Playing Truant in Mind:
the social exclusion of quiet pupils
Janet Collins
The Open University
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, The Queen's University of Belfast, August 27th - 30th 1998
Correspondence
Dr Janet Collins
The Centre for Curriculum and Teaching Studies
The School Of Education
The Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
England
Tel: 01908 652584
Fax: 01908 654111
Playing Truant in Mind:
the social exclusion of quiet pupils
Janet Collins
The Open University
Abstract
The government have expressed a commitment to reducing the number of pupils truanting or excluded from our schools. The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) has recently published alarming figures which show that at least one million children play truant each year. Surveys involving anonymous pupil questionnaires (for example, Gray & Jesson, 1990; O’Keefe, 1994) suggest that the incidence of both blanket truancy and post-registration truancy are much greater than was believed by the schools or than is reflected in official figures.
Whilst acknowledging the need to reduce the levels of physical truancy from school, my research (Collins, 1994; 1996) suggests that the emphasis on physical truancy masks an even greater problem in terms of those children who attend school but who ‘play truant in mind’. These children, which elsewhere have been called ‘quiet, tend to have good attendance records and are physically present in the classroom. However, their inability or unwillingness to participate in the learning activities which are planned and presented by their teachers prevents them from learning. A comparison of research findings suggest that there is a possible connection between both forms of truancy. It would appear that the same individual, social and in school factors are responsible for both physical truancy and truancy in mind. If the causes of both forms of truancy are similar, then presumably, similar strategies are required to reduce both.
The aim of this paper is to explore these common factors and to highlight the need to recognise and reduce the incidence of ‘truanting in mind’. Following an introduction to the issues of truancy this paper presents an account of the research study on which it is based. The paper then introduces the concept of ‘playing truant in mind’. Comparing the findings of research into absenteeism and my own work with quiet pupils this paper then explores the possible causes of both forms of truancy. This paper identifies a number of commonalties between physical absenteeism and truanting in mind. The paper concludes with a brief summary of strategies for reducing truancy and increasing participation in schools.
Introduction
New Labour have expressed a commitment to reducing the number of pupils truanting or excluded from our schools. The Social Exclusion Unit's (SEU) remit is to report to the Prime Minister on how to:
make a step-change in the scale of truancy and exclusions from school, and to find better solutions for those who have been excluded.
(SEU, 1998, p 1)
The aim is to reduce truancy by a third by the year 2002 (SEU, 1998, Annex A). Several government departments already run specialist funds to support exclusion and truancy projects. The DFEE runs two: the Standards Fund, of which £22 million goes to attendance and behaviour projects, and New Start which aims to bring together multi-agency programmes for young people aged 14 and over who are disaffected and at risk. Other projects are funded through the Single Regeneration Budget and both the Home Office and The Department of Health sponsor projects through mainstream funding.
Absenteeism from school is a large and very visible problem. The official figures published by the SEU are likely to be alarming for parents and teachers alike.
About one million children - around 15 per cent of all pupils - took at least one half day off without authority. In primary schools, the average time missed per absent pupil totalled five days over the year. For secondary schools, it was ten days.
(SEU, 1998, section 1.2)
However, there is growing evidence that the official figures are a gross underestimation of the real truancy levels. Surveys involving anonymous pupil questionnaires (for example, Gray & Jesson, 1990; O’Keefe, 1994) suggest that the incidence of both blanket truancy and post-registration truancy are much greater than was believed by the schools or than is reflected in official figures. About a third of the nearly 38, 000 students surveyed for the Truancy Unit's 1994 DfE study (O'Keeffe, 1994) admitted truanting at least once during the previous six weeks. Among 16-year-olds, ten per cent of all pupil said they were truanting at least once a week.
Whilst there is some disagreement about the actual extent of the problem there does seem to be a general agreement that truancy levels are too high and that strategies which reduce truancy are to be welcomed. One can understand the attraction for the government in being seen: to measure truancy levels; to set targets for improvement; and to be able to measure improvement in a schools performance.
However, I believe that the emphasis on school attendance masks a serious underlying issue, namely pupils’ disaffection with school and lack of engagement with the learning experiences which school offers. Getting pupils into school is only the first step towards solving the problem of truancy. Once they are in school we also need to ensure that all pupils are active participants in the social and academic life of the school. Classroom observations of quiet withdrawn pupils with good attendance records (Collins, 1994; 1996) identifies a hitherto under researched issue of pupils who are physically present but whose inability or unwillingness to participate in the academic activities of the classroom mean that they are, to use a term from Young (1984), effectively ‘playing truant in mind’.
Elsewhere I have argued that ‘the quiet pupils’ compliance did not necessarily equate with a commitment to learning’ (Collins, 1996, p 2). I argued that pupils who habitually exhibit quiet withdrawn and non participatory behaviour are ‘playing truant in mind whilst present in body, [seeing] neither the relevance nor the reason for all they are asked to do’ (Young, 1984, p12). Although they completed the minimum of work, they appeared to have little interest or investment in the outcome. ‘They conform, and even play the system, but many do not allow the knowledge presented to them to make any deep impact on their view of reality’ (Barnes, 1979, p 17). For learning to take place the knowledge has to make some kind of impact on the pupils’ view of the world. Learning something involves a change in an individual’s thought processes, knowledge or their ability to do something.
We have no evidence of the numbers of pupils who play truant in mind. Consequently, this is effectively an invisible problem. The fact that pupils who truant in mind may well have good attendance records and are not likely to present discipline problems to their teachers contributes to this invisibility.
However, my research (Collins, 1994; 1996) does provide some insights into the problems and causes of truanting in mind behaviour. This research, which began in 1990, involves an ongoing in-depth longitudinal study of twelve pupils who habitually exhibited non-participatory behaviour in school. Drawing on observations and interviews with the pupils, their parents and teachers this research provides evidence of the pupils truanting in mind. It explores, in depth, the possible causes of this behaviour. The focus of this paper is a comparison of my findings with the findings of those researching physical truancy. This paper highlights the fact that both behaviours appear to have similar route causes.
This paper begins with an account of the research study on which it is based. It then provides accounts of pupils playing truant in mind. Comparing the findings of research into absenteeism and my own work with quiet pupils this paper then explores the possible causes of both forms of truancy. This paper identifies a number of commonalties between physical absenteeism and truanting in mind. The paper concludes with a summary of possible strategies for reducing truancy and increasing participation in the educational activities of the classroom.
The Research
The original research grew out of a growing frustration at my inability to communicate with, and therefore teach, a group of quiet withdrawn pupils who seemed unable or unwilling to participate in the learning activities in my classroom. These pupils were physically present in the classroom and their quiet seemingly compliant behaviour did not present obvious problems in terms of discipline or classroom management. However, early conversations with these pupils suggested that they were not actively engaged in the learning process. I subsequently came to describe these pupils as ‘playing truant in mind’.
Beginning what was originally a three year research project my aims were to understand the possible causes of the pupils’ non-participatory or truanting in mind behaviour and to design and implement teaching strategies which would empower the pupils to play a more active role in their education. In order to address these aims I embarked on a longitudinal ethnographic study drawing on semi-structured interviews (with the pupils, their parents and their teachers) as well as extensive classroom observations in both primary and secondary schools. I also initiated an intervention programme in the pupils’ primary school.
The focus of my research were twelve pupils, ten girls and two boys, who were, at the beginning of the research, all in the same Year 6 class in primary school. Exhibiting quiet and non-participatory behaviour in class was the one criterion which united the group of selected pupils. In many other respects the pupils were extremely diverse. Ten of the twelve selected pupils were girls, which raised the issue of a possible link between truanting in mind behaviour and gender. In terms of racial origins the group was mixed. Two pupils were of African-Caribbean origin, whilst one was of mixed race and another Asian.
During the three years of data collection, and despite the fact that the pupils transferred from one primary school to seven secondary schools, I was able to maintain contact with ten of the twelve pupils and their families. During that time eleven of the pupils had good attendance records and Charlene was the only pupil with a record of intermittent physical truancy. It is perhaps indicative of the relationship between Charlene’s family and the school that I was unable to obtain an interview with members of her family. I lost contact with Charlene altogether during the second year of the research when Charlene and her family ‘disappeared’ from the area without leaving a forwarding address.
Playing Truant in Mind
Playing truant in mind occurs when a pupil is physically present in the classroom but who, for whatever reason, does not participate in the experience which has been planned and presented by the teacher. Identifying truancy in mind can be difficult. Pupils can truant during any activity irrespective of whether it requires observable physical action or not. However, participation, or lack of it, is more easily observable in some situations than others. For example, pupils who are required to read silently could be actively engaged or they could simply be waiting for the lesson to be over. In a classroom of sighted children those who are looking in the right direction with their eyes open are more likely to be reading than those who are not. Admittedly the child who has his or her eyes closed might be thinking about the text but they might be thinking about a completely unrelated matter. What is going on in the child’s mind and the extent to which the pupil has indeed read and understood the texts can only be ascertained by talking to the child and/or by assessing their ability to complete a task which requires knowledge of the text.
Much more obvious and easy to identify are instances in which the pupils’ playing truant in mind simply do not engages with the physical task which had been set by their teacher. Elsewhere, (Collins. 1996, p 36-47) I identified four types of withdrawal or truanting behaviour exhibited by quiet pupils. I described these as 'being invisible', 'refusing to participate', 'hesitation' and 'an inappropriate focus'. These are summarised with illustrative examples below.
In some situations pupils would have no direct contact with the teacher during a lesson. Often there was evidence to suggest that where the pupils sat or how they behaved made them 'invisible' and minimised their contact with the teacher.
Alternatively, pupils would be invited to participate but would 'refuse' to join in. Sometimes the refusal would be direct and possibly supported by a seemingly valid reason. On other occasions the pupils would not acknowledge the request; they would remain still and quiet and avoid making eye contact with the teacher.
Whilst these two forms of truancy were relatively easy to detect the remaining two presented more of a problem and required closer observation. In both of these situations the pupils appeared to be busy but closer analysis revealed that the pupils were not actively engaged in the task set by the teacher. In the third form of truancy pupils exhibited 'hesitation' and would remain on the periphery of an activity. They appeared busy but never really became engaged in the task. Sometimes the pupils seemed to be afraid of participating.
In some lessons Justina did attempt to join in with class activities but her participation was minimal or 'hesitant'. In my observations of Justina there are many examples of this kind of behaviour in which she seemed to be on the fringe of an activity. In craft, for example, Justina spent significantly more time watching her partners working than she did actively engaged in the task. Similarly, during a practical lesson Justina walked round the science lab, touching some of the equipment with the tips of her fingers but rarely carrying out the intended experiment. On both occasions she seemed reluctant to 'get
her hands dirty' by handling the equipment.
(Collins, 1996, p 43)
In both these cases it would appear that the teachers were expecting pupils to play a physical and active role in the lesson. They were expected to learn by doing. Having the experience of making the model or carrying out the experiment was deemed by the teacher to have educational value. In the case of the craft lesson Justina might have learned something from watching her peers. However, as Justina walked around the science lab on her own she never even saw someone else carry out an experiment. It is difficult to imagine that simply touching the equipment with the tips of her fingers can have taught her anything about the science she was supposed to be learning. The fact that the teacher did not comment on her behaviour might, however, reinforced her non-participation.
The final, and to my mind the most disturbing, form of truancy was where pupils had 'an inappropriate focus'. In these instances pupils would be actively involved in an activity which had little or no bearing on the learning task presented by the teacher. This concerned me because in the majority of instances the teacher was either unaware of what the pupil was doing or, worse, condoned the behaviour. The most dramatic example of an inappropriate focus occurred during a French oral lesson during which Justina did not speak a single word of French.
Her one interaction with the teacher was conducted in English and focused on a point of detail about the setting out of her work. He seemed oblivious to her lack of participation in the oral part of the lesson. When, out of sheer frustration, I asked Justina to read what she had just written she said, ‘I don't speak French because it confuses me’.
(Collins, 1996, p 45)
Despite this refusal to speak the language Justina later described herself as being ‘really pleased with myself in French. I’ve got really loads of ticks in my book and I am glad I know a lot about it now’. Her physical presence in the classroom and positive statements from the teacher reinforced Justina’s image of herself as a successful student. In one respect she was a model pupil. Unlike some of her more vocal peers who seemed intent on disturbing the lesson, Justina did not cause the teacher any discipline problems. She handed her neatly completed work in on time. However, in other far more serious respects she was a failure, she had learned nothing of the spoken language. I believe this kind of behaviour is eventually more detrimental to learning than physical truancy. Justina presence in the classroom did not ensure that she learned the language. However, her physical presence masked the fact that there was a serious problem.
Sadly, non of the teachers in the study appeared to notice or be alarmed by pupils’ lack of participation in curriculum activities. Moreover, even if individual teachers had noticed the truanting that went on in their lesson it would take time and energy to establish if this pattern was repeated in other lessons. I think it unlikely that teachers would easily be able to find the time or motivation to ask their colleague about pupils like Justina who appear on the surface to be model pupils.