gauge whether
any particular groups have been impacted by this system and, if so, how they have been
affected. It is vital for students and parents to have a strong input into this evaluation
process. The results of this evaluation should be made publicly available to ensure that
there is transparent information available about the new system, and to contribute to the
knowledge-base about the effectiveness of interventions to increase student attendance
and retention.
Conclusion
There is no „magic bullet‟ for addressing the problems of absenteeism and non-enrolment.
These are complex problems that require a nuanced response. However, it is clear that
strategies based on prevention and positive frameworks are far more successful than those
based on punitive measures. We strongly recommend that the proposed penalties system
is not implemented. Rather, the focus should be on implementing positive, holistic
strategies for increasing student and parental engagement with the education system.
16