This chapter sets the analytical foundation for the report. It clarifies key concepts and terminology related to school attendance problems, including distinctions between authorised and unauthorised absences, to support international comparison. Drawing on findings from the OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems, international large-scale assessments and relevant research literature, the chapter provides an overview of major attendance trends across education systems. It examines disparities by student background characteristics, considers school leaders’ perspectives on attendance challenges, and presents descriptive evidence on long-term absence and post-COVID-19 attendance patterns.
Every Day Counts
Understanding, Preventing and Responding to School Attendance Problems
Abstract
School attendance problems have become a central policy issue in several jurisdictions, intensified by post-COVID-19 pandemic disruptions, widening inequalities and increased awareness of the long-term consequences of absences.
Definitions and terminology vary among education systems
To support a concise international analysis, this report uses “school attendance problems” as a broad umbrella term and “absence” as a concise term for all forms of non-attendance among students formally enrolled in primary or secondary education. However, there is no internationally agreed definition of school attendance problems, absence rates or related terms. Education systems use diverse definitions and classification frameworks. This lack of comparability complicates cross-national analysis and the transfer of effective policies.
Language and classification shape responses and experiences
Terminology is not neutral: it can influence how absences are measured, interpreted and addressed. Distinctions, such as authorised and unauthorised absences, often determine whether interventions are supportive, disciplinary or legal. These classifications can also contribute to disadvantages for marginalised students and families.
School attendance problems are unequally distributed
School attendance problems are more prevalent among certain groups, including socio-economically disadvantaged students, those with an immigrant background, students with special education needs and other groups. However, the patterns vary by context.
School attendance problems have worsened over time in several education systems
Student-reported absences in primary education and truancy among 15-year-old students have increased since the early 2010s in several countries. At the same time, school leaders have become more likely to report attendance-related problems: in primary education, school leaders more often report that student absenteeism or late arrival is a serious problem, while in secondary education, more often report that student truancy hinders learning.
Trends differ among countries, educational levels and data sources
International large-scale assessments reveal considerable variation in absence patterns over time, and between primary and secondary education. Measures based on student self-reports and school leaders’ perceptions often produce different pictures, underscoring challenges in measurement and comparison.
Post-pandemic attendance remains a concern
While trends are mixed, many education systems report persistently higher absence rates following the pandemic. Shifts in instructional practices, worsening psychological and mental health challenges, and changes in students’ behaviours and parental attitudes may contribute to these patterns.
The report provides a new international evidence base
The report combines a policy survey covering 45 education systems with international data and research literature to strengthen understanding of school attendance problems and inform policy responses.
Every morning, millions of children are expected to attend school. Yet many face barriers that prevent regular attendance. School attendance problems (SAP) are no longer a marginal issue; they have become a challenge affecting classrooms in nearly every country. SAP are not simply about skipping class or lacking motivation: absences often reflect deeper, systemic problems (see Chapter 2). Students may stay home due to negative school climate, bullying, lack of interest in education, physical or mental health struggles, family obligations, poverty-related obstacles, such as inadequate housing, unreliable transportation or food insecurity, among other factors. These barriers do not just interrupt learning; they can widen educational disparities and reinforce cycles of disadvantage (see Chapter 3). While schools are meant to be places of growth and opportunity, for many students, even getting through the door is a daily challenge.
The consequences of SAP ripple far beyond the classroom. Poor school attendance is associated with lower academic achievement, higher drop-out rates and reduced job prospects in adulthood (see Chapter 3). The long-term effects of missing school can persist throughout life, exacerbating inequality and limiting social mobility.
Moreover, attendance trends are anything but uniform. They vary widely among countries, across regions and between student groups. In many cases, it is the most vulnerable students who face the most significant barriers to consistent attendance. To tackle this issue effectively, it is essential to understand how attendance has evolved and which forces are driving these disparities.
This report brings SAP to the forefront of policy discussions. It draws on unique results from the OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems (Box 1.1). One of the many significant contributions of this survey is the fact that it collected information from 45 education systems in the world (mostly from EU and OECD countries), in the broader context where research on SAP is concentrated in countries with good administrative data infrastructures (e.g. Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States) (Heyne et al., 2020[1]). This information is combined with analyses from international large-scale assessments gathering data on school truancy and absence from students and school leaders. Finally, the report utilises knowledge obtained through reviews of academic and other literature, identifying drivers, consequences, and promising policies and practices to tackle SAP.
The OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems collected, for the first time, education jurisdictions’ definitions, monitoring practices, drivers, consequences, policies and practices to address SAP. Countries were asked to fill out the survey considering public primary and secondary educational levels (i.e. ISCED 1-3). In total, 45 education systems from 35 OECD, EU and OECD accession countries filled out the survey.
Where education is a devolved responsibility, sub-national entities could fill out separate surveys (e.g. Communities in Belgium, countries in the United Kingdom and autonomous communities in Spain). In these instances, sub-national examples included in the report should be understood as illustrative examples of practices and approaches that may also exist, in similar forms, in other parts of the country, even where they are not explicitly mentioned.
The survey was divided into seven modules with 35 items:
Definitions and trends in school attendance problems (four items);
Monitoring of school attendance (ten items);
Drivers of school attendance problems (one item);
Consequences of school attendance problems (two items);
Policies related to the governance of school attendance problems (nine items);
Policies related to capacity building (three items); and
Policies related to school-level interventions (six items).
Efforts were made to create a comprehensive data collection. However, the findings cannot be regarded as exhaustive of the topics covered due to various limitations, such as survey length, international comparability, and the balance between clarity and concision. Given that policy contexts change in time, it is important to regard this information as representative of the year 2025 in the participating education systems. Further information is provided in the report annex.
The timing of this report is deliberate. SAP have become a central policy issue in several jurisdictions, intensified by COVID-19 pandemic disruptions, widening inequalities and increased awareness of the long‑term consequences of absences. Education systems seek not only to understand the scale and nature of the challenge, but also to respond effectively (Chapter 4). By consolidating new policy survey evidence with international data and research, this report provides a strategic evidence base for action.
A significant challenge in the field of SAP is the lack of internationally comparable definitions. Countries adopt diverse terminologies and operational frameworks to define and address issues related to attendance and absence. These variations hinder cross-country comparability and can complicate the task of transferring effective policies and practices across borders (Heyne, Keppens and Dvořák, 2024[2]).
Consensus on definitions and terminology has not yet been reached in the academic literature either. While there is an agreement that SAP operate across and are shaped by multiple intersecting domains and systems (e.g. among youth, parents, schools, communities, organisations and legal contexts), no universally agreed classification currently exists. However, multiple lines of evidence suggest that SAP can be meaningfully differentiated by function and type (Heyne et al., 2019[3]). To offer a foundational and comprehensive historical review of SAP and its evolving terminology, Heyne et al. (2019[4]) highlighted definitional inconsistencies and competing conceptualisations of terms, such as school refusal, truancy, school withdrawal and school exclusion (Table 1.1). Some more recent approaches in the United Kingdom identify dominant terms, such as emotionally based school avoidance, and a shift toward more neutral, systemic language, such as extended school non-attendance (Hammond-Price et al., 2025[5]). The choice of terminology is crucial, as it can have an impact on interpretation, measurement approaches and potential stigma, particularly when terms implicitly assign responsibility to a student (Kjeøy and Lysvik, 2024[6]).
Note: While these definitions are based on a review of the literature, there is no broad consensus on the definitions. This list is not exhaustive and does not include all terms and definitions related to school attendance problems.
Source: Heyne et al. (2019[4]), Differentiation Between School Attendance Problems: Why and How?, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.03.006.
Terms adopted in this report
To support a concise international analysis, this report uses “school attendance problems” (SAP) as a broad umbrella term and “absence” as a concise term for all forms of non-attendance among students formally enrolled in primary or secondary education. This choice does not imply that these terms are preferable to jurisdiction-specific terminology. Rather, the term “school attendance problems” is widely used in international research as a broad umbrella term that covers different forms of absence (Heyne et al., 2019[3]). “Absence” is a term that is often used in national (or sub-national) jurisdictions (see sections below).
Terminology in this field continues to evolve. For instance, while “absenteeism” is often referred to by policymakers, this report adopts the more neutral term “absence”. While “absenteeism” might capture habitual or chronic absences, its framing as an “-ism” may imply judgment or negativity, potentially stigmatising individuals who are absent due to legitimate reasons, such as illness, mental health challenges or caregiving responsibilities (Heyne, 2025[7]). This connotation risks oversimplifying complex situations and may inadvertently alienate students and families. At the same time, there is a growing recognition of alternatives to “problems”, such as “challenges” or “difficulties”, as the word “problems” might carry a medical or clinical connotation, which may not always align with the broader, more relational and contextual nature of school attendance concerns (ibid.).
These terms allow the report to maintain analytical clarity while acknowledging the diversity of national concepts and classifications. Where relevant for interpretation, jurisdiction-specific definitions and policy nuances are discussed.
At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that how absences are classified, whether as authorised or unauthorised, is shaped by broader systemic and cultural dynamics. Research highlights that disciplinary practices, social capital, cultural perceptions and institutional norms can influence which absences are authorised, often to the disadvantage of marginalised families (Heyne, Verstraete and de Wit, 2025[8]). For example, families from minority backgrounds may be more likely to have their children's absences classified as unauthorised, while those with greater social capital may more easily navigate systems to secure authorised status (McNeely et al., 2021[9]; Rosenthal, Moro and Benoit, 2020[10]). These categorisations not only record absences but actively shape student and family experiences, reinforcing or mitigating inequalities. A more inclusive approach would involve a critical review of how absence codes are applied, engagement in culturally responsive training, and adoption of distinctions, such as voluntary and involuntary absence, to better capture the complex, often structural, drivers of SAP (Birioukov, 2015[11]).
This report focuses on issues related to SAP, and it is beyond its scope to examine student engagement in detail. However, engagement – whether emotional, behavioural, social or cognitive – can play a critical role in shaping attendance (Jimerson, Campos and Greif, 2003[12]). As such, disengagement will be noted as a potential driver of SAP (Chapter 2) as well as a focus of policies and practices aimed at improving attendance (Chapter 4).
Finally, early leaving from education and training, out-of-school rates, and educational attainment are viewed as consequences of SAP and are further discussed in Chapter 3.
The results from the OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems, on which the following sections are based (unless otherwise indicated), reveal that, while some conceptual categories are widely recognised – such as absence and lateness – the way these terms are defined and implemented varies among education systems. The specific meanings and implications of these terms are shaped by national or regional legislation, and local policy priorities. In some systems, the terminology is codified in law or regulation, whereas in others, it remains more loosely defined and context dependent. The terminology used by countries depends on their regulatory framework, institutional capacities and regional conditions. In some countries, the decentralised nature of the education system does not always allow for cross‑regional comparisons. Unless otherwise indicated, the terms discussed below are relevant for primary to upper secondary education.
The term “absence” and its variations are commonly used concepts, but their classification varies. In Norway, for instance, the terminology has undergone a revision after the COVID-19 pandemic. The authorities have adopted the term “worrying absenteeism”, which refers to absences from the social and academic community at school, documented or undocumented, which may have consequences for a student’s social and academic belonging and development. This reflects a deliberate shift from previous terms, such as “school refusal” or “involuntary school absence”. The Community of Madrid (Spain) uses the term “absenteeism” to describe non-enrolment, absence and irregular attendance. In Korea, absence covers all cases where students fail to attend on a required school day, including excused absences (e.g. legally designated infectious disease, family events, natural disasters and public obligations), illness‑related absences with medical documentation, unexcused absences (e.g. truancy, disciplinary suspensions and absences due to delinquency), and other absences recognised by the school leader for exceptional circumstances. In the French Community of Belgium, “absenteeism” refers to students who are regularly enrolled but have accumulated at least nine half-days of unjustified absences.
Not all countries provide centralised or standardised terminology. In Indonesia, for example, schools categorise absences into types, such as sick leave or personal leave, but there is no national standard. In Sweden, while the system is decentralised, the terms giltig frånvaro (valid absence), ogiltig frånvaro (invalid absence) and upprepad eller längre frånvaro (repeated or prolonged absence) can be used, although they are not further defined. Moreover, there is considerable variation in the terms used and no national monitoring of school absences exists. Similarly, in Finland, the term luvattomat poissaolot (unauthorised absence) appears in the Basic Education Act without a precise definition. The Act on Vocational Education and Training instead refers to poissaolot, joille on perusteltu syy (absences for which there are reasonable grounds). To improve clarity, Finland has also introduced a recommended classification system under the Ministry of Education and Culture’s Engaging School Community Work initiative. It includes categories such as health-related absences, pre-requested leave, other investigated absences, unauthorised absences (investigated) and unresolved absences (Sergejeff and Ministry of Education and Culture, 2023[13]).
Several jurisdictions also refer to dropout, i.e. early leaving from education and training. In Catalonia (Spain), for instance, abandonament escolar (school dropout) is defined as permanent and unjustified discontinuation of compulsory schooling. In the French Community of Belgium “school dropout” refers to students subject to compulsory education who are either enrolled but have stopped attending without a valid reason, or are not enrolled in any school and are not home-schooled. In this report, early leaving from education and training is viewed as one of the consequences of SAP (see Chapter 3), rather than its subtype.
The following sections describe some of the most common terminology related to SAP and its typologies.
Truancy, lateness and other related terminology
Several education systems make specific references to truancy. Japan identifies truant students as those who are absent from school for a reasonable period of time and are unable to attend due to any psychological, emotional, physical or social factors or backgrounds (except for illness or economic reasons). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, truancy denotes absences without a valid reason. In Czechia, truancy is defined as the unexcused absence, usually undertaken deliberately to avoid school. It can take several forms: “true truancy”, where students skip school without parental knowledge; “covert truancy”, where absences occur with parental knowledge or even complicity; and “internal truancy” or “school escape”, where students attend school but skip specific lessons. Truancy can also be classified by decision-making patterns, ranging from “impulsive truancy”, triggered by immediate circumstances, to “planned truancy”, where students deliberately avoid particular subjects, examinations or interactions. Czechia also differentiates “late arrival”, where students arrive late without valid reasons, but the primary aim is not to avoid entire classes.
Indeed, “lateness”, often seen as a type of truancy, is tracked in several education systems, but is defined and recorded differently. In Portugal, the term falta de atraso denotes arriving late to class. It is treated as a specific subtype of a school attendance problem (in addition to absentismo escolar (school absenteeism) and abandono escolar (early school leaving/school dropout)). In Bulgaria, lateness is formally regulated: arriving up to 20 minutes late is counted as half an absence, while delays of more than 20 minutes constitute a complete absence. Lithuania, similarly, distinguishes between absence and lateness: absence means not being present in the school, while lateness means being present but late to class. In Korea, tardiness refers to failure to arrive by the designated start time, early leave refers to leaving before the official dismissal time, and partial attendance refers to missing part or all of a class period. In Iceland, seinkoma is used to denote lateness and is differentiated from other forms of categories: skólasókn (attendance), fjarvist (absence with and without permission), fjarvist vegna veikinda (absence due to sickness), óskýrðar fjarvistir (accumulated absence), skólaforðun (school refusal) and undanþága (exemption). Similarly, Malta recognises lateness as separate from absence, chronic absenteeism and truancy. Finally, England (United Kingdom) recognises “late arrival before the register is closed”, meaning that the student was absent when the register started being taken but arrives before the register is closed (Department for Education, 2024[14]).
Severity classifications
Education systems have also developed detailed typologies of absences that are based on severity. La Rioja (Spain) identifies absentismo leve (mild absenteeism) referring to selective, occasional or intermittent unjustified absences or lateness; absentismo grave (severe absenteeism), where absences become chronic, widening the curricular gap and eroding the sense of belonging for both the student absent and their peers; and absentismo muy grave (very severe absenteeism), in which prolonged unjustified absences lead to social and academic isolation, rejection of education and significant barriers to reintegration.
Other education systems have specific cut-offs for determining the severity of SAP. New Zealand defines categories based on the percentage of school time missed per term. “Chronic absence” refers to students attending 70% or less of the term, while “moderate” and “irregular” absence apply to those attending between 70% and 90%. “Regular attendance” refers to students who have attended more than 90% of the term. Catalonia (Spain) also employs a frequency-based approach to classify (unauthorised) truancy as mild (5%), moderate (5%-25%) and severe (more than 25% of school time missed per month). Similar classifications can be observed in England (United Kingdom): if students miss 10% or more of the available sessions, they are defined as “persistently absent” (6 days/term, 19 days/year). If they miss 50% or more sessions, they are defined as “severely absent”. Wales (United Kingdom) also defines persistent absence as missing over 10% of half-day school sessions (decreased from 20% in 2023). Chile distinguishes outstanding attendance (students attending 97% or more of the total number of official school days in a year), normal attendance (students attending 90%-97% of school days), repeated absence (85%-90% of school days) and serious absence (fewer than 85% of school days).
Other education systems define the thresholds based on absolute number of classes missed. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, for instance, “severe absence” refers to 30 or more half-days of absences, while “chronic” or “long-term absence” captures repeated or extended absences due to illness, maternity leave or accidents. Latvia distinguishes between justified, unjustified, and long-term unjustified absences, the latter applying when students miss more than 20 lessons in a school year without providing clear reasons.
Finally, the Netherlands distinguishes between “absolute absence”, which refers to students who are not registered at any school nor are they home-schooled, and “relative absence”, which describes those enrolled but not attending without permission. Other national categories include “luxury absence” (unauthorised absences outside of school holidays), “signal absence” (students absent more often or for longer than usual during a specific period), and “permitted absence” (e.g. for medical reasons). The Dutch system also includes concepts such as “school refusal,” often associated with emotional or psychological difficulties, and “homebound students”, who do not attend school over an extended period. Finally, “truancy” refers to those absent from a lesson without permission.
Authorised and unauthorised absences
A common distinction in student absences is that between authorised and unauthorised categories (also referred to as justified and unjustified, or excused and unexcused). In 2025, all 45 education systems that responded to this item in the OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems reported using such a distinction when determining whether or how to respond to student absences (OECD, 2025[15]). Despite variation in terminology and procedural formality, a common thread runs through these examples: unauthorised absences are treated not just as a category of behaviour, but as a risk signal warranting escalating intervention. Systems differ in how they define limits, verify documentation and involve external actors. Still, the functional role of the authorised/unauthorised distinction – as a threshold for taking action – is widely shared.
Authorised absences typically refer to time missed from school for reasons formally recognised by schools or education authorities – such as illness, medical appointments, family emergencies or participation in sanctioned events (e.g. school-organised activities, official sporting/cultural events) – and often requires timely notification and, in some cases, documentation. In England (United Kingdom), for example, authorised absences include illness and medical appointments, while unauthorised absences include truancy and term-time holidays. Special leaves of absence (authorised) can be granted by headteachers in exceptional circumstances (e.g. travel due to a bereavement). In Scotland and Wales (United Kingdom), approval for an absence may be granted by schools in advance or following an explanation, provided the school deems the reason reasonable; otherwise, the absence is recorded as unauthorised. In the Slovak Republic, excused absences are defined in regard to an illness, extremely unfavourable weather conditions, unexpected interruptions of public transport, undesired family events and students’ participation in competitions. Romania, likewise, differentiates between justified absences, based on objective reasons, such as medical issues, written parental requests within a certain limit each year, or participation in sports or academic competitions; and unjustified absences, which occur when documentation is not provided or deadlines for submitting explanations are missed.
Authorised and unauthorised distinction determining decision making
The results from the OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems reveal that most education systems make the distinction between authorised and unauthorised absences to determine whether an intervention is required (33), to determine the type of response or intervention (33), or use it in legal or disciplinary processes (31) (Figure 1.1). Moreover, 30 education systems also use it for reporting or accountability purposes. Finally, in four education systems, the distinction is made, but it does not influence whether or how to respond to student absences.
Number of education systems making use of the distinction between excused and unexcused absence when determining whether or how to respond to student absence
Note: Responses are not mutually exclusive. They are based on the following question: “Does your education system make use of the distinction between excused and unexcused (authorised and unauthorised) absence when determining whether or how to respond to student absence?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[15]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Use of authorised and unauthorised absences for determining whether intervention is required
Many (33 of 45) education systems have protocols in place that directly determine whether an intervention is warranted. In Lithuania, for example, a detailed regulatory procedure outlines justifiable reasons for absences, the timeframe for notification, and the evidence required. If a student violates these provisions, such as exceeding five parent-excused days per month without medical documentation, this triggers school-level follow-up. As the response progresses, the case may be referred to the school’s child welfare commission and, ultimately, to municipal child protection services, particularly when more than half of the lessons or hours allocated for education during a calendar month are missed without justification. In Croatia, a critical intervention point is reached when a student misses more than 30% of lessons in a school year; consequently, the student must undergo a mandatory commission examination. Similarly, Portugal’s legal framework defines “serious excess absences”. It mandates that parents and students are alerted, and that integration or recovery measures are applied, when limits of unjustified absences are exceeded. These measures escalate further if previous efforts prove ineffective. In Catalonia (Spain), if the student's absences are repeatedly unexcused, they activate the absence protocol. Madrid (Spain) echoes this approach, linking the activation of absence procedures to the nature and frequency of unexcused absences. In the Slovak Republic, five consecutive school days (no more than ten per month) are normally allowed to be excused by parents in primary and secondary education. If the limit is exceeded, the school may set up an examination commission that determines whether the student is allowed to be graded.
In Iceland, schools are expected to initiate a formal response when a student’s total absences exceed one‑tenth of the school year. Municipalities are responsible for setting clear criteria for progressive interventions, beginning with school-led actions in collaboration with the student and their family, and culminating in potential referral to child protection authorities. Similarly, in Berlin (Germany), schools may request medical confirmation if they have justified doubts about absences reported for health reasons (VBE Berlin, 2024[16]). If parents fail to submit the required documentation on time, the absences are treated as unauthorised unless it is based on credible, verifiable circumstances beyond the student’s control, thereby triggering the corresponding follow-up procedures (ibid.).
Türkiye adopts a stepped or graduated response framework. Parents are notified on the 5th, 15th and 25th day of unexcused absences. If a student exceeds 10 days of unexcused absences or 30 days of total absences in a subject, they are considered unsuccessful in that course, regardless of their academic performance.
Responses to authorised absences are less clearly defined. The French Community of Belgium, for instance, reviews these when there is a risk of dropout. Wales (United Kingdom) sets no formal limits on the number of authorised absences, even for extended illnesses or holidays, leaving decisions largely to schools’ judgments.
Use of authorised and unauthorised absences for determining the type of intervention
Several (33 of 45) education systems indicated that the distinction between authorised and unauthorised absences is used to determine the type of response or intervention. In Croatia, school-level statutes, grounded in national legislation, define specific procedures for excusing absences and outline corresponding educational or disciplinary measures, including proactive strategies to encourage regular attendance. In France, they recognise absentéisme (absenteeism), absence non justifiée (unjustified absence), absence sans motif légitime ni excuse valable (absence without legitimate reason or valid excuse) and persistance du défaut d'assiduité (persistent lack of attendance). Support measures may be proposed in the country depending on the communication between schools and parents, as well as the duration of the absence. In England (United Kingdom), within a support first approach, local authorities and schools determine the scale and nature of responses, with variation in practice depending on local thresholds and policies. Similarly, in Sweden, the school leadership is required to investigate repeated or prolonged justified and unjustified absences. Schools can also be required to report these to the municipalities, although only conditionally (e.g. only in certain cases, practices vary and the responsibility lies with school organisers). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, five or more unauthorised half-day absences trigger an intervention by a guidance centre.
In Peru, the distinction plays a formal role in triggering external intervention. If a student accumulates 15 consecutive days of unjustified absences, the case is referred to the Defensoría Municipal del Niño y del Adolescente (Municipal Office for the Protection of Children and Adolescents), which collaborates with schools to address the underlying causes and support the student’s reintegration. This typically includes: (i) daily monitoring and recording of attendance; (ii) prompt communication with the family (typically after three or more consecutive days of absences) via phone calls, messages or home visits; (iii) documentation of all outreach and internal actions taken; and (iv) activation of internal protocols, which may involve tutors, school counsellors or the school leader. The Office also monitors follow-up actions to ensure the student’s sustained return and continued attendance at school. A similar principle is evident in Thailand, where the zero-dropout policy requires schools and the Ministry of Education to identify students who have left the system and offer re-entry options tailored to their circumstances. If a student misses more than five consecutive days or more than seven days in a month, the school must send a notice to the parent(s). In Indonesia and Thailand, attendance is also a condition for taking examinations and graduation. Similarly, in Norwegian upper secondary education, absences are regulated through a 10% threshold of undocumented absences per subject. If students exceed this limit, they, as a general rule, lose the right to be assessed with a grade, which may in turn prevent them from completing the subject or progressing in their programme of study.
Use of authorised and unauthorised absences for determining legal or disciplinary processes
Multiple (31 of 45) education systems use thresholds in absences to determine legal or disciplinary processes. In Croatia, surpassing 30% of missed lessons in a school year triggers mandatory commission exams, and failure to pass can result in grade repetition. If parents repeatedly neglect their responsibilities in regard to their children’s attendance, the school is obligated to inform the competent regional administrative body or the City Office, and the relevant social welfare institution.
In the Slovak Republic, unexcused absences exceeding 60 lessons may result in a financial fine for parents, while accumulating more than 100 unexcused absences can trigger a criminal complaint. England (United Kingdom) also requires the consideration of a legal intervention, such as fines or prosecution, once certain unauthorised attendance thresholds are reached. For instance, fines are typically considered in cases where support has been offered but not engaged with, or where support is not deemed necessary (for example, the majority of fines are issued for term-time holidays). In Madrid (Spain), repeated absences can lead to corrective measures involving social services and the juvenile prosecutor’s office. Latvia, La Rioja (Spain), Malta, Iceland and Romania apply a similar tiered approach: schools are expected to engage with students and families early on, but when absences reach a critical point, and especially if broader child welfare concerns are present, cases may be referred to child protection/social service authorities in accordance with national legislation. In Malta, for instance, students who miss more than nine unauthorised school days might be referred to the Local Tribunal.
In Luxembourg, the legal framework differentiates between absence non justifiée (unjustified absence without one of three legitimate motives: illness, death of a family member, circumstances beyond one’s control), and absence non excusée (unexcused absence, secondary education). It further sets explicit thresholds: 48 unexcused lessons per year trigger formal intervention, 5 consecutive days without a valid excuse result in a warning letter, and 15 successive days result in automatic withdrawal from school. In France, disciplinary procedures can be implemented from four half-days of unjustified absences in a month and in Denmark from 15% unauthorised absence rate. These examples reveal that the authorised/unauthorised distinction is widely used, but its thresholds, procedures and consequences differ substantially among systems.
International large-scale assessments (ILSAs), such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), allow for some cross-country comparative statistics. In PISA, they cover measures of self-reported truancy at the secondary level, i.e. the percentage of 15-year-old students reporting skipping a whole school day or some classes at least once in the past two weeks before taking the PISA test. In TIMSS, they cover self-reported measures of absences at the primary level, i.e. the percentage of fourth-grade students reporting being absent from school once every week or every two weeks. PISA 2022 also focuses on past long-term absences, i.e. the percentage of 15-year-old students who reported that they had missed school for more than three consecutive months at any time in their previous educational journey.
Trends in student truancy at secondary level
On average across OECD countries, self-reported truancy among 15-year-old students increased between 2012 and 2018, then decreased slightly in 2022, even though there is great variability among countries (Figure 1.2). In 2012, 24.8% of students reported skipping a whole school day or some classes at least once in the past two weeks before taking the PISA test. In 2018, the share rose to 32.5%, then decreased slightly to 31.3% in 2022. Japan and Korea have consistently low percentages of self-reported truant students. Italy and Türkiye, in contrast, have persistently high truancy over this time period. Croatia and Korea are the only countries with a consistently decreasing trend (light blue in the figure below), while Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States are countries with consistently increasing trends (dark blue in the figure below).
Percentage of 15-year-old students reporting skipping a whole school day or some classes at least once in the past two weeks before taking the PISA test
Note: Questionnaire items differ slightly across the years (see Annex 1.B for more information). The averages include countries with available data across all years. Dark blue lines indicate countries with an increasing trend (i.e. where each year’s percentage is higher than the previous year’s percentage). The light blue lines indicate the countries with a decreasing trend (i.e. where each year’s rate is lower than the previous year’s percentage). The OECD average is also highlighted in red and EU average in purple. To support comparability across cycles, some countries are excluded and the 2015 cycle is not analysed (see e.g. Jerrim et al. (2025[17])).
Source: OECD (2012[18]), PISA 2012 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2012-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025); OECD (2018[19]), PISA 2018 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ (accessed on 19 May 2025); and OECD (2022[20]), PISA 2022 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
Differences in truancy by background characteristics in secondary education
Student truancy differs not only across countries and over time, but also within education systems. In this analysis, differences are examined according to four background characteristics of students or the schools they attend (gender, parental education, immigrant background and school location (see Annex 1.A for more details)) that are commonly considered in PISA disaggregations (see e.g. OECD (2023[21])).
Differences by gender
In 2022, on average across OECD countries, girls reported a significantly higher rate of skipping days or classes than boys (difference of 1.4 percentage points) (Figure 1.3). This marks a reversal compared to the year 2012, when boys reported being truant more often than girls by 0.9 points. Figure 1.3 also reveals substantial variation among countries. In 2022, there was an approximately even split in the number of education systems where boys reported being truant more often than girls and vice versa (boys statistically significantly more often in 10 countries and girls more often in 14 countries). However, in 2012, in only four countries were girls more likely to be truant than boys. Among countries with significant differences in both 2012 and 2022, Estonia, Ireland and Poland experienced a reversal in the gender disparity in student truancy. In all three education systems, boys were more likely to have reported being truant in 2012, while girls were more often truant in 2022. In Denmark and the United Kingdom, the gender disparity increased more than twofold between 2012 and 2022. In contrast, it more than halved in Croatia, Greece, Iceland, Italy and Lithuania.
Difference (boys minus girls) in the percentage of 15-year-old students who reported skipping a whole school day or some classes at least once in the two weeks before taking the PISA test
Note: Questionnaire items differ slightly across the years (see Annex 1.B for more information). Statistically significant differences are marked in darker colours. To support comparability across cycles, some countries are excluded (see e.g. Jerrim et al. (2025[17])).
Source: OECD (2012[18]), PISA 2012 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2012-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025); and OECD (2022[20]), PISA 2022 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
A wider body of evidence reinforces this picture of heterogeneity. Recent reviews describe associations between gender and absences as mixed and context-dependent, with several analyses reporting no systematic gap, while others detecting differences that vary by country, age or type of absence (Melvin et al., 2019[22]; Melvin et al., 2025[23]). Country reports echo this nuance. In Sweden, girls reported more frequent absences than boys in secondary education (15% vs. 8%) (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024[24]). In Romania, boys exhibit lower participation (more unexcused absences), and in Wales (United Kingdom), female and male absence rates are nearly identical (9.6% vs 9.5% of half-day sessions) (Horga et al., 2024[25]; Welsh Government, 2025[26]). In Denmark, no gender differences are observed in any type of absence (total, un/authorised, due to illness) (Kristensen, Jensen and Krassel, 2020[27]).
Differences by socio-economic background
Turning to socio-economic background, in most countries, 15-year-old students with parent(s) without tertiary education are more likely to have reported truancy compared to their peers with tertiary-educated parent(s) (Figure 1.4). On average across OECD countries, this gap stood at 1.7 percentage points in 2022 and 1.5 percentage points in 2012. The gap related to parental education more than doubled in Italy, from 1.6 points in 2012 to 4.3 points in 2022. In contrast, it decreased in several countries, most notably in Mexico (from 4.4 percentage points to 0.0 percentage points) and the United States (from 9.1 percentage points to 0.4 percentage points). Chile was the only country with significant differences where the gap flipped: in 2012, students without tertiary-educated parent(s) were more likely to report missing school or classes, while in 2022, they were less likely to have reported doing so.
Difference (those with tertiary educated parent(s) minus those without) in the percentage of 15-year-old students who reported skipping a whole school day or some classes at least once in the two weeks before taking the PISA test
Note: Questionnaire items differ slightly across the years (see Annex 1.B for more information). Statistically significant differences are marked in darker colours. To support comparability across cycles, some countries are excluded (see e.g. Jerrim et al. (2025[17])).
Source: OECD (2012[18]), PISA 2012 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2012-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025); and OECD (2022[20]), PISA 2022 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
The impact of socio-economic background (measured in various ways) is also seen in national (or sub‑national) data. In England (United Kingdom) in 2024/25, for instance, 32% of primary and secondary students eligible for free school meals were persistently absent (missed 10% or more of possible sessions), compared to 12% among those not eligible for free school meals (Department of Education, 2026[28]). In the Slovak Republic, primary and secondary disadvantaged students had 245 average excused hours compared to 129 among their non-disadvantaged peers in 2022 (OECD, 2025[15]). In New Zealand, regular attendance rates were higher in schools where students face fewer socio-economic barriers than in schools with greater socio-economic challenges throughout the 2019-2025 period (Ministry of Education, 2025[29]). In France, secondary schools serving the most socially disadvantaged students had a higher average share of absentee students (13%) than the most advantaged schools (4%) (Cristofoli, 2025[30]). Scotland (United Kingdom) has seen the deprivation gap in attendance widen from 4.9 percentage points in 2018/19 to 6.3 points in 2020/21 (Education Scotland, 2023[31]). In Denmark, students with mothers with at most primary educational level have consistently higher unauthorised absences and absences due to illness in lower secondary education (Kristensen, Jensen and Krassel, 2020[27]). Consistent patterns also appear in Korea, where surveys link attendance difficulties to the socio-economic and emotional environments of parents (OECD, 2025[15]), and in Wales (United Kingdom), where free school meals eligible students missed 15.2% of half-day sessions in 2023/24 compared to 7.9% among their peers (Welsh Government, 2025[26]). In Romania, multiple aspects of socio-economic background are associated with lower absence, including higher parental education and transportation challenges (Plăeșu et al., 2024[32]).
Differences by immigrant background
Student truancy is also more likely to be reported by students with an immigrant background than those without such background (Figure 1.5). On average across OECD countries, the immigrant gap stood at 4.4 percentage points in 2022 and 4.0 percentage points in 2012. This disparity more than doubled in Germany (from 3.4 points in 2012 to 7.9 points in 2022) and Sweden (from 3.9 points in 2012 to 10.9 points in 2022). In contrast, it more than halved in Italy (from 2.5 points to 0.9 points) and the United Kingdom (from 4.4 to 1.5 points).
Difference (those without an immigrant background minus those with) in the percentage of 15-year-old students who reported skipping a whole school day or some classes at least once in the two weeks before taking the PISA test
Note: Questionnaire items differ slightly across the years (see Annex 1.B for more information). Statistically significant differences are marked in darker colours. To support comparability across cycles, some countries are excluded (see e.g. Jerrim et al. (2025[17])).
Source: OECD (2012[18]), PISA 2012 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2012-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025); and OECD (2022[20]), PISA 2022 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
Examples from local education systems' data underscore this variability. In Germany, analyses that account for a range of other factors find that having an immigrant background is associated with a 5.1‑5.5 percentage point higher probability of skipping school (Broschinski et al., 2025[33]). In Korea, survey evidence suggests that while children of foreign families may experience fluctuating attendance due to parents’ departures from the country, students from multicultural families generally show no attendance gaps relative to domestic peers (OECD, 2025[15]). In Denmark, students with an immigrant background in lower secondary education have higher unauthorised absences, but lower absences due to illness and authorised absences (although this varies by grade) (Kristensen, Jensen and Krassel, 2020[27]).
Differences by school location
Finally, there were no differences in student truancy by school location on average across OECD countries in 2022, but the average hides great variation among education systems (Figure 1.6). Self-reported truancy was higher in villages than in cities in seven countries (Australia, Chile, Hungary, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand and the Slovak Republic) in 2022, and higher in cities than in villages in five countries (Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy and Switzerland). Mexico was the only country with significant results where students were more often truant in cities in 2012, but in villages in 2022. Some of the highest increases in absolute gaps between 2012 and 2022 are visible in Belgium, Chile and New Zealand. Decreases are observed in Finland, Poland and others.
Difference (students in schools in cities minus in villages) in the percentage of 15-year-old students who reported skipping a whole school day or some classes at least once in the two weeks before taking the PISA test
Note: Questionnaire items differ slightly across the years (see Annex 1.B for more information). Statistically significant differences are marked in darker colours. To support comparability across cycles, some countries are excluded (see e.g. Jerrim et al. (2025[17])).
Source: OECD (2012[18]), PISA 2012 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2012-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025); and OECD (2022[20]), PISA 2022 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
National (or sub-national) analyses echo these location gaps. For example, in Romania, students residing in rural areas reported being absent more often than urban peers, possibly linked to transportation challenges and family work requirements (OECD, 2023[34]; Plăeșu et al., 2024[32]). Similarly, in New South Wales (Australia), longitudinal evidence reveals that students attending remote schools have both lower attendance and steeper year-to-year declines than those in urban and regional schools, a pattern that persisted in 2022 after the COVID-19 pandemic (CESE, 2024[35]). These results hold when accounting for socio-economic background, well-being and engagement.
Trends in student absence at primary level
On average across OECD countries, student absence at the primary level (fourth-grade students) follows a wide V-shaped trend between 2015 and 2023 (Figure 1.7). In 2015, 11.6% of fourth-grade students reported being absent from school once a week or every other week. This share fell to 10.7% in 2019 (pre‑pandemic) and rose to 14.8% in 2023 (post-pandemic). Across these three years, Chile and the Slovak Republic had the highest student absence rates, while Korea had the lowest. However, while most countries followed a similarly V-shaped curve, as observed on average across OECD countries, nine education systems also exhibited an increasing trend: Chile, Finland, Italy, Korea, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United States. Unlike in secondary education, no country saw a decreasing trend. However, these data are not directly comparable with those for secondary education (see Annex 1.B for more details).
Percentage of fourth-grade students reporting being absent from school once every week or every two weeks
Note: Questionnaire items differ slightly across the years (see Annex 1.B for more information). The averages include countries with available data across all years. Dark blue lines indicate selected countries with an increasing trend (i.e. where each year’s percentage is higher than the previous year’s percentage). The OECD average is also highlighted in red and EU average in purple. Data for Belgium include the Flemish Community in 2015 and 2019, and the Flemish and French Communities in 2023. Data for the United Kingdom include England and Northern Ireland in 2015 and 2019, and England in 2023. Data for Canada include the following provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Quebec. Norway assessed fifth-grade students to obtain better comparisons with other northern European countries.
Source: IEA (2015[36]), TIMSS 2015 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2015_G4; IEA (2019[37]), TIMSS 2019 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2019_G4; and IEA (2023[38]), TIMSS 2023 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2023_G4_data_edition_1.
Differences in absence by background characteristics in primary education
Student absence significantly varies by background characteristics already in primary education. TIMSS provides comparably defined measures of gender, socio-economic background, immigrant background and school location with those used in PISA for 15-year-old students (see Annex 1.A for more details).
Differences by gender
In primary education, boys reported a slightly higher rate of being absent from school once every week or every two weeks in both 2015 and 2023, on average across OECD countries (Figure 1.8). In around half of the education systems, gender differences were not significant. Hungary was the only education system where girls reported a significantly higher rate of absence compared to boys in 2023. In Türkiye, the gender difference increased from 2.3 percentage points to 3.8 points. Meanwhile, in Lithuania, Spain, Sweden and the United States, the gender gap in student absence more than halved.
Difference (boys minus girls) in the percentage of fourth-grade students who reported being absent from school once every week or every two weeks
Note: Statistically significant differences are marked in darker colours. Data for Belgium include the Flemish Community in 2015, and the Flemish and French Communities in 2023. Data for the United Kingdom include England and Northern Ireland in 2015, and England in 2023. Data for Canada include the following provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Quebec. Norway assessed fifth-grade students to obtain better comparisons with other northern European countries.
Source: IEA (2015[36]), TIMSS 2015 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2015_G4; and IEA (2023[38]), TIMSS 2023 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2023_G4_data_edition_1.
The varied cross-country results are also visible when examining national (or sub-national) data, although these are not directly comparable. For instance, in New Zealand, 63.0% and 61.9% of girls and boys, respectively, attended more than 90% of the 2025 academic year (Education Counts, 2025[39]). Similarly, boys were more often truant in Latvia in 2019/20, while no gender-based disparities are observed in Denmark and Korea (Kristensen, Jensen and Krassel, 2020[27]; OECD, 2025[15]; State Education Quality Service, 2020[40]).
Differences by socio-economic background
In almost all countries, primary-education students whose parent(s) had attained tertiary education reported lower absence rates than their peers whose parent(s) had not, both in 2015 and 2023 (Figure 1.9). On average across OECD countries, this gap stood at 6.0 and 7.0 percentage points in 2015 and 2023, respectively. In Belgium and Korea, the difference related to parental education almost doubled between 2015 and 2023. In Chile, Czechia, Hungary, Japan and Sweden, the gap decreased between the two years.
Difference (those with tertiary educated parent(s) minus those without) in the percentage of fourth-grade students who reported being absent from school once every week or every two weeks
Note: Statistically significant differences are marked in darker colours. Data for Belgium include the Flemish Community in 2015, and the Flemish and French Communities in 2023. Data for the United Kingdom include England and Northern Ireland in 2015, and England in 2023. Data for Canada include the following provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Quebec. Norway assessed fifth-grade students to obtain better comparisons with other northern European countries.
Source: IEA (2015[36]), TIMSS 2015 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2015_G4; and IEA (2023[38]), TIMSS 2023 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2023_G4_data_edition_1.
National (or sub-national) research supports these findings. In Denmark, for example, students with a disadvantaged social background and students with mothers whose highest educational level was primary education were identified as more likely to be absent (Kristensen, Jensen and Krassel, 2020[27]). In Scotland (United Kingdom), the absence rate in most deprived areas in primary schools was 10.4% in 2023/24, compared to 4.8% in the least deprived areas (Scottish Government, 2025[41]).
Differences by immigrant background
On average across OECD countries, fourth-grade primary education students with an immigrant background reported a higher rate of absence compared to their peers without such a background (2.2 and 2.9 percentage points in 2015 and 2023, respectively) (Figure 1.10). In fact, no education system had a significantly higher rate of absence among non-immigrant students in either of the two years. Denmark, Spain and Sweden saw a decrease in immigrant gaps. In contrast, the gap more than doubled in France (from 3.4 to 7.4 percentage points). These results need to be viewed with caution given that they might be reflecting other drivers (e.g. socio-economic background, transportation etc.) that are not taken into account in the differences presented below. Chapter 2 further elaborates on this issue.
Difference (those without an immigrant background minus those with) in the percentage of fourth-grade students who reported being absent from school once every week or every two weeks
Note: Statistically significant differences are marked in darker colours. Data for Belgium include the Flemish Community in 2015, and the Flemish and French Communities in 2023. Data for the United Kingdom include England and Northern Ireland in 2015, and England in 2023. Data for Canada include the following provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Quebec. Norway assessed fifth-grade students to obtain better comparisons with other northern European countries.
Source: IEA (2015[36]), TIMSS 2015 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2015_G4; and IEA (2023[38]), TIMSS 2023 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2023_G4_data_edition_1.
Differences by immigrant background at the primary level are not commonly reported in national data. However, one study in Denmark indicates that students of Danish origin were absent on average 11 days out of 200, while those with an immigrant background had 14 days of absences in 2016/17 (Rambøll, 2018[42]). A more recent analysis indicates that students with an immigrant background have higher authorised and unauthorised absences, but lower absences due to illness (in the 5th and 6th grade of primary education) (Kristensen, Jensen and Krassel, 2020[27]). In the Slovak Republic, students with non‑Slovak first language (especially Roma) and Ukrainian refugees had higher average numbers of authorised absences (OECD, 2025[15]).
Differences by school location
Finally, differences related to school location revealed a wide range of outcomes, resulting in a non‑significant difference on average across OECD countries in both years (Figure 1.11). In 2023, fourth‑grade primary education students in schools in cities reported higher absences than those in villages in five countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland and Italy). The reverse was true in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. Among those with significant results in both years, the gap related to school location increased in Bulgaria, Hungary and Lithuania.
Difference (students in schools in cities minus in villages) in the percentage of fourth-grade students who reported being absent from school once every week or every two weeks
Note: Statistically significant differences are marked in darker colours. Data for Belgium include the Flemish Community in 2015, and the Flemish and French Communities in 2023. Data for the United Kingdom include England and Northern Ireland in 2015, and England in 2023. Data for Canada include the following provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Quebec. Norway assessed fifth-grade students to obtain better comparisons with other northern European countries.
Source: IEA (2015[36]), TIMSS 2015 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2015_G4; and IEA (2023[38]), TIMSS 2023 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2023_G4_data_edition_1.
Emerging post-pandemic evidence from North Carolina (United States) provides more nuance (Swiderski, Fuller and Bastian, 2025[43]). Students in city and rural schools accumulated an average of 39.5 days of absences over three years, compared to 38.1 in suburb/town schools. The share of chronically absent students rose to 10.0% in city schools, 9.6% in rural schools and 8.7% in suburb/town schools – up from broadly uniform pre-pandemic rates of 2.3%-2.6% across locales (ibid.).
Differences by other characteristics
What is presented above is not an exhaustive list of background characteristics, as several education systems also observe disparities by special education needs (SEN)1. In Denmark, almost half of the municipalities (45%) reported that students with SEN have more absences than the overall student population (Rambøll, 2018[42]). Finnish data, while limited in their size, show differences between students on general and enhanced or special support (Hotulainen et al., 2024[44]). In Scotland (United Kingdom), national collections consistently find that students with additional support needs have lower attendance than those without (Education Scotland, 2023[31]). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, 3.7% of students in special primary education had 30 or more unauthorised half-day absences compared to 0.8% in mainstream education in 2023/24 (Ministry of Education and Training, n.d.[45]). Slovak sources likewise link absences with disabilities and diseases affecting children, while Korean stakeholders noted that students with SEN may miss school for health-related reasons, such as hospital visits and treatment (OECD, 2025[15]). Indeed, evidence from New Zealand details that learners with disabilities are likely staying home more because they cannot participate in activities, lack support or equipment to participate, experience physical or mental health challenges, are bullied or face transport difficulties (ERO, 2022[46]). In Wales (United Kingdom), attendance among learners with additional learning needs in mainstream schools decreased after the COVID-19 pandemic (Rowlands, 2022[47]). More specifically, some learners with autism-spectrum disorders valued aspects of distance learning (self-paced, quieter environment), though specialists caution against assuming a general preference; many valued human relationships and re-engaged well post-lockdown, and some found technology use challenging (ibid.). In 2023/24, 13.5% of half-day sessions were missed by students with additional learning needs provision, compared to 9.0% for students without (Welsh Government, 2025[26]). Both rates have fallen since 2022/23.
SAP also vary by other background characteristics, likely tied to the drivers elaborated on in Chapter 2. In some education systems, SAP are more common among ethnic minorities and Indigenous students (Melvin et al., 2025[23]). For instance, in New Zealand, 51% and 55% of ākonga Māori and Pacific students, respectively, are attending regularly, compared to 74% of Asian students and 69% of European/Pākehā students (Ministry of Education, 2025[29]). Similarly, in Australia, Indigenous students miss on average 44 days of school (of 195), compared to 20 days among their non-Indigenous peers (Hunter, Haywood and Chapman, 2025[48]). Similar gaps are also observed in Ontario (Canada). In publicly funded primary and secondary education in 2018/19, 67% students attended school at least 90% of the time, compared to 40% of First Nations students (Gallagher-Mackay et al., 2023[49]). In 2021/22, attendance declined sharply for all students, but more so for First Nations students (53% on average compared to 26% among First Nations students attending 90% or more of the time) (ibid.).
As for other dimensions of diversity, in New York City (United States), a 1% increase in the proportion of Black students is associated with a 5.9% increase in the odds of receiving an office discipline referral and a 6.6% increase in the odds of suspension, accounting for a range of factors (Welsh, Rodriguez and Joseph, 2025[50]). While not a direct test of attendance, the study situates exclusionary discipline as a pathway to disengagement and reduced participation. In another example, survey evidence from the United States indicates that lesbian, gay and bisexual secondary education students are about 7% more likely than heterosexual peers to miss school due to feeling unsafe (Fields and Wotipka, 2020[51]).
School leaders’ views on school attendance problems
Students’ self-reports on their absences from school can be complemented by school leaders’ views on whether student truancy hinders learning in their schools (Figure 1.12). On average across OECD countries, over the past ten years, the trend in school leaders’ views on whether truancy hinders learning has been increasing. In 2012, 34.6% of students were in schools where school leaders reported that student truancy hindered learning. This share rose to 41.7% in 2022.
Multiple countries saw a steadily increasing trend while no country reports a steadily decreasing trend. In Iceland and the United Kingdom, for instance, the shares more than doubled between 2012 and 2022. In Iceland, in 2012, 7.1% of students were in schools where school leaders reported that student truancy hindered learning. This share rose to 25.4% in 2022. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the percentage rose from 7.8% to 22.6% between the two years.
Percentage of students whose school leaders reported that student truancy hinders learning in the school to some extent or a lot
Note: The averages include countries with available data across all years. Dark blue lines indicate countries with an increasing trend (i.e. where each year’s percentage is higher than the previous year’s percentage). The OECD average is also highlighted in red and EU average in purple. To support comparability across cycles, some countries are excluded.
Source: OECD (2012[18]), PISA 2012 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2012-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025); OECD (2015[52]), PISA 2015 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2015-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025); OECD (2018[19]), PISA 2018 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ (accessed on 19 May 2025); and OECD (2022[20]), PISA 2022 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
The views of school leaders of fourth-graders on SAP are summarised since 2011. On average across OECD countries, 3.9% of fourth-grade students were in schools where school leaders reported that students arriving late at school or absenteeism are a serious problem in 2011 (Figure 1.13). The share rose to 4.5% in 2015, dropped to 3.9% in 2019, and increased again to 5.2% in 2023. Several education systems show a steadily increasing trend between 2011 and 2023. In New Zealand and the United States, for instance, the percentage of fourth‑grade students in schools where school leaders reported that students arriving late to school or experiencing absenteeism are a serious problem increased steadily and rose more than fivefold between the two years. In New Zealand, the share stood at 1.0% in 2011 and increased to 5.9% in 2023. In the United States, it rose from 1.7% in 2011 to 9.4% in 2023. Two other education systems, Canada and Germany, also exhibited a steadily increasing trend. No country observed a steadily decreasing trend.
Percentage of fourth-grade students whose school leaders reported that students arriving late at school or absenteeism at school is a serious problem
Note: The averages include countries with available data across all years. Dark blue lines indicate countries with an increasing trend (i.e. where each year’s percentage is higher than the previous year’s percentage). The OECD average is also highlighted in red and EU average in purple. Data for Belgium include the Flemish Community in 2003, 2011, 2015 and 2019, and Flemish and French Communities in 2023. Data for the United Kingdom include England and Scotland in 2003 and 2007, England and Northern Ireland in 2011, 2015 and 2019, and England in 2023. Data for Canada include the following provinces: Ontario and Quebec in 2003, Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec in 2007, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec in 2011, and Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Quebec in 2015-23. Norway assessed fifth grade students to obtain better comparisons with other northern European countries.
Source: IEA (2011[53]), TIMSS 2011 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2011_G4; IEA (2015[36]), TIMSS 2015 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2015_G4; IEA (2019[37]), TIMSS 2019 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2019_G4; and IEA (2023[38]), TIMSS 2023 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2023_G4_data_edition_1.
At the system level, school leaders’ concerns about SAP are not strongly related to self-reported students’ SAP for primary education, but they are for secondary education. For instance, in primary education in several countries (e.g. in Latvia and the United Kingdom), school leaders are not greatly concerned about SAP (countries to the left in panel A in Figure 1.14). However, while 23.2% of fourth-grade students in Latvia reported being absent from school, only 9.3% reported doing so in the United Kingdom. In secondary education, the Pearson correlation coefficient equals 0.45 and the R2 = 0.20, making the association weak to moderate. In general, countries where students self-reported being truant more are the same countries where school leaders largely reported that student truancy hinders learning (panel B in Figure 1.14).
Note: Data for Belgium in panel A include the Flemish and French Communities. Data for the United Kingdom in panel A include England only. Data for Canada in panel A include the following provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Quebec. Norway assessed fifth-grade students to obtain better comparisons with other northern European countries. To support comparability across cycles, some countries are excluded in panel B.
Source: IEA (2023[38]), TIMSS 2023 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2023_G4_data_edition_1; and OECD (2022[20]), PISA 2022 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
International evidence presented below indicates that absences can look differently depending on the reporting lens. In a few education systems, administrative data were compared with students’ self-reports. Evidence from the Flemish Community of Belgium, for instance, reveals that measurement choices can reshape the picture of SAP (Keppens and Spruyt, 2019[54]). Unauthorised absences and self-reported truancy correlated only weakly, with students receiving roughly twice as many unauthorised absences as they admitted in self-reports. Depending on the source used, links with background characteristics also changed. When relying on administrative data, truancy was underestimated among girls in secondary education with relatively advantaged profiles, consistent with research suggesting girls’ problems may be less visible to staff. Administrative data also missed a large share of parent-motivated truancy: about half of students who skipped school reported that their parent(s) knew, and just over a third stated they had parental permission, often covered by notes from parents. Concordance between the two measures also varies by school composition, with underestimation in administrative data more common in middle-class schools and overestimation more frequent in schools serving disadvantaged students. Depending on the reference period used, survey data can, in contrast, miss absences that vary over time, such as higher truancy rates around holiday periods (ibid.). Indeed, school leaders in Sweden also indicated that student reports can understate school-recorded absences (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024[55]). Discrepancies can also be found between reports from counsellors and administrators in the United States, as well as parents and school registries in Denmark (Chu, 2021[56]; Lomholt et al., 2020[57]).
Cross-nationally, primary education SAP levels do not reliably predict SAP in secondary education, as indicated by either students’ self-reports or school leaders’ concerns. Countries with some of the highest students’ self-reported SAP in primary education, such as Chile and the Slovak Republic, are among education systems where students reported some of the lowest SAP in secondary education (panel A in Figure 1.15). Similarly, education systems where school leaders were most worried about SAP in primary education, such as in Hungary and Japan, are not the same education systems where school leaders would have been significantly more concerned about SAP in secondary education (panel B in Figure 1.15). The lack of relationship persists even when focusing on, broadly speaking, the same birth cohort of students (i.e. comparing reports from TIMSS 2015 and PISA 2022).
Note: Students’ reports in panel A show the percentage of fourth-grade students reporting being absent from school once every week or every two weeks (primary education), and the percentage of 15-year-old students reporting skipping a whole school day or some classes at least once in the past two weeks before taking the PISA test (secondary education). School leaders’ reports in panel B show the percentage of fourth-grade students whose school leaders reported that students arriving late at school or absenteeism at school is a serious problem (primary education), and the percentage of students whose school leaders reported that student truancy hinders learning in the school to some extent or a lot (secondary education). Data for Belgium include the Flemish Community for primary education. Data for the United Kingdom include England and Northern Ireland for primary education. Data for Canada include the following provinces for primary education: Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Quebec. Norway assessed fifth-grade students to obtain better comparisons with other northern European countries. To support comparability across cycles, some countries are excluded in estimates for secondary education.
Source: IEA (2015[36]), TIMSS 2015 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2015_G4; and OECD (2022[20]), PISA 2022 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
Long-term student absence
A prolonged absence can have negative consequences for students’ educational journeys, affecting their progression through education, academic results and non-academic outcomes (Chapter 3). It is, therefore, worrying that on average across OECD countries, 7.6% of 15-year-old students missed three or more consecutive months of schooling during their primary and secondary education until 2022 (Figure 1.16). The questionnaire item does not distinguish whether this was driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and, as such, the numbers might be somewhat inflated (see Chapter 2 for more details). This item was only covered in 2022 and, therefore, developments over time are not available.
Nevertheless, the share is worryingly high in some education systems (Figure 1.16). In Peru (13.8%), Malta (13.4%) and New Zealand (13.2%) and other countries, more than one in ten students missed three or more months of schooling. The lowest shares are observed in Korea (2.0%), Finland (3.4%) and Portugal (3.7%).
Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported that they had missed school for more than three consecutive months at any time in their previous educational journey
Note: * Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4 in OECD (2023[21])).
Source: OECD (2023[34]), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, Table II.B1.3.49, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
Gender disparities in long-term absence move overwhelmingly in one direction – with boys having reported being more absent than girls in all education systems with significant results (panel A in Figure 1.17). On average across OECD countries, 8.2% and 7.0% of boys and girls, respectively, missed three or more consecutive months of schooling in their previous educational journey.
Differences by parental education are non-significant in most cases (panel B in Figure 1.17). Among countries with significant results, students from families without tertiary-educated parents reported being long-term absent more often. This contrasts with other measures of socio-economic background, e.g. the PISA index of socio-economic status reported in Chapter 2, for which differences are statistically significant in most countries as well as on average across the OECD and EU.
Significant differences can be observed by immigrant background, with immigrants being long-term absent more often than their non-immigrant peers (panel C in Figure 1.17). On average across OECD countries, 10.0% of immigrants and 6.6% of non-immigrants reported being absent for three months or more. While varying in scale and statistical significance, immigrants reported long-term absence more often in all education systems. This result differs from that for truancy, for which some education systems saw higher rates among non-immigrant students.
Finally, on average across OECD countries, students in schools in villages reported long-term absence more often than their peers in schools in cities (8.6% vs. 7.1%). This result holds for all education systems with significant results except for Chile, where students in cities reported a higher rate of long-term absence compared to students in villages (panel D in Figure 1.17). This result also differs from that for truancy, for which several countries saw significantly higher rates in schools in cities.
Differences in percentage points of 15-year-old students who reported that they had missed school for more than three consecutive months at any time in their previous educational journey by background characteristics
Note: * Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4 in OECD (2023[21])). Statistically significant differences are marked in darker colours.
Source: OECD (2022[20]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
Data from international large-scale surveys reported above do not indicate rapid increases in SAP after the COVID-19 pandemic (not on average across OECD countries). This differs to what many education systems have reported in the OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems based on their administrative sources. In Croatia, for instance, the number of absences per student in primary and secondary education increased from 66 in 2018/19 to 90 in 2023/24 (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2026[58]). This increase was primarily driven by the rise in justified absences. In the Slovak Republic, the number of excused hours per student increased from 84 in 2018/19 to 123 in 2023/24 in primary, 118 to 148 in lower secondary and 108 to 115 in upper secondary education (OECD, 2025[15]). The average number of unexcused hours per student has remained stable or decreased. In Finland, records indicate that the average number of absences increased from just over 20 to just under 50 lessons from 2016 to 2023 (Hotulainen et al., 2024[44]). Comparing the last whole pre-pandemic semester in 2019 with the first full post-restriction semester in 2022, total absences and multiple sub-categories (e.g. health-related, pre‑requested leave) rose, and the share of students with “problematic” absence levels increased: notably, the proportion with fewer than 5% absences fell from over 60% to under 40% while the 5%-9% band grew (ibid.). In Denmark, the average absence rate fell from 5.6% in 2015/16 to 5.1% in 2020/21, spiked to 8.1% in 2021/22, and then stabilised around 7% in the next two years (Ministry of Children and Education, n.d.[59]). In Australia, the share of students who attended at least 90% of days dropped from 73% in 2019 to 50% in 2022, and remained persistently low at around 60% since then (Hunter, Haywood and Chapman, 2025[48]). In fact, 96% of schools experienced a fall in attendance rate before and after the pandemic.
In many education systems, increased absences after the pandemic are driven by students who miss a large number of days. In Ireland, for instance, the share of students who missed 20 or more days increased from 10.7% in 2018/19 to 25.1% in 2022/23 in primary education and from 14.5% to 22.3% in secondary education (panel A in Figure 1.18). Similarly, in Norway, the proportion of students in the last year of lower secondary education who missed 20 or more days increased from 9.0% in 2018/19 to 17.0% in 2023/24 (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2024[60]). At the end of upper secondary education, the shares stood at 6.3% in 2018/19 and 9.3% in 2023/24 (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2024[61]). In Chile, serious absence (students attending fewer than 85% of the total number of official school days in a year) increased from 19.4% in 2018 to 37.6% in 2022, dropping to 27.1% in 2024 (yet remaining higher compared to the pre-pandemic level) (CEM, 2025[62]). Meanwhile, the share of students with fewer than five days of absences decreased (ibid.). In Sweden, the share of students with more than 15% absences fell between 2020 and 2023 in secondary education but not in primary (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024[55]). However, in secondary education, the reductions are concentrated among students in the 15%-29% and 30%-49% bands, while the share of students with more than 50% absences has increased slightly since 2020. In Japan, truancy for over 30 days has risen steadily: among primary students from 0.4% (2015) to 1.0% (2020) and 2.3% (2024), and among lower secondary students from 2.8% (2015) to 6.8% (2024) (panel B in Figure 1.18). In Wales (United Kingdom), the percentage of half‑day sessions missed increased from 5.7% in 2018/19 to 9.5% in 2023/24, and persistent absence at the 10% threshold more than doubled between 2018/19 and 2022/23 before easing to 30.4% in 2023/24 (Welsh Government, 2025[26]). New Zealand likewise reports that chronic absence (attending 70% or less of the term) has risen dramatically in 2022 and has not yet returned to pre-COVID levels (panel C in Figure 1.18). In Scotland (United Kingdom), persistent absence (missing more than 10% of sessions) has climbed since 2010/11, from 14.5% to 21.1% in primary, 30.1% to 37.4% in secondary and 30.2% to 35.8% in special settings by 2024/25 (panel D in Figure 1.18).
Note: Data are not comparable among education systems. Panel A displays the percentage of students who lost 20 or more days in Ireland. Caution should be exercised as only 64% and 60% of primary and secondary schools, respectively, responded to Annual Attendance Reports in 2019/20, 64% and 46% in 2020/21, 78% and 65% in 2021/22, and 78% and 71% in 2022/23. Panel B displays the percentage of students absent for 30 days or more in Japan, excluding absences due to illness, financial reasons, and, for 2020-2022, certain COVID-19 infection‑avoidance absences. Panel C displays the percentage of students attending 70% of fewer available half-days in term 2 of the individual years in New Zealand. Panel D shows the percentage of students who missed 10% or more sessions in Scotland (United Kingdom).
Source: Education Counts (2025[39]), 2019-2025 Attendance data, https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/attendance (accessed on 27 August 2025); Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2026[63]), 令和６年度 児童生徒の問題行動・不登校等生徒指導上の諸課題に関する調査結果について [Results of the 2024 Survey on Problem Behaviour, School Absenteeism, and Other Issues Related to Student Guidance], https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20260116-mxt_jidou02-100002753_1_3.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2026); Scottish Government (2025[41]), School attendance and absence statistics, https://www.gov.scot/publications/school-attendance-and-absence-statistics/ (accessed on 19 December 2025); and TESS (2025[64]), School Attendance Data Primary and Post-Primary Schools And Student Absence Reports Primary and Post-Primary Schools: 2023-2024, https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/Analysis_of_School_Attendance_Data_2023-24.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2025).
At the same time, several jurisdictions show stability even post-pandemic. Peru’s primary education attendance rate had been rising pre-pandemic (92.7% in 2017 to 97.1% in 2019), dipped in 2020 (94.4%), and in 2021 was almost back to pre-pandemic levels, although sub-national variation is notable (Reátegui, 2022[65]). Secondary attendance has been even more stable. France also reports long-term stability in truancy. The share of public secondary education students absent without justification for at least four half‑days per month has hovered between 4% and 7% for roughly two decades (Cristofoli, 2026[66]). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, at least for unauthorised absences, no marked post-pandemic deterioration is visible (Ministry of Education and Training, n.d.[45]). Similarly, in Latvia, the number of long-term unauthorised absentees has not changed significantly (State Service of Education Quality, 2025[67]). In New Zealand, overall (but not chronic) attendance levels are back to pre-pandemic levels (58% attending school regularly, up from 40% in 2022) (ERO, 2025[68]). Improved attendance is seen across primary and secondary educational levels, as well as across a range of diverse student groups.
While several education systems report improvements, concerns remain. In England (United Kingdom), for example, overall absence rose by about half, from 4.7% in 2018/19 to 7.5% in 2021/22, and persistent absence more than doubled from 10.9% to 22.5%, reversing previous stability (Department for Education of England, 2026[69]). This increase is broad-based across the distribution and demographics, with disadvantaged students and those with SEN particularly affected due to worse pre-COVID rates and slower post-COVID improvement (even though their relative worsening during the pandemic was similar to all students) (Department for Education of England, 2025[70]). Data from 2024/25 show that overall absence has decreased to 6.8% and persistent absence to 18.1% (Department for Education of England, 2026[69]). On both measures, this represents the largest improvement since 2013/14, with particularly strong gains in secondary education, and larger improvements for disadvantaged students (Department for Education of England, 2025[70]). Yet, the severe absence rate (missing 50% or more of possible sessions) continues to increase: from 0.9% in 2018/19, to 1.7% in 2021/22 and 2.4% in 2024/25 (Department for Education of England, 2026[69]). These extreme absence rates are also persevering – for instance, over 80% of secondary students who missed more than 28 days in 2021/22 remained persistently or severely absent in 2022/23 (Department for Education of England, 2025[71]).
Similarly, in the United States, chronic absence nearly doubled, from 14.8% in 2018/19 to 28.3% in 2021/22 (Dee, 2024[72]). Although attendance has improved since then, the recovery has been partial and uneven, with national rates of chronic absence still significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels on average (Malkus, 2024[73]). Notably, districts and student subgroups that had higher chronic absence rates before the pandemic (e.g. high-poverty or low-achieving districts, and Black and Hispanic students) also experience the largest post-pandemic increases, suggesting that the pandemic exacerbated existing inequities (ibid.).
Finally, in Scotland (United Kingdom), concerns about exacerbated socio-economic gaps following the pandemic are present (Sosu and Klein, 2021[74]). The first wave of the pandemic may not only have increased socio-economic achievement gaps during lockdown but may continue to do so via school attendance disparities when schools reopened. This is due to pre-existing and widening gaps in attendance in the country (ibid.).
While research in this area is still emerging, the post-pandemic prevalence in absences can be tied to shifts in instructional practices, worsening psychological and mental health challenges, and changes in students’ behaviours and parental attitudes (see also Chapter 2). Shifts in instructional practices, especially prolonged remote learning and abrupt school closures, have disrupted learning routines. While evidence in this area is indirect, in the United States, for instance, state-level increases in chronic absence are positively associated with the prevalence of school closures (Dee, 2024[72]), although exposure to remote learning likely explains only a small part of the decline in student attendance post-pandemic, and its effects are fading over time (Singer, 2025[75]). Qualitative studies also confirm that, already during the pandemic, students were facing challenges stemming from adapting to school routines after the return to in-school learning (McDonald, Lester and Michelson, 2022[76]).
Psychological challenges, including emotional distress, also seem to contribute to absences. Mental health difficulties can undermine students’ ability to attend school by driving anxiety-based avoidance, low mood, internalising and externalising symptoms, sleep problems and greater use of clinical appointments (see Chapter 2 for more details). In fact, in some education systems, researchers hypothesise that the pandemic accelerated a mental health crisis that has been present for some time already before the disruptions to schooling (Hamilton, 2024[77]). Many of these challenges are then further exacerbated by socio-economic disparities.
Finally, while evidence is still rare and qualitative, the COVID-19 pandemic might have also altered students’ behaviours and parental attitudes by reducing the perceived importance of daily school attendance. In New Zealand, 41% of parents were comfortable with their child missing a week or more of school a term in 2022 and 31% in 2025 (ERO, 2025[68]). Moreover, 59% of parents were comfortable with their child missing a couple of days in 2025 (50% in 2022). In Ireland, while the vast majority of parents believe that attending school every day is important, 65% of parents also think that occasional absences are not a serious concern (RED C, 2025[78]). In England (United Kingdom), parents across socio-economic groups expressed frustration with schools’ communication and attendance policies, citing a lack of trust and support, particularly in navigating broader systems like mental health services (Burtonshaw and Dorrell, 2023[79]). Fines and punitive measures were broadly rejected because they were perceived as ineffective and antagonistic (ibid.). At the same time, systemic challenges, such as teacher shortages, industrial actions and underfunded special education needs services were viewed by some as compounding factors (ibid.). As a result, some parents in England (United Kingdom) and the United States no longer perceive daily schooling as a necessity for good parenting and view it as one of several options for their children, with schooling being put on a scale with maintaining good mental and physical health, cheaper holidays, challenging logistics and others (Burtonshaw and Dorrell, 2023[79]; Melissa Kay Diliberti, 2024[80]).
Norway faces similar challenges, highlighting that it is difficult to isolate the effects of the pandemic on societal and school changes. Interviews with school leaders, however, suggest that parental attitudes towards school attendance are evolving. Some school leaders reported that there is a greater tendency for parents now than before to take their children out of school to go on weekend or holiday trips (Bergene et al., 2023[81]). A school leader at a primary school claimed that some parents misunderstand the absence rules set by the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training and understand it “as if they are entitled to 10 days off in a row every time they apply” (Bergene et al., 2023, p. 78[81]). Furthermore, they reported that it seems parents have more opportunities to stay at home with their children due to an increase in home office/flexible jobs (Bergene et al., 2023[81]). Some school leaders also pointed to the idea that habits that developed during the pandemic, such as doing schoolwork from home and staying home for minor symptoms, have contributed to a mindset that views attendance as more flexible (ibid.). Similarly, other studies in Norway suggest that the pandemic lifestyle has continued after the pandemic, with various factors contributing to making it easier to stay at home (Vennerød-Diesen et al., 2024[82]). At the same time, greater access to remote learning and increased parental ability to work from home might have, in some cases, supported students’ well-being and continuity of learning. Chapter 2 further elaborates on several of these drivers.
References
[81] Bergene, A. et al. (2023), Fravær som vekker bekymring [Absences that raise concerns], https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3087762 (accessed on 16 June 2025).
[11] Birioukov, A. (2015), “Beyond the excused/unexcused absence binary: classifying absenteeism through a voluntary/involuntary absence framework”, Educational Review, Vol. 68/3, pp. 340-357, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1090400.
[33] Broschinski, S. et al. (2025), “Forschungsnotiz zu PISA 2012–2022: Analysen zum Einfluss des familialen Hintergrunds auf den Schulabsentismus, Research Note on PISA 2012–2022: Analyses on the Influence of Family Background on School Absenteeism”, KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. 77/2, pp. 247-269, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-025-01008-x.
[85] Brussino, O. (2020), “Mapping policy approaches and practices for the inclusion of students with special education needs”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 227, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/600fbad5-en.
[79] Burtonshaw, S. and E. Dorrell (2023), Listening to, and learning from, parents in the attendance crisis, https://www.publicfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ATTENDANCE-REPORT-V02.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2025).
[62] CEM (2025), Reporte nacional de asistencia de octubre de los años 2018, 2023 y 2024 [National attendance report for October of the years 2018, 2023 and 2024], https://centroestudios.mineduc.cl/2025/01/13/apuntes-n74-reporte-nacional-de-asistencia-de-octubre-de-los-anos-2018-2023-y-2024/ (accessed on 14 November 2025).
[35] CESE (2024), Understanding attendance - An updated research review on school attendance, Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, https://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/education-data-and-research/cese/publications/research-reports/understanding-attendance (accessed on 12 August 2025).
[56] Chu, B. (2021), Building Early Detection Systems to Prevent Chronic Absenteeism, Jerringfonden.
[66] Cristofoli, S. (2026), En 2024-2025, l’absentéisme touche en moyenne 7 % des élèves du second degré public [In 2024-2025, absenteeism affects on average 7% of students in public secondary schools], https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-26-11.
[30] Cristofoli, S. (2025), En 2023-2024, l’absentéisme touche en moyenne 7 % des élèves du second degré public [In 2023-2024, absenteeism will affect an average of 7% of public secondary school students], https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-25-33.
[72] Dee, T. (2024), “Higher chronic absenteeism threatens academic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 121/3, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2312249121.
[14] Department for Education (2024), Working together to improve school attendance, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-improve-school-attendance (accessed on 7 October 2025).
[69] Department for Education of England (2026), ’Absence rates by geographic level’ from ’Pupil absence in schools in England’, https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/permalink/58601827-12b4-4d5a-cde6-08de94ac311c (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[70] Department for Education of England (2025), Pupil absence in schools in England, https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/pupil-absence-in-schools-in-england/2024-25-autumn-term (accessed on 28 August 2025).
[71] Department for Education of England (2025), Year-on-year change in pupil attendance, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/year-on-year-change-in-pupil-attendance (accessed on 16 June 2025).
[28] Department of Education (2026), ’Absence by pupil characteristics’ from ’Pupil absence in schools in England’, https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/permalink/39d4c59e-7719-442a-25ac-08de980bc1e1 (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[39] Education Counts (2025), 2019-2025 Attendance data, https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/attendance (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[31] Education Scotland (2023), Improving Attendance: Understanding the Issues, https://education.gov.scot/resources/improving-attendance-in-scotland/improving-attendance-understanding-the-issues-report/ (accessed on 11 August 2025).
[68] ERO (2025), Back to class: How are attitudes to attendance changing?, Education Review Office, https://evidence.ero.govt.nz/documents/back-to-class-how-are-attitudes-to-attendance-changing-research-report (accessed on 18 December 2025).
[46] ERO (2022), Missing Out: Why Aren’t Our Children Going to School?, Education Review Office, https://evidence.ero.govt.nz/documents/missing-out-why-aren-t-our-children-going-to-school (accessed on 16 June 2025).
[51] Fields, X. and C. Wotipka (2020), “Effect of LGBT anti-discrimination laws on school climate and outcomes for lesbian, gay, and bisexual high school students”, Journal of LGBT Youth, Vol. 19/3, pp. 307-329, https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2020.1821276.
[49] Gallagher-Mackay, K. et al. (2023), Chiefs of Ontario Systemic Gaps in Education Project Report #1: Student Outcomes in Provincially Funded Schools, https://education.chiefs-of-ontario.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/SystemicGapsProject_StudentOutcomes-1.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2026).
[77] Hamilton, L. (2024), “Emotionally Based School Avoidance in the Aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Neurodiversity, Agency and Belonging in School”, Education Sciences, Vol. 14/2, p. 156, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020156.
[5] Hammond-Price, C. et al. (2025), “An analysis of UK local authority (LA) emotionally based school avoidance (EBSA) guidance”, Educational Psychology in Practice, pp. 1-21, https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2025.2486161.
[7] Heyne, D. (2025), The Drivers of Absence: A Background Note for the OECD Project on School Attendance Problems.
[3] Heyne, D. et al. (2019), “Improving school attendance by enhancing communication among stakeholders: establishment of the International Network for School Attendance (INSA)”, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 29/7, pp. 1023-1030, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-019-01380-y.
[4] Heyne, D. et al. (2019), “Differentiation Between School Attendance Problems: Why and How?”, Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, Vol. 26/1, pp. 8-34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.03.006.
[2] Heyne, D., G. Keppens and D. Dvořák (2024), “From Attendance Data to Student Support: International Practices for Recording, Reporting, and Using Data on School Attendance and Absence”, ORBIS SCHOLAE, Vol. 16/3, pp. 5-26, https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2023.16.
[1] Heyne, D. et al. (2020), “A Scoping Review of Constructs Measured Following Intervention for School Refusal: Are We Measuring Up?”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01744.
[8] Heyne, D., I. Verstraete and M. de Wit (2025), “Addressing authorized absences: a school district’s initiative to examine prevalence and promote proactive attendance practices”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1546046.
[25] Horga, I. et al. (2024), Liceenii din România. Acces și participare [High school students in Romania. Access and participation], National Center for Educational Policies and Evaluation - Education Research Unit, https://www.ise.ro/liceenii-din-romania-acces-si-participare (accessed on 11 August 2025).
[44] Hotulainen, R. et al. (2024), Perusopetuksen poissaolojen ja niihin annetun tuen vaikutukset koulunkäyntiin: Tutkimushankkeen loppuraportti [The effects of absences from basic education and the support provided for them on school attendance: Final report of the research project], HEA, Finnish Centre for Educational Evaluation, Faculty of Education, University of Helsinki, http://hdl.handle.net/10138/578593 (accessed on 11 August 2025).
[48] Hunter, J., A. Haywood and M. Chapman (2025), Every day matters: Improving school attendance in Australia, Grattan Institute, https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Every-day-matters-policy-brief-Grattan-Institute-2025.pdf (accessed on 11 December 2025).
[38] IEA (2023), TIMSS 2023 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2023_G4_data_edition_1.
[37] IEA (2019), TIMSS 2019 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2019_G4.
[36] IEA (2015), TIMSS 2015 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2015_G4.
[53] IEA (2011), TIMSS 2011 Grade 4 (dataset), https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2011_G4.
[84] IEA (n.d.), Data Repository, https://www.iea.nl/data-tools/repository (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[17] Jerrim, J. et al. (2025), READ THE DAMN DOCUMENTATION (CAREFULLY). A case study using the PISA data, https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucl:cepeow:25-14 (accessed on 19 May 2026).
[12] Jimerson, S., E. Campos and J. Greif (2003), “Toward an Understanding of Definitions and Measures of School Engagement and Related Terms”, The California School Psychologist, Vol. 8/1, pp. 7-27, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03340893.
[54] Keppens, G. and B. Spruyt (2019), Preventie van spijbelen en vroegtijdig schoolverlaten: Eindrapport [Preventing truancy and early school leaving: Final report], https://researchportal.vub.be/en/publications/preventie-van-spijbelen-en-vroegtijdig-schoolverlaten-eindrapport (accessed on 18 August 2025).
[6] Kjeøy, I. and R. Lysvik (2024), “Skulk, skolevegring eller bekymringsfullt fravær? Implikasjoner av begrepsbruk i skandinavisk forskning om fravær i skolen”, Norsk sosiologisk tidsskrift, Vol. 8/2-3, pp. 70-85, https://doi.org/10.18261/nost.8.2-3.6.
[27] Kristensen, N., V. Jensen and K. Krassel (2020), Panelanalyse af bekymrende skolefravær [Panel analysis of worrying school absences], VIVE, https://www.vive.dk/da/udgivelser/panelanalyse-af-bekymrende-skolefravaer-dx3ynqvb/ (accessed on 7 May 2026).
[57] Lomholt, J. et al. (2020), “Feasibility Study of Back2School, a Modular Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Youth With School Attendance Problems”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00586.
[73] Malkus, N. (2024), Long COVID for Public Schools: Chronic Absenteeism Before and After the Pandemic, American Enterprise Institute, https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/long-covid-for-public-schools-chronic-absenteeism-before-and-after-the-pandemic/ (accessed on 26 June 2025).
[76] McDonald, B., K. Lester and D. Michelson (2022), “‘She didn’t know how to go back’: School attendance problems in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic—A multiple stakeholder qualitative study with parents and professionals”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 93/1, pp. 386-401, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12562.
[9] McNeely, C. et al. (2021), “Exploring an Unexamined Source of Racial Disparities in Juvenile Court Involvement: Unexcused Absenteeism Policies in U.S. Schools”, AERA Open, Vol. 7, https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211003132.
[80] Melissa Kay Diliberti, L. (2024), Districts Try with Limited Success to Reduce Chronic Absenteeism, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA956-26.html (accessed on 15 November 2024).
[22] Melvin, G. et al. (2019), “The Kids and Teens at School (KiTeS) Framework: An Inclusive Bioecological Systems Approach to Understanding School Absenteeism and School Attendance Problems”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 4, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00061.
[23] Melvin, G. et al. (2025), Barriers to school attendance and reasons for student absence: Rapid literature review, Australian Education Research Organisation, https://www.edresearch.edu.au/research/research-reports/barriers-school-attendance-and-reasons-student-absence (accessed on 8 December 2025).
[59] Ministry of Children and Education (n.d.), Elevfravær [Student absence], https://uddannelsesstatistik.dk/pages/topics/15.aspx (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[29] Ministry of Education (2025), Students attending school regularly - Term 1 2025, https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/250205/Term-1-2025-Attendance-report.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2025).
[45] Ministry of Education and Training (n.d.), Dataloep op Mijn Onderwijs [Data magnifier on My Education], https://www.vlaanderen.be/onderwijsprofessionals/regelgeving-data-en-onderzoek/data-en-onderzoek/data/dataloep (accessed on 1 August 2025).
[63] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2026), 令和６年度 児童生徒の問題行動・不登校等生徒指導上の諸課題に関する調査結果について [Results of the 2024 Survey on Problem Behaviour, School Absenteeism, and Other Issues Related to Student Guidance], https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20260116-mxt_jidou02-100002753_1_3.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2026).
[58] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (2026), ŠeR - Školski e-Rudnik (Vol. 2) [ŠeR - School e-Database (Vol. 2)], https://mzom.gov.hr/vijesti/ser-skolski-e-rudnik-vol-2/2045 (accessed on 16 June 2025).
[60] Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2024), Fraværet i grunnskolen fortsetter å øke [Absenteeism in elementary schools continues to increase], https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/statistikk/statistikk-grunnskole/analyser/2024/fravaret-fortsetter-a-oke/ (accessed on 16 June 2025).
[61] Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2024), Økt timefravær i videregående [Increased absences in upper secondary education], https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/statistikk/statistikk-videregaende-skole/analyser/2024/fravar-vgs-2023-24/ (accessed on 16 June 2024).
[15] OECD (2025), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
[86] OECD (2023), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.
[21] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
[34] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[20] OECD (2022), PISA 2022 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
[19] OECD (2018), PISA 2018 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ (accessed on 19 May 2025).
[52] OECD (2015), PISA 2015 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2015-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
[18] OECD (2012), PISA 2012 (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2012-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
[83] OECD (n.d.), PISA data and methodology, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/pisa/pisa-data.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
[32] Plăeșu, A. et al. (2024), Liceenii din România: Calitatea vieții liceenilor din România [High school students in Romania. Quality of life of high school students in Romania], https://www.ise.ro/liceenii-din-romania-calitatea-vietii-liceenilor-din-romania (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[42] Rambøll (2018), Undersøgelse af hjemmeundervisning, fravær og børn uden for undervisningstilbud [Study of homeschooling, absenteeism and children outside educational opportunities], https://www.uvm.dk/publikationer/folkeskolen/2018-undersoegelse-af-hjemmeundervisning--fravaer-og-boern-uden-for-undervisningstilbud (accessed on 14 August 2025).
[65] Reátegui, L. (2022), Pandemia y deserción escolar en la Educación Básica Regular: Factores asociados y posibles efectos, 2017-2021 [Pandemic and school dropout in Regular Basic Education: Associated factors and possible effects, 2017-2021], https://www.gob.pe/institucion/inei/informes-publicaciones/4021058-pandemia-y-desercion-escolar-en-la-educacion-basica-regular-factores-asociados-y-posibles-efectos-2017-2021 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
[78] RED C (2025), Unpublished market research poll provided to the OECD by Tusla Education Support Service (TESS).
[10] Rosenthal, L., M. Moro and L. Benoit (2020), “Migrant Parents of Adolescents With School Refusal: A Qualitative Study of Parental Distress and Cultural Barriers in Access to Care”, Frontiers in Psychiatry, Vol. 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00942.
[47] Rowlands, M. (2022), Attendance review – implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for school attendance, Welsh Government, https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2023-12/attendance-review-implications-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-for-school-attendance.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2025).
[41] Scottish Government (2025), School attendance and absence statistics, https://www.gov.scot/publications/school-attendance-and-absence-statistics/ (accessed on 19 December 2025).
[13] Sergejeff, J. and Ministry of Education and Culture (2023), Yhteisellä koulutiellä : Käsikirja perusopetuksen oppilaiden läsnäolon tukemiseen ja poissaolojen vähentämiseen [Our common school path: Handbook for supporting attendance and reducing absence in basic education], Ministry of Education and Culture, http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-924-0 (accessed on 17 June 2025).
[75] Singer, J. (2025), Remote Learning in 2020-21 and Student Attendance Since the COVID-19 Pandemic, Annenberg Institute at Brown University, https://doi.org/10.26300/s8ha-n684.
[74] Sosu, E. and M. Klein (2021), Socioeconomic disparities in school absenteeism after the first wave of COVID-19 school closures in Scotland, Center for Open Science, https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/f4jsy.
[40] State Education Quality Service (2020), Par vispārējās izglītības un profesionālās izglītības iestāžu izglītojamo ilgstošiem neattaisnotiem kavējumiem un rīcību to novēršanai 2019/2020 mācību gadā, [On general education and vocational education institutions for long-term unjustified absences of students delays and actions to prevent them in the 2019/2020 academic year], https://www.ikvd.gov.lv/lv/media/1583/download (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[67] State Service of Education Quality (2025), 2024. gada Publiskais pārskats [2024 Public Review], https://www.fm.gov.lv/lv/publiskais-parskats-0 (accessed on 12 August 2025).
[24] Swedish National Agency for Education (2024), Attityder till skolan 2024 [Attitudes towards school in 2024], Swedish National Agency for Education, https://www.skolverket.se/statistik-och-utvarderingar/uppfoljning-och-utvardering/attityder-till-skolan (accessed on 11 August 2025).
[55] Swedish National Agency for Education (2024), Nationell kartläggning av elevfrånvaron 2023 [National survey of student absenteeism in 2023], https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=13169 (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[43] Swiderski, T., S. Fuller and K. Bastian (2025), “Student-Level Attendance Patterns Across Three Post-Pandemic Years”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737251315715.
[64] TESS (2025), School Attendance Data Primary and Post-Primary Schools And Student Absence Reports Primary and Post-Primary Schools: 2023-2024, https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/Analysis_of_School_Attendance_Data_2023-24.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2025).
[16] VBE Berlin (2024), Ausführungsvorschriften über Beurlaubung und Befreiung vom Unterricht [Implementing regulations on leave of absence and exemption from classes], https://schule-in-reinickendorf.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/AV-Schulbesuchspflicht.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2025).
[82] Vennerød-Diesen, F. et al. (2024), Et bevis på at man trenger skolen, egentlig [Proof that you need school, really], NIFU, https://nifu.brage.unit.no/nifu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3135616/NIFUrapport2024-10.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 16 June 2025).
[26] Welsh Government (2025), Attendance and absence from schools: September 2023 to August 2024, https://www.gov.wales/attendance-and-absence-schools-september-2023-august-2024-html (accessed on 14 August 2025).
[50] Welsh, R., L. Rodriguez and B. Joseph (2025), “Racial Threat, Schools, and Exclusionary Discipline: Evidence from New York City”, Sociology of Education, Vol. 98/2, pp. 87-109, https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407251321387.
Annex Table 1.A.1 displays how surveys’ participants were asked about their gender, parental education, immigrant background and school location. In this chapter, gender was operationalised as a binary variable (boys and girls), parental education as tertiary-educated (ISCED 5 or higher) or not, immigrant background as either student or parent born outside of the country of assessment, and school location as village (fewer than 15 000 people), town (15 000-100 000 people) and city (more than 100 000 people).
Source: IEA (2015[36]), TIMSS 2015 Grade 4 Database, https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2015_G4; IEA (2023[38]), TIMSS 2023 Grade 4 Database, https://doi.org/10.58150/IEA_TIMSS_2023_G4_data_edition_1; OECD (2012[18])PISA 2012 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2012-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025); and OECD (2022[20]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
Annex Table 1.B.1 provides exact wording of questionnaire items measuring student truancy of 15-year‑old students. Students are considered “truant” if they reported skipping a whole school day or some classes at least once in the past two weeks before taking the PISA test. International versions of the student questionnaires are identical for 2018 and 2022. In 2012, the wording changes slightly (e.g. “how many times” instead of “how often”), and the questions on skipping days and classes feature as two distinct items, rather than one item with one response table.
Note: Based on international versions of student questionnaires.
Source: OECD (n.d.[83]), PISA data and methodology, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/pisa/pisa-data.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
Annex Table 1.B.2 provides exact wording of questionnaire items measuring student absence in the fourth grade. Students are considered “absent” if they reported being absent from school once every week or every two weeks. International versions of the student questionnaires are identical for 2019 and 2023. In 2015, the response options change slightly (e.g. “once a week or more” instead of “once a week”), and the response option “once every two months” is not available.
Note: Based on international versions of student questionnaires.
Source: IEA (n.d.[84]), Data Repository, https://www.iea.nl/data-tools/repository (accessed on 12 June 2025).
Annex Table 1.B.1 provides exact wording of questionnaire items measuring student truancy as a barrier to learning in school, as reported by school leaders. Truancy is considered a barrier to learning if school leaders reported that student truancy hinders learning in the school to some extent or a lot. International versions of the student questionnaires are identical for the four cycles.
Note: Based on international versions of school questionnaires.
Source: OECD (n.d.[83]), PISA data and methodology, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/pisa/pisa-data.html (accessed on 19 May 2025).
Annex Table 1.B.4 provides exact wording of questionnaire items measuring student absence or arriving late as a serious problem in school, as reported by school leaders. Student absence or arriving late is considered a serious problem if school leaders selected that option. International versions of the student questionnaires are identical for 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2023.
Note: Based on international versions of school questionnaires.
Source: IEA (n.d.[84]), Data Repository, https://www.iea.nl/data-tools/repository (accessed on 12 June 2025).
← 1. Although numerous national and sub-national definitions and terms for special education needs are in use, the definition adopted in this report builds on the shared elements across these frameworks. It identifies three primary categories of special education needs: learning disabilities, physical impairments and mental disorders (Brussino, 2020[85]; OECD, 2023[86]).