Familycentric School as a Solution to School Refusal/School Can’t

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

About the topic, the topic is not original, a lot of literature have been written on this issue but it is still very relevant, as schools are still very schoolcentric and not always include the community and
families in their decision, organisation and planning. The paper brings a innovative approach, focusing on legislation and on the social and political debate on the issue. The findings are structured from the “claims” and needs claimed by the parent’s. However, it does not include the views and perspectives of those oposing to familycentric schools.

This study contributes to the Australian experience of a part of the debate, those in favor of familycentered schooling.

I would suggest clarify the methodology. It is a qualitative discourse analysis but it is not clear how the information has been classified. The study is an analysis of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry. Therefore it is restricted to a political and legal perspective. It would be interesting to include or to cross with other studies also linked to the evolution of the public debate on family-school-community partnership in Australian society. Including, for example, historical claims of Family parent’s associations, or other education stateholders, such as decision makers in education (Government? Regional goverments? Education committies?).

I would suggest include a Discussion and Conclusions part

It seems to me that description, analysis and suggestions are a bit mixed up. I would suggest to make a clear separation. 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors;

 

This article makes an original and timely contribution to the discourse on school refusal and proposes a compelling alternative—Familycentric schooling. The paper is grounded in rich qualitative data from a parliamentary inquiry and builds upon a robust theoretical foundation, particularly the work of Pushor and colleagues. The narrative is persuasive and the implications for policy and practice are well-articulated.

However, the methodological section could be clarified: while the paper states that submissions were hand-sorted and Leximancer was used, more detail on how thematic coding was validated or how reliability was ensured would strengthen the research design.

The English expression is largely clear, but some sentences are overly long or repetitive, occasionally obscuring key points. Consider revision for greater conciseness and clarity, especially in the findings and discussion sections.

Finally, although the article appropriately references the literature, the integration of some citations could be more seamless, particularly in the discussion of autism and school refusal.

Overall, this is a significant and valuable article that advances the conversation around inclusion and parent engagement in schooling.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Authors,

 

The English expression is largely clear, but some sentences are overly long or repetitive, occasionally obscuring key points. Consider revision for greater conciseness and clarity, especially in the findings and discussion sections.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting and locally oriented.

- Parliamentary inquiries –as in this case- are valuable for policy development. They can promote transparency, inform policy and provide a platform for public debate. However, they can also be time-consuming, costly and potentially hinder decision-making.

- In the article there are many sources mainly updated.

- Methodology part is detailed, but it also consists of some results.

- The sample size is acceptable (line 179)

- The results are linked to previous studies.

- Findings are correctly divided to subsections according to the themes emerged.

- There are the submitters’ own words, which makes it more interesting to read, but the inquiry should have been in an appendix.

• There is not a part named “Conclusion”.
• Pay more attention to the Journal's guidelines including the use of the reference system.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is more clear now. I think the inclusion of discussion and conclusions has helped a lot to the understanding of the paper. 

Author Response

Thank you for your consideration of my paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Sirs,

1. Theoretical background and literature context – Can be improved:
   The manuscript draws on relevant theoretical frameworks, particularly Pushor’s Familycentric schooling model. However, the theoretical integration could be more nuanced and critical. The literature review tends to emphasize one dominant perspective (Pushor) without adequately contrasting it with alternative or critical views on parental involvement, homeschooling, or school refusal. Expanding on diverse conceptual perspectives and more systematically situating the Familycentric model within broader educational theory would strengthen the article’s scholarly contribution.

2. Research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods – Can be improved:
   While the qualitative data source (submissions to a parliamentary inquiry) is clear, the methodology section lacks detail and rigor. A clearer articulation of the research design, rationale for using thematic analysis, coding reliability, ethical considerations, and limitations is necessary to support the empirical claims. Specific research questions or aims should be stated explicitly.

3. Coherence, balance, and strength of argument – Can be improved:
   The arguments are compelling but often overly driven by advocacy rather than balanced academic critique. The author makes a strong case for Familycentric schooling but should more critically evaluate the challenges or limitations of this approach. The discussion would benefit from engaging opposing views and potential counterarguments to enrich the analysis and improve academic soundness.

4. Presentation of results – Can be improved:
   The results are rich and grounded in real-world testimonies, but the structure is sometimes repetitive and anecdotal. A clearer synthesis of key themes, supported by representative quotations, and a summary table of thematic findings could help clarify and elevate the presentation.

5. Referencing – Yes, but can be improved:
   The manuscript is extensively referenced and cites relevant sources, including grey literature. However, several citations (e.g., “Pushor, 2015a” and others) are overused, creating an imbalance. The references list also includes some outdated and potentially non-peer-reviewed sources. Recent and international empirical studies on school refusal, homeschooling, and family-school partnerships could be better integrated.

6. Conclusions supported by findings – Can be improved:
   The conclusions are aligned with the findings, but they are somewhat speculative at times. While the case for Familycentric schooling is clearly made, stronger empirical linkage between the thematic findings and the proposed systemic changes is necessary. A clearer distinction between evidence-based outcomes and policy recommendations is advised.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Sirs,

The manuscript’s English is generally understandable, but stylistic improvements are needed. Some sentences are long and convoluted, and the tone occasionally shifts toward informal or advocacy-style language. A careful language edit would improve clarity, flow, and academic professionalism.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed feedback. I have made the following changes which can be seen in the table attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful revisions. I commend the improvements made to both content and tone. Below are some targeted suggestions to guide a final round of refinement:

1. Scope of Theoretical Engagement
   While the focus on Pushor’s model is justified by the special issue theme, a more explicit framing of how this model compares or contrasts with other views—even briefly—would better ground your argument in broader literature and pre-empt criticism of narrowness.

2. Methodology Transparency
   Your description of the coding and sorting of submissions has improved, but further clarification is needed:

   • Why was Leximancer chosen over other qualitative tools?

   • How were the initial themes developed and validated before Leximancer use?

   • Were any inter-rater reliability checks conducted?

   • What ethical framework guided this use of public submissions?

3. Tone and Language
   The incorporation of tentative language (“may”, “might”, “could”) is effective. That said, a few passages still carry an informal or emotionally charged tone that risks undermining the scholarly positioning. Consider reviewing sentences with strong emotional emphasis for neutrality.

4. Results Structure
   Although you include quotations and frequency counts, the structure of the results section remains dense and occasionally repetitive. A summary table (e.g., themes | description | % of submissions | representative quote) would add clarity and reader accessibility.

5. Discussion Balance
   The paper is clearly motivated by a need for systemic change. However, a more critical discussion of the potential limitations or risks of the Familycentric model—alongside its strengths—would increase the manuscript’s analytical depth.

6. Referencing and Sources
   The addition of government reports and recent data is helpful. Still, consider integrating a few more peer-reviewed international sources to provide comparative insight, even if the context is distinct.

7. Conclusion and Implications
   The final section is much improved in tone and clarity. To enhance the scholarly impact, tie policy suggestions more explicitly to the thematic findings (e.g., how each major theme logically supports a given recommendation).

8. Proofreading
   The text is largely clear, but a final round of professional editing could address remaining issues of sentence length, repetition, and flow.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Sirs,

Improvements in tone are evident, with clearer academic phrasing and a more neutral voice in key sections. Some sentences remain verbose or overly complex, and a final proofreading pass by a native speaker or editor is advisable.

The text is largely clear, but a final round of professional editing also could address remaining issues of sentence length, repetition, and flow.

Author Response

My concern is that now that I have made Dr Pushor’s changes the following comments have been addressed. By adding in the Independent Schools Australia report, and using concrete examples as per Dr Pushor’s recommendations, I have addressed the following points now. I would also add that the paper is not really drive by a need for systematic change, the chances of that are slim at best (having spoken with the government on several occasions, it’s clear this outcome is impossible), it’s about reporting on data that was collected in a systematic, and unusually thorough way. The data has been collected, and parents have reported on their experience, it aligns with the theoretical lens proposed by Pushor and Pushor et al., so that there is an alignment between what they have argued is (not) happening in schools and what these parents report as having driven them to homeschooling. As I have stated in the paper, homeschooling is not desired by these parents, the government’s own data show that most families do not want to do it and a significant minority report they held a very negative belief and attitude toward homeschooling before it became necessary. This finding aligns with Pushor’s work in that it shows what happens when schools are perceived to have failed their families:

The incorporation of tentative language (“may”, “might”, “could”) is effective. That said, a few passages still carry an informal or  emotionally charged tone that risks undermining the scholarly positioning. Consider reviewing sentences with strong emotional  emphasis for neutrality.

The paper is clearly motivated by a need for systemic change. However, a more critical discussion of the potential limitations or risks of the Familycentric model—alongside its strengths—would increase the manuscript’s analytical depth.

In relation to the following comments from the reviewer, I would suggest there are some issues in presenting what they call for.

 

For example, they ask for a summary table but what should I put in it? A table of all the ~2,000 submissions would be incredibly long and arduous to produce. Each response is alluded to in the paper in the footnotes. There is also a link to the government’s report on the process. I can add a link to the spreadsheet if needed in a footnote. But, I’m not sure what that adds as it’s just a link to each of the submissions in an easier-to-access format. Nobody is going to read all those submissions, they’re very long (and some of them are a bit odd).

 

Although you include quotations and frequency counts, the structure of the results section remains dense and occasionally repetitive. A summary table (e.g., themes | description | % of submissions |representative quote) would add clarity and reader accessibility.

In relation to the following comment, there are many references in the list that are not to government sources. There are distinct references to all the outcomes I list that are related to school refusal/school can’t. Of the sources that are government data are there because they are the ones publishing the statistics and the data. It’s a new area in Australia, even though we’ve had school refusal as long as we’ve had schools like everyone else, but the government, because of their role in funding and managing education, are at the vanguard.

 

In addition, the current tools we use to address these issues that result from school refusal are psychological in nature (as I’ve noted and shown why it hasn’t worked) and most of them are not addressing other, alternative approaches that may be more effective as the current approaches (again, for example the Fisher, 2023 reference), which are psychological, aren’t working.

The addition of government reports and recent data is helpful. Still, consider integrating a few more peer-reviewed international sources to provide comparative insight, even if the context is distinct.

 
The final comment is a bit strange. The purpose of the paper isn’t to suggest policy; the ISA report I have now added, it just came out last  week, does just that much better than a journal article. Also, as I’ve noted above, I am in no position to change policy even if I wanted to, as I have said, I’ve had meetings with ministers and their advisors (and some very recalcitrant public servants) and they are not going to change things because, as one said to me, it’d be like trying to turn around an oil tanker with a full load. Fair enough.

 

Rather, this paper shows that what ISA is advocating for, the need for schools to have stronger relationships with parents and the NDIS advisors who are working with them, would have prevented school can’t and kept those children in school.
 
The final section is much improved in tone and clarity. To enhance the scholarly impact, tie policy suggestions more explicitly to the thematic findings (e.g., how each major theme logically supports a given recommendation).

I am also aware that the thematic findings are just tools to access the data. The data as a whole tell a much more important story than its parts, that is that there is an issue when schools reportedly don’t listen to parents, parents feel they are unwelcome and their children refuse school which reportedly leads them to be more open, in spite of ingrained prejudices against homeschooling, to do the unthinkable and homeschool. The paper has no need to advocate for anything, it is merely showing that, without a feeling of welcomeness in the school, parents report they wind up in homeschooling despite their lack of desire to do it, and their beliefs that homeschoolers are weird (not reported, but it’s anecdotal and implied in the government data).