by Dr Jennifer Sole 

School attendance remains a top priority for many schools, especially with persistent absenteeism still high post-pandemic. EBSA is now commonly used to describe children who do not attend school due to emotional reasons. Before adopting any targeted attendance strategy, schools should audit their implementation of the 8 Principles of the Whole School Approach These principles aim to protect and promote pupil wellbeing and may reduce the need for reduced timetables to only a select few.

A Reduced Timetable

A Reduced Timetable is a temporary agreement between the school, pupil, and family to reduce school hours, with absences registered as authorized. There is no fixed timeframe for such arrangements; government guidance recommends regular reviews to ensure they are in place for the shortest time possible.

Successfully implementing a Reduced Timetable requires time and resources, and there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach. Schools must anticipate setbacks and periods of trial and error. While resource-intensive, when used well, reduced timetables can foster trust between pupil and school, develop self-advocacy skills, and lead to sustained attendance and improved academic outcomes. Conversely, if adopted in a manner that places blame within the individual and it is unsuccessful, it can result in feelings of hopelessness and failure, further harming pupil wellbeing.

A Relational Approach

Successful implementation requires understanding that school non-attendance is a result of the relationship between the child and their context, rather than locating ‘the problem’ solely within the child. The question becomes: Why this pupil, at this school, at this time? This reframing adopts compassionate curiosity, making it the responsibility of a network of people to resolve, not just the child.

Careful consideration is needed regarding who comprises this network and the roles of power and identity. Complex dynamics can arise, especially when liaising with Attendance Officers who have the authority to issue fines. Allocation of roles and responsibilities need to be thoughtful, for example; who is best placed to gather information from the child about their school experience? If an unknown adult in a position of power, how honest is the child able to be, is this task best placed with a parent or teacher with whom they have a strong connection. Schools need to think carefully about ‘who’ and ‘how’ roles are allocated, appreciating the relational component of tasks such as leading reviews, monitoring progress and gathering information.

It is important for schools to anticipate and allocate the resources required in order to maintain change and limit the likelihood of drift. Having named adults allows for both accountability and closer monitoring for any external factors such as ill health or changes in family circumstances which could hinder the progress and review whether steps are achievable and if not may need breaking down into more manageable chunks. If the pupil is unable to successfully complete the steps, it is vital the plan is amended, not the child confronted with an unachievable step. For some, this process may be quick and simple; for others, it may require frequent trial and error to ensure steps are pitched ‘just right’.

Collaborative Understanding

Children avoid school for many reasons, and no two experiences are the same. Creating a reduced timetable requires a careful review of the entire school week, not just taught lessons, but also transitions, peer interactions, arrival and departure, and use of facilities. Resources such as ‘mapping the landscape’ can aid this process. Collaboratively agreeing on goals helps set expectations and ensures a shared direction, adding predictability for pupils.

The hopes for a reduced timetable may vary; for some, ‘full-time’ attendance may remove particular demands. Preparation involves understanding the child’s school experience to develop a manageable plan, including supports and environmental adaptations. For some, this process may be quick and simple; for others, it may require frequent trial and error to ensure steps are achievable. Anticipating the resources needed to maintain change prompts schools to allocate roles and responsibilities for regular reviews, noticing if steps need adjustment and ensuring progress is maintained.

For some children whose non-attendance was a result of a specific period of absence for example ill health, a phased return to school may well be enough to gradually expose a pupil to a setting and build capacity to manage the full school day. However, for others who have presented with long standing reluctance to attend school which is understood as a result of the lack of necessary accommodations to the learning environment, a reduced timetable would be best employed alongside installation of accommodations (e.g., visual timetables, access to quiet spaces, specific learning supports). Or perhaps a pupil is currently experiencing an episode of anxiety that requires targeted support from external agencies (e.g., psychoeducation work with a Well-Being Practitioner).

Simply returning a pupil to the same environmental pressures without adjustments or increased internal resources will not lead to sustained change. Reduced timetables should rarely, if ever, be used in isolation. They are best employed alongside accommodations in the learning environment (e.g., visual timetables, access to quiet spaces, late passes) and/or targeted supports from school staff or external agencies (e.g., 1:1 study skills, mentoring, therapeutic interventions). 

Stages of Change

Adopting the Stages of Change Model (Prochaska & DiClemente), a therapeutic technique for behaviour change, may be a helpful framework. The model acknowledges that progress is not always linear, and people can move back and forth between stages. It acknowledges that setbacks are to be expected and are useful in developing understanding.

• Pre-Contemplation: Students may not see non-attendance as a problem (“I’d rather be at home where I am safe”; “School is too stressful”). Response: Build trust and show understanding, rather than pushing for change. 

• Contemplation: Pupils may want to attend but feel unable due to barriers. Response: Explore costs and benefits of attending, validate their experience. 

• Preparation: Pupils begin to make plans (“Maybe I could try coming in for Art”). Response: Offer flexibility and consider achievable steps, such as starting with certain times or lessons. 

• Action: Pupils work hard to affect change and complete steps on the reduced timetable. Response: Encourage and praise effort, monitor stress levels, and review steps regularly. 

• Maintenance: Attendance improves, but setbacks remain possible. Response: Continue support, check accommodations, and review interventions. 

• Termination (Setbacks): Pupils may withdraw again due to changes in circumstances or increased anxiety. Response: Normalize setbacks, avoid blame, and return to earlier stages of the model.  

Rather than being seen as failures, set-backs can help further understanding of a pupils needs and requirements. If, in the rare scenario, it is learnt a pupil cannot return to the setting in a meaningful capacity, this is a helpful outcome as it can carefully guide requirements of any future settings.

Often, people are ambivalent about change, or perhaps not yet ready to make a change, thus responses must be tailored to meet them where they are. Frustration and disappointment can arise when there is a mismatch between a pupils readiness to change and the approach taken by school/family. Use of the stages for change model can help guide responses.

Conclusion 

To successfully tackle attendance schools need to acknowledge the relational component of EBSA. Reduced Timetables can be effective tools to improving a pupils’ attendance, yet they need to be bespoke to individual needs. Use of the Stages of Change model may help carefully guide responses to facilitate and maintain change.

If you are interested in accessing training, consultation or supervision please be in touch; jenny@solepsychology.co.uk / www.solepsychology.co.uk  

Jennifer is currently in independent practice in East Kent, offering direct therapeutic intervention, training, supervision and consultation. Prior to this she worked in the NHS for 13 years, most recently as a Locality Clinical Lead for the Mental Health Support Teams in schools in East Kent.

All opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own based on their practice experience.