This chapter examines policy responses to school attendance problems (SAP) across education systems, drawing on the OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems and related evidence. It analyses policies through key levers – governance, school-level interventions, capacity building, and monitoring and evaluation – to capture how systems design and implement responses to a complex, multi-dimensional challenge. The chapter shows that countries adopt a wide range of approaches, with considerable variation in how policies are designed, combined and implemented across these levers. While legal frameworks and enforcement measures are common, they are often complemented by supports aimed at addressing underlying barriers to attendance. Many systems also emphasise the engagement of non-teaching staff, targeted resources and school-level practices such as engagement and re-integration strategies. Data systems are widely used to monitor attendance and inform responses, although their scope and use differ substantially across contexts.
Every Day Counts
Abstract
School attendance problems are shaped by a mix of personal and structural factors that often extend beyond the education system. As such, no single policy measure is sufficient to address them. Effective responses need to be cross-sectoral, with alignment across governance, school-level interventions, capacity building and monitoring and evaluation.
Legal and governance frameworks set expectations, but vary widely
Most education systems define attendance obligations through legal frameworks, including compulsory schooling requirements, thresholds, and exemptions. These can support accountability and access to education, but their effects depend on how they interact with supportive measures and implementation capacity.
Enforcement measures are common, but their effects are limited and uneven
Many systems use punitive or compliance-based measures, such as fines, legal proceedings or grade repetition, especially following unauthorised absence. Evidence suggests that these approaches may produce short-term effects in some cases but are unlikely to durably reduce persistent absences on their own. Incentives and rewards also show mixed and context-dependent results.
The engagement of non-teaching staff and external professionals is essential
Because attendance problems often reflect overlapping educational, social and health challenges, effective responses require co-ordination across schools, families, health services, social services and community actors. Many systems involve counsellors, social workers and psychologists, but the extent to which systems task them with responsibility around SAP varies considerably.
Capacity building is important but often underdeveloped
Teachers and school staff play a key role in shaping attendance through classroom practices, relationships and engagement. Their effects on attendance are distinct from their effects on academic achievement, although the two are interrelated. Many systems still lack training requirements that focus specifically on attendance.
School-level interventions are key for effective policy implementation
Effective responses rely on a combination of instructional adaptations, targeted supports engagement and re-integration measures. These interventions are more likely to work when they are co-ordinated, sustained and responsive to students’ needs. For instance, multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) and similar approaches can provide a coherent structure for combining universal, targeted and intensive interventions.
Engagement, relationships and school climate matter
Positive school climate, supportive relationships among peers, between students and school staff, and strong connections between schools and families, together with a sense of belonging, are key protective factors for attendance. Engaging students through flexible, stimulating and relevant curriculum can also be important, although research on effectiveness of these measures is still in its early stages. Parental engagement can also support attendance, particularly when communication with parents is respectful, personalised and paired with practical support.
Monitoring systems are essential, but constraints hinder the full potential of data
Most systems collect attendance data, but there is substantial variation in coverage, frequency, granularity and linkage capacity. Categorisations of reasons for absences vary (possibly limiting both national analyses and international comparisons), while legal and technical constraints often restrict the ability to link data across domains or use them fully for analysis.
The challenge is turning data into action
Monitoring systems are most effective when they enable early identification, timely intervention and continuous improvement. Early warning systems are becoming more common, but their use and evaluation remain uneven, and their impact depends on schools’, teachers’ and systems’ capacity to interpret and act on data. Moreover, many systems do not systematically record reasons for absences, limiting their own ability to target responses effectively.
Equity is central across all policy responses
Attendance problems are often concentrated among students facing disadvantage and structural barriers. Policies that address these underlying conditions through targeted supports and inclusive approaches can help improve attendance, while rigid or enforcement-heavy responses may risk reinforcing inequities if not carefully designed. Evidence points, for instance, to the provision of free school meals – particularly breakfast – as an important measure to support attendance of disadvantaged students.
School attendance problems (SAP) represent a complex and multi-dimensional policy challenge. As discussed in previous chapters, absences are not only a behavioural outcome but the result of interacting academic, social, health-related and structural factors. They reflect both individual circumstances and broader system conditions, including the quality of learning environments, family resources, service provision and policy design. At the same time, absences contribute to a range of negative outcomes, reinforcing cycles of disengagement and disadvantage. This dual nature, both as a symptom and a driver, positions SAP as a problem that resists simple or single-dimensional policy solutions.
In response, education systems have developed a wide range of policies to prevent, monitor and address student absence. These policies span legal frameworks, school practices, support services, and data systems, and are often embedded within broader agendas related to equity, inclusion and student well-being. These are rarely implemented in isolation, as their effectiveness depends on how different elements of the system interact, the extent to which they are coherent and aligned, and whether they address both the symptoms and underlying causes of absence.
To capture this complexity, this chapter analyses policy responses to SAP through the lens of the OECD’s Education for Inclusive Societies’ project framework (OECD, 2023[1]). This framework provides a comprehensive lens to analyse how education systems design, implement and evaluate policies to address complex and multi-dimensional challenges such as student absence. In line with this approach, the chapter organises policies across interrelated levers: governance, school-level interventions, capacity building, and monitoring and evaluation.
Governance refers to the formal rules, institutional arrangements and co-ordination mechanisms that shape how attendance is defined, prioritised and enforced within education systems. This includes legal frameworks on compulsory schooling, accountability structures, incentive and enforcement mechanisms, as well as arrangements for collaboration across sectors such as health and social services. School-level interventions refer to the concrete practices implemented within schools to prevent and respond to absence. These include instructional adaptations, targeted supports, engagement and re-integration strategies, and the use of tiered frameworks to organise responses according to students’ needs. Capacity building focuses on strengthening the knowledge, skills and practices of educators and other professionals, including initial teacher education, continuing professional learning, and the development of expertise to identify and respond to attendance problems effectively. Finally, monitoring and evaluation encompass the systems and processes used to collect, analyse and use data on attendance, assess the effectiveness of policies and interventions, and inform continuous improvement at different levels of the system.
Analysing SAP through these levers allows for a more holistic understanding of policy responses. It highlights how different components of the system can reinforce – or undermine – each other. For example, governance frameworks that emphasise compliance without adequate support may fail to address underlying barriers; school-level interventions may remain fragmented without sufficient capacity or resources; and data systems may have limited impact if they are not linked to clear action pathways. Conversely, when these levers are aligned, they can support coherent and sustained strategies that combine prevention, early identification and targeted intervention.
This conceptual approach is particularly relevant in the context of SAP, where effective responses require both breadth and integration. By examining policies across these four levers, the chapter aims to identify common patterns, promising practices and areas of tension across education systems, providing a foundation for understanding how comprehensive policy approaches can support improved attendance and student engagement.
For ease of reference, the OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems is referred to throughout this chapter as “the Survey” (OECD, 2025[2]). Unless otherwise specified, examples from education systems are drawn from Survey responses. Where relevant, additional references are provided to offer further context, discuss available evidence on the effectiveness of policies, and to support readers who wish to explore specific policies or findings in greater detail.
Governance
Governance responses to attendance problems can be differentiated between regulatory mechanisms and co-ordination-oriented arrangements that structure collaboration among actors.
Regulatory and enforcement mechanisms
Education systems generally have governance policies that define obligations, thresholds, and eventual sanctions related to attendance at the system level. These instruments establish formal rules and consequences and rely on legal or administrative authority.
Among a number of questions on governance, the Survey (OECD, 2025[2]) asked systems which actions or steps schools or other stakeholders are required to undertake following a period of a student’s absence. The response options covered consultation with, or notice to, the student, parents or guardians, a social worker and the police, as well as fines to parents or guardians, grade retention, legal proceedings against parents or guardians, and other actions. To identify broader patterns across systems, the analysis below groups these options into three broad categories: communication with students and/or families, welfare or external agency involvement, and punitive or formal measures.
The largest group, comprising 24 of the 45 systems, reports what can be described as comprehensive approaches. These include actions across all three broad categories: communication with the student and/or parents or guardians, welfare or external agency involvement, such as consultation with a social worker and/or the police, and punitive or formal measures, such as fines, grade retention or legal proceedings. The exact composition varies across systems: some combine student and parent consultation with social worker involvement and legal proceedings, while others also include police involvement, fines or grade retention. These combinations suggest relatively broad response frameworks, although the information from the Survey does not indicate whether these actions occur simultaneously or at different stages of escalation.
A second group of eight systems reports communication-only approaches. These systems require consultation with the student and/or parents or guardians, without also requiring consultation with social workers or the police, or punitive measures such as fines, grade retention or legal proceedings. A further six systems report more limited mixed approaches. Within this group, two systems combine communication with welfare-related involvement, such as consultation with or notice to a social worker, but do not report punitive measures. These can be described as communication plus welfare approaches. The remaining four systems combine communication with one or more punitive or formal measures, such as fines, grade retention or legal proceedings, but without the broader combination of welfare and enforcement actors seen in the comprehensive group. These can be described as communication plus punitive measures. A smaller group of three systems reports punitive-only combinations, where fines, grade retention or legal proceedings are required with no accompanying consultation requirement among the listed options. Finally, four systems report no formal requirement across the listed actions. This does not necessarily mean that no follow-up occurs after absence, but it may indicate that follow-up is not prescribed through the specific actions listed in the survey, or that responsibility is left to local authorities, schools or other procedures not captured by the item.
Yet, these patterns should be interpreted with caution. The data show only whether each listed action is required following a period of absence; they do not capture actions that may be recommended, discretionary, locally determined, or commonly used in practice without being formally required. The data also do not show sequencing: where several actions are required, they may not occur at the same time or at the same stage of escalation (e.g., consultations before punitive measures).
The following section examines the categories described above in greater detail, in addition to legal attendance frameworks and supportive and incentive-based instruments.
Legal attendance frameworks
Legal frameworks on school attendance are important for many reasons, including to promote access to education, protect children’s rights, support child development and establish accountability (Heyne, 2025[3]). Legislation generally covers provisions concerning minimum levels of school attendance to fulfill specific educational requirements, takes into account possible exemptions to mandatory attendance, as well as policies that enforce absences on students under given circumstances.
Legal provisions in regard to compulsory school attendance are not universal in use and vary across education systems, as shown in Figure 4.1.
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “What are the legal provisions in your education system in regard to compulsory school attendance?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Several systems have set requirements of attendance in regard to different forms of fulfilling specific educational standards. In 11 of 45 education systems, students must meet a minimum attendance threshold to complete an education level. In 15 systems, a minimum level of attendance is required to complete a grade, and in 12 systems it is required to pass a specific subject. For instance, in Norway, students in upper secondary education can only pass a subject if they have no more than 10% absences in that subject, unless the absences are medically certified, a rule introduced in the 2016/17 school year (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2025[4]). An evaluation of this policy estimates that it reduces overall absences by 21-28%, and chronic absences by 29-39% (Baker, Drange and Gjefsen, 2022[5]). In Korea, students are eligible for grade promotion only if they attend at least two-thirds of the academic calendar. By contrast, in 11 of 45 education systems, minimum attendance is not required for the completion of any of these: subject, grade, or education level.
Sixteen education systems report other legal provisions regarding compulsory school attendance. For instance, in Türkiye, minimum attendance is a condition for participating in certain examinations and for receiving formal student status documentation. In Croatia, while legislation does not set a formal absence threshold, an established practice is that students who miss more than around 30% of lessons are required to sit an examination before a commission; if they do not pass, they may be required to repeat the grade. In Sweden, there are no minimum attendance thresholds that automatically bar students from completing a grade or a subject. However, if a student’s absences mean there is no basis for assessment, the teacher cannot award a passing grade.
Legal systems also often foresee exemptions for certain students to attend school (Figure 4.2). Generally, most countries identify specific circumstances in which students might be exempted from compulsory school attendance: 45 education systems surveyed have indeed identified some exemptions or circumstances under which students are not required to attend school (OECD, 2025[2]).
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “Are there any exemptions or circumstances under which students are not required to attend school?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Medical conditions are the most frequently reported exemptions, mentioned by 41 education systems. For example, in Luxembourg, like in many other OECD countries, illness is recognised as a legitimate exemption to school attendance, but absences lasting more than three consecutive school days must be supported by medical documentation (Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l'Enfance et de la Jeunesse du Luxembourg, 2023[6]). Other education systems’ approaches consider absences due to medical conditions as authorised absences, aiming to balance the importance of attendance with appropriate recovery and public health considerations.
Across OECD countries, rules on illness and school attendance generally converge around a common principle: attendance is generally required unless a student is either too unwell to participate or presents a meaningful risk of transmitting infection. While the legal framing may differ, the practical thresholds used by ministries and public health authorities are generally similar. In most systems, students are expected to attend school with mild symptoms (such as a runny nose or mild cough) if they feel well enough, reflecting a policy concern with avoiding unnecessary absence. For example, guidance from Ireland’s Health Service Executive advises that children should attend school where possible, including when experiencing mild symptoms such as coughs, colds or a runny nose, provided they are otherwise well enough to participate (Ireland Health Service Executive, 2025[7]). Absence is recommended primarily in cases of more significant symptoms, such as fever or when a child is generally unwell.
The clearest and most consistent boundary across countries concerns fever and acute gastrointestinal illness, which are almost universally treated as conditions requiring absence. Overall, the evidence points to a shared policy framework across systems: attendance is required in normal conditions, allowed when illness is mild and does not significantly impair participation or increase transmission risk, and not required when symptoms indicate either substantial illness or a higher likelihood of contagion.
Across systems, the dominant pattern is that doctor’s notes are not required for ordinary short-term sickness absence. In most systems, parents are expected to notify the school and provide a simple justification, while medical documentation is typically required when absences extend beyond a certain number of days, although thresholds vary. In Denmark, for instance, schools may request a doctor’s note if illness lasts more than two weeks (Danish Agency for Digital Government, 2024[8]), while in Portugal a medical certificate is required when the absence exceeds three working days (Public Ministry of Portugal, 2012[9]). A distinct category concerns contagious diseases and formal exemptions, where medical certification is more systematically required. In France, for instance, a medical certificate is required for certain legally defined contagious diseases before a student can return to school (French Republic, 2024[10]). Moreover, for chronic or long-term illness, education systems generally require specific certifications.
The evidence base on the effect of medical documentation requirements on attendance is quite limited. One study from a rural district in the United States finds an association between a policy mandating medical notes after three days of health-related absence and a reduction in recorded absences (from 12.3 to 7.97 days on average) (Kiriakidis and Kiriakidis, 2024[11]). However, the study’s design, which includes a single district and no control group, requires the findings to be interpreted cautiously, particularly given potential confounding factors and unequal access to healthcare.
Interesting evidence on the effectiveness of structured approaches that do not focus exclusively on compliance comes from the Dutch MAZL (Meer Aandacht voor Ziekgemelde Leerlingen or MASS – Medical Advice for Sick-reported Students) programme. MAZL is a structured, school-based intervention that treats repeated sickness absences as a signal for early identification and support rather than a compliance issue (Cedefop, 2017[12]). It uses defined thresholds (typically four sickness reports within 12 weeks or seven consecutive school days of absence) to trigger a stepwise process starting with dialogue between school, student and parents, and, where needed, referral to youth health-care professionals for a biopsychosocial assessment and tailored plan. The approach is explicitly framed as one of “concern rather than control”, aiming to identify underlying issues early, prevent escalation, and coordinate support across education and health systems, with ongoing monitoring and potential escalation if absences persist (Netherlands Centre for Youth Health, 2023[13]). Evidence from quasi-experimental evaluations suggests that such structured, support-oriented models can lead to meaningful reductions in sickness absences, though through different mechanisms than compliance-based systems. A study of this programme finds that absences decreased from 8.5 days in 12 school weeks to 5.7 after three months and 4.9 after twelve months, with smaller and less sustained reductions in the comparison group (Vanneste et al., 2016[14]). According to the author, the effect is driven mainly by a reduction in the frequency of absence episodes rather than their duration, indicating improved management of recurrent absences rather than resolution of underlying conditions (ibid). The authors attribute these changes to earlier school-family engagement and coordinated follow-up through health services, rather than verification alone, while noting limitations such as the inability to isolate individual components and possible regression to the mean or scrutiny effects.
For students with chronic or long-term health conditions, the evidence points in a different direction from compliance-based approaches. Qualitative research with secondary students shows that illness and medical appointments often lead to unavoidable absences, and that pressure to maintain high attendance can have negative educational and emotional consequences when appropriate support is not in place (Hopwood et al., 2024[15]). Moreover, a large cohort study using England’s (United Kingdom) ECHILD database finds that students with chronic health conditions (especially those with mental health presentations) are significantly more likely to experience persistent absences, exclusion and non-enrolment, and highlights that policies focused on reducing absences can place additional burdens on these students (Jay et al., 2025[16]).
More evidence on the effectiveness of different supports and interventions around mental and physical health is discussed under School-level interventions.
Not all exemptions are medical in nature, as various education systems also allow parents to choose different educational approaches for their children. Homeschooling (at least for certain educational levels) is permitted as an exemption in 28 systems. For instance, in Czechia, parents may request authorisation from the school principal for a student to be educated at home; the student must then sit regular examinations at their local school to ensure learning outcomes are being met (Czech Government, 2026[17]). In the education systems that do not consider homeschooling an exemption, this is either due to the fact that homeschooling is not generally allowed in the country (often unless very limited and specific circumstances apply), or that students that are regularly registered as homeschooled are considered to be attending education is an accepted format.
Alternative education pathways are also recognised as valid exemptions in 16 systems. For instance, in the French Community of Belgium, compulsory instruction can be fulfilled outside mainstream public schooling through several recognised routes, such as accredited private schools, schooling in neighbouring countries, recognised work-study pathways, or targeted support arrangements such as school outreach services for young people who have disengaged from education (Wallonie-Bruxelles Enseignement, 2019[18]).
Finally, twelve systems reported other types of exemptions or circumstances under which students are not required to attend school. For instance, in Finland, parental and childcare leave, military service, or on-the-job learning can constitute circumstances under which students are not required to attend upper secondary schools and institutions. In Portugal, special conditions of school assiduity are recognised for students from itinerant families and distant learning is organised for them through the Mobile School project, which is a nationwide educational institution that operates through a learning platform organised in a virtual environment, using synchronous and asynchronous modalities (Ministry of Education of Portugal, 2009[19]). In Luxembourg, the law provides temporary dispensations for family events, cultural/sporting activities, as well as charitable or civic activities (Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l'Enfance et de la Jeunesse du Luxembourg, 2023[6]).
Legal provisions: consultations with key stakeholders
Many education systems have developed legal provisions that require schools to respond in specific ways to absences, authorised or not. These comprise measures that are meant to be supportive and others that are meant to be punitive, in order to seek compliance with compulsory schooling requirements through formal rules, monitoring, and sanctions applied to students and/or families.
Some education systems have instituted a system of consultations with students, parents, social workers and police forces as a follow-up to students’ absences. These consultations can be required in various circumstances, such as in the case of unauthorised or authorised absences (e.g. in the case of long illnesses), or both (Figure 4.3), and can target the student, their family, or concern the involvement of specific professionals (e.g. social workers or the police).
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “Following a period of a student’s absence, which actions/steps are schools (or other stakeholders, e.g. social services) required to undertake?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
A large share of systems requires consulting with or notifying parents after a period of absence. This occurs in 27 education systems following unexcused/unauthorised absence. In several systems, such as Luxembourg, New Zealand and Sweden, the school must notify parents the same day when a student is absent without a valid explanation. In 11 systems, notifying or consulting with parents is required following both excused/authorised and unexcused/unauthorised absences, while this is not a requirement in 7 education systems. Evidence regarding the impact of such measures is presented in the Awareness-raising communication section.
Consultation with or notice to the student, instead, is required in 18 education systems following unexcused/unauthorised absences, and in 14 following excused and unexcused absence. For instance, in Portugal, when a student exceeds the permitted number1 of unjustified absences, schools may require them to participate in learning recovery or integration activities, which are decided by the school and can involve both the student and their parents. By contrast, 13 systems do not require consultation with or notification to students after a period of absence.
When looking at the requirement to inform or consult specific professionals, a large share of systems focus on social workers. Indeed, consultation with a social worker occurs in 21 systems following unexcused/unauthorised absences, and in Catalonia (Spain) and England (United Kingdom) following both excused and unexcused absence. This is generally initiated after the student reaches a certain number of days of absence. For instance, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, when a student accumulates five unauthorised absences during the school year, schools must contact the Student Guidance Centre, which is then responsible for providing guidance and support to help restore regular attendance. Consulting with a social worker is not required, however, in about half of the survey respondent systems (22). In various systems, however, these consultations are an option that schools have at their disposal and discretion to respond to students’ SAP. In Wales (United Kingdom), for instance, all these forms of consultations are set out as options for schools to adopt in the Government’s guidance (Welsh Government, 2023[20]). Similarly, in Italy, this sort of actions is decided at school level, within the sphere of school autonomy.
Stokes et al. (2024[21]) highlight the underutilised role of school social workers in this area. Building on earlier research (Bye et al., 2009[22]; Reid, 2006[23]), they argue that social workers are uniquely positioned to bridge schools and families, assess psychosocial stressors, and connect caregivers to community-based services. Districts in Minnesota (United States) that integrate licensed social workers into attendance teams report improvements in attendance, partly because social workers reframe attendance problems as manifestations of unmet needs rather than motivation deficits (Bye et al., 2009[22]).
Another public service that can be involved in these cases is the police force, even though it is not common practice among education systems. Indeed, consulting with the police is required in only 12 education systems in the case of unexcused/unauthorised absences, while it is not in 32 education systems.
Legal provisions: punitive measures
Punitive measures following school absences can include a range of legally framed responses such as fines or penalty notices issued to parents, prosecutions or court proceedings, grade repetition, and truancy court or truancy court diversion programmes. These measures are typically justified as mechanisms to enforce compulsory schooling requirements, deter persistent non-attendance, and signal the seriousness of attendance obligations (Wright, 2009[24]; Zhang, 2007[25]). As shown in Figure 4.4, education systems generally adopt a number of punitive measures, largely following unexcused/unauthorised absence. Several systems, however, do not adopt any punitive measures.
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “Following a period of a student’s absence, which actions/steps are schools (or other stakeholders, e.g. social services) required to undertake?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Legal proceedings against parents are the most commonly adopted measure across countries surveyed (OECD, 2025[2]). These are required in 27 systems following unexcused/unauthorised absences. In many systems, however, these measures are not considered a first line response but are meant to be undertaken in cases of persistent absences and unsuccessful alternative measures.
For example, if earlier measures to restore attendance do not succeed, local education authorities in France are expected to refer the case to public prosecutors for potential proceedings related to non-compliance with compulsory school attendance (French Republic, 2012[26]). Ceuta (Spain) requires schools to implement legal proceedings following both excused and unexcused absences. By contrast, 17 systems do not require any legal proceedings against parents.
A second common approach is fines to parents or suspensions of existing social benefits. According to the Survey, these are required following unexcused/unauthorised absences in 17 education systems (OECD, 2025[2]). For instance, in Japan, if a student does not attend school without a justifiable reason and their parents fail to comply after being formally reminded to ensure attendance, the parents may be punished by a fine of up to JPY 100 000 (EUR 591)2 (Government of Japan, 2018[27]). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, low-income families can lose their school allowance if their child is unduly absent for more than 29 half days during two consecutive school years (Flemish Government, 2021[28]). These financial sanctions are not required in 28 systems.
Overall, while not all systems adopt financial sanctions, these remain fairly common practices across education systems, as shown by the Survey data (OECD, 2025[2]). However, the enforcement of sanctions varies substantially across education systems. In some systems, such as England (United Kingdom), fines are enforced but heavily concentrated on term-time holidays (Department for Education of the United Kingdom, 2026[29]); in other systems, such as France or Ireland, sanctions are explicitly placed at the end of a tagged support process (Directorate for Legal and Administrative Information of the French Government, 2025[30]; Citizens Information, 2023[31]). Yet, the evidence on their effectiveness in increasing attendance is limited, as discussed in Box 4.1.
Financial sanctions on families – such as fines or the suspension of existing social benefits – are designed to deter unauthorised school absences by increasing the immediate cost of non-attendance and signalling that parents are responsible for ensuring their children attend school regularly.
Imposing fines to improve students’ attendance
Evidence on the effectiveness of fines in improving students’ attendance is limited and insufficiently robust to draw firm causal conclusions. In England (United Kingdom), a correlational analysis finds no association between local authorities' propensity to issue penalty notices and subsequent change in absence rates (Zhang, 2007[25]). By contrast, an observational evaluation of England’s Fast Track to Prosecution – a framework intended to accelerate escalation in response to persistent school non-attendance, potentially resulting in fines – reports short-term improvements in average attendance and reductions in unauthorised absence. However, the evaluation finds that gains often diminish after cases are withdrawn from the process. Qualitative evidence further suggests this framework works best in cases of less severe, newly emerging non-attendance that were not characterised by complex social issues (Halsey et al., 2004[32]). A quasi-experimental study in England similarly finds that a stringent penalty policy introduced in 2013 slightly reduced overall holiday absences, with authorised absences increasing and unauthorised absences declining. It also shows that disadvantaged socio-economic groups were disproportionately affected, and that the policy’s marginal impact weakened two years after implementation, despite a continued rise in penalties (Yu and Leni, 2021[33]).
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the attendance system in England has been reformed through the introduction of a national framework emphasising a “support first” approach, with fines intended as a last resort when support is not engaged with or is deemed inappropriate (for example, in cases of term-time holidays). Recent administrative data indicate that 93% of fines issued in England relate to unauthorised term-time holidays (Department for Education of the United Kingdom, 2026[29]).
Similarly, in Wales (United Kingdom), one local authority reports that following warning letters, attendance improved enough that a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) was not issued in 87% of 326 cases (ICF Consulting Limited; Arad Research, 2018[34]). However, the same report also highlights potential unintended consequences, with parents reportedly recording absences as illness rather than requesting holiday authorisation or keeping unauthorised absences just below the trigger point to avoid an FPN (ibid.).
Suspending existing social benefits to improving students’ attendance
Evidence on suspending existing social benefits is also mixed and context dependent. In the United States, the Wisconsin’s Learnfare initiative was a conditional cash penalty programme that could reduce families’ welfare grants when adolescents did not meet school attendance targets. A random-assignment evaluation of this mechanism suggests that Learnfare increased school enrolment by 3.5% and attendance by 4.5% between 1993 and 1995 (Dee, 2011[35]). A comparable dynamic is reported in Australia’s School Enrolment and Attendance Measure, which threatened to remove welfare benefits from families if their children failed to attend school regularly. This measure was trialled between 2009 and 2012 in remote communities with mainly Indigenous populations. A difference-in-difference analysis of this trial finds a small increase in attendance following the programme’s implementation. However, administrators rarely carried out the threatened sanctions, and these initial gains largely dissipated in subsequent years (Justman and Peyton, 2018[36]). The absence of any measurable impact is even clearer in France, where a Senate review of a 2010 law that provided gradual suspension of social benefits for families with children with low school attendance concludes that nothing in available statistics suggest the mechanism was effective (Assouline, 2012[37]). The law was thus abrogated in 2013.
Across contexts, the evidence suggests that financial sanctions on parents can prompt short-term attendance gains, especially where absence is newly emerging, relatively marginal, and the sanction threat is swift and credible. However, impacts are heterogeneous and often fade once enforcement pressure eases. Sanctions alone are therefore unlikely to reduce persistent absences rooted in structural barriers and are most plausibly effective only as a backstop within a graduated approach that prioritises early identification and tailored support.
Grade repetition is another option that some systems adopted, and that is required in 12 systems following unexcused/unauthorised absences and in 2 systems following both excused and unexcused absences (Ceuta (Spain) and Lithuania). For example, in Portugal, if a student does not comply with recovery and integration measures that were set up after an excessive number of absences, or if these measures prove ineffective, the student will repeat the school year. Grade repetition is instead not required in 30 education systems.
Grade repetition is generally considered a costly, as it entails significant costs for both education systems and individuals experiencing it, and inequitable, as it tends to affect disadvantaged students, measure (OECD, 2022[38]). Moreover, the causal evidence on the effect of grade repetition on attendance is null or even negative: several quasi-experimental studies find no significant effect, while newer work even finds increases in school absence. Using a regression discontinuity design, a long-run study on retention in grades 3 through 8 (ISCED 1-2) in New-York City (United States), finds no evidence of systematic effects on attendance and suspensions. However, retained lower secondary-school students were more likely to drop out very late in upper secondary school and less likely to meet graduation requirements (Mariano, Martorell and Tsai, 2018[39]). Using a similar design, an evaluation of third-grade retention in Indiana (United States) also finds no effect on student attendance into lower secondary education (Hwang and Koedel, 2023[40]). A fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis of Texas public-school administrative records (1994–2023) even estimates that third-grade retention increases absences in the following two years by about 23% and 25%, respectively (Zhong, Forthcoming[41]).
Using administrative data on primary-education students in Philadelphia (United States) from 1995–2001, a quasi-experimental study also identifies potential spillover effects: having a higher share of retained classmates increases other students’ unexcused absences (Gottfried, 2013[42]).
Moreover, grade repetition is generally associated with lower educational completion, particularly for later-grade retention. For example, in Italy, an analysis using propensity score matching of longitudinal administrative data from northern regions estimates that grade retention in upper secondary education makes students about 5.6 times more likely to drop out (Contini and Salza, 2024[43]).
Six education systems also reported adopting other mandatory measures following a student’s absence (OECD, 2025[2]). For example, in Luxembourg, students in secondary education that are absent for 15 consecutive days without a valid excuse are considered to have definitely left school. In Peru, an absence of 15 consecutive calendar days without justification must be formally reported to the Municipal Office for the Protection of Children and Adolescents, which then contacts the family and provides legal, psychological, and social support to address underlying causes of absences such as economic hardship, health issues, or family problems.
Policies that relate to enforced absences, while not meant to reduce SAP, are at times used as punitive measures within education systems. Indeed, while most policies aim at reducing or avoiding absences, there are instances in which education systems enforce absences on students as a punitive measure or as a protective/administrative action. This practice can be referred to in different ways across education systems but is often known as suspension. The Survey asked countries whether they adopted policies aimed at enforcing absences (see Figure 4.5) and found that 36 education systems have a policy enforcing absences on students for different reasons (OECD, 2025[2]).
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “Does your education system have policies related to enforced absence?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Despite the relatively widespread prevalence of enforced absences, there is a strong consensus in the literature that suspensions are associated with various negative outcomes. Apart from the obvious fact that suspensions immediately increase absences (by definition), research also indicates that they are not effective in reducing SAP in the longer term (Singer, 2023[44]). Furthermore, meta-analyses show that suspensions are associated with increased delinquency (Gerlinger et al., 2021[45]) and decreased academic achievement (Noltemeyer, Ward and Mcloughlin, 2015[46]). Moreover, enforced school absences are also linked to higher dropout rates and lower college attendance (Jabbari and Johnson, 2020[47]; Noltemeyer, Ward and Mcloughlin, 2015[46]). A quasi-experimental study suggests that suspensions contribute to these adverse outcomes through degraded perceptions of school climate and lower sense of belonging, suggesting that they could exacerbate disengagement (Liu, 2024[48]).
At the same time, schools must balance these risks against the need to maintain safe and supportive learning environments. Disruptive and aggressive behaviour can damage classmates’ learning and, in some cases, create genuine safety risks (Carrell, Hoekstra and Kuka, 2018[49]). However, evidence that suspension use benefits other students is mixed. Some studies find short-term benefits from stricter discipline, but others show that high suspension environments are associated with poorer school climate and weaker outcomes even for non-suspended peers (Craig and Martin, 2025[50]; Hwang and Domina, 2021[51]; Lacoe and Steinberg, 2018[52]; Perry and Morris, 2014[53]; Pope and Zuo, 2023[54]; Wang et al., 2024[55]). The evidence therefore supports a balanced approach focusing on prevention and early interventions. Enforced absences could be reserved for serious violence or immediate safety threats to balance the risks and potential negative effects of these measures.
A range of alternatives have been proposed to address misconduct while keeping students connected to education. A systematic review finds that alternative school-based interventions produce a small short-term reduction in suspensions but that effects are not clearly sustained over time. On the contrary, it finds desirable effects for academic skills enhancement, counselling, mentoring or monitoring, and teacher skills training, although the number of studies for each intervention type is small and the findings should therefore be treated cautiously (Valdebenito et al., 2018[56]). Other approaches include restorative practice (emphasising responsibility and harm-repair), Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports (PBIS) or Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports (MTSS), social and emotional learning, targeted behaviour support, and school based mental health or counselling, but the strength of evidence varies across interventions and contexts (Chin et al., 2012[57]; LiCalsi, Osher and Bailey, 2021[58]; Noltemeyer, Ward and Mcloughlin, 2015[46]).
Where suspension is unavoidable, schools could safeguard continuity of education through a comprehensive response that maintains student engagement, for example through structured learning activities, collaboration with external providers (e.g. non-governmental, community or youth organisations), and continued access to support services. Schools could also prioritise in-school over out-of-school suspension and plan reintegration carefully, rather than allowing disciplinary absence to become the start of longer-term educational exclusion (LiCalsi, Osher and Bailey, 2021[58]). More research is still needed on which alternatives work best in different contexts.
Among respondents, 31 of the 45 education systems reported having policies that allow enforced absences from school as a punishment-related measure. Among these, some systems establish a cap concerning the duration of disciplinary suspensions. For instance, in Finland, a student who disrupts instruction or otherwise violates school order or behaves dishonestly may be suspended for a maximum of three months if the violation is serious or if the student continues the inappropriate behaviour after receiving a detention session or a written warning. In such cases, the education provider must ensure that the suspended student is able to continue receiving instruction and/or complete compulsory education (Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland, 1998[59]). In other systems, disciplinary measures can include permanent expulsion. For example, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, a student may be definitively expelled from a school in cases of serious offences, requiring them to enrol in another school.
Twenty-four systems also have policies in regard to enforced absences as protective or administrative actions. For instance, in Latvia, when an under-age student continues to endanger their own safety, health or life or that of other persons at school – despite previous warnings and interventions – they may have to follow an individual learning plan in a different room or time in the presence of a teacher or pursue distance learning for a maximum of one month. In Sweden, students in compulsory schooling may be suspended by the school leader if they behave in such a way that the safety of other students or staff is deemed to be threatened. Such suspensions are time-limited: they may last no longer than one week and may be imposed no more than twice per semester. The student who has been suspended must also be offered compensation for the teaching they missed during the suspension period (i.e. receive remedial instructions). In Luxembourg, regulations also provide for mandatory exclusion from school in cases of contagious disease, with the length of the exclusion period determined by public health rules (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training of Luxembourg, 2025[60]).
In addition to formal enforced absences captured through suspension, exclusion or protective removal policies, some systems have raised concerns about less visible forms of de facto enforced absences, particularly for students whose support needs exceed available school capacity (read more in Box 4.2).
While enforced absences are generally regulated as disciplinary, protective or administrative measures, evidence from several systems suggests that students with special education needs (SEN) or complex health, behavioural and social needs may also lose access to full-time education through less visible mechanisms. These are not always recorded as formal suspension or exclusion. Instead, students may be asked to stay home, placed on reduced timetables, moved into alternative provision, remain without a school place after exclusion, or have their absences “medicalised” through certificates.
This concern has been raised in several systems. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, the Children's Rights Commissioner of Belgium-Flanders (Kinderrechtencommissariaat) has highlighted the issue of thuiszitters – students who are at home rather than in school – including students who remain at home part- or full-time with a medical certificate, sometimes despite not being “really ill”, and students who do not find a new school place after permanent exclusion. Because such absences may be formally justified, they can remain under the radar of regular attendance monitoring (Children's Rights Commissioner of the Flemish Community of Belgium, 2024[61]; 2025[62]). In Ireland, the Ombudsman for Children warned that reduced timetables were being used as an informal suspension to manage behaviour that schools found difficult to address, with children with disabilities and emotional or behavioural difficulties disproportionately affected (Ombudsman for Children, 2019[63]); subsequent Department of Education guidance clarified that reduced school days should be used only in limited circumstances and with oversight (Department of Education of Ireland, 2021[64]). Similar concerns have been documented in New Zealand, where the Education Review Office (2022[65]) found that disabled learners were sometimes asked to stay home because of resourcing issues, often when a teacher aide was unavailable; 27% of parents and whānau (extended family) surveyed reported being asked to keep their disabled child at home at least once. In Scotland (United Kingdom), Audit Scotland (2025[66]) has warned that additional support for learning requires a fundamental rethink of planning, funding and staffing, noting that students receiving additional support are more likely to be absent or excluded. In Victoria (Australis), the Ombudsman reported that students with disabilities were disproportionately represented among expulsions, while informal exclusions were not systematically captured (Victorian Ombudsman, 2017[67])
These examples point to a common policy risk: when support needs exceed school capacity, students may be displaced from full-time schooling through routes that are formally justified or administratively fragmented, rather than recorded as suspension or exclusion. Attendance monitoring that focuses only on formal absence codes or disciplinary exclusions may therefore miss students whose entitlement to education is interrupted through reduced provision, informal exclusion or delayed placement. This suggests that systems may need to monitor not only whether students are enrolled or formally absent, but also whether they are receiving full-time, meaningful access to education, and whether reduced attendance reflects unmet support needs rather than genuine parental choice, unavoidable illness or formal disciplinary action.
In Japan, the municipal board of education may order parents to suspend their child’s attendance if their behaviour interferes with other students’ learning. Before issuing such an order, the board is required to hear the parents’ views in advance and to take measures to support the student’s learning during the suspension period. Japan reports that this mechanism is framed not as a disciplinary sanction against the student, but as a way of maintaining order in school and safeguarding other students’ right to education. By contrast, for students who are older than the compulsory schooling age (over 15), expulsion may be used as a disciplinary measure.
Finally, among the 45 respondents, only nine education systems have not adopted any policy enforcing absences on students: Brazil, Ceuta (Spain), Chile, Croatia, Czechia, Indonesia, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia.
Legal provisions: Incentives and rewards
A widely used strategy involves attendance-related incentives, defined broadly as financial, social or other inducements designed to influence behaviour (Balu and Ehrlich, 2018[68]). These can be implemented both at the level of the educational authority (national or local) or at the school level, but this section focuses on the central requirements towards schools, in line with the questions of the Survey (OECD, 2025[2]).
According to the Survey, eight of the responding education systems require schools to provide incentive programmes for students or families to promote regular school attendance (OECD, 2025[2]). For instance, in Poland, attendance counts toward students’ annual conduct grade. Another example comes from Romania, where a 2015 law established a nationwide programme for low-income families, conditional on their children’s daily attendance in pre-school, through which families receive vouchers for food, hygiene products, clothing and/or school supplies (Gheorghiu et al., 2021[69]; Parliament of Romania, 2015[70]).
Thus, schools can implement a range of incentives, from public recognition and small rewards to more substantial prizes or financial incentives, though rigorous evidence on their effectiveness remains limited (Balu and Ehrlich, 2018[68]; Fryer, 2011[71]). Evaluations of larger-scale programmes providing financial incentives at the educational authority level show mixed effects. For instance, New York City’s Family Rewards conditional cash transfer programme improved ninth-grade attendance modestly but had no significant impact in earlier grades, with effects concentrated among students already on track for graduation (Riccio et al., 2010[72]). Moreover, a large randomised control trial (RCT) in the United States finds that neither prospective awards (i.e. rewards for future attendance) nor retrospective awards (i.e. rewards for past attendance) improve attendance (Melvin et al., 2025[73]; Robinson et al., 2021[74]).
Overall, the evidence on attendance incentives remains mixed and limited, with few studies showing consistent or sustained improvements in attendance. While some programmes report modest positive effects for specific groups of students, others find little or no impact, particularly when incentives are implemented in isolation from broader supports. The literature points less to a single “effective” incentive model and evidence remains weak regarding optimal design, targeting or duration (Balu and Ehrlich, 2018[68]). More broadly, incentives alone are unlikely to address the complex structural, relational and school-level drivers underpinning many school attendance problems, suggesting they are best considered as part of wider support strategies rather than as stand-alone solutions. Finally, attendance rewards, particularly those based on perfect or near-perfect attendance, are also contested from an equity and public-health perspective. While intended to promote regular participation, such rewards may penalise students whose absences are legitimate or unavoidable, including those with chronic illness, disability, mental health needs, medical appointments, caring responsibilities or unstable family circumstances. They may also create perverse incentives for students to attend school while unwell, potentially undermining public-health guidance and increasing risks for other students.
Engagement of non-teaching staff
Both engagement of non-teaching staff within schools and partnerships with external professionals are central components of governance arrangements to address SAP. Given that SAP often stem from complex and interrelated academic, social, health and family factors, it is unlikely that a single professional group can address them alone. Effective responses may therefore require coherent and sustained collaboration across school staff, specialised services, government departments and community organisations. Partnerships with health and social services, as well as local community actors, can help create a more holistic support system for students and their families. Across education systems, teachers are frequently supported by other professionals, such as school leaders, counsellors, social workers, school psychologists and home-school liaison co-ordinators (Reid, 2013[75]). Evidence suggests that multi-professional teams can help address different dimensions of students’ and families’ situations and may have beneficial effects on attendance outcomes (Boaler and Bond, 2023[76]; Kearney and Graczyk, 2020[77]; Keppens and Spruyt, 2020[78]; Mossberg, 2025[79]). In addition, multi-agency working can provide a “collaborative advantage” in supporting school attendance, by allowing knowledge and resources pooling, while reducing the impact on individual workloads (Corcoran et al., 2023[80]; Zerden, Lombardi and Richman, 2019[81]). However, effective teamwork depends on clear role definition, mutual understanding of responsibilities and shared accountability (Jahans‐Baynton and Grealish, 2021[82]; Zerden, Lombardi and Richman, 2019[81]). Further evidence is discussed below in the section Incorporating health services into schools.
Results from the Survey show that system-level policies related to the engagement of non-teaching staff in addressing SAP vary considerably across education systems (see Figure 4.6).
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “Do system-level policies exist that require or encourage schools to engage one or more non‑teaching staff member(s)?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
The most common profile that education systems require schools to involve are school counsellors, in 21 out of 45 systems, which are also encouraged to be involved in a further 17 systems. Moreover, 14 education systems require schools to involve social workers in addressing students’ absences, 19 encourage it, while 12 neither require nor encourage such involvement. Similarly, 20 systems encourage schools to involve school psychologists in tackling SAP, and 13 even require it, while 12 education systems do not.
Home-school liaison officers and therapists are less frequently involved in addressing students’ absences: 27 education systems neither require nor encourage their engagement. Nevertheless, nine systems require schools to involve therapists and eight encourage them to do so. For home-school liaison officers, eight systems require their engagement and nine encourage it. In Ireland, for instance, designated disadvantaged schools (under the DEIS programme) have access to both the Home School Community Liaison (HSCL) Co-ordinator (see Box 4.4) and the School Completion Programme staff who provide supports directly to children, young people and parents to improve school attendance, participation and retention. This can involve one-to-one work as well as group work.
The engagement of other non-teaching staff is mandatory in nine education systems and encouraged in five. For example, in Portugal, schools – particularly in socio-economically disadvantaged or multicultural contexts – are encouraged to recruit linguistic and cultural mediators to better support students and families from migrant, Roma or minority backgrounds by facilitating communication with the school, promoting belonging and trust, and preventing school absences and dropout (Government of Portugal, 2025[83]). Another example comes from the Netherlands, where internal support workers (interne begeleiders) are required to contact and co-ordinate the different professionals involved in addressing SAP.
Overall, while many education systems recognise the importance of multi-professional collaboration in addressing SAP, policy approaches differ in the extent to which the engagement of specific non-teaching roles is required or encouraged. These differences reflect variations in governance structures, resource allocation and service availability, and may shape the degree to which schools can implement comprehensive, integrated responses to student absence.
School-level interventions
Education systems may set out a framework for addressing SAP, but it is at the school level that these policies are translated into practice. Generally, schools operationalise attendance strategies through three broad areas of action: instructional adaptations, supports, and engagement and re-integration measures.
First, instructional adaptations aim to reduce the academic consequences of absence and prevent further disengagement. These may include adapting instruction and assessments, using digital technologies to ensure continuity of learning, and providing remedial or catch-up support when students return.
Second, schools mobilise a range of supports to address the underlying barriers to attendance. This can involve consultation with students and parents after absences, counselling and psycho-social support, collaboration with social workers and health services, family support programmes, and targeted assistance for disadvantaged students.
Third, engagement measures focus on restoring students’ connection to school. These include attendance improvement plans, structured re-integration pathways, attention to transition points, peer-support initiatives, parent engagement, and broader efforts to strengthen school climate and student engagement. Together, these areas illustrate how school-level capacity shapes the prevention of and response to SAP.
These school-level responses are codified in different ways among education systems. In some countries, they are embedded within a comprehensive national attendance strategy that provides a structured, tiered response framework. In others, they are organised through specific programmes (e.g. mentoring, counselling, community school models) or formalised through required documents that are triggered when certain absence thresholds are reached. Frequently, schools are required to document their actions in written plans once a student is identified as persistently or severely absent. These documents – referred to as attendance improvement plans or individual attendance plans – serve both as intervention tools and accountability mechanisms. Ten education systems report using these individual re-integration plans with step-by-step guidance (OECD, 2025[2]).
Instructional adaptations
One of the key supports for students facing barriers to their attendance is the adaptation of instruction to their needs to facilitate their participation in education. For some students, this can mean alternative provisions in the case of hospitalisation or impossibility to attend regular school hours due to illnesses. As shown in Figure 4.7, the vast majority of education systems surveyed (42 out of 45) have policies that require or encourage schools to provide alternative educational arrangements for hospitalised students (OECD, 2025[2]).
While research is not extensive in this area, a central conclusion that comes from academia and policy documents is that alternative arrangements should be understood as temporary, flexible, health-sensitive educational continuity, not as a substitute for normal school participation unless that is clearly necessary. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that education should remain in the least restrictive setting and that home or hospital instruction should support a return to school at the earliest appropriate point (2000[84]). More recently, their guidance on school attendance likewise says that out-of-school instruction should be clearly medically justified, time-limited, and paired with a re-entry plan (Allison et al., 2019[85]). Guidance from the United Kingdom similarly requires local authorities to arrange education for children whose illness prevents school attendance and says it should be full-time where possible, unless part-time is in the child’s best interests because of health needs (United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care, 2015[86]). In addition to the proven therapeutic value of in-hospital pedagogical practices, the implemented activities should be thought out individually and planned according to defined learning objectives (Ludgério et al., 2023[87]; Magalhães et al., 2018[88]). In this process, it is essential that the hospital teacher is sensitive and considers the hospitalised child's age group, educational needs, and clinical condition (Barbosa and Gimenes, 2017[89]; Gomes dos Santos, Da Conceição and Ferro Cavalcante, 2019[90]; Ludgério et al., 2023[87]; Montanari, Silva and Maciel, 2019[91]).
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “Do system-level policies exist that require or encourage schools to provide any of the following supports for students with school attendance problems?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
In Iceland, primary-education students who are unable to attend school due to an accident or long-term illness, as certified by a doctor, are entitled to alternative education either at home or in a medical institution (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Iceland, 2010[92]). This support can include distance or distributed learning, delivered under teacher guidance and co-ordinated with parents, medical staff and the student’s school. The school leader, in consultation with doctors and parents, determines the scope and organisation of provision and is responsible for developing an individualised curriculum tailored to the student’s health condition and endurance. The aim is to ensure that students miss as little instruction as possible and are not disadvantaged educationally due to illness. The use of digital tools is encouraged to maintain learning continuity and to help students stay connected with their school and peer group where feasible.
Similarly, in France, around 11 000 students each year receive schooling in hospitals or healthcare institutions, supported by nearly 800 specialist teachers assigned to hospitals or children’s homes. Additional teachers provide instruction at home for students who must remain there for several weeks due to health reasons, often on a voluntary, paid-overtime basis, with priority given to teachers from the student’s original school. Beyond delivering lessons, teachers are responsible for maintaining links with the student’s regular school and class, using digital tools to ensure continuity of learning and social connection.
France also makes extensive use of distance learning and telepresence solutions. Through the APADHE scheme, the Ministry of Education deploys TED-i telepresence robots, which allow students to participate remotely in classroom activities from hospital or home. Around 4 000 robots had been deployed by the end of 2022. Students may also access courses from the National Centre for Distance Learning (Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale de la France, 2019[93]). Local education services co-ordinate provision depending on circumstances, assigning teachers to paediatric hospitals or other care settings as needed, while designated co-ordinators ensure both educational and medical links are maintained.
As shown by the previous examples, educational continuity often relies on the use of digital technologies. According to the Survey, policies promoting educational continuity through digital technologies or other means are in place in 30 systems (OECD, 2025[2]). In Norway, for instance, distance learning may be used for parts of education when there are sound reasons and when it is safe and pedagogically justified, meaning that the benefits for students outweigh the disadvantages (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2024[94]). Decisions must consider students’ learning, development, well-being and social cohesion. Students are generally expected to receive distance learning at school, although exceptions may be made in special cases, and upper secondary students may receive exemptions by agreement with the school leader. Distance learning must enable effective communication between teachers and students, using technical solutions that allow real-time or near real-time interaction. Municipal or county authorities must confirm that the legal conditions are met, and the ministry may issue further regulations.
In a similar way, in Portugal, distance learning is regulated as an exceptional measure, used when students are unable to attend school for justified reasons, such as prolonged illness or other impediments (Ministry of Education of Portugal, 2019[95]). It is framed as a temporary solution to ensure continuity of learning and prevent educational disruption, rather than as a substitute for in-person schooling. The responsibility for organising distance learning lies with the school, which must ensure that the pedagogical conditions are equivalent, as far as possible, to face-to-face education. Schools are required to define an appropriate teaching and assessment plan, maintain regular interaction between teachers and students, and monitor student participation and progress. Digital platforms and synchronous communication tools are typically used to facilitate real-time or near real-time interaction. Notably, the implementation of distance learning must take into account students’ individual circumstances, including access to digital equipment and connectivity. Schools are expected to adopt measures to mitigate inequalities in access and ensure that students remain integrated within their class group.
Instructional adaptation can also consist of more intensive or remedial instruction after a period of absence. Indeed, 23 education systems require or encourage schools to offer remedial instruction to students who have been absent upon their return to school. This is the case, for instance, in Romania, where remedial and inclusive instruction for at-risk students were introduced under the “school after school” pilot programme in 2021. The programme provides remedial instruction, structured support, and inclusive teaching to ensure learning continuity and prevent dropout. Included in Romania’s National Programme to Reduce School Drop-Out, remedial education was generalised in 2023 as part of the "Remedial Learning" programme, designed to support students with learning difficulties or who are falling behind in their studies (Parliament of Romania, 2023[96]). Similarly, both the French and the Flemish Communities of Belgium adopted strategies to ensure remediation. In the former, the school can request additional resources to ensure support to a student that re-enters education after a period of absence. In the latter, the content of assessment can also be adapted, and programmes can be made flexible, notably for students that are at risk of early school leaving. This flexibility on the content of assessment is fairly common across education systems, as half of the systems surveyed (23 out of 45) reports having policies requiring or encouraging schools to adapt assessments to support students with attendance problems (OECD, 2025[2]).
Remedial instruction, or academic interventions in general, can also be used to improve attendance. For example, in Washington D.C. (United States), the High-Impact Tutoring initiative is designed to mitigate learning loss among “at-risk” upper-secondary students, including those enrolled in social benefit programmes, in foster care or who were retained. Evidence suggests that this programme reduces students’ likelihood of being absent by about 7% on days when tutoring is scheduled (Lee, Loeb and Robinson, 2024[97]). As for students who are chronically ill or returning from hospitalisation, robust evidence on the impacts of re-integration programmes remains scarce. The literature suggests that these plans – which typically include tailored academic support – may help improve school attendance (Canter and Roberts, 2012[98]; Tougas et al., 2022[99]; Wikel and Markelz, 2023[100]).
Yet, research shows that the effectiveness of academic interventions to improve attendance patterns depends on the programmes or initiatives that are actually implemented in schools. As discussed in Box 4.3, these academic efforts can contribute to improvements in attendance, although effects are generally modest and not consistent across all interventions. Overall, improvements in attendance seem more likely when academic reforms strengthen students’ connection to learning and to school, rather than when they focus solely on discrete skill development.
Melvin et al. (2025[73]) identify and review eight quasi-experimental studies from the United States examining universal academic interventions and their impact on school attendance. Overall, the evidence reviewed suggests that academic approaches can contribute to improvements in attendance, although effects are generally modest and not consistent across all interventions.
Main findings
Several interventions are associated with positive attendance outcomes. For instance, looping, a practice in which a teacher remains with the same group of students for two consecutive years, is linked to significant reductions in absent days compared to matched peers, with attendance improving over time in the looping group while declining in the comparison group (Cistone and Shneyderman, 2004[101]). Project-based learning, implemented in economically disadvantaged secondary schools, is also associated with significantly higher attendance over a three-year period compared to traditional instructional approaches, for socio-economically disadvantaged students (Creghan and Adair-Creghan, 2015[102]). Similarly, schools implementing the Different Ways of Knowing model – a comprehensive school reform approach that promotes more personalised and holistic teaching – demonstrate a modest but statistically significant increase in attendance during the second year of implementation, although this effect is not sustained in the third year (Muñoz, Ross and McDonald, 2007[103]).
Studies of school-wide or programmatic reforms also find positive associations. Students attending charter schools1 with strong behavioural expectations around attendance have slightly higher attendance rates than matched peers in traditional public schools, with effects particularly evident in the 7th grade (ISCED 2) (Johnson et al., 2017[104]). Participation in the Influence of a School District’s Advancement via Individual Determination, a preparatory programme for tertiary education (intensive course of study to prepare students for tertiary education entry), is positively associated with attendance overall, with longer exposure linked to better outcomes. The association is stronger for Hispanic students and less pronounced for African American students (Pugh and Tschannen-Moran, 2016[105]).
By contrast, several interventions indicate limited or no overall impact on attendance. A school-based youth participatory research programme did not produce significant differences compared to control groups, although high baseline attendance rates (around 95%) suggest a possible ceiling effect (Voight and Velez, 2018[106]). A short-term Student Skills Success programme focusing on academic, social and self-management skills did not generate measurable change in attendance in primary school students in the 5th grade (ISCED 1) (Bettis, 2018[107]). A paired reading mentoring programme did not affect average attendance overall, although students were more likely to attend on days when mentoring sessions were scheduled, indicating possible short-term motivational effects (Volkmann and Bye, 2006[108]).
While results from these studies cannot be generalised, the findings suggest that academic interventions may influence SAP when they enhance sustained teacher-student relationships, increase engagement through authentic and student-centred learning, or operate as coherent, longer-term or whole-school approaches. Short-duration or narrowly focused interventions appear less likely to have an impact on attendance.
1. Charter schools are publicly funded but privately managed schools that are granted additional flexibility and autonomy. They cannot charge tuition and must offer open access to students, using a lottery for admission when oversubscribed.
Provision of supports
Addressing SAP can also depend on the timely provision of co-ordinated supports that respond to the underlying reasons for non-attendance, which are diverse, as discussed in Chapter 2. Schools therefore play a central role not only in identifying emerging concerns, but also in mobilising appropriate forms of support around students in need.
Support provisions span over interconnected areas. First, schools are often the providers of practical and relational supports, such as peer-support programmes for students that are struggling or targeted measures for disadvantaged students (e.g. meals, transport or access to extracurricular activities), which can reduce structural barriers and strengthen students’ sense of belonging, supporting attendance. Second, schools can be the providers of well-being and health-oriented supports, including counselling, psycho-social services, school-based health provision and family support programmes, which can help address emotional distress, mental health needs or medical conditions that may hinder regular participation.
These measures, when implemented in a co-ordinated way, can help ensure that students experiencing difficulties are not only expected to return to school, but are actively enabled to do so in a sustainable and supportive manner.
Providing targeted supports
Schools often provide services beyond academics to their communities or co-ordinate the provision of such services from other providers. Indeed, the Survey (see Figure 4.8) shows that education systems often offer a variety of services in schools as a means to support students’ attendance (OECD, 2025[2]).
Note: Responses are not mutually exclusive. They are based on the following questions: “Do system-level policies exist that require or encourage schools to provide any of the following preventative support measures – whether specifically designed to address school attendance problems or as part of broader initiatives that may positively influence attendance?”; “Do system-level policies exist that require or encourage schools to provide any of the following supports for students with school attendance problems?”; “Does your education system have system-level policies in place that promote regular school attendance?” 45 education systems responded to these items, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Generally, education systems provide targeted supports for disadvantaged groups of students not only through financing but also through in-kind services (OECD, 2023[1]). The Survey shows that 33 out of 45 systems encourage or require schools to implement targeted interventions supporting disadvantaged students – either to prevent SAP or as part of broader initiatives (OECD, 2025[2]). Indeed, previous OECD work (2023[1]) found that as of 2022, 17 out of 32 education systems surveyed reported providing free or reduced-price school meals to students identified as being socio-economically disadvantaged, while another 12 stated that they provide free or reduced-price meals to all students, irrespective of their groups.
Supports, such as school meals and transportation services, can have a specific role in supporting attendance, particularly for disadvantaged students, as they target some of the barriers that often influence their ability to attend school or provide an incentive to attend. Providing free meals (breakfast and lunch) to students, particularly in schools with a high proportion of students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, has a positive effect on school attendance (Melvin et al., 2025[73]). Evidence further suggests that breakfast provision in particular is associated with improved attendance among participating students and is identified as a promising preventative strategy (Melvin et al., 2025[73]; Kesztyüs et al., 2016[109]; Jose et al., 2020[110]). In New Zealand, students who attend the universal breakfast programme at least 50% of the time experience improved attendance outcomes compared to non-participants (Mhurchu et al., 2012[111]). As illness and unmet basic needs are common contributors to absences, food provision may operate not only as an incentive but also as a mechanism to address nutritional deficits that can affect students’ capacity to attend and engage in school (Allison et al., 2019[85]; Melvin et al., 2025[73]). While the magnitude of effects varies across contexts, the overall pattern indicates that school meal provision, especially when targeted to disadvantaged students, can reduce absences related to poverty-related barriers.
Several countries mentioned providing free or subsidised school meals and transportation in the Survey (OECD, 2025[2]). For instance, in Lithuania, socio-economically disadvantaged students are entitled to free breakfast, lunch and school supplies (Government of Lithuania, 2006[112]). Similarly, in England (United Kingdom), schools provide breakfast clubs for all primary schools, and free school meals for eligible students. In Thailand, as of 2024, the Cabinet approved a resolution to address food insecurity among students, particularly those in disadvantaged and remote areas. Following this decision, the Ministry of Education issued formal guidelines to ensure the expansion of the national school lunch programme to lower secondary students (grades 7-9) in “extended opportunity schools”. These schools, often small and located in provincial or remote areas, provide lower secondary education where access to full secondary schools is limited.
Other education systems provide transportation to students, such in the case of New Zealand, the Slovak Republic and Madrid (Spain) or means tested coverage of the costs of transportation in England (United Kingdom). There is some, albeit limited, research linking transportation to academic outcomes, including attendance (OECD, 2023[1]). A systematic review by Hopson et al. (2022[113]) synthesises research linking school transportation with academic outcomes. They find that longer travel times, and transportation challenges, are associated with adverse academic outcomes (except when the travel provided access to higher-quality schools). Longer distances and travel times are associated with more absences, especially when the routes have safety concerns (but not with grades or test scores) (Hopson et al., 2022[113]). Moreover, in urban contexts, longer distances may place students at greater risk of increased absences, but this risk may be outweighed by the benefit of being able to choose to attend a higher-performing school.
Family and peer support programmes
Involving parents through family support programmes can play an important role in addressing SAP, as they are often linked to family-level factors, such as parenting practices, home-school communication and daily routines, which shape children’s engagement with school and their ability to attend consistently. There is some evidence that family support programmes, such as family therapy, home visits or parenting skills trainings, can sometimes improve school attendance. A meta-analysis of attendance interventions finds an overall moderate positive effect of family focused interventions on attendance (Maynard et al., 2015[114]). In a more recent review, eight out of 29 effective attendance interventions directed their strategies both at the youth as well as their family, suggesting that including a family component in attendance strategies can be effective (Pérez-Marco et al., 2025[115]).
According to the Survey, 24 education systems encourage or require schools to develop family support programmes (OECD, 2025[2]). For example, in Wales (United Kingdom), government-funded Family Engagement Officers are specifically tasked with fostering positive and trusting home-school relationships. They work to improve attendance by identifying underlying barriers and providing tailored support and guidance to families. In Luxembourg, the Ministry of Education, Children and Youth, launched “Parent forums” in 2023 to enable families to access information, professional advice and support services relating to their children's education.
Peer-support programmes – which are based on a support between individuals with similar experiences – are often used to help students experiencing school-related difficulties, including SAP. The Survey shows that 13 out of 45 systems encourage or require schools to implement peer-support programmes (OECD, 2025[2]).
While research on such programmes has examined their impact on attendance, the evidence remains mixed (Melvin et al., 2025[73]). It indicates that some peer-support programmes improve attendance habits and increase participation in school activities. A quasi-experimental study conducted in Chile evaluated the educational outcomes of a peer-mentoring programme targeting underrepresented students. The results reveal that students who participated in the programme attained attendance levels 6.2% higher than their non-participating peers (Venegas-Muggli, Barrientos and Álvarez, 2021[116]). A similar programme in the United Kingdom, in which mentees were supported by peer-mentors in a summer programme during periods of transition between primary and secondary education, also showed positive outcomes: absences decreased among students previously identified by teachers as at risk (Melvin et al., 2025[73]; Akister, Guest and Burch, 2016[117]).
However, other programmes show no impact on attendance. For instance, a cross-age peer mentoring programme in the United States improved disciplinary behaviours and perceived school engagement, but not student absences (Jenner et al., 2022[118]). Similarly, mixed findings emerge from a study conducted in the United States among students exhibiting ADHD symptoms across three different secondary schools. While peer-support helped prevent a decline in attendance in one of the three participating secondary schools, no comparable effects are observed in the other two (Sibley et al., 2020[119]).
In addition to their possible effects on mentees, research on peer-programmes also points to consistent positive outcomes on mentors’ attendance. Evidence relates this to a stronger sense of belonging, importance, responsibility and efficacy derived from taking part in peer-programmes (Nazzal, A., 2012[120]). The relational dimension of these programmes also appears to play a critical role: mentors who develop friendships through these programmes mention increased motivation to attend school while others do not (ibid.).
Incorporating health services
As discussed in Chapter 2, SAP are rarely driven by a single cause and can encompass a spectrum of behaviours including school refusal, school phobia, truancy and lesson-level absence. These patterns can be rooted in emotional distress, anxiety, poor mental health, fear, family stressors, unsafe environments or unmet health needs.
According to the Survey, 38 education systems out of the 45 require or encourage to provide health-related services in schools (OECD, 2025[2]). Besides, 33 systems require or encourage schools to provide counselling or psychological support to students who were absent. For instance, in Iceland, every primary and lower secondary education school must have a school healthcare. In England (United Kingdom), Mental Health Support Teams provide early intervention for students with mild to moderate mental health difficulties, such as anxiety, low mood or behavioural problems. These teams currently work with more than half of students and are being rolled out with the aim of reaching all students. In New Zealand, among other services, secondary schools have nurse-led primary care health services that provide a range of health services and focus on populations that are not currently well served by the system (Health New Zealand, n.d.[121]). These services are provided to secondary students across New Zealand, mainly in schools selected by the Ministry of Education, in teen parent units3, activity centres and alternative education sites.
Mental health and psycho-social supports in schools and beyond are not peripheral services but important mechanisms for identifying, preventing and addressing attendance barriers. Mental health challenges – including anxiety, depression, trauma responses and stress-related disorders – are strongly associated with absences, disengagement and dropout risk (Lindblad et al., 2024[122]). Students experiencing untreated psychological distress may avoid school environments that trigger anxiety, feel socially isolated or lack the coping skills required to manage academic pressures.
Various studies examining expanded school-based mental health services (e.g. counselling centres, play therapy, motivational interviewing, school therapeutic services) show mixed findings but suggest conditional promise (Melvin et al., 2025[73]). For instance, Jennings et al. (2000[123]) document a 32% decrease in absences over a two-year period among students receiving services through a school-based mental health centre in Dallas, Texas (United States). Similarly, Cooper et al. (2020[124]) find improved attendance following a 10-week school-based play therapy programme implemented in rural primary schools serving predominantly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in New South Wales (Australia). Lambie et al. (2019[125]) also report significant reductions in missed school days when parents of referred primary students received a brief motivational interviewing-based counselling intervention. In contrast, other robust evaluations find limited or no attendance effects. Daly et al. (2013[126]), Ballard et al. (2013[127]), and Newsome (2004[128]) report no significant improvements in attendance following expanded mental health or solution-focused brief therapy services. Melvin and colleagues (2025[73]) suggest that interventions primarily targeting well-being, bullying or general social-emotional competencies may not reliably translate into attendance gains, likely because their effects on attendance are indirect.
Notably, psychosocial programmes explicitly targeting non-attendance demonstrate more consistent benefits. Indeed, attendance-focused school-based psychosocial interventions across targeted and intensive levels show positive impacts in all included studies (Melvin et al., 2025[73]). For instance, McCluskey et al. (2004[129]) report a reduction in students with 30 or more absences from 20% to 7% following a staged attendance intervention involving letters, meetings, caseworker referral and community police engagement. Munoz (2022[130]) finds significantly higher attendance (90.2% vs 78.6%) among students participating in a drop-out prevention programme that included attendance workers and family engagement. An RCT in an alternative school setting (Marvul, 2011[131]) reports substantial reductions in absent days (7 days vs 22 days in the control group) following a five-month intervention combining daily contact and structured support.
Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), the most extensively studied psychosocial approach for persistent school refusal, shows positive attendance effects in some studies (Heyne et al., 2011[132]; Heyne et al., 2002[133]). This suggests that while CBT can be effective for some students, its impact varies and may depend on student characteristics and contextual factors (Melvin et al., 2025[73]). The authors emphasise the need to better understand for whom CBT is most effective and whether integrating it with attendance-specific supports improves outcomes.
Beyond mental health, other health and illness related reasons can drive SAP. In many contexts, schools serve as access points for preventative care, referrals and health promotion. Such services can be particularly important for students from diverse backgrounds that have more challenges accessing healthcare services.
Research shows that preventative health measures show fairly consistent evidence of reducing absences. Firstly, hygiene-related practices are widely supported as effective in reducing illness-driven absences, particularly through increased hand hygiene (Melvin et al., 2025[73]; Azor-Martínez et al., 2014[134]; Guinan, McGuckin and Ali, 2002[135]; Lau et al., 2012[136]; Tousman et al., 2007[137]). Secondly, immunisation programmes have also shown promise, with influenza vaccination both at the community (Davis et al., 2008[138]) and school-level (Keck et al., 2013[139]; Kjos et al., 2013[140]; Pannaraj et al., 2014[141]) being associated with lower illness-related absences compared to unvaccinated students.
While evidence on school nurse programmes is mixed (Melvin et al., 2025[73]; Leach et al., 2022[142]; Rodriguez et al., 2013[143]), schools implementing programmes to promote healthy behaviours has been associated with improvements in school attendance, particularly illness-related absences (Kesztyüs et al., 2016[109]; Shore et al., 2013[144]).
Evidence also exists on students with chronic health conditions, who often face repeated, medically necessary absences and disrupted learning routines. A systematic review of 28 school-based behavioural and psychosocial interventions, including nurse-led care, teacher training, peer education, executive-function coaching and re-entry support, finds heterogeneous evidence across health, attendance, academic and psychosocial outcomes, suggesting that attendance may improve when interventions address health-related barriers to participation rather than relying on attendance pressure alone (Efthymiou et al., 2025[145]).
The strongest attendance-specific evidence comes from condition-specific programmes. A Canadian RCT on asthma, based on a public-health-nurse-delivered school programme in primary schools combined student education, family engagement and asthma-friendly school practices, reducing asthma-related school absences from 60% to 50% (Cicutto, To and Murphy, 2013[146]). For sickle cell anaemia, a randomised pilot study by Koontz et al. (2004[147]) implemented an educational curriculum for students and teachers, improving disease knowledge and reducing school absences, although the sample included only 24 children. Evidence is more mixed for broader school-health and care-coordination approaches. A randomised trial on asthma in the United States, combining school-based preventative therapy with telemedicine, increased symptom-free days per two weeks and reduced emergency department visits, while effects on school absenteeism were not significant (Halterman et al., 2018[148]). Similarly, several studies report no significant improvements in attendance following broader care-coordination or school-health interventions (Frakking et al., 2022[149]; Halterman et al., 2018[148]; Martin et al., 2021[150]) and school-based asthma self-management programmes (Harris et al., 2019[151]).
Evidence on educational continuity and reintegration is less robust. A hospital‑based multidisciplinary school programme for youth with chronic and complex health conditions was associated with improved school attendance and gains in health‑related quality of life, suggesting that integrated academic–medical approaches may help address SAP, although the results of the evaluation are not causal in nature (Colbert et al., 2019[152]). Reviews of school re-entry programmes for chronically ill students similarly suggest benefits for attendance and social connectedness, but evidence base is small and poorly standardised (Wikel and Markelz, 2023[100]). More broadly, Jay et al.’s (2023[153]) umbrella review finds that although absences are often assumed to explain the relationship between chronic health conditions and lower attainment, only seven of 441 studies tested this pathway empirically. More evidence is therefore needed on which forms of support improve attendance, educational continuity and attainment for different groups of students with chronic health conditions.
Engagement and re-integration
Beyond enforcement and provision of support that target specific barriers to attendance that students face, education systems increasingly recognise that sustainable improvements in attendance depend on fostering students’ connection to learning and to school communities. There is consistent evidence linking student engagement, academic performance and attendance (Büchele, 2020[154]; Henry, Knight and Thornberry, 2011[155]; Lam et al., 2023[156]; Miranda-Zapata et al., 2018[157]).
Education systems have different strategies to strengthen engagement in education, which span from improving the overall environment of the schools, to ensuring that the content of education programmes is interesting and stimulating for students, and involving parents with the school and their children’s learning. Some systems also design re-integration strategies to support students after extended absence. Finally, certain systems are starting to move towards tiered or multi-level frameworks, such as Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), to organise supports.
Based on the Survey, Figure 4.9 shows which different system-level policies requiring or encouraging measures to promote engagement are adopted by education systems (OECD, 2025[2]).
Note: Responses are not mutually exclusive. They are based on the following question: “Do system-level policies exist that require or encourage schools to provide any of the following preventative support measures – whether specifically designed to address school attendance problems or as part of broader initiatives that may positively influence attendance?” 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
An interesting example of re-integration services come from Norway: Statped4 supports municipalities in reintegrating students with complex and long-term school absenteeism, particularly neurodivergent students and students with complex SEN (David, 2025[158]). Its experience-based “RIM model” (relationships, inclusion and mastery) provides a gradual and flexible pathway back into education, beginning with learning activities in safe environments such as the student’s home and progressively reintroducing participation in alternative educational settings, smaller or separate school spaces, selected classroom activities and eventually ordinary education. The approach is based on highly individualised interventions, close co-ordination between schools, families and support services, and a strong emphasis on structure, predictability and assessment of students’ executive functioning, sensory needs, adaptive skills, strengths and interests. The model aims to rebuild trust, mastery and engagement while adapting the pace of reintegration to the student’s readiness and stress levels.
School climate
Initiatives to foster a positive school climate are a key policy to strengthen student engagement in school, by strengthening their well-being and sense of belonging. School climate can be described as the overall atmosphere of a school, which can include the social, educational and physical school environment (SPSM, 2025[159]). Elements that can contribute to a positive school climate include safety, strong relationships between students and teachers, and a calm study environment (Kearney, 2016[160]). Some of these elements, such as relationships with adults at school (Crouch et al., 2021[161]) and secure relationships between students (Jiang, Chen and Jiang, 2024[162]), can be considered protective factors for school attendance (Karlberg et al., 2020[163]; Thapa et al., 2013[164]). Literature suggests that key aspects of school climate, including student connectedness with school, engagement in school activities, and perceptions of school safety, may be important determinants of attendance (Van Eck et al., 2017[165]).
Evidence suggests that school climate interventions can play a role in supporting attendance, but their effects are generally modest, indirect, and mediated by students’ experiences and perceptions, rather than operating as strong standalone levers (Hamlin, 2020[166]; Daily et al., 2020[167]). In a study of over 800 000 students in New York City (United States), Hamlin (2020[166]) finds that improvements in student-reported school climate, across dimensions such as safety, relationships, connectedness and engagement, are only weakly associated with reductions in absences. Moreover, the evidence highlights the importance of specific dimensions of school climate, particularly relationships and sense of belonging. Daily et al. (2020[167]) show that positive student–teacher relationships, perceptions of safety and order, and opportunities for engagement are all associated with lower likelihood of skipping school. These relational aspects appear especially important for discretionary absences (e.g. truancy), while more structural absences (e.g. illness-related) are less consistently influenced by broader engagement measures.
As shown in Figure 4.9, the vast majority of education systems (41 out of 45) requires or encourages schools to implement initiatives to improve school climate. For example, Spain has developed a comprehensive, system-level approach to strengthening school climate, coexistence and student well-being, embedded in both legislation and targeted programmes. National education law establishes well-being, inclusion and positive coexistence as core principles of the education system, explicitly promoting values such as respect, non-violence, social cohesion and prevention of bullying and discrimination. It requires regional authorities to implement protocols to prevent and address violence and mandates schools to develop their own coexistence plans, supported by a designated Well-being and Protection Coordinator. Another example comes from Chile, where the National Policy for Educational Coexistence, accompanied by an action plan, aims to cultivate inclusive and respectful school climates and to foster coexistence skills from early childhood (Ministry of Education of Chile, 2024[168]).
Curriculum strategies
Across education systems, efforts to strengthen student engagement through curriculum, particularly in the context of SAP, tend to converge around a number of core approaches. While these differ in design and emphasis, they broadly reflect attempts to make learning more relevant, flexible, personalised and supportive, thereby addressing some of the underlying drivers of disengagement and absence. Figure 4.10 shows the number of education systems that reported having changed the curriculum or made it more flexible to improve student engagement.
While there is limited research directly isolating the impact of specific curriculum reforms on student engagement and attendance, there is some evidence that career-relevant instruction – i.e. when teachers illustrate the value of the content they teach through examples drawn from the labour market – improves lower secondary student engagement (Orthner et al., 2013[169]). Research also suggests that active pedagogical approaches, such as problem-based learning, peer instruction, flipped classrooms, collaborative learning, and game-based learning, can increase student engagement and academic performance (Sahito, Khoso and Phulpoto, 2025[170]). Evidence from Singapore also shows that learning-focused and supportive instructional approaches are positively associated with student engagement, while more controlling or performance-oriented teaching practices are associated with lower engagement (Luo, 2017[171]).
Note: Responses are not mutually exclusive. They are based on the following question: “Have you implemented, or are you planning to implement, changes to your curriculum or programmes to make education more engaging or relevant for students? Alternatively, has your education system enabled flexibility in curriculum so that this can be facilitated by individual schools?” 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
A first and very prominent approach consists of increasing curriculum flexibility and school autonomy to better adapt learning to students’ needs, interests and contexts. Thirty-one out of 45 education systems reported in the Survey having already implemented policies to increase curriculum flexibility and an additional eight planned to do so (OECD, 2025[2]). For example, in Portugal, schools have been granted up to 25% curriculum autonomy since 2018, allowing them to address their own contexts and needs, namely by fostering collaborative work, project-based learning or creating new subjects fostering relevant learning for students (Portuguese Government, 2018[172]). Another example comes from New Zealand, where a flexible national framework within a self-governing school system, enabling schools to tailor curricula so that they reflect their context. Schools can, for instance, pick specific strands in the arts and technology in grades 9 and 10 (ISCED 2), and are allocated additional time to implement their choice of sports, creative arts or cultural activities (Ministry of Education of New Zealand, 2026[173]).
Increasing curriculum flexibility can also involve adjusting the organisation of learning time, through measures such as flexible timetables or alternative delivery modes (including online or blended learning), to accommodate students facing barriers related to health, caregiving responsibilities or other personal circumstances. For instance, in England (United Kingdom), schools may implement temporary part-time timetables for pupils who are unable to attend full-time due to medical, behavioural, or re-integration needs (Department of Education of England, 2024[174]). In 2024–2025, eleven European education systems reported offering such forms of flexible scheduling (European Commission, 2025[175]). However, evidence on the effects of increased curriculum flexibility and school autonomy on educational outcomes remains relatively scarce, particularly with regard to SAP. Moreover, the effects of these highly context-dependent measures vary considerably depending on the purpose, degree, and implementation of autonomy, as well as on broader ecosystem conditions such as teacher capacity, stakeholder buy-in, accountability structures, and institutional support (OECD, 2024[176]).
A second key approach focuses on changing curricula so that they are more engaging and relevant for students. In the Survey, 25 systems reported having implemented such changes and 11 planning to do so (OECD, 2025[2]). For example, Chile is undergoing a curriculum update process that explicitly aims to promote pedagogical innovation et to make learning more relevant, contextualised, and engaging (Ministry of Education of Chile, n.d.[177]). In its 2022 curricular reform, Korea integrated elective subjects about various topics such as media, AI and big data to help students find future career in line with their aptitudes (Ministry of Education of Korea, 2022[178]). Similarly, Indonesia implemented a curriculum-integrated project-based learning on themes such as well-being, culture and sustainability (Ministry of Education of Indonesia, 2025[179]).
Finally, 21 out of 45 education systems changed elements of their programmes to keep students in education and nine others reported planning to do so (OECD, 2025[2]). Türkiye provides a clear example of these programme changes through the expansion of its vocational and work-based pathways. Apprenticeship schemes and open vocational upper secondary schools enable students – particularly those disengaged from traditional academic tracks and at risk of dropping out – to combine education with paid, practical work experience, thereby increasing both relevance and retention.
Student and parent engagement
Beyond curriculum strategies, 29 systems reported requiring or encouraging student engagement strategies (see Figure 4.9 above). A common strategy to this end is to offer extracurricular activities. For example, in the Netherlands, the School en Omgeving (School and Environment) programme offers an enriched school day to students who, due to their home situation or the place where they live, have less access to activities, such as sports, culture and additional academic support. Similarly, in Indonesia, student engagement is promoted through school-run extracurriculars.
Generally, after-school and extracurricular programmes and activities are conducted on school grounds or in the community and involve content outside of the education curriculum. Evidence on their impact on attendance in mixed (Melvin et al., 2025[73]). In one RCT, Gottfredson and colleagues (2010[180]) find no significant difference in school attendance between students who attended the after-school programme and those who did not. However, evidence on after-school programmes conducted within a community appear to have a stronger impact on school attendance (Melvin et al., 2025[73]). Jenson et al. (2018[181]) evaluated a community-based after-school programme targeting youth living in public housing, which combined academic support and tutoring with social-emotional skills development. Students who participated demonstrated significantly higher school attendance than comparable non-participants. Similarly, Furrer et al. (2012[182]) find that students engaged in community-based after-school programmes have significantly better attendance than those who did not take part. These findings suggest that extracurricular provision may support attendance particularly when it strengthens students’ connection to school, builds relationships with adults and peers, and addresses broader socio-emotional or contextual barriers faced by disadvantaged students (Centre for Young Lives, Leeds Beckett University and YMCA George Williams College, 2025[183]).
Interventions aimed at increasing parent engagement can also have a meaningful impact on reducing SAP. By strengthening communication between schools and families, these programmes can help parents better understand attendance expectations, identify early warning signs of disengagement and feel more empowered to support their children’s schooling. Mechanisms often include regular check-ins, personalised outreach, and workshops that build parents’ capacity to monitor and encourage attendance. Such approaches can improve attendance outcomes, especially when they combine information provision with relationship-building strategies (Robinson et al., 2018[184]; Sheldon and Epstein, 2004[185]). However, the effectiveness of these interventions depends on their ability to address structural barriers (such as work constraints, language differences or mistrust of institutions) that may limit parental participation in the first place.
According to the Survey, twenty-two education systems require or encourage initiatives to promote parent engagement. For instance, in Ireland, the Home School Community Liaison Scheme seeks to promote partnership between parents, teachers and community family support services. Within this programme, a teacher can be temporarily released from their teaching duties to work intensively with and support parents, notably through home visits and parent classes (Box 4.4).
The Home School Community Liaison (HSCL) Scheme aims to improve student attendance, participation and retention, particularly among students at risk of educational disadvantage. At the heart of the scheme are the HSCL Co-ordinators, teachers released from their duties (typically for up to five years) to work full-time on strengthening relationships between schools, families and communities. Co-ordinators are primarily deployed in DEIS Urban primary and secondary schools, although recent extensions include pilot provision in selected non-DEIS schools serving Traveller and Roma communities.
The HSCL Scheme is built on a partnership-based approach, with a strong emphasis on engaging parents and caregivers as active participants in their children’s education. Co-ordinators conduct home visits, organise parent-focused activities and courses, and facilitate communication between families and schools. They also work closely with school staff and community services to identify needs, support transitions across education stages, and ensure that families are connected to relevant supports. A key feature of the model is its combination of universal engagement with targeted support for students most at risk of poor attendance and early leaving.
In relation to attendance, the HSCL Scheme addresses one of the central drivers of school absence: the relationship between families and the education system. By building trust, improving communication, and strengthening parental capacity to support learning, the scheme helps to identify and address barriers to attendance early.
An evaluation from the Irish Inspectorate (2024[186]) finds that promoting attendance is central to the HSCL role: attendance is identified as one of the main DEIS themes, and the HSCL co-ordinator’s focus is explicitly described as improving attendance, participation and retention. The evaluation also finds that attendance was a major area addressed through home visits, including work on school refusal, punctuality and partial attendance, which the report notes can be precursors to more serious attendance difficulties (Irish Department of Education Inspectorate, 2024[186]).
Source: OECD (2024[187]), OECD Review of Resourcing Schools to Address Educational Disadvantage in Ireland, Reviews of National Policies, for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3433784c-en.
Transitions
Interventions to avoid disengagement and absences are particularly relevant during educational transitions. The move from primary to secondary education often involves changes in school size, peer context, teacher relationships, daily structure and expectations, which can lead to anxiety, reduced belonging, lower motivation and rise in disengagement or dropout (Department of Education of New South Wales, 2017[188]). In England (United Kingdom), to address these increased risks, the Department for Education provides secondary schools with attendance data for pupils completing primary school ahead of their transition to secondary education. The system aims to ensure continuity in attendance monitoring, help schools identify students at risk of persistent absence, and support earlier preventative interventions for vulnerable pupils (Department for Education of England, 2026[189]).
The transition phase is therefore a key window where interventions may have high leverage. While only a limited number of studies have examined the effects of transition programmes on SAP, findings generally suggest a positive relationship between such interventions and attendance outcomes. For example, an experimental study conducted in a culturally heterogeneous community in the United States evaluated a brief intervention centred on students’ sense of belonging during the transition to lower secondary school. Through short classroom exercises normalising academic and social difficulties and encouraging help-seeking, the intervention improved students’ sense of belonging within the school environment and led to reductions in absences (Borman et al., 2019[190]). Another paper, based on a case study in Spain, finds that “successful educational actions”5 – such as homework clubs or interactive dialogue groups – during the transition between primary and lower secondary school could ease adjustment, strengthen students’ sense of belonging, which correlates with better retention and possibly lower absence risk (Roca et al., 2024[191]). Evidence from a qualitative study on secondary education transition programmes in rural North Carolina (United States) similarly suggests that dedicated transition structures – such as freshman academies, mentoring, smaller learning communities, and sustained monitoring of attendance and engagement – may support students’ adjustment and attendance during the vulnerable first year of upper secondary education (Bethea-Hampton and Wilson-Jones, 2018[192]). Overall, the available evidence suggests that transition programmes can play an important role in reducing risks of disengagement during key educational transitions. Interventions that combine academic, social and relational support, while ensuring continuity in monitoring and early identification of attendance difficulties, may be particularly valuable in helping vulnerable students maintain engagement and establish positive attendance patterns in their new school environment.
Structuring supports based on levels of need: multi-tiered systems of support
Multi-tiered approaches, and in particular their most recent development of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), provide a structured framework for organising how schools deliver support to students with varying levels of need (OECD, 2026[193]). MTSS is not a specific programme or intervention, but rather an overarching framework that integrates academic, behavioural and socio-emotional supports within a coherent, data-informed system. Its core purpose is to ensure that all students receive appropriate levels of support through a continuum of increasingly intensive interventions, while promoting early identification and prevention.
MTSS is typically organised into three Tiers. Tier 1 comprises universal, school-wide practices delivered to all students, such as high-quality instruction, positive school climate initiatives and preventative strategies. Tier 2 involves targeted interventions for students who require additional support beyond the universal level, often delivered in small groups and based on identified needs. Tier 3 consists of intensive, individualised interventions for students with persistent or complex difficulties, often involving specialised staff and co-ordinated support plans. Movement between Tiers is intended to be fluid and responsive, guided by ongoing monitoring of student progress.
In this context, MTSS and other tiered approaches can be applied directly to address school attendance problems through graduated responses of increasing intensity (see Box 4.5). Looking at Response to Intervention (RTI), a type of tiered approach, and absence literature over the past 25 years, Kearney and Graczyk (2013[194]) emphasise the need for early identification and intervention, progress monitoring, functional behavioural assessment, empirically supported procedures and protocols, and a team-based approach.
An RTI framework promotes regular attendance for all students at Tier 1, targeted interventions for at-risk students at Tier 2, and intense and individualised interventions for students with chronic absences at Tier 3. Using a literature review and adopting an evidence-based approach, Kearney and Graczyk (2013[194]) develop an RTI model for problematic school absences, which incorporates a range of evidence-based approaches to reduce school attendance problems into an MTSS model.
How are MTSS tiers applied to attendance?
As proposed by Kearney and Graczyk (2013[194]), Tier 1 encompasses universal, school- and classroom-wide practices aimed at promoting regular attendance and preventing emerging risks. This includes setting and consistently communicating clear attendance expectations, monitoring attendance data frequently to detect early patterns of concern, and fostering a positive school climate through engaging instruction, supportive teacher-student relationships, proactive classroom management and socio-emotional learning. Tier 2 provides targeted support for students showing early signs of SAP, through closer monitoring, structured check-ins with a trusted adult, small-group interventions addressing issues such as anxiety, motivation or organisation, and strengthened communication with parents to clarify expectations and identify barriers. Tier 3 involves intensive, individualised interventions for students with chronic or severe absences, typically informed by functional assessment. These may include tailored cognitive-behavioural approaches, family-focused strategies, and co-ordination with external services such as mental health or social services. Individualised attendance plans, step-by-step re-integration pathways and adjustments to the school environment (e.g. modified schedules) are often used, reflecting the need for multi-component, collaborative responses to persistent absence.
Source: OECD (2026[193]), Tiered systems of support in education: a focus on MTSS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/158128c5-en.
Studies show associations between MTSS (and other tiered models) and improvements in attendance and behaviours linked to absences, especially when implementation fidelity is higher. For instance, large multi-state analyses report positive relationships between Schoolwide Positive Behaviour Support (SWPBIS) – a type of tiered model – implementation fidelity and attendance in secondary schools. Freeman et al. (2015[195]) find that higher fidelity in SWPBIS predicts better attendance outcomes, and follow-up work reports similar attendance improvements and lower dropout rates in schools sustaining such tiered implementation over time (Freeman et al., 2015[196]). MTSS behavioural approaches incorporating skills training, family support and incentive-based strategies are common features of effective secondary-education attendance interventions (ibid.). Lane et al. (2007[197]) observe decreases in unauthorised tardiness among students participating in schoolwide Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports (PBIS), although effects on broader disciplinary indicators are mixed: typically developing students experienced slight reductions in discipline contacts, while students with externalising behaviours showed moderate increases. Scott et al. (2019[198]) find that schools with higher behaviour-domain MTSS fidelity have significantly fewer suspension events than comparison schools, demonstrating predictive validity of fidelity for disciplinary outcomes. A preliminary study (nine schools) further links higher levels of implementation of MTSS and school-improvement to better student outcomes related to drop-out predictors, though generalisability is limited (Bohanon et al., 2023[199]). Finally, RTI/absence models emphasise early identification, progress monitoring, functional behavioural assessment, evidence-based practices and a team-based approach as core MTSS principles for addressing SAP (Kearney and Graczyk, 2013[194]).
There are a few systems that have adopted tiered models in education, and, among them, some focus on attendance-specific ones (OECD, 2026[193]). Ireland, for instance, has been developing an MTSS model targeting attendance specifically (Tusla Education Support Service (TESS), 2023[200]), aligned with the structure described in Box 4.5. Other systems, instead, adopt wider models that act on aspects of schooling that can have an impact on attendance. For example, New Zealand designed a Positive Behaviour for Learning School-Wide framework to help schools develop a positive and inclusive social culture that supports learning. This framework follows a tiered model of support: at Tier 1, expected behaviours are explicitly taught, modelled and reinforced for all students, while Tiers 2 and 3 progressively add more targeted and intensive supports based on need.
Capacity building
Capacity-building interventions encompass general awareness-raising campaigns targeting schools, students and families, as well as professional learning on SAP including both initial training and continuing professional learning. The literature also points to the broader capacity of non-teaching staff as a relevant factor. SAP are often linked to social, emotional or structural barriers that extend beyond instruction alone. This highlights the potential importance of the skills, experience and co-ordination of teachers, school leaders, counsellors, social workers and other non-teaching staff.
Capacity-building efforts related to SAP may also need to address the broader institutional and human resource capacity of education systems, as staff shortages, high workloads and limited access to specialised personnel can constrain schools’ ability to identify, monitor and respond to attendance problems effectively.
Awareness-raising communication
Awareness-raising communication can improve understanding of the consequences of absences and help address commonly held misperceptions about attendance. Such communication can take multiple forms, including large-scale public campaigns, direct communication with families, school-based outreach, and community engagement. In the Survey, 15 education systems reported having implemented awareness-raising campaigns to curb student absences in primary and secondary education (OECD, 2025[2]). These campaigns range from mass media initiatives to school-based and community outreach programmes. Awareness-raising campaigns aim to improve school attendance by informing schools, students and families about the importance of regular attendance and equipping them with strategies to address absence. For example, Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) changed the messaging to parents: instead of reporting on attendance (e.g. 90%), the system is reporting on absences (10%) (OECD, Unpublished[201]). In another example, Ireland launched a new multimedia campaign in 2025 which seeks to encourage all those involved in the lives of children and young people, including parents, teachers and communities, to support and prioritise regular school attendance. By targeting different actors through different media outlets, the campaign emphasises the key message that attending school matters (OECD, Forthcoming[202]). It also includes guidance for parents that summarises their children’s likely reasons for feelings of reluctance to go to school, how parents can support children in attending school in such cases, and what parents can expect schools to do to support their children (Department of Education and Youth of Ireland, 2025[203]).
Although evaluations establishing a causal link are generally lacking, the implementation of these campaigns has been associated with reduced absence rates. For instance, an early study involving 39 primary and secondary schools participating in a range of attendance-focused activities during 2001 in the United States finds that efforts focused on family and community engagement coincide with a significant decrease in the percentage of students missing 20 or more days (Sheldon and Epstein, 2004[185]). Strategies such as communicating with families, celebrating good attendance, and connecting chronically absent students with community mentors, contributed to a year-over-year reduction in chronic absences (ibid.). In another study from Ohio (United States), school‐wide outreach is associated with a 0.5% attendance improvement (Sheldon, 2007[204]).
Beyond campaigns, communication strategies such as personalised messages to parents, regular attendance reporting, or school-family engagement initiatives can also play an important role in raising awareness and shaping attendance behaviours. Evidence suggests that low-cost messages to parents – such as texts, e-mails or letters – that deliver personalised messages containing information about cumulative absences can lead to small but meaningful reductions in school absences, notably by increasing the salience of attendance and correcting families’ tendency to underestimate their children’s absences (Berger et al., 2025[205]; Himmelsbach et al., 2021[206]; Rogers and Feller, 2018[207]). However, evidence indicates that information alone is sometimes insufficient: for instance, frequent absence notifications do not consistently improve attendance (Balu, Porter and Gunton, 2016[208]; Rogers and Feller, 2018[207]). The most effective strategies combine clear personalised information with practical guidance and supportive engagement.
Professional learning
While, as discussed, multi-professional approaches to attendance are key, the capacity of teachers and school staff plays a critical role in itself in shaping student attendance: teachers have measurable and meaningful effects on student attendance (Liu and Loeb, 2019[209]). Emerging evidence suggests that efforts to strengthen teacher capacity may represent a meaningful, though underexplored, lever for improving student attendance. Absences are increasingly understood as shaped by classroom processes and school-based factors alongside child- and family-level influences (see Chapter 2) (Ansari and Purtell, 2018[210]; Chang and Romero, 2008[211]).
Studies examining teacher “value-added” to non-academic outcomes show that teachers influence students’ behavioural and social engagement in ways that are distinct from their effects on test scores (Backes and Hansen, 2015[212]; Blazar and Kraft, 2016[213]; Jackson, 2016[214]; Liu and Loeb, 2019[209]). Notably, Gershenson (2016[215]) finds that teachers have statistically significant effects on student absences of a magnitude comparable to their effects on reading achievement, and that these effects are not simply explained by student sorting.
Recent studies further underscore the importance of attendance-related teaching practices. Liu and Loeb (2019[209]) show that secondary students taught by teachers who are particularly effective at improving attendance6 have substantially fewer unexcused absences (around 44% fewer in mathematics and 54% fewer in English) compared to students taught by an average teacher. Importantly, teachers’ impact on attendance is only weakly correlated with impact on achievement, suggesting that effective attendance-promoting teaching constitutes a distinct dimension of professional practice. Moreover, research in primary schools finds that teacher effects on attendance are stable over time and persist into subsequent academic years (Gershenson, 2016[215]), indicating that teachers may shape students’ longer-term attitudes, engagement and behavioural norms rather than merely influencing short-term compliance. Evidence at the secondary level also supports these findings: Jackson (2016[214]) shows that teachers’ effects on non-cognitive outcomes (including attendance) are stronger predictors of upper secondary graduation, participation in standardised assessments (SAT) and postsecondary aspirations than their effects on test scores.
Conceptually, teacher professional learning may influence attendance through multiple pathways (Hanno and Gonzalez, 2019[216]) (see Figure 4.11). Improvements in emotional support and instructional quality could enhance children’s engagement and sense of belonging, which are associated with stronger attendance patterns (Chang and Romero, 2008[211]; Hamre, 2014[217]). Enhanced instructional practices may also shape parents’ perceptions of classroom quality and the value of consistent attendance. In addition, professional learning may affect teacher psychosocial well-being, reduce stress, strengthen teachers’ capacity to communicate with families and emphasise the importance of regular attendance (Jennings and Greenberg, 2009[218]; Sandilos et al., 2018[219]).
Notably, in preschool settings, Hanno and Gonzales (2019[216]) find that professional learning which targets the quality of teacher-child interactions and not children’s SAP, still reduces student absence rates by 1.0 percentage points (equivalent to approximately an additional 1.9 days). Such professional learning also reduces the likelihood of students becoming chronically absent – defined in this study as missing 10% or more days of school throughout the year – by 6.0 percentage points. Moreover, the authors also find suggestive evidence that impacts are larger for children from more socio-economically disadvantaged households.
Source: Hanno and Gonzales (2019[216]), The Effects of Teacher Professional Development on Children’s Attendance in Preschool, 10.1080/19345747.2019.1634170.
Overall, professional learning initiatives can therefore provide a useful lens for examining how investments in educator capacity might influence attendance-related behaviours and outcomes. Teacher professional learning can be divided according to when it takes place within their careers: initial teacher education and continuing professional learning.
Initial teacher education
In 15 out of 42 education systems surveyed, the policy framework requires that school attendance be addressed as part of initial teacher education (ITE) (OECD, 2025[2]). In Ireland, for instance, all ITE programmes must be accredited by the Teaching Council, which assesses whether programmes address seven core elements, including inclusive education. Within this framework, inclusive education is defined in terms of teachers’ capacity to respond to learner diversity, enable participation in learning, and remove barriers to education so that each learner can derive the maximum benefit from their attendance at school. This constitutes an explicit reference to attendance within the national ITE standards, even though it is framed through an inclusion lens rather than as a standalone module on attendance.
Inclusive practices are not the only area of development that can include a focus on attendance. In Korea, pre-service teachers in universities of education receive instruction on the importance of school attendance, typically embedded within courses such as child development, classroom management and child psychology. In addition, newly appointed teachers who have passed the Teacher Recruitment Examination receive induction training that covers attendance alongside related responsibilities such as school violence prevention and core teacher duties.
In most of the 15 systems that address attendance as part of ITE, the topic is covered indirectly through mandatory content on inclusion, well-being, classroom management, student engagement, and collaboration with families and services. In Denmark, for example, core ITE subjects (e.g. Educational Psychology, Inclusion and Special Education and Pedagogy and General Didactics) develop competencies relevant to preventing and responding to SAP, but the national executive order governing teacher education does not explicitly mention attendance. Moreover, Denmark does not have a single detailed national ITE curriculum, as higher education institutions have autonomy over programme content.
Continuing professional learning
Beyond initial training, continuing professional learning (CPL) can enable teachers, school leaders and other staff to update their knowledge, align with evolving policies and tools, and develop more effective practices to support student attendance. In particular, sustained and collaborative forms of CPL – including professional learning communities, mentoring, and peer support – may contribute to improved attendance indirectly through enhanced student engagement, better school climate, and earlier identification of attendance risks, although evidence directly assessing their impact on student absenteeism and SAP is lacking.
The extent to which such learning is formalised varies among education systems. Figure 4.12 shows whether education systems required CPL related to student absence.
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “Does the policy framework require teachers, school leaders or other staff members to take continuing professional learning programmes related to addressing student absence?”. 44 education systems responded to this item, including 30 from EU countries and 36 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
In 15 out of 44 education systems, teachers are required to undertake CPL programmes that covers how to address student absences (OECD, 2025[2]). For example, in Korea, schools provide annual mandatory training on the attendance recording system, offering guidance on attendance status, absence records and related reporting procedures.
Some systems do not only focus on teachers but involve other professionals in CPL on attendance. In some systems (11), school leaders are required to follow CPL programmes related to student absence. Moreover, in 8 systems, this requirement applies to other education staff who are neither teachers nor school leaders. In England (United Kingdom), for instance, the Department for Education issued in 2024 statutory guidance on improving school attendance, which explicitly recommends that all teaching and non-teaching staff receive adequate continuous training on attendance (Department for Education of England, 2024[220]).
Yet, CPL on attendance is far from a universal practice across education systems. In 27 education systems, there is no obligation for education staff to undertake CPL specifically related to addressing student absence. However, the absence of a formal requirement does not necessarily mean that no training is available on SAP. For example, in the French Community of Belgium, while there is no specific requirement for CPL, school staff can participate in training programmes focused on school retention and the prevention of dropout. These programmes cover topics such as identifying at-risk students, clarifying the roles of different stakeholders, developing partnerships with different professionals, and implementing preventative and follow-up measures.
Monitoring and evaluation
Effective monitoring of SAP can enable early identification of emerging patterns of absence, support understanding of underlying drivers, and facilitate timely intervention before absences become entrenched (Sälzer, Ricking and Feldhaus, 2024[221]). Monitoring systems that capture not only the frequency but also the timing, duration and type of absences allow schools to detect potential academic, social or well-being-related factors that have an impact on students’ engagement (Kearney et al., 2023[222]). When consistently applied, monitoring also strengthens transparency and fairness in intervention, and enables evaluation of whether strategies are improving attendance over time. Strong monitoring systems therefore function as early warning mechanisms, supporting proactive responses and sustained student engagement (Dräger, Klein and Sosu, 2024[223]). However, recording, reporting and using attendance data vary considerably across countries, with differences in definitions, thresholds and data collection practices limiting cross-system comparability and complicating consistent policy responses (Kreitz-Sandberg et al., 2023[224]; Heyne, Keppens and Dvořák, 2024[225]). There is limited consensus on what constitute “problematic” or “persistent” absences (Kreitz-Sandberg et al., 2023[224]). Thresholds vary considerably across systems, and there are critiques that highlight that they are generally based on experts’ opinions and not on specific evidence (Heyne et al., 2019[226]). For example, Kreitz-Sandberg et al. (2023[224]) document differences between England (United Kingdom), Germany, Japan and Sweden, with lower thresholds applied in England and in Thuringia (Germany) compared to Sweden, Japan and Berlin (Germany). Such variation has important implications for identification, monitoring, and intervention practices.
Data collections across education systems
The Survey highlights substantial variation across education systems in how attendance data are collected, reported and used (OECD, 2025[2]). These differences span multiple dimensions, including data availability across education levels, the frequency and granularity of data collection, the extent to which reasons for absences are categorised, and the technical and legal constraints affecting data linkage and use. Such variation reflects differences in governance arrangements, data infrastructures and policy priorities, but also shapes the capacity of systems to monitor and respond effectively to SAP.
Data availability and technical considerations
Accurate and reliable data collection is essential for addressing SAP effectively. Data availability can help system identify issues early, see progress over time and develop policy responses that reflect actual issues or challenges within their system.
Survey evidence shows that, while attendance data collection is widespread, it is not universal (OECD, 2025[2]). Seven education systems (Austria, Czechia, Iceland, Poland, Slovenia, Spain at the federal level and Sweden) do not currently collect attendance data at the national or sub-national level. The remaining 37 systems collect attendance data for at least one level of education, with coverage strongest in compulsory schooling. Thirty-six collect data for lower secondary education, and 34 also do so for primary and general upper secondary education. By contrast, only 15 systems collect attendance data for early childhood education and care, and 25 for vocational upper secondary education. Eleven systems collect attendance data across all levels, while 16 collect data for all levels except ECEC, and four omit vocational upper secondary education (see Annex Figure 4.A.1).
Attendance data collection is also generally well established (see more in Annex Figure 4.A.2). Of 45 systems surveyed, 32 report collecting centralised attendance data since before 2020. Three systems introduced national (or sub-national) collections more recently – one in 2020 (Indonesia), one in 2021 (Aragon (Spain)) and one in 2023 (Lithuania). In addition, as of 2025, two of the systems that lacked centralised data (Czechia and Iceland) were planning to introduce such systems; Czechia did so in spring 2026. In several countries, recent developments have not marked the start of data collection but rather an intensification or technological upgrading of existing systems. For example, England (United Kingdom), which has collected termly attendance data since 2006, introduced reporting at session level (i.e. twice-daily) in 2021 and made it mandatory for all schools as of 2024. In Portugal, the systematic use of attendance data has become a more explicit policy priority in recent years.
Reporting of these data also varies across systems. Figure 4.13 shows the frequency at which attendance data is reported at the national (or sub-national) level. The most common practice is to do so once per academic year or less often, which happens in twelve education systems.
Note: Responses are not mutually exclusive. They are based on the following question: “How often are the data reported to the national (sub-national) level (Ministry/Department of Education)?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Yet, there are several other timelines that systems follow. Latvia, for instance, reports data once per semester, while Galicia (Spain) and Portugal do so once per quarter. In seven systems, schools report data monthly. Schools in Greece report weekly and in Scotland (United Kingdom) every fortnight. In four systems, data is reported daily (Flemish Community of Belgium, Greece, Indonesia, New Zealand and England (United Kingdom)), while Malta and Türkiye track attendance in real time. Across 45 education systems, 8 do not report attendance data to the national (sub-national) level.
Among the seven education systems that selected “Other”, there are four cases. First, some have no system-level requirement for the frequency at which attendance data is reported (France and Peru). Second, two systems only partially report absences to the national (sub-national) level: in Bulgaria, absences are only reported if necessary and in La Rioja (Spain), only unjustified absences above ten days must be reported. Third, Ireland uses two instruments on different cycles: the Student Absence Report is collected twice yearly, while the Annual Attendance Report is collected once a year. Finally, two systems report attendance data at case-dependent frequencies: Romania reports monthly for scholarship recipients and annually for other students; Wales (United Kingdom) reports weekly or annually depending on the data source.
Beyond the monitoring of contemporaneous attendance, the ability to track individual student’s attendance over time enables the construction of longitudinal attendance records that offer a dynamic view of students’ engagement with schooling. Such data infrastructures can facilitate the early identification of SAP, support the design of targeted interventions, and allow policymakers to monitor trends and disparities across regions and student groups. Beyond their operational value, these longitudinal data can also play a critical role in evaluation, enabling the assessment of attendance policies’ effectiveness and a better understanding of the trajectories that lead to chronic absences or, conversely, to re-engagement.
In 25 of 45 education systems, it is possible to track individual student’s attendance over time at the national (sub-national) level. For example, in Indonesia, individual attendance data are accessible via the national Out-of-School Students dashboard, which enables relevant stakeholders – including local governments – to identify, track and intervene for students who are not yet fully engaged in formal education. Similarly, in Romania, students’ attendance, as well as their academic performance and behaviours incidents, are recorded by teachers in an early warning system called MATE, which then enables the Ministry of Education, inspectorates and schools to identify students at risk of dropping out and provide them with targeted support.
Among the remaining 20 systems, 10 collect individual-level records data but cannot follow students longitudinally. Several countries mention that attendance data are anonymised for privacy reasons (Denmark, Lithuania and the Netherlands). The other 10 education systems do not centralise these student-level data. Thailand reports that it is developing a national tracking system to follow students from early childhood through graduation.
Some countries, such as Croatia, also make the data available online for public use (Box 4.6). This can support research and knowledge development in the area.
The dashboard developed by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, provides a comprehensive system-level overview of student achievement and absences in primary and secondary education from the 2013/14 to 2024/25 school years. It brings together administrative data on student numbers, average grades, distributions of achievement (including excellence and failure), and detailed indicators of attendance, disaggregated primarily by county and further filterable by school type, programme, grade level and school founder. The dashboard enables side-by-side regional comparisons and offers both absolute figures and relative shares of attendance indicators, supporting nuanced interpretation of absence patterns across the country.
The dashboard also has an explicit integration of academic outcomes with attendance, including a clear distinction between excused and unexcused absences. This allows users to explore potential relationships between absences and achievement and to identify regions where high absence rates coexist with strong or weak performance. By combining scale, granularity and interactivity, the tool can function as a monitoring and diagnostic instrument supporting evidence-informed discussions on student absence.
Source: Ministry of Science, Education and Youth of the Republic of Croatia (2025[227]), Students, overall achievement and absences, https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiM2Q1NjVmZDEtMGUyMy00MDBiLTkzYWItYjBhMTA3MDFlOWUxIiwidCI6IjJjMTFjYmNjLWI3 NjEtNDVkYi1hOWY1LTRhYzc3ZTk0ZTFkNCIsImMiOjh9&disablecdnExpiration=1760025973, accessed on 2 April 2026.
Granularity in student data can be leveraged by education systems to evaluate whether some groups of students are more at risk of SAP based on their background. Yet, there are often legal and/or technical constraints to linking attendance data with students’ characteristics at the national (sub-national) level (Annex Figure 4.A.3).
Across 44 education systems, the feasibility of linking attendance data to student characteristics varies considerably. Gender is most commonly linkable (34 systems report no constraints), although seven systems cannot link any characteristics due to the absence of centralised individual-level data. For socio-economic status, 17 systems report no constraints, while others face legal, technical or combined barriers; 16 cannot currently make this linkage. On a technical level, several systems rely on administrative proxies rather than a direct socio-economic status variable. For example, Wales (United Kingdom) uses free-school-meal entitlement and Portugal uses access to social support – along with parents’ educational attainment. Korea, similarly, approximates socio-economic status using welfare-recipient lists, but notes that these data are classified as sensitive personal information under privacy regulations and that any secondary use requires explicit consent and legal review.
Linkages are more uneven for other characteristics. Attendance can be linked to special education needs in 23 systems, while 8 report that this is not possible. For immigrant background, feasibility is split (14 without constraints, 15 not possible, 15 with constraints). For ethnic or Indigenous background, 25 systems report that linkage is not possible. Constraints are even more pronounced for gender identity or sexual orientation (30 not possible) and for giftedness (28 not possible), often because these data are not collected or are considered highly sensitive.
The feasibility of linking attendance data and student outcomes varies not only by student characteristic, but also by the type of outcome considered. In general, linkages within education datasets (for example, school characteristics or grade within educational level) are more common than linkages to external administrative data (see Annex Figure 4.A.4). Most education systems can link attendance to core educational variables such as school characteristics (28 of 43 systems), grade (29 of 43) and programmes within educational levels (27 of 41), although eight systems cannot link attendance to any of these outcomes, and some report legal or technical constraints. Almost half can also link attendance to academic outcomes (20 of 42), fields of study (24 of 39) and educational level completion (23 of 42) without constraints. Where such linkages are not feasible, this is typically because attendance data are not centrally collected or are anonymised; several systems also report legal or technical barriers, such as difficulties distinguishing drop-out from programme change (Austria). By contrast, linking attendance to non-academic outcomes is relatively uncommon. Only 8 of 43 systems can connect attendance to non-academic outcomes within education (e.g. socio-emotional skills), and 9 of 42 can do so for outcomes beyond education (e.g. employment or health), while many report that this is not possible. Constraints frequently stem from the non-collection of relevant data, fragmented data governance across ministries, or legal and privacy restrictions, including data privacy compliance and strict regulations around sensitive health or socio-emotional data. New Zealand provides an interesting example of covering a range of outcomes beyond education in its datasets (see Box 4.7).
In New Zealand, the Integrated Data Infrastructure is a large research database of people in Aotearoa New Zealand, that brings together administrative data from Government agencies, StatsNZ surveys, and non-governmental organisations. Education data including school attendance, referrals to the Attendance Service and qualifications are all captured in the Integrated Data Infrastructure. It links administrative and survey data across agencies (education, health, justice, income, housing etc.) at the individual level under strict privacy controls.
Thanks to this linkage, several studies have explicitly modelled how chronic absences (i.e. a student missing more than 30% of school a term) relate to non-educational outcomes. For example, the 2024 Education Review Office report, “Left behind: How do we get our chronically absent students back to school?”, uses Integrated Data Infrastructure to build longitudinal cohorts and identify students who were referred to Attendance Services for chronic absence. It links their school attendance and qualifications to:
Police offending data;
Social housing records;
Benefit and income data;
Health and disability service use;
Corrections data (sentences, daily management costs).
The study reports risk ratios for offending, social housing, qualifications and employment, in addition to fiscal cost estimates.
Source: New Zealand Education Review Office (2024[228]), https://evidence.ero.govt.nz/media/notdbxih/left-behind-how-do-we-get-our-chronically-absent-students-back-to-school.pdf, accessed on 5 December 2025.
Categorising reasons for absences
Understanding why students are absent is important for designing effective attendance policies and support strategies. In this context, many education systems record reasons for absence to identify the underlying drivers in their student population and provide targeted support to ensure attendance, regardless of whether the absences are authorised or not. Figure 4.14 shows which reasons for absence are recorded or categorised in national (sub-national) attendance datasets by different education systems.
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “If your education system collects data on reasons for student absences/non-attendance, which of the following reasons are recorded or categorised in national (or sub-national) datasets?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
In half of the education systems that participated in the survey (22 out of 45), reasons for student absences are not recorded or categorised nationally or sub-nationally. The remaining 23 systems all record absences due to illnesses or medical appointments. The following most commonly recorded reason for student absences is truancy, as 15 systems use this categorisation. Then, 14 systems distinguish family events, 13 school-initiated absences, 12 holidays during term time and 10 incidents beyond one’s control.
Fewer systems record lack of motivation or boredom (five); school refusal (four); engagement in work-based learning (five) and preparation for examination (four). Student safety and teachers’ absences are only recorded as a cause of absence in three systems. Thailand records the widest range of reasons for absence (12 out of the survey’s 15), followed by Korea and Scotland (United Kingdom) with 11 reasons each. A couple systems mention participation in extracurricular activities as another reason for absence being registered (Croatia and Latvia).
Box 4.8 provides an example on attendance codes in England (United Kingdom), highlighting the granularity of the data collected, through the statutory register distinguishing between multiple forms of participation, authorised absences, unauthorised absences and situations where attendance is deemed not possible.
England’s attendance codes illustrate a granular approach to recording why students are not in school. Rather than treating attendance as a simple present/absent binary, the statutory register distinguishes between multiple forms of participation, authorised absences, unauthorised absences and situations where attendance is deemed not possible. This design reflects an explicit recognition that absences can arise from very different circumstances, ranging from illness or religious observance to participation in alternative provision, work experience, or systemic failures, such as transport disruption or school closures. Students engaged in approved educational activities off site (e.g. alternative provision, college courses, work experience or supervised sports activities) are statistically counted as attending, underscoring a broad conception of learning that extends beyond the school building.
A key feature is the fine-grained differentiation within authorised absence. England’s framework separates routine and expected reasons (such as illness or medical appointments) from tightly regulated and exceptional cases, including part-time timetables for compulsory school-age children and adolescents, regulated performances or employment abroad, and leave granted under exceptional circumstances. The emphasis on prior approval, documentation and school-level discretion reflects a deliberate policy stance: authorised absences are not assumed to be benign, and even justified absences are expected to be minimised and carefully managed. At the same time, the system embeds safeguards for equity and inclusion, for example by explicitly recognising religious observance, maternity-related absences, mobility linked to parental occupation, and temporary reductions in timetable where this is judged to be in a pupil’s best interests.
The framework also makes visible the boundary between individual responsibility and systemic constraint. A distinct set of codes captures situations where students are unable to attend due to factors outside their control, such as failures in home-to-school transport, public health restrictions, emergency travel disruption or closure of school premises. These absences are classified as “not a possible attendance” and are excluded from accountability calculations, signalling an effort to avoid attributing responsibility to students or families for structural barriers. This distinction is analytically important, as it separates disengagement-related absences from absences driven by system-level conditions.
Finally, England’s treatment of unauthorised absences is narrow and explicit, largely confined to holidays not approved by schools, late arrival after registration closes and cases where no acceptable reason is established.
Source: (Department of Education of England, 2024[174]), Working together to improve school attendance, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66bf300da44f1c4c23e5bd1b/Working_together_to_improve_school_attendance_-_August_2024.pdf, accessed on 2 February 2026.
Data collection practices: the use of digital tools
In various education systems, schools log absences in class registers analogically, while others have adopted software for digital documentation. The latter can facilitate easier aggregation and use of data (Sälzer, Ricking and Feldhaus, 2024[221]). Digital technologies can be helpful in monitoring attendance in education systems (see Figure 4.15).
Note: Responses are not mutually exclusive. They are based on the following question: “In which ways does your education system engage with digital tools for monitoring attendance (e.g. school dashboards or student information systems)?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Most education systems – 26 out of 45 – mandate the use of digital tools to monitor attendance, while an additional eight encourage their use without making it compulsory (OECD, 2025[2]). Some adopt a centralised tool for public schools, whereas others leave the choice to schools or district. For example, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, all primary and secondary schools are required to track attendance and report it to the Agency for Education Services through Discimus (Flemish Ministry of Education and Training, 2025[229]) (see also Box 4.9). In New Zealand, absence data are not only mandatorily collected and centralised, but are also published on an interactive dashboard updated daily. The dashboard displays both absence rates and reasons for absences, and allows users to break down the information by region, school type and Schooling Equity Index7 group. For deeper insights, these statistics are complemented with the lived experiences captured in large-scale surveys and interviews with students, parents and school staff. Bullying, mental-health challenges, family stress and alienation from schooling all emerge as root causes. Moreover, attendance data are combined with the Integrated Data Infrastructure, which is a secure databank that links de-identified person-level information from education, health, justice, welfare, tax, housing and other state agencies (Ministry of Education of New Zealand, 2025[230]; New Zealand Education Review Office, 2024[228]) (as mentioned in greater detail in Box 4.7).
In the Flemish Community of Belgium, all primary and secondary schools are required to track attendance and report it to the Agency for Education Services through Discimus, which is a central tool that facilitates the exchange of student data between schools and the agency. The system also allows schools to access relevant information, such as a student’s past attendance at another school. While schools may use different software to manage attendance locally, these must be connected to Discimus. Schools collect attendance twice a day and can record different options – both authorised and unauthorised absences.
In Discimus, each student has a unique identification number. This data collection enables the Flemish Ministry of Education and Training to link the collected data to other student characteristics. At any time, schools can request the absences they have registered. As a result, the registration data on school absences in the Flemish Community is not only used to intervene at the level of the students, but also to gain insight into the distribution of all absences across different classes and school years.
Source: Flemish Ministry of Education and Training (2025[229]), DISCIMUS – Uitwisseling van leerlingengegevens [DISCIMUS – Exchange of student data], https://data-onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/edulex/document.aspx?docid=14347#1 (accessed on 30 September 2025); Keppens et al. (2019[231]), Measuring School Absenteeism: Administrative Attendance Data Collected by Schools Differ From Self-Reports in Systematic Ways, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02623.
In addition to mandating or encouraging the use of digital tools to track attendance, many education systems also provide technical, professional and financial support to ensure their effective use (OECD, 2025[2]). To facilitate the use of these digital tools, 17 education systems provide support, in the form of training, infrastructure or guidance for instance, and seven also fund or subsidise their use. For example, in England (United Kingdom), the Department for Education organises webinars and in-person conferences to help schools analyse absence data using the national tool. In Türkiye, the Ministry also provides technical support to school staff for the effective use of e-Okul, the central education data system it developed, including training on the system functionalities and its updates.
Only 9 of the 44 education systems do not currently use digital tools to monitor attendance at the national (sub-national) level (OECD, 2025[2]). Among them, the French Community of Belgium plans to introduce such tools in 2026/27, while in Sweden and Wales (United Kingdom), decisions on their use are taken at the local level.
Including student voice and parents in data collections
Listening to the voices of students and parents is crucial in shaping effective policies to SAP. Active family involvement, especially through regular and meaningful communication with schools, can improve student attendance (Heyne, 2025[3]; McConnel, 2014[232]). When parents are engaged as partners, they might be motivated to help identify attendance barriers early and contribute to more sustainable solutions. Full‑service community school models further highlight the value of incorporating stakeholder perspectives – particularly those of families and communities – into school culture and decision-making structures. These models blend academic, emotional and social supports within the school environment, reducing access barriers while amplifying collaboration among educators, families and service providers (Hunter, Elswick and Casey, 2017[233]; McKinney de Royston and Madkins, 2019[234]; Valli, Stefanski and Jacobson, 2016[235]). Figure 4.16 shows how student perspectives are collected to inform policies or practices related to SAP.
Note: Responses are not mutually exclusive. They are based on the following question: “Does the policy framework in your education system require the collection of data on student perspectives to inform policies or practices related to school attendance problems?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Across the 45 education systems that answered the policy survey, 24 do not centrally collect student perspectives to inform policies or practices on SAP. This does not mean, however, that students voices are not taken into account. For example, in England (United Kingdom) while there is no expectation at the central level about collecting students’ perspectives on SAP, many schools do so through their own processes.
Among the 21 remaining education systems that gather student perspectives to address SAP, the most common method is through student surveys, used by 14 systems. For example, in Wales (United Kingdom), a multi-cohort study led by the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research explores secondary-school students’ views on the rise in absences after the COVID-19 pandemic and finds that 19% of students reported they had missed school due to anxiety or mental health issues (Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research and Data, 2023[236]). Meanwhile, in 2025, Japan administered targeted questionnaires to more than 18 000 learners who had experienced school refusal to better understand their situations and needs (Ministry of Education of Japan, 2025[237]). In 2020, the government of New South Wales (Australia) surveyed 700 students about their reasons for attending or missing school, as well as their suggestions for improving attendance. Schools are also encouraged to incorporate student voice into attendance-related initiatives through activities such as co-developing attendance improvement plans, conducting school surveys, and organising classroom debates (Government of New South Wales, 2026[238]).
Nine systems directly involve young people in school- or system-level decision making through youth councils or advisory groups for instance. For example, from 2026, Czechia allows secondary-school students to vote for and be elected to school boards. In Peru, the legal framework mandates student participation through various elected groups such as Student Participation Councils, Institutional Educational Councils and School Municipalities. Six systems channel student input on SAP through peer support or mentoring programmes. Finally, five education systems do so through focus groups or consultations.
Early warning systems
Early identification of students at greater risk of absences can allow for timely and preventative intervention, but this depends on the use of robust administrative attendance data, school staff training in data interpretation, and support systems that can translate early warning indicators into effective action (SchoolStatus, 2025[239]; Germain et al., 2024[240]). While attendance monitoring systems record and report student absences, early warning systems (EWS) use attendance data proactively – often in combination with other indicators such as behaviour or academic performance – to identify students at risk and trigger targeted interventions before patterns of chronic absence become entrenched. The development of EWS has been shown to help schools recognise emerging attendance problems and deploy appropriate and timely supports (Kearney et al., 2023[222]; Pérez-Marco et al., 2025[115]). One example of an EWS stems from Massachusetts (United States) (see Box 4.10).
Created by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Early Warning Indicator System (EWIS) was established in 2011 to help identify students at risk of not meeting certain academic milestones from first to 12th grade.
Its predictive analytics tool uses existing student data to assess the risk of students not reaching academic milestones, such as reading proficiency by the end of lower secondary and upper secondary school. It assigns students to high, moderate or low risk categories based on factors, such as attendance, suspensions and academic performance. EWIS organises student risk by four grade level groupings: early primary (grade levels 1-3), late primary (grade levels 4-6), lower secondary (grade levels 7-9) and upper secondary (grade levels 10-12). The grade levels come with different academic milestones.
EWIS is designed to help schools target interventions more effectively but is not mandatory and is not intended to label students. It is also not designed to function as an accountability measure. The system is re-evaluated annually to ensure it remains responsive to changes in the data. While EWIS is widely used, an impact analysis has not yet been conducted due to challenges with data accuracy and usage.
Source: OECD (2020[241]), Strengthening the Governance of Skills Systems: Lessons from Six OECD Countries, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.17f87/3a4bb6ea-en; OECD (Unpublished[242]), Monitoring of school attendance problems and early leaving from education and training, Summary of peer-learning discussion on school absence.
As mentioned before, SAP play an important role as a predictor in EWS models. Figure 4.17 highlights the number of education systems using or planning to use EWS.
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “Does your education system utilise, or plan to implement, an early warning system to identify students at risk of dropping out/early leaving from education and training?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Eight education systems have already implemented early warning systems across the system, local and school levels (Bulgaria, Chile, Extremadura (Spain), Korea, Malta, Thailand, Türkiye, and Wales (United Kingdom)), whereas seven neither use such systems nor plan to do so at any of these levels (Austria, Czechia, Japan, Poland, Slovenia, Spain at the federal level and Sweden).
Early warning systems are most widespread at the school level, where 16 education systems currently use them, and 8 plan to introduce them, while 10 neither use nor plan to implement them. For instance, in France, early identification of students at risk of dropping out relies on the vigilance of the entire educational team, supported by school dropout reference teachers and by a school dropout prevention group established in every lower and upper secondary school.
At the national (sub-national) level, 11 education systems have already implemented early warning systems, while 10 plan to do so (e.g. Iceland, Indonesia and New Zealand). By contrast, 13 education systems neither use early warning systems at the national level nor plan to introduce them. For example, in Luxembourg, a recent law created an automated national monitoring system that flags students who accumulate 48 hours of unexcused absences in a school year (Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, 2023[243]). The system triggers a formal notification to parents and, in case of continued non-compliance, a referral to the Youth Court.
At the local or regional level, 11 education systems reported already using early warning systems, and a further 9 plan to implement them. However, 12 education systems neither use early warning systems at this level nor have plans to do so. For example, in Bulgaria, the Ministry of Education and Science has set up a national mechanism under which regional education departments and municipalities co-ordinate multidisciplinary outreach teams to ensure that all children and young people of compulsory school age are enrolled in, and remain in, education. Drawing on a national electronic information system, these teams identify children who are out of school or at risk of dropping out and follow up through systematic home visits and direct work with families.
Among education systems that implement early warning systems, most use attendance data to identify students at risk of dropping out (see Annex Figure 4.A.5).
Among 44 education systems, 33 report not using specific methods at the national (sub-national) level to identify students at risk of leaving education and training early. Among the remaining 11 that do use such methods, 10 use attendance data to identify those students, while Wales (United Kingdom) does not. In Wales (United Kingdom), Local Education Welfare Officers identify students at risk of dropping out, notably through attendance data. However, it would not be lawful for the Welsh Government to use such data to make decisions about individuals, for example profiling risks of dropping out.
Attendance and absence focus in school evaluations
Internal school evaluations are processes through which schools review their own policies and practices and monitor their performance to encourage reflection, goal setting and inform school development plans (OECD, 2013[244]). In 2015, they were required annually in public schools in 15 OECD countries (OECD, 2015[245]). In many systems, the results of schools’ self-evaluations are also shared with external audiences, such as higher-level authorities, school inspectors or the general public (OECD, 2015[245]).
While attendance has not traditionally been one of the most common areas covered by school self-evaluations, its inclusion is increasingly recognised as an important component of school improvement and accountability systems: in the Survey, 31 out of 44 education systems reported requiring or encouraging schools to integrate SAP into their internal evaluations (Annex Figure 4.A.6) (OECD, 2025[2]).
Provided that adequate data systems and school-level capacities are in place – not only to conduct internal evaluations but also to act on their results – integrating SAP into self-evaluation processes may constitute an effective lever for detecting emerging patterns of disengagement and implementing targeted responses. Evidence suggests that effective self-evaluation practices depend on strong leadership, a shared understanding of school goals, the engagement of key stakeholders, and the existence of robust monitoring and evaluation processes supported by national or local infrastructures (OECD, 2013[244]).
In 13 of 44 education systems, schools are required to evaluate SAP as part of their internal evaluation processes. For instance, in Greece, the national school self-evaluation framework requires schools’ Teaching Staff Councils to assess school performance across defined operational axes, including one explicitly dedicated to school dropout and attendance (Government of the Hellenic Republic, 2020[246]). In England (United Kingdom), the school inspectorate recently updated its inspection framework to place greater emphasis on attendance and published a toolkit specifying that school leaders are expected to “attendance information closely, at whole-school level and for different groups to identify patterns and trends”, as well as “use this analysis well to identify the causes of poor attendance, intervene early and remove barriers” (Ofsted, 2025, p. 41[247]). England (United Kingdom) has also developed attendance reports that provide comparison between similar schools, to support diagnosis, target-setting and the sharing of effective practices (Department for Education of England, 2025[248]).
In 18 systems, integrating school attendance problems into schools’ self-evaluations is encouraged. For example, in Norway, the Directorate of Education provides schools with a structured tool to support self-assessment and improvement planning (Directorate of Education of Norway, 2023[249]). This tool helps schools identify their strengths and challenges, set goals and monitor progress; and explicitly includes questions about school absences.
In 13 education systems, there are no system-level policies that require or encourage schools to conduct evaluations of SAP as part of their internal evaluation.
References
[117] Akister, J., H. Guest and S. Burch (2016), “Can Activity Projects Improve Children’s Wellbeing during the Transition to Secondary Education?”, International Education Studies, Vol. 9/12, p. 1, https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n12p1.
[85] Allison, M. et al. (2019), “The Link Between School Attendance and Good Health”, Pediatrics, Vol. 143/2, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3648.
[84] American Academy of Pediatrics (2000), “Home, hospital, and other non-school-based instruction for children and adolescents who are medically unable to attend school.”, Pediatrics, Vol. 106/5, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11061793/ (accessed on 8 April 2026).
[210] Ansari, A. and K. Purtell (2018), “Absenteeism in Head Start and Children’s Academic Learning”, Child Development, Vol. 89/4, pp. 1088-1098, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12800.
[37] Assouline, D. (2012), Rapport visant à abroger la loi n° 2010-1127 du 28 septembre 2010 visant à lutter contre l’absentéisme scolaire [Report seeking to repeal Act No. 2010-1127 of 28 September 2010 on combating truancy], https://www.senat.fr/rap/l12-056/l12-056_mono.html#toc33 (accessed on 25 February 2026).
[66] Audit Scotland (2025), Additional support for learning, Scotland, https://audit.scot/publications/additional-support-for-learning (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[134] Azor-Martínez, E. et al. (2014), “Effectiveness of a Multifactorial Handwashing Program to Reduce School Absenteeism Due to Acute Gastroenteritis”, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Vol. 33/2, pp. e34-e39, https://doi.org/10.1097/inf.0000000000000040.
[212] Backes, B. and M. Hansen (2015), Teach For America Impact Estimates on Nontested Student Outcomes, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal in Education Research, https://caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/2024-11/WP%20146.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2026).
[5] Baker, M., N. Drange and H. Gjefsen (2022), An Evaluation of a National Program to Reduce Student Absenteeism in High School, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.3386/w30194.
[127] Ballard, K., M. Sander and B. Klimes-Dougan (2013), “School-Related and Social–Emotional Outcomes of Providing Mental Health Services in Schools”, Community Mental Health Journal, Vol. 50/2, pp. 145-149, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-013-9670-y.
[68] Balu, R. and S. Ehrlich (2018), “Making Sense out of Incentives: A Framework for Considering the Design, Use, and Implementation of Incentives to Improve Attendance”, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), Vol. 23/1-2, pp. 93-106, https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2018.1438898.
[208] Balu, R., K. Porter and B. Gunton (2016), Can Informing Parents Help High School Students Show Up for School?, MDRC, https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/NewVisionsRCT_2016_Brief.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2026).
[89] Barbosa, A. and P. Gimenes (2017), “Desafios e Conquistas da Pedagogia Hospitalar: A Contribução Pedagógica no Processo de Aprendizagem da Criança Hospitalizada Em Tratamento Oncológico”, Nucleus, Vol. 14/2, pp. 161-174, https://doi.org/10.3738/1982.2278.2854.
[205] Berger, J. et al. (2025), “Can Personalized Attendance Information Mitigate Student Absenteeism? Evidence from Six Randomized Field Trials”, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, pp. 1-24, https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2025.2537112.
[192] Bethea-Hampton, T. and L. Wilson-Jones (2018), Narrative Study on High School Transition Programs and Student Attendance in Rural North Carolina, https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/jri/vol3/iss3/1 (accessed on 21 May 2026).
[107] Bettis, K. (2018), “Improving 5th Grade Attendance and Achievement through Student Success Skills Program”, Georgia School Counselors Association Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 15-20, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1248260 (accessed on 21 May 2026).
[213] Blazar, D. and M. Kraft (2016), “Teacher and Teaching Effects on Students’ Attitudes and Behaviors”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 39/1, pp. 146-170, https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716670260.
[76] Boaler, R. and C. Bond (2023), “Systemic school-based approaches for supporting students with attendance difficulties: a systematic literature review”, Educational Psychology in Practice, Vol. 39/4, pp. 439-456, https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2023.2233084.
[199] Bohanon, H. et al. (2023), “A Preliminary Study Connecting School Improvement and MTSS With Student Outcomes”, Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, Vol. 48/1, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2023.15.
[190] Borman, G. et al. (2019), “Reappraising academic and social adversity improves middle school students’ academic achievement, behavior, and well-being”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 116/33, pp. 16286-16291, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820317116.
[209] Brown, A. (ed.) (2019), Engaging Teachers: Measuring the Impact of Teachers on Student Attendance in Secondary School., http://annenberg.brown.edu/ai19-01 (accessed on 12 February 2026).
[154] Büchele, S. (2020), “Evaluating the link between attendance and performance in higher education: the role of classroom engagement dimensions”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 46/1, pp. 132-150, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1754330.
[22] Bye, L. et al. (2009), “School Social Work Outcomes: Perspectives of School Social Workers and School Administrators”, Children & Schools, Vol. 31/2, pp. 97-108, https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/31.2.97.
[98] Canter, K. and M. Roberts (2012), “A Systematic and Quantitative Review of Interventions to Facilitate School Reentry for Children With Chronic Health Conditions”, Journal of Pediatric Psychology, Vol. 37/10, pp. 1065-1075, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jss071.
[49] Carrell, S., M. Hoekstra and E. Kuka (2018), “The Long-Run Effects of Disruptive Peers”, American Economic Review, Vol. 108/11, pp. 3377-3415, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160763.
[12] Cedefop (2017), Medical Advice for Sick-reported Students (MASS), https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/tools/vet-toolkit-tackling-early-leaving/resources/medical-advice-sick-reported-students-mass#group-success-factors (accessed on 4 May 2026).
[183] Centre for Young Lives, Leeds Beckett University and YMCA George Williams College (2025), Beyond the classroom: the role of enrichment in tackling the school absence crisis, https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/659fd56cbd8d3f4a80aaac76/67a614f50d1d776cdb401fe9_e395f5cde76251aafb2430a5c27847d9_24_13_031%20-%20Report%20-%20Centre%20for%20Young%20Lives_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2026).
[211] Chang, H. and M. Romero (2008), Present, Engaged, and Accounted for: The Critical Importance of Addressing Chronic Absence in the Early Grades., National Center for Children in Poverty, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED522725 (accessed on 2026 February 16).
[62] Children’s Rights Commissioner of the Flemish Community of Belgium (2025), Thuiszitters uit de schaduw [Home-sitters out of the shadows. What children and young people, parents and professionals teach us], https://www.kinderrechten.be/publication/29278 (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[61] Children’s Rights Commissioner of the Flemish Community of Belgium (2024), Thuiszitters onder de radar [Home-sitters under the radar], https://www.kinderrechten.be/nieuws/thuiszitters-onder-de-radar (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[57] Chin, J. et al. (2012), “Alternatives to Suspensions: Rationale and Recommendations”, Journal of School Violence, Vol. 11/2, pp. 156-173, https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2012.652912.
[146] Cicutto, L., T. To and S. Murphy (2013), “A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Public Health Nurse‐Delivered Asthma Program to Elementary Schools”, Journal of School Health, Vol. 83/12, pp. 876-884, https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12106.
[101] Cistone, P. and A. Shneyderman (2004), “Looping: An Empirical Evaluation”, International Journal of Educational Policy, Research & Practice, Vol. 5/1, pp. 47-61, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795197.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2026).
[31] Citizens Information (2023), School attendance, https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary-and-post-primary-education/attendance-and-discipline-in-schools/school-attendance/ (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[152] Colbert, A. et al. (2019), “Evaluating Health-Related Quality of Life and School Attendance in a Multidisciplinary School Program for Youth with Significant Medical Needs”, Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, Vol. 27/2, pp. 416-428, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-019-09675-7.
[43] Contini, D. and G. Salza (2024), “Children left behind. New evidence on the (adverse) impact of grade retention on educational careers”, European Sociological Review, Vol. 40/6, pp. 1046-1066, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcae014.
[124] Cooper, J., T. Brown and M. Yu (2020), “A pilot study of school-based Filial Therapy (SBFT) with a group of Australian children attending rural primary schools: the impact on academic engagement, school attendance and behaviour”, International Journal of Play, Vol. 9/3, pp. 283-301, https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2020.1806495.
[80] Corcoran, S. et al. (2023), “Emotionally based school non‐attendance: Development of a local authority, multi‐agency approach to supporting regular attendance”, British Journal of Special Education, Vol. 51/1, pp. 98-110, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12497.
[140] Cowling, B. (ed.) (2013), “Elementary School-Based Influenza Vaccination: Evaluating Impact on Respiratory Illness Absenteeism and Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 8/8, p. e72243, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072243.
[50] Craig, A. and D. Martin (2025), “Discipline Reform, School Culture and Student Achievement”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 136/675, pp. 1029-1065, https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueaf081.
[102] Creghan, C. and K. Adair-Creghan (2015), “The Positive Impact of Project-Based Learning on Attendance of an Economically Disadvantaged Student Population: A Multiyear Study”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, Vol. 9/2, https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1496.
[161] Crouch, E. et al. (2021), “Positive Childhood Experiences Promote School Success”, Maternal and Child Health Journal, Vol. 25/10, pp. 1646-1654, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-021-03206-3.
[17] Czech Government (2026), Permission of individual education of the pupil, http://data.legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2023/07/20/a460/jo (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[167] Daily, S. et al. (2020), “Using School Climate to Improve Attendance and Grades: Understanding the Importance of School Satisfaction Among Middle and High School Students”, Journal of School Health, Vol. 90/9, pp. 683-693, https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12929.
[126] Daly, B. et al. (2013), “Three-year longitudinal study of school behavior and academic outcomes: results from a comprehensive expanded school mental health program”, Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, Vol. 7/1, pp. 24-41, https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730x.2013.867712.
[8] Danish Agency for Digital Government (2024), Absence from school, https://lifeindenmark.borger.dk/school-and-education/school/absence-from-school (accessed on 4 May 2026).
[158] David, H. (2025), From Absence to Attendance: Steering Towards Proactive Laws and Policies to Promote Learning and Well-Being., Ingrado, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32745.61288.
[138] Davis, M. et al. (2008), “Countywide School-Based Influenza Immunization: Direct and Indirect Impact on Student Absenteeism”, Pediatrics, Vol. 122/1, pp. e260-e265, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-2963.
[35] Dee, T. (2011), “Conditional cash penalties in education: Evidence from the Learnfare experiment”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 30/5, pp. 924-937, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.05.013.
[189] Department for Education of England (2026), Monitor your school attendance: user guide, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/monitor-your-school-attendance-user-guide (accessed on 11 May 2026).
[248] Department for Education of England (2025), Monitor your school attendance - your similar schools comparison reports, https://customerhelp.education.gov.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/31007233804818-Monitor-your-school-attendance-your-similar-schools-comparison-reports#h_01KFFXTG7HTRXPT9MPBMN88100 (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[220] Department for Education of England (2024), Working together to improve school attendance: Statutory guidance for maintained schools, academies, independent schools and local authorities, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66bf300da44f1c4c23e5bd1b/Working_together_to_improve_school_attendance_-_August_2024.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[29] Department for Education of the United Kingdom (2026), Parental responsibility measures, https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/parental-responsibility-measures/2024-25 (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[203] Department of Education and Youth of Ireland (2025), Every school day is a new day, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-education/campaigns/school-attendance/ (accessed on 3 April 2026).
[174] Department of Education of England (2024), Working together to improve school attendance, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66bf300da44f1c4c23e5bd1b/Working_together_to_improve_school_attendance_-_August_2024.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2026).
[64] Department of Education of Ireland (2021), Guidelines for the use of reduced school days in schools, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-education/circulars/guidelines-for-the-use-of-reduced-school-days-in-schools/ (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[188] Department of Education of New South Wales (2017), The role of student engagement in the transition from primary to secondary school, https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/about-us/educational-data/cese/2017-role-of-student-engagement-transition.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2025).
[30] Directorate for Legal and Administrative Information of the French Government (2025), Assiduité scolaire et absentéisme française [school attendance and absence in France], https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F1899 (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[249] Directorate of Education of Norway (2023), The standpoint analysis for schools, https://www.udir.no/kvalitet-og-kompetanse/stastedsanalyse/om-stastedaanalysen-for-skoler/ (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[223] Dräger, J., M. Klein and E. Sosu (2024), “The long‐term consequences of early school absences for educational attainment and labour market outcomes”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 50/4, pp. 1636-1654, https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3992.
[145] Efthymiou, E. et al. (2025), “A Systematic Review of School-Based Behavioral Interventions and the Symbolic Labor of Inclusion for Children with Chronic Illness”, Healthcare, Vol. 13/16, p. 1968, https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13161968.
[175] European Commission (2025), National strategies to tackle absenteeism and early leaving from education and training, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2 (accessed on 15 April 2026).
[28] Flemish Government (2021), Attendance conditions school supplement, https://www.groeipakket.be/en/benefits-groeipakket/school-supplement/Attendance-conditions (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[229] Flemish Ministry of Education and Training (2025), “DISCIMUS – Uitwisseling van leerlingengegevens [DISCIMUS – Exchange of student data]”, Omzendbrief NO/2012/01 [Circular – No./2012/01], https://data-onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/edulex/document.aspx?docid=14347#1 (accessed on 30 September 2025).
[149] Frakking, T. et al. (2022), “Effect of Care Coordination Using an Allied Health Liaison Officer for Chronic Noncomplex Medical Conditions in Children”, JAMA Pediatrics, Vol. 176/3, p. 244, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.5465.
[195] Freeman, J. et al. (2015), “An Analysis of the Relationship Between Implementation of School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports and High School Dropout Rates,”, The High School Journal, Vol. 98/4, pp. 290-315, https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2015.0009.
[196] Freeman, J. et al. (2015), “Relationship Between School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports and Academic, Attendance, and Behavior Outcomes in High Schools”, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, Vol. 18/1, pp. 41-51, https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715580992.
[10] French Republic (2024), Le parent doit-il fournir un certificat médical à l’école si son enfant est malade ? [Should parents provide a medical certificate to the school when their child is sick?], https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F20583 (accessed on 4 May 2026).
[26] French Republic (2012), Code pénal, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006070719/LEGISCTA000006165420/#LEGISCTA000006165420 (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[71] Fryer, R. (2011), “Financial Incentives and Student Achievement: Evidence from Randomized Trials *”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 126/4, pp. 1755-1798, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr045.
[182] Furrer, C., L. Magnuson and J. Suggs (2012), “Getting Them There, Keeping Them There: Benefits of an Extended School Day Program for High School Students”, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), Vol. 17/3, pp. 149-164, https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2012.695920.
[45] Gerlinger, J. et al. (2021), “Exclusionary School Discipline and Delinquent Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 50/8, pp. 1493-1509, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01459-3.
[240] Germain, E. et al. (2024), Reducing chronic absenteeism: Lessons from community schools, Learning Policy Institute, https://doi.org/10.54300/510.597.
[215] Gershenson, S. (2016), “Linking Teacher Quality, Student Attendance, and Student Achievement”, Education Finance and Policy, Vol. 11/2, pp. 125-149, https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00180.
[69] Gheorghiu, M. et al. (2021), “Using Evidence and Coalitions to Scale-Up a National Early Education Initiative: The Case of Law 248/2015 in Romania”, Frontiers in Public Health, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.591421.
[90] Gomes dos Santos, R., C. Da Conceição and T. Ferro Cavalcante (2019), “A importância da classe hospitalar Semear do Recife no processo de continuidade da escolarização dos estudantes/pacientes com câncer”, Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagógicos, Vol. 100/256, https://doi.org/10.24109/2176-6681.rbep.100i256.4068.
[180] Gottfredson, D. et al. (2010), “Effects of Participation in After-School Programs for Middle School Students: A Randomized Trial”, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Vol. 3/3, pp. 282-313, https://doi.org/10.1080/19345741003686659.
[42] Gottfried, M. (2013), “Retained Students and Classmates’ Absences in Urban Schools”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 50/6, pp. 1392-1423, https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213498810.
[27] Government of Japan (2018), School Education Act, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4573/en (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[112] Government of Lithuania (2006), Social Support for Pupils of the Repubic of Lithuania, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.279123 (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[238] Government of New South Wales (2026), Engaging Student Voice, https://education.nsw.gov.au/schooling/school-community/attendance-matters-resources-for-schools/attendance-strategies/student-voice--why-attendance-matters? (accessed on 7 May 2026).
[83] Government of Portugal (2025), Dispatch no. 656/2025, of 15 January, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/despacho/656-2025-903592200 (accessed on 27 March 2027).
[243] Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (2023), Loi du 20 juillet 2023 relative à l’obligation scolaire [Law of 20 July 2023 on compulsory education], https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2023/07/20/a460/jo (accessed on 1 December 2025).
[246] Government of the Hellenic Republic (2020), Provision for Primary, Seconday Education and Lifelong Learning, https://search.et.gr/el/fek/?fekId=578987 (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[135] Guinan, M., M. McGuckin and Y. Ali (2002), “The effect of a comprehensive handwashing program on absenteeism in elementary schools”, American Journal of Infection Control, Vol. 30/4, pp. 217-220, https://doi.org/10.1067/mic.2002.120366.
[32] Halsey, K. et al. (2004), Evaluation of Fast Track to prosecution for school non-attendance, https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/evaluation-of-fast-track-to-prosecution-for-school-non-attendance/ (accessed on 23 February 2026).
[148] Halterman, J. et al. (2018), “Effect of the School-Based Telemedicine Enhanced Asthma Management (SB-TEAM) Program on Asthma Morbidity”, JAMA Pediatrics, Vol. 172/3, p. e174938, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.4938.
[166] Hamlin, D. (2020), “Can a Positive School Climate Promote Student Attendance? Evidence From New York City”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 58/2, pp. 315-342, https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220924037.
[217] Hamre, B. (2014), “Teachers’ Daily Interactions With Children: An Essential Ingredient in Effective Early Childhood Programs”, Child Development Perspectives, Vol. 8/4, pp. 223-230, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12090.
[216] Hanno, E. and K. Gonzalez (2019), “The Effects of Teacher Professional Development on Children’s Attendance in Preschool”, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Vol. 13/1, pp. 3-28, https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1634170.
[151] Harris, K. et al. (2019), “School-based self-management interventions for asthma in children and adolescents: a mixed methods systematic review”, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol. 2019/1, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011651.pub2.
[121] Health New Zealand (n.d.), School-based health services, https://www.healthnz.govt.nz/about-us/what-we-do/programmes-and-initiatives/school-based-health-services (accessed on 27 February 2026).
[155] Henry, K., K. Knight and T. Thornberry (2011), “School Disengagement as a Predictor of Dropout, Delinquency, and Problem Substance Use During Adolescence and Early Adulthood”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 41/2, pp. 156-166, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9665-3.
[3] Heyne, D. (2025), From Absence to Attendance: Steering Towards Proactive Laws and Policies to Promote Learning and Well-Being, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32745.61288.
[226] 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.
[225] 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.
[133] Heyne, D. et al. (2002), “Evaluation of Child Therapy and Caregiver Training in the Treatment of School Refusal”, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 41/6, pp. 687-695, https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200206000-00008.
[132] Heyne, D. et al. (2011), “School refusal and anxiety in adolescence: Non-randomized trial of a developmentally sensitive cognitive behavioral therapy”, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, Vol. 25/7, pp. 870-878, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.04.006.
[206] Himmelsbach, Z. et al. (2021), “Your Child Missed Learning the Alphabet Today: A Randomized Trial of Sending Teacher-Written Postcards Home to Reduce Absences”, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Vol. 15/2, pp. 263-278, https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2021.1992812.
[113] Hopson, L. et al. (2022), “Transportation to school and academic outcomes: a systematic review”, Educational Review, Vol. 76/3, pp. 648-668, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2034748.
[15] Hopwood, V. et al. (2024), “Qualitative Study Examining Attendance for Secondary School Pupils With Long-Term Physical Health Conditions”, Continuity in Education, Vol. 5/1, pp. 79-89, https://doi.org/10.5334/cie.111.
[233] Hunter, W., S. Elswick and L. Casey (2017), “Efficient Wraparound Service Model for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: A Collaborative Model for School Social Workers and Teachers”, Children & Schools, Vol. 40/1, pp. 59-61, https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdx030.
[51] Hwang, N. and T. Domina (2021), “Peer Disruption and Learning: Links between Suspensions and the Educational Achievement of Non-Suspended Students”, Education Finance and Policy, pp. 1-21, https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00308.
[40] Hwang, N. and C. Koedel (2023), “Helping or Hurting: The Effects of Retention in the Third Grade on Student Outcomes”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 47/1, pp. 65-88, https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231197639.
[34] ICF Consulting Limited; Arad Research (2018), Evaluation of Fixed Penalty Notices issued for regular non-attendance at school, Government Social Research, https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2019-06/180508-evaluation-fixed-penalty-notices-issued-regular-non-attendance-school-en.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2026).
[7] Ireland Health Service Executive (2025), Knowing if your child is well enough to go to school or childcare, https://www2.hse.ie/babies-children/parenting-advice/caring-for-a-child/knowing-if-your-child-is-well-enough-to-go-to-school-or-childcare/ (accessed on 4 May 2026).
[186] Irish Department of Education Inspectorate (2024), Improving Outcomes and Experiences for Children and Young People Evaluation of Home School Community Liaison (HSCL) in Primary and Post-Primary Schools, https://www.into.ie/2024/12/09/successful-hscl-scheme-must-be-expanded-further/ (accessed on 2 April 2025).
[47] Jabbari, J. and O. Johnson (2020), “The Collateral Damage of In-School Suspensions: A Counterfactual Analysis of High-Suspension Schools, Math Achievement and College Attendance”, Urban Education, Vol. 58/5, pp. 801-837, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920902256.
[214] Jackson, C. (2016), What Do Test Scores Miss? The Importance of Teacher Effects on Non-Test Score Outcomes, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22226/w22226.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2026).
[82] Jahans‐Baynton, K. and A. Grealish (2021), “Safeguarding communications between multiagency professionals when working with children and young people: A qualitative study”, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, Vol. 35/2, pp. 171-178, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcap.12363.
[153] Jay, M. et al. (2023), “Umbrella systematic review finds limited evidence that school absence explains the association between chronic health conditions and lower academic attainment”, Frontiers in Public Health, Vol. 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1122769.
[16] Jay, M. et al. (2025), “Chronic health conditions and school absence, exclusions, and non-enrolment: a cohort study using the Education and Child Health Insights from Linked Data database”, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 47/3, pp. 414-422, https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaf064.
[118] Jenner, E. et al. (2022), “Effects of Cross-Age Peer Mentoring Program within a Randomized Controlled Trial”, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Vol. 16/3, pp. 473-500, https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2022.2130119.
[123] Jennings, J., G. Pearson and M. Harris (2000), “Implementing and Maintaining School‐Based Mental Health Services in a Large, Urban School District”, Journal of School Health, Vol. 70/5, pp. 201-205, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2000.tb06473.x.
[218] Jennings, P. and M. Greenberg (2009), “The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 79/1, pp. 491-525, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693.
[181] Jenson, J. et al. (2018), “Effects of an afterschool program on the academic outcomes of children and youth residing in public housing neighborhoods: A quasi-experimental study”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 88, pp. 211-217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.03.014.
[162] Jiang, C., S. Chen and S. Jiang (2024), “Escape from School: Linking School Climate, Bullying Victimization, Resilience and School Truancy in a Moderated Mediation Model”, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, Vol. 42/3, pp. 389-397, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-024-00965-0.
[104] Johnson, M. et al. (2017), “The Educational and Behavioral Impacts of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Charter School”, Journal of School Choice, Vol. 11/3, pp. 399-425, https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2017.1318333.
[110] Jose, K. et al. (2020), “School Breakfast Club Programs in Australian Primary Schools, Not Just Addressing Food Insecurity: A Qualitative Study”, Health Education & Behavior, Vol. 47/4, pp. 619-630, https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120920193.
[36] Justman, M. and K. Peyton (2018), “Enforcing Compulsory Schooling through Credible Coercion: Lessons from Australia’s Northern Territory Intervention”, Economic Record, Vol. 94/306, pp. 223-238, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4932.12418.
[163] Karlberg, M. et al. (2020), “The Importance of School Pedagogical and Social Climate to Students’ Unauthorized Absenteeism – a Multilevel Study of 101 Swedish Schools”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 66/1, pp. 88-104, https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1833244.
[160] Kearney, C. (2016), Managing School Absenteeism at Multiple Tiers: An Evidence-Based and Practical Guide for Professionals, Oxford University Press.
[222] Kearney, C. et al. (2023), “School attendance problems and absenteeism as early warning signals: review and implications for health-based protocols and school-based practices”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1253595.
[77] Kearney, C. and P. Graczyk (2020), “A Multidimensional, Multi-tiered System of Supports Model to Promote School Attendance and Address School Absenteeism”, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Vol. 23/3, pp. 316-337, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-020-00317-1.
[194] Kearney, C. and P. Graczyk (2013), “A Response to Intervention Model to Promote School Attendance and Decrease School Absenteeism”, Child & Youth Care Forum, Vol. 43/1, pp. 1-25, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-013-9222-1.
[139] Keck, P. et al. (2013), “School-Located Influenza Vaccination and Absenteeism Among Elementary School Students in a Hispanic Community”, The Journal of School Nursing, Vol. 29/4, pp. 271-283, https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840513486008.
[78] Keppens, G. and B. Spruyt (2020), “The impact of interventions to prevent truancy: A review of the research literature”, Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 65, p. 100840, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100840.
[231] Keppens, G., B. Spruyt and J. Dockx (2019), “Measuring School Absenteeism: Administrative Attendance Data Collected by Schools Differ From Self-Reports in Systematic Ways”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02623.
[109] Kesztyüs, D. et al. (2016), “Effects of statewide health promotion in primary schools on children’s sick days, visits to a physician and parental absence from work: a cluster-randomized trial”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 16/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3903-2.
[11] Kiriakidis, P. and J. Kiriakidis (2024), The Effect of an Attendance Policy on Reducing Chronic Health-Related Absenteeism Among Students in a Rural Public School District in the Northern United States Authors, Elsevier BV, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5032335.
[147] Koontz, K. (2004), “A Randomized, Controlled Pilot Trial of a School Intervention for Children with Sickle Cell Anemia”, Journal of Pediatric Psychology, Vol. 29/1, pp. 7-17, https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsh002.
[224] Kreitz-Sandberg, S. et al. (2023), “Recording and Reporting School Attendance and Absence: International Comparative Views on Attendance Statistics in Sweden, Germany, England, and Japan”, ORBIS SCHOLAE, Vol. 16/3, pp. 187-212, https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2023.9.
[52] Lacoe, J. and M. Steinberg (2018), “Rolling Back Zero Tolerance: The Effect of Discipline Policy Reform on Suspension Usage and Student Outcomes”, Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 93/2, pp. 207-227, https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2018.1435047.
[125] Lambie, G. et al. (2019), “A School-Based Mental Health Counseling Intervention with Students in Title I Elementary Schools”, Children & Schools, Vol. 41/3, pp. 161-168, https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdz011.
[156] Lam, P. et al. (2023), “Is Showing Up Half the Work? The Relationship among Student Attendance, Engagement and Test Scores”, College Teaching, Vol. 73/4, pp. 229-241, https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2023.2262676.
[197] Lane, K. et al. (2007), “How Do Different Types of High School Students Respond to Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support Programs?”, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 15/1, pp. 3-20, https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266070150010201.
[136] Lau, C. et al. (2012), “Hand hygiene instruction decreases illness-related absenteeism in elementary schools: a prospective cohort study”, BMC Pediatrics, Vol. 12/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-12-52.
[142] Leach, S. et al. (2022), “Costs and Effects of School-Based Licensed Practical Nurses on Elementary Student Attendance and Chronic Absenteeism”, Prevention Science, Vol. 24/1, pp. 94-104, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-022-01459-0.
[97] Lee, M., S. Loeb and C. Robinson (2024), Effects of High-Impact Tutoring on Student Attendance: Evidence from the OSSE HIT Initiative in the District of Columbia, Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED665349 (accessed on 26 May 2026).
[58] LiCalsi, C., D. Osher and D. Bailey (2021), An Empirical Examination of the Effects of Suspension and Suspension Severity on Behavioral and Academic Outcomes, https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/NYC-Suspension-Effects-Behavioral-Academic-Outcomes-August-2021.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2026).
[122] Lindblad, V. et al. (2024), “Beyond the mind: Understanding the influence of mental health on youth NEET status in Europe—A systematic literature review”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 96/7, pp. 1428-1444, https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12374.
[48] Liu, L. (2024), “The unintended consequence of school suspension: How school suspension impacted future grades and misconduct”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 164, p. 107871, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107871.
[87] Ludgério, M. et al. (2023), “Pedagogical practices developed with children through hospital classes: An integrative literature review”, Journal of Pediatric Nursing, Vol. 72, pp. e10-e18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2023.05.014.
[171] Luo, W. (2017), “Perceived teaching practice and its prediction of student engagement in Singapore”, Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 18/4, pp. 451-463, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9502-9.
[88] Magalhães, P. et al. (2018), “Experiences During a Psychoeducational Intervention Program Run in a Pediatric Ward: A Qualitative Study”, Frontiers in Pediatrics, Vol. 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2018.00124.
[39] Mariano, L., P. Martorell and T. Tsai (2018), How Does Repeating a Grade Impact Students’ High School Persistence and Behavior? The Case of New York City, RAND Corporation, https://doi.org/10.7249/rb10025.
[150] Martin, M. et al. (2021), “Trends in School Attendance for Low‐Income Children with Chronic Health Conditions: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial”, Journal of School Health, Vol. 91/3, pp. 187-194, https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12989.
[131] Marvul, J. (2011), “If You Build It, They Will Come”, Urban Education, Vol. 47/1, pp. 144-169, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911427738.
[114] Maynard, B. et al. (2015), “Psychosocial Interventions for School Refusal with Primary and Secondary School Students: A Systematic Review”, Campbell Systematic Reviews, Vol. 11/1, pp. 1-76, https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2015.12.
[129] McCluskey, C., T. Bynum and J. Patchin (2004), “Reducing Chronic Absenteeism: an Assessment of an Early Truancy Initiative”, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 50/2, pp. 214-234, https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703258942.
[232] McConnel, B. (2014), “Connecting With Families to Improve Students’ School Attendance: A Review of the Literature”, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2013.821649.
[234] McKinney de Royston, M. and T. Madkins (2019), “A Question of Necessity or of Equity? Full-Service Community Schools and the (mis)Education of Black Youth”, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), Vol. 24/3, pp. 244-271, https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2019.1615920.
[73] Melvin, G. et al. (2025), “Interventions to promote school attendance and address student absence: Rapid literature review”, Australian Education Research Organisation, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED673994 (accessed on 4 December 2025).
[111] Mhurchu, C. et al. (2012), “Effects of a free school breakfast programme on children’s attendance, academic achievement and short-term hunger: results from a stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial”, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 67/3, pp. 257-264, https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2012-201540.
[93] Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale de la France (2019), Élèves malades : l’École à l’hôpital ou à domicile [Sick students: schooling in hospital or at home], https://www.education.gouv.fr/eleves-malades-l-ecole-l-hopital-ou-domicile-2738 (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[6] Ministre de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse du Luxembourg (2023), Loi du 20 juillet 2023 relative à l’obligation scolaire [Act of 20 July 2023 on compulsory education], http://data.legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2023/07/20/a460/jo (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[59] Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland (1998), Basic Education Act, https://www.finlex.fi/eli?uri=http://data.finlex.fi/eli/sd/1998/628/ajantasa/2025-12-22/fin (accessed on 26 March 2026).
[60] Ministry of Education and Vocational Training of Luxembourg (2025), Règlement grand-ducal du 23 décembre 2004 concernant les règles de conduite dans les lycées. [Grand-Ducal Regulation of 23 December 2004 concerning the rules of conduct in upper secondary schools.], http://data.legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/rgd/2004/12/23/n1/consolide/20250602 (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[168] Ministry of Education of Chile (2024), National Policy on Educational Coexistence 2024-2030, https://convivenciaparaciudadania.mineduc.cl/pnce2024-2030/ (accessed on 15 April 2026).
[177] Ministry of Education of Chile (n.d.), Actualización Curricular [Curriculum Update], https://www.curriculumnacional.cl/actualizacion-curricular (accessed on 2 April 2026).
[179] Ministry of Education of Indonesia (2025), Projek Penguatan Profil Pelajar Pancasila [Pancasila Student Profile Strengthening Project], https://pusatinformasi.rumahpendidikan.kemendikdasmen.go.id/hc/id/articles/52478129813913-Mengenal-Projek-Penguatan-Profil-Pelajar-Pancasila (accessed on 3 April 2026).
[237] Ministry of Education of Japan (2025), 「不登校経験者等を対象とする調査」[Survey Targeting Individuals with Experience of School Absence], https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/seitoshidou/1397808_00001.htm (accessed on 7 April 2026).
[178] Ministry of Education of Korea (2022), 2022 Revised National Curriculum for primary, secondary and special schools announced, https://english.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/viewRenewal.do?boardID=265&boardSeq=93810&lev=0&statusYN=W&s=english&m=0201&opType=N#:~:text=In%20december%2022%2C%20the%20Miinistry,with%20what%20future%20societies%20demand. (accessed on 2 April 2026).
[173] Ministry of Education of New Zealand (2026), The New Zealand Curriculum, https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/the-new-zealand-curriculum-te-m-taiaho/5637303584.p (accessed on 2 April 2026).
[230] Ministry of Education of New Zealand (2025), Teen Parent Units, https://www.education.govt.nz/education-professionals/schools-year-0-13/learning-support/alternative-education/teen-parent-units#what-a-teen-parent-unit-is-1 (accessed on 4 March 2026).
[252] Ministry of Education of New Zealand (2024), Equity Index, https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/changes-in-education/equity-index (accessed on 8 April 2026).
[95] Ministry of Education of Portugal (2019), Ordinance No. 359/2019, of October 8, https://data.dre.pt/eli/port/359/2019/10/08/p/dre/pt/html (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[19] Ministry of Education of Portugal (2009), Ordinance No. 835/2009, of 31 July, https://data.dre.pt/eli/port/835/2009/07/31/p/dre/pt/html (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[92] Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Iceland (2010), Regulation on students with special needs in primary and lower secondary school., https://www.reglugerd.is/reglugerdir/eftir-raduneytum/menntamalaraduneyti/nr/16591 (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[227] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth of the Republic of Croatia (2025), Students, overall achievement and absences, https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiM2Q1NjVmZDEtMGUyMy00MDBiLTkzYWItYjBhMTA3MDFlOWUxIiwidCI6IjJjMTFjYmNjLWI3NjEtNDVkYi1hOWY1LTRhYzc3ZTk0ZTFkNCIsImMiOjh9&disablecdnExpiration=1760025973 (accessed on 2 April 2026).
[157] Miranda-Zapata, E. et al. (2018), “Modelling the Effect of School Engagement on Attendance to Classes and School Performance”, Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.), Vol. 23/2, pp. 102-109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2018.03.001.
[91] Montanari, E., M. Silva and C. Maciel (2019), “A atuação dos professores no atendimento educacional em ambiente hospitalar: desafios e possibilidades [The role of teachers in providing educational support in hospital settings: challenges and opportunities]”, Perspectivas em Diálogo: Revista de Educação e Sociedade, Vol. v. 6, https://periodicos.ufms.br/index.php/persdia/article/view/8433 (accessed on 8 April 2026).
[79] Mossberg, L. (2025), “To take, place and refuse accountability: how team members handle tasks and roles in collaboration on school attendance problems”, Journal of Social Work Practice, Vol. 39/1, pp. 85-99, https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2024.2443734.
[130] Muñoz, M. (2022), Facing the Challenges of At-Risk Students in Urban School Districts: The Impact of an Attendance and Dropout Prevention Program in a Non-Traditional School, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED463364 (accessed on 27 February 2026).
[103] Muñoz, M., S. Ross and A. McDonald (2007), “Comprehensive School Reform in Middle Schools: The Effects of Different Ways of Knowing on Student Achievement in a Large Urban District”, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), Vol. 12/2, pp. 167-183, https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660701261128.
[120] Nazzal, A. (2012), Peer Tutoring and At-Risk Students: An Exploratory Study, https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2002.10463268.
[13] Netherlands Centre for Youth Health (2023), MAZL, https://www.ncj.nl/onderwerp/mazl/ (accessed on 4 May 2026).
[228] New Zealand Education Review Office (2024), Left behind: How do we get our chronically absent students back to school?, https://evidence.ero.govt.nz/media/notdbxih/left-behind-how-do-we-get-our-chronically-absent-students-back-to-school.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2025).
[65] New Zealand Education Review Office (2022), Thriving at school? Education for disabled learners in schools, New Zealand, https://www.evidence.ero.govt.nz/documents/thriving-at-school-education-for-disabled-learners-in-schools (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[128] Newsome, W. (2004), “Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Groupwork with At-Risk Junior High School Students: Enhancing the Bottom Line”, Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 14/5, pp. 336-343, https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731503262134.
[4] Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2025), Circular about the absence limit, Article 3.3.2, https://www.udir.no/regelverk-og-tilsyn/skole-og-opplaring/rundskriv-om-fravarsgrensen/3.-hva-omfattes-av-fravarsgrensen#3.4-skjonn-15-prosent (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[94] Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2024), Distance learning, https://www.udir.no/regelverk-og-tilsyn/skole-og-opplaring/fjernundervisning/ (accessed on 18 April 2026).
[251] OECD (2026), NAAG Chapter 9: Reference Series (dataset), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/41n (accessed on 23 February 2026).
[193] OECD (2026), “Tiered systems of support in education: A focus on MTSS”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 346, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/158128c5-en.
[2] OECD (2025), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
[176] OECD (2024), Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy: Promoting a Thriving Learning Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eccbbac2-en.
[187] OECD (2024), OECD Review of Resourcing Schools to Address Educational Disadvantage in Ireland, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3433784c-en.
[1] OECD (2023), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.
[38] OECD (2022), Value for Money in School Education: Smart Investments, Quality Outcomes, Equal Opportunities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f6de8710-en.
[241] OECD (2020), Strengthening the Governance of Skills Systems: Lessons from Six OECD Countries, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3a4bb6ea-en.
[245] OECD (2015), Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en.
[244] OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.
[242] OECD (Unpublished), Monitoring of school attendance problems and early leaving from education and training.
[201] OECD (Unpublished), Summary of third peer-learning discussion: policy responses to school attendance problems.
[202] OECD (Forthcoming), Tackling school attendance problems in Ireland.
[247] Ofsted (2025), State-funded school inspection toolkit, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/690b26c69456634d9795fde0/Schools_inspection_toolkit.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2026).
[63] Ombudsman for Children (2019), Ombudsman for Children expresses concern at inappropriate use of reduced timetables in schools, Ireland, https://www.oco.ie/news/ombudsman-for-children-expresses-concern-at-inappropriate-use-of-reduced-timetables-in-schools/ (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[169] Orthner, D. et al. (2013), “Improving Middle School Student Engagement Through Career-Relevant Instruction in the Core Curriculum”, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 106/1, pp. 27-38, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.658454.
[141] Pannaraj, P. et al. (2014), “School-Located Influenza Vaccination Decreases Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza and Improves School Attendance”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Vol. 59/3, pp. 325-332, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu340.
[96] Parliament of Romania (2023), Legea nr. 198 din 4 iulie 2023 învățământului preuniversitar [Law No. 198 of July 4, 2023 on pre-university education], https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/271896 (accessed on 12 May 2026).
[70] Parliament of Romania (2015), Lege 248/2015 privind stimularea participării în învăţământul preşcolar a copiilor provenind din familii [Law 248/2015 on encouraging the participation of children from disadvantaged families in pre-school education], https://edirect.e-guvernare.ro/Uploads/Legi/36310/legea-248-2015.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2026).
[115] Pérez-Marco, M. et al. (2025), “A systematic review of intervention programs for school attendance problems”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 169, p. 108091, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.108091.
[53] Perry, B. and E. Morris (2014), “Suspending Progress”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 79/6, pp. 1067-1087, https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414556308.
[54] Pope, N. and G. Zuo (2023), “Suspending Suspensions: The Education Production Consequences of School Suspension Policies*”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 133/653, pp. 2025-2054, https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/uead011.
[250] Portuguese Assembly (2012), Law No. 51/2012, of 5 September, https://data.dre.pt/eli/lei/51/2012/09/05/p/dre/pt/html (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[172] Portuguese Government (2018), Decree-Law No. 55/2018, of July 6, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/55-2018-115652962 (accessed on 2 April 2026).
[9] Public Ministry of Portugal (2012), Lei n.º 51/2012, de 05 de Setembro Estatuto do Aluno e Ética Escolar [Law No. 51/2012, of 5 September: Student status and school ethics], https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=1793A0018&nid=1793&tabela=leis&ficha=1&nversao= (accessed on 4 May 2026).
[105] Pugh, P. and M. Tschannen-Moran (2016), “Influence of a School District’s Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) Program on Self-Efficacy and Other Indicators of Student Achievement”, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 100/3, pp. 141-158, https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636516679261.
[75] Reid, K. (2013), Managing School Attendance, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203741023.
[23] Reid, K. (2006), “The Views of Education Social Workers on the Management of Truancy and other Forms of Non-Attendance”, Research in Education, Vol. 75/1, pp. 40-57, https://doi.org/10.7227/rie.75.4.
[72] Riccio, J. et al. (2010), Toward Reduced Poverty Across Generations: Early Findings from New York City’s Conditional Cash Transfer Program, https://ssrn.com/abstract=1786981 (accessed on 2 February 2026).
[74] Robinson, C. et al. (2021), “The demotivating effect (and unintended message) of awards”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 163, pp. 51-64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.006.
[184] Robinson, C. et al. (2018), “Reducing Student Absenteeism in the Early Grades by Targeting Parental Beliefs”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 55/6, pp. 1163-1192, https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218772274.
[143] Rodriguez, E. et al. (2013), “School Nurses’ Role in Asthma Management, School Absenteeism, and Cost Savings: A Demonstration Project”, Journal of School Health, Vol. 83/12, pp. 842-850, https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12102.
[207] Rogers, T. and A. Feller (2018), “Reducing student absences at scale by targeting parents’ misbeliefs”, Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 2/5, pp. 335-342, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0328-1.
[170] Sahito, Z., F. Khoso and J. Phulpoto (2025), “The Effectiveness of Active Learning Strategies in Enhancing Student Engagement and Academic Performance”, Journal of Social Sciences Review, Vol. 5/1, pp. 110-127, https://doi.org/10.62843/jssr.v5i1.471.
[221] Sälzer, C., H. Ricking and M. Feldhaus (2024), “Addressing School Absenteeism Through Monitoring: A Review of Evidence-Based Educational Policies and Practices”, Education Sciences, Vol. 14/12, p. 1365, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121365.
[219] Sandilos, L. et al. (2018), “Does professional development reduce the influence of teacher stress on teacher–child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms?”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 280-290, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.10.009.
[239] SchoolStatus (2025), 2024-25 Attendance trends report, https://www.schoolstatus.com/wp-content/uploads/SchoolStatus_2024-2025-Attendance-Trends-Report.pdf?utm=0to5 (accessed on 12 December 2025).
[198] Scott, T. et al. (2019), “An examination of the association between MTSS implementation fidelity measures and student outcomes”, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, Vol. 63/4, pp. 308-316, https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2019.1605971.
[204] Sheldon, S. (2007), “Improving Student Attendance With School, Family, and Community Partnerships”, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 100/5, pp. 267-275, https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.100.5.267-275.
[185] Sheldon, S. and J. Epstein (2004), “Getting Students to School: Using Family and Community Involvement to Reduce Chronic Absenteeism”, School Community Journal, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ794822.pdf.
[144] Shore, S. et al. (2013), “Step-Count Promotion Through a School-Based Intervention”, Clinical Nursing Research, Vol. 23/4, pp. 402-420, https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773813485240.
[119] Sibley, M. et al. (2020), A peer delivered intervention for high school students with impairing ADHD symptoms, pp. 275–290, https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1720803.
[44] Singer, J. (2023), “The Effect of Suspensions on Student Attendance in a High-Absenteeism Urban District”, Urban Education, Vol. 60/2, pp. 628-659, https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859231192084.
[159] SPSM (2025), Skolans insatser för att främja närvaro och förebygga frånvaro för alla elever [The school’s efforts to promote attendance and prevent absenteeism for all students], SPSM, https://webbutiken.spsm.se/skolans-insatser-for-att-framja-narvaro-och-forebygga-franvaro-for-alla-elever/ (accessed on 15 December 2025).
[21] Stokes, K., S. Lenhoff and J. Singer (2024), “Complicating the Role of Relationships in Reducing Student Absenteeism”, Children & Schools, Vol. 46/4, pp. 245-254, https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdae022.
[164] Thapa, A. et al. (2013), “A Review of School Climate Research”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 83/3, pp. 357-385, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907.
[99] Tougas, A. et al. (2022), “School reintegration following psychiatric hospitalization: A review of available transition programs.”, Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 31/2, pp. 75-92.
[137] Tousman, S. et al. (2007), “Evaluation of a Hand Washing Program for 2nd-Graders”, The Journal of School Nursing, Vol. 23/6, pp. 342-348, https://doi.org/10.1177/10598405070230060701.
[200] Tusla Education Support Service (TESS) (2023), Five Year Plan for School Attendance, https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/Tusla_MTSS_to_promote_attendance_engagement,_and_retention.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2026).
[191] Uleanya, C. (ed.) (2024), “The effect of successful educational actions in transition from primary to secondary school”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 19/6, p. e0304683, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304683.
[86] United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care (2015), Hospital education: a guide for health services, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hospital-education-a-guide-for-health-services/hospital-education-a-guide-for-health-services (accessed on 8 April 2026).
[56] Valdebenito, S. et al. (2018), “School‐based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: a systematic review”, Campbell Systematic Reviews, Vol. 14/1, https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2018.1.
[235] Valli, L., A. Stefanski and R. Jacobson (2016), “Typologizing School–Community Partnerships”, Urban Education, Vol. 51/7, pp. 719-747, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914549366.
[165] Van Eck, K. et al. (2017), “How school climate relates to chronic absence: A multi–level latent profile analysis”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 89-102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.10.001.
[14] van Wouwe, J. (ed.) (2016), “Attitudes towards Addressing Medical Absenteeism of Students: A Qualitative Study among Principals and Special Education Needs Coordinators in Dutch Secondary Schools”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 11/2, p. e0148427, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148427.
[46] Vanderwood, M. (ed.) (2015), “Relationship Between School Suspension and Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis”, School Psychology Review, Vol. 44/2, pp. 224-240, https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-14-0008.1.
[116] Venegas-Muggli, J., C. Barrientos and F. Álvarez (2021), The Impact of Peer-Mentoring on the Academic Success of Underrepresented College Students, pp. 554-571, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1521025121995988.
[67] Victorian Ombudsman (2017), Investigation into Victorian government school expulsions, Australia, https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/our-impact/investigation-reports/investigation-into-victorian-government-school-expulsions/ (accessed on 5 May 2026).
[106] Voight, A. and V. Velez (2018), “Youth Participatory Action Research in the High School Curriculum: Education Outcomes for Student Participants in a District-Wide Initiative”, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Vol. 11/3, pp. 433-451, https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1431345.
[108] Volkmann, B. and L. Bye (2006), “Improved School Attendance through Adult Volunteer Reading Partners”, Children & Schools, Vol. 28/3, pp. 145-152, https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/28.3.145.
[236] Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research and Data (2023), Growing up in Wales: Navigating Uncertain Times I Evidence from the WISERD Education Multi-Cohort Study, https://wiserd.ac.uk/news/growing-up-in-wales-navigating-uncertain-times-i-evidence-from-the-wiserd-education-multi-cohort-study (accessed on 21 October 2025).
[18] Wallonie-Bruxelles Enseignement (2019), Les services d’accrochage scolaire, https://www.wbe.be/soutien/soutien-inter-reseaux/les-services-daccrochage-scolaire/ (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[55] Wang, M. et al. (2024), “The spillover effect of school suspensions on adolescents’ classroom climate perceptions and academic achievement”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 103, p. 101295, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101295.
[20] Welsh Government (2023), https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2023-10/improving-school-attendance-guidance_0.pdf, https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2023-10/improving-school-attendance-guidance_0.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2026).
[100] Wikel, K. and A. Markelz (2023), “School Reentry Plans for Students with Chronic Illness:”, Research, Advocacy, and Practice for Complex and Chronic Conditions, Vol. 41/1, pp. 22-44, https://doi.org/10.14434/rapcc.v41i1.31767.
[24] Wright, C. (2009), “How effective is parental prosecution as a method of improving school attendance among primary‐aged children?”, Support for Learning, Vol. 24/4, pp. 176-184, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2009.01421.x.
[33] Yu, X. and E. Leni (2021), “Do Monetary Penalties Discourage School Absenteeism Behaviour?”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4079525.
[81] Zerden, L., B. Lombardi and E. Richman (2019), “Social workers on the interprofessional integrated team: Elements of team integration and barriers to practice”, Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, Vol. 17, p. 100286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2019.100286.
[25] Zhang, M. (2007), “School Absenteeism and the Implementation of Truancy‐Related Penalty Notices”, Pastoral Care in Education, Vol. 25/4, pp. 25-34, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0122.2007.00422.x.
[41] Zhong, J. (Forthcoming), “Early Grade Retention Harms Adult Earnings”, American Economics Journal: Applied Economics, https://jieezhong.com/files/pdf/JMP_May2025.pdf.
Note: Responses are not mutually exclusive. They are based on the following question: “For which educational levels are school attendance/absence data collected and available at the national (sub-national level) level?”. 44 education systems responded to this item, including 30 from EU countries and 36 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Note: Responses are mutually exclusive. They are based on the following question: “Since when have data on student attendance been collected at the national (sub-national) level?”. 45 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 37 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Note: Responses are mutually exclusive for each student characteristics. They are based on the following question: “For each of the following, please indicate whether there are legal or technical constraints to linking attendance data with student characteristics at the national (sub-national) level”. 44 education systems responded to this item, including 30 from EU countries and 36 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Note: Responses are mutually exclusive for each student outcome. They are based on the following question: “For each of the following, please indicate whether there are legal or technical constraints to linking attendance data with students’ outcomes and other characteristics at the national (sub-national) level.”. 43 education systems responded to this item, including 29 from EU countries and 35 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “If your system uses methods to identify students at risk of leaving education and training early (dropping out) at the national (sub-national) level, does it use data on attendance or absence/non-attendance to identify those students (i.e. is attendance or absence/non‑attendance used to predict whether students drop out from education)?”. 44 education systems responded to this item, including 31 from EU countries and 36 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
Note: Responses are based on the following question: “Do system-level policies exist that require or encourage schools to conduct (regular) evaluations of school attendance problems as part of their internal evaluation (self-evaluation)?”. 44 education systems responded to this item, including 30 from EU countries and 36 from OECD countries.
Source: OECD (2025[2]), OECD Policy Survey on School Attendance Problems.
← 1. Unjustified absences cannot exceed: a) 10 days, consecutive or intermittent, in the 1st cycle of primary education, b) Twice the number of weekly teaching hours per subject in other cycles or levels of education, without prejudice to the provisions of the following paragraph (Portuguese Assembly, 2012[250]).
← 2. Currency conversions in this chapter are based on OECD (2026[251]).
← 3. Teen parent unit a specialised part of a secondary school that provides education and wraparound support for students who are pregnant or parenting, with nearby early childhood services for their children (Ministry of Education of New Zealand, 2025[230]).
← 4. Norwegian national service for special needs education, operating under the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.
← 5. Successful educational actions are evidence-based practices grounded in dialogic learning that can advance educational success for all students, including improved attainment, better school co-existence, greater participation of families and communities, and enhanced inclusive learning environments (Roca et al., 2024[191]).
← 6. The paper estimates teachers’ value-added to attendance and value-added to achievement.
← 7. The Schooling Equity Index is an indicator that estimates the extent to which young people face socio-economic barriers to educational achievement. Based on this indicator, schools in New Zealand are then divided into three groups by the number of socio-economic barriers to achievement: fewer, moderate and more (Ministry of Education of New Zealand, 2024[252]).
.