Research School Network: ‘Push’ and ​‘Pull’ factors to improve school attendance: a case study Creating a culture of belonging

Blog


‘Push’ and ​‘Pull’ factors to improve school attendance: a case study

Creating a culture of belonging

Mark Barlow

Mark Barlow

Deputy Headteacher Quality of Culture, St James School

Read more aboutMark Barlow

St James School is a mixed secondary school in Exeter, Devon, and part of the Ted Wragg Academy Trust. There are 1004 students aged 11 – 16 on roll, 41% Pupil Premium pupils, SEND or both. Mark Barlow, Deputy Headteacher Quality of Culture at St James School summarises a case study.

Research suggests that to target support effectively, an understanding of why students are not attending school is key to reducing absence (EEF: Supporting school attendance).

Additionally, research evidence suggests that students feeling a belonging’ to school means that they will attend more (Impact Ed: Understanding Attendance).

Driven by these two findings, St James School Exeter developed a tool for gaining a forensic understanding of absence, and used it to develop their work on belonging. Use of this tool, alongside subsequent actions, has contributed to an attendance increase amongst selected cohorts of students at the school, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The aim was to ensure a consistent approach to conversations with students and families, aiming for an improved understanding of student absence.

The Tool – Push and Pull Factor’ Questionnaire


The tool facilitates discussions with students and their families to explore the push’ and pull’ factors impacting attendance. We talk through a list of possible factors pushing’ them away from school, for example Lessons are too difficult’, I don’t have any friends to spend break and lunch with’, or I am worried about getting into trouble’. We also ask about pull’ factors that might be keeping them at home, including I want to stay home with my parents’, I look after parents or siblings at home’, I feel safe at home’, or even I want to be home to use my mobile phone’. Making the space for these honest, curious and structured conversations and hearing the perspectives of both students and their families helps us to better understand what drives student behaviour. This creates the starting point for finding an appropriate and effective response.

We compiled the factors on a Microsoft Form which the relevant staff member would submit, summarising actions for home, school, and the student. The table below includes some examples of Push’ and Pull’ factors:

Pushpull

Roles and Responsibilities

The attendance and pastoral team identify key students to focus on during the next half term.

Three uses of the tool:

  • Core staff teams: Two core pastoral staff leaders, the Deputy Head for Inclusion and the EiE (Equity in Education) lead worked with 10 students each, and engaged with the students and their families using the tool. We tracked the teams and had photo boards in staff briefings. The staff had attendance targets for their allocated students and offered them reward vouchers for meeting them.
  • SLT teams: This built on the first delivery method, hoping to reach more students. Each member of SLT would be assigned 2 – 3 students and used the questionnaire to engage in dialogue with the students and their families, in conjunction with the relevant Head of Year
  • Booster sessions: During staff inset days at the beginning of term, we invited students who were persistently absent the previous year to come in and meet members of pastoral team, get their timetable early, make pizza, play games, and meet with their Head of Year to complete the Push and Pull Factor’ questionnaire.

We have seen that these approaches are promising:

1. Whole school attendance
: improvement by 1% each year for the last 3 years. EiE attendance improved by 2% last year. Persistent absence dropped from 35.8 to 19.2% over the 3 years.
2. Core staff teams:
Positive dialogue achieved with some students we had to work harder to reach. 60% improvement in attendance (with staff absence).
3. SLT teams
: 66% of the students we targeted had improved attendance last half term. 8% stayed the same. 25% struggled and need more significant support. The overall improvement of the group was 6.1%.
4. Booster sessions
: 59% improved attendance. 23% stayed the same. 17% continued to decline.

Conclusion


Our experience at St James aligns with the research evidence on the importance of understanding students’ individual circumstances when looking to improve attendance. The questionnaire was a tool that worked in our context to improve our understanding. The important thing is ensuring there are interested adults who will engage in open discussion with targeted students, who will listen, make changes, and help develop the students’ sense of belonging.

To consider push and pull factors at play for your students, consider reading the six themes on the EEF’s school attendance webpages alongside the Reflection and Planning tool.

More from the Research Schools Network

Show all news

This website collects a number of cookies from its users for improving your overall experience of the site.Read more