The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

Tough Love and approaches towards school attendance problems.

Children crossing the road to school Image by Rawpixel

The proverb the road to hell is paved with good intentions is a rather extreme position to take in response to an analysis of views. However, a series of articles published this year has prompted me to really consider: can good intentions and misalignment of evidence based approaches lead to unintended outcomes that further exacerbate a complex problem?

The rhetoric regarding school attendance problems is set to intensify as we near the release of the findings from the Australian Senate Inquiry into school refusal in August. The report, set to be released in June, has been pushed further back to allow the committee to gather more data. It is perhaps no coincidence that an almost identical parliamentary review is being held in the UK to investigate persistent absence and support for disadvantaged pupils. As a former policy officer and supporting students and families facing this problem I have been following these reviews closely. Whilst there are obvious differences in jurisdictions, families and students experience of school attendance problems through the submissions is starkly similar. All submissions detail a lack of access to allied health services and limited understanding of the problem.

I write this article in response to two articles I read during the week both presenting views on school attendance problems. My intent is to highlight to readers and policy makers that we must be wary of any rhetoric or advice that presents linear explanations and solutions to complex problems. I also want to highlight the problematic nature of good intentions wrapped up in evidence based approaches when misaligned with systems thinking.

At present, I see most linear explanations and solutions to school attendance problems sitting within the ‘tough love’ camp. Victorian shadow minister for education Matthew Bach, also former school Principal, might be credited with adding spark to this media rhetoric. Back in January 2023 he published an article in the Age newspaper presenting that:

School refusal stems from anxiety, which – as we know – is a serious mental health condition. And because of this, parents naturally empathise deeply with their children. Yet what the growing number of children who refuse to attend school need most is tough love. Going to school must simply be non-negotiable.

In February, Clarissa Bye in the Daily Telegraph furthered this rhetoric in an article School refusal problem hampered by woke ‘mental health days’. Bye detailed a trivial narrative of having ten days off school after a falling out with her friends. The solution was the writer was forced back to school, the problem resolved itself and she went on to be school Dux and captain. Bye, sums up her limited knowledge and understanding of school attendance problems in the lines:

Now there’s a new phrase for skipping school called “school refusal”.

The article hinges on the Australian Senate Inquiry submission of two clinical psychologists Dr Danielle Einstein and Dr Judith Locke . They argue that mental health days, helicopter parenting and an overemphasis on diagnosing anxiety among students has exacerbated the problem. Allowing students to be away from school due to mental health gives the message that school is overwhelming and time away is needed.

The article acknowledges that there are some young people who do have anxiety. However, for a vast majority of students there is an over pathologising of the normal challenges that all young people face.

Yet of all the disorders you can have, anxiety is the one that is most likely to be able to be treated, the psychologists say, because there is a “huge” success rate by simply learning to face and surmount challenges.

The approach advocated by the writer in line with the psychologists is parents need to ignore the calls of distress and promote resilience.

Just this week Claire Lehmann, a journalist, published an article "Helicopter parenting won’t help our kids’ anxieties" in the Australian. Similar to Bach’s and Bye’s articles she acknowledges that many school attendance problems have their origins in mental health and anxiety. However, the perpetuating factor across most presentations is ‘over parenting’. Lehmann draws in the work of Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff’s book The Coddling of the American Mind, to suggest that overparenting is on par with abuse and neglect in its interference with healthy childhood development.

Lehmann’s approach is on par with the tough love camp in advocating that parents are responsible for their children attending school and overcoming feelings of anxiety.

In the context of school refusal, instead of letting a child stay home and play video games all day, a better strategy is graded exposure therapy in partnership with a school.

All articles presented are well intended and come from the evidence approach of gradual exposure therapy. This is an evidence based approach for supporting individuals who present with specific anxiety towards a situation or place. It is the approach used by most psychologists to treat childhood anxiety. There is also much anecdotal evidence and clinical support that parental accommodation (note none of the articles make reference to the clinical term) can be a perpetuating factor for school attendance problems. The work of Dr Eli Lebowitz, author of Breaking Free of Child Anxiety & OCD, supports that parents accommodating presents the message that parents do not feel the child is capable of facing the situation on their own. There are also occasions when there is no anxiety and parents do not get their children to school or the young person is truanting. Parental withdrawal and truancy is not school can’t!

Good Intentions Misaligned with Systems thinking

School attendance problems are complex. The approaches towards school attendance problems extends over legislative, clinical, social and educational fields. From a broad perspective the road to hell is paved with good intentions when they fail to appreciate the complexity of the issue, apply generalisations and a one-size-fits all approach. An article written this week in the Guardian UK “If you think absent pupils are skiving, just try spending a day in a school” provides an excellent insight into the complexity of school attendance problems. Alternatively, read my submission to the inquiry.

We must remember that gradual exposure therapy is a clinical treatment. The treatment is applied after thorough investigation and understanding from the clinician that there is in fact elements of parental accommodation within the anxiety problem. Gradual exposure therapy is undertaken with close alignment with the school to determine the bioecological nature of the problem. Parents may have valid concerns and reasons for over accommodation (e.g. suicide, eating disorders, bullying). Gradual is key to this approach. The young person is part of identifying the problem and developing the solution. Gradual exposure therapy is not tough love.

Being in tune with our children is not being ‘woke’ and it is not a sign of weakness. To apply a tough love approach and not follow a proper gradual exposure protocol exploring and seeking to address the root cause of the anxiety can be dangerous. From experience, it also often leads to the problem becoming entrenched. Instead as parents, clinicians and educators we must work together listen and making decisions on the best interest of the young person applying all the knowledge we have at hand.

As we draw closer to the publishing of the findings of the Australian Senate Inquiry I hope that systems building our understanding and a broad approach towards addressing school attendance problems is salient in the recommendations.