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

Abstract

School refusal, sometimes called school can’t, is a growing problem in Australia and around the world. It has coincided with a period of distrust in schools and a sense that schools are not serving the needs of their communities. One approach that can bridge the gap between schools and their communities is Familycentric schooling. This approach involves bringing families into the classroom and working with parents as leaders alongside teachers. This paper examined submissions to a parliamentary inquiry into homeschooling after a period of school can’t. These families reported they wanted to support their children, but the school was not welcoming. The paper finds that Familycentric schooling, with its approach of welcoming parent knowledge in the classroom and working alongside professionals to support young people in their learning and engagement in school, could be a solution to prevent school can’t and encourage young people to reengage with school. It suggests that the role of schools has changed and that Familycentric schooling may help schools adapt to the needs of twenty-first century parents.

1. Introduction

Schoolcentric education is the principal way schools are organised (M. A. Lawson, 2003). This term refers to the ways that schools hold families at a distance (see also Fisher, 2023, for the issues with parents not being part of the schooling process), which negatively impacts all participants in the school community (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005). Even where attempts are made to disrupt this distance, it can be difficult to overcome (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005; Holzman, 2016). Research for decades (see Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995) has shown that parental involvement, particularly through home-based activities supporting the work of schools (Wong et al., 2018), improves students’ success, happiness, attendance and satisfaction with their education (see also Houtenville & Conway, 2008). However, barriers remain, especially in the case of students who face educational challenges (Oranga et al., 2022). The focus on parental involvement principally attends to the academic achievement of young people, so that “schools are the unit of analysis and children’s academic achievement is the primary focus” (M. A. Lawson, 2003, p. 79). M. A. Lawson (2003) suggested that the guiding principle undergirding schools’ desire for parental involvement is the school’s needs, and how parents can assist and guide the school in its role, ensuring young people experience academic success (see also H. Lawson & Briar-Lawson, 1997). While there is much criticism of this approach (Pushor, 2023), its failure to meet young people’s needs is seen in the number of families pushed out of school and into homeschooling through school refusal.

School refusal, called ‘School can’t’ in Australia (Amin et al., 2024), has been a topic of increasing interest as the numbers have increased. School can’t has been the topic of an Australian Senate Inquiries (Clark, 2023), and senators have shown interest in the issue (Duffy, 2023) as increasing numbers of young people absent themselves from school because they find attendance impossible. Families report feeling blamed and shamed for their decision to homeschool as a result of school can’t (see ISA, 2025). Funding arrangements from the Commonwealth to the states have changed in response to the issue. Funding is increasingly tied to states’ success in increasing school attendance and completion rates (Duffy, 2024). Senate Inquiry data from 2022 shows the scale of the issue and the reasons the federal government is trying to address it, with more than half of all Australian students attending less than 90% of school days (Clark, 2023). ABC data suggest 39% of parents reported an experience of school can’t, where the child would not attend school at all (Duffy, 2023). The issues around school refusal are not confined to Australia and are affecting increasing numbers of young people around the world (see Connolly et al., 2022). As such, increasing numbers of young people find themselves forced out of school as attendance becomes impossible. Significantly, it is a form of school distress (Connolly et al., 2022) where the child is traumatised by attending school, and the symptoms disappear only when the child stays home (Havik & Ingul, 2021). School can’t young people feel safe with their parents, but do not want to attend school without their parents’ support (see Fisher, 2023). As such, as a forthcoming Independent Schools Australia report suggests, parents are central to preventing school can’t and solving the issue once it has arisen (ISA, 2025).

Schools have adopted a variety of approaches to ‘solve’ the issue, usually involving parents forcibly leaving the child at school (Havik & Ingul, 2021; Queensland Government: Policy and Procedure Register, 2023) and not ‘pandering’ to the child’s feelings of stress and anxiety on the school grounds (Fisher, 2023, explains why this approach does not work). In Australia, a good deal of concern has been noted about the effects of school can’t on young people, families and schools (see the television piece by Amin et al., 2024 to see how the discourse has been constructed in Australia). The government in the Australian state of Queensland, for example, produces advice for schools on “enforcing parents’ obligations to ensure children are enrolled and attend school on every school day” (Queensland Government: Policy and Procedure Register, 2023, paragraph 2). This policy states that all parents have a legal obligation to ensure their child attends school, regardless of the child’s mentally ill health that may prevent such attendance. This policy is repeated in other jurisdictions. In all cases, parents are forcibly removed from the school, refusing their child at the school gate or classroom door, and the child is expected to remain in the classroom or on school grounds and parents are required to leave. As such, it can be seen that the school’s needs are centred, in line with M. A. Lawson’s (2003) term ‘schoolcentrism’, and parents are not invited to be part of the process (Pushor, 2023) and are actively shut out of the schools’ responses to children’s needs. Fisher (2023) argued that this approach is completely inappropriate and fails every time. Rather, a tiered approach with parents actively engaged and involved is suggested by school advocacy groups but has not been adopted widely in Australia (see ISA, 2025). While this approach will be highlighted later in the paper (see Discussion below), a tiered approach effectively means that schools evaluate how deeply a child is refusing school and identify effective strategies, in consultation with families, to ensure they are able to stay in school. These strategies range from the classroom level to whole-school approaches.

What is missing in the current approach to managing school can’t is parent knowledge (Pushor, 2023; ISA, 2025). Parent knowledge is different from parental involvement (Pushor, 2023); rather, it is an approach that counters the marginalisation of parents in school and facilitates direct communication between educators and parents in a way that names and talks about the specific knowledge that parents hold in a conversation with teachers’ professional knowledge (Pushor, 2015a). An approach that centres family and welcomes parent knowledge through leadership in the school can ameliorate the fear and anxiety felt by school can’t children in the school. It facilitates an open discussion of parents’ experiences of their children and the discussions they are having at home, providing the school with reports of what they are hearing and strategies they know work. As will be seen in the data presented for this paper (see Findings below), there is space here for other professionals involved in the child’s life to provide concrete strategies that can assist the school in developing resources and teaching moments that can assist the child, encourage them to feel welcome and keep them in school. Chen and Pushor (2023) and Pushor (2023) propose Familycentric education to help families manage the issues faced by young people in twenty-first century schooling. Familycentric education considers how parent knowledge (Chen & Pushor, 2023) can bring leadership (Pushor, 2015b) and community to classrooms preventing attendance trauma and stress (see also ISA, 2025). Through specific and concrete experiences in the home, and with outside school specialists (including therapists who aid that child), parents can bring in examples of how to help that child learn and provide knowledge of how that child can be helped to participate in the classroom. For example, if the child needs headphones to concentrate, talking and negotiating with the teacher on how these can be used effectively in class can be a way to bring parent knowledge into the classroom. This knowledge can help the child and family see the school is acting in ways that support the child (as will be seen in the data, many parents who find themselves with a school can’t young person they have a therapist who uses these approaches to help the child learn). In this paper, I argue that parent knowledge of their child’s needs, and an invitation to increase their engagement with school more broadly, may prevent or reduce school can’t, returning these young people to mainstream education.

Data for this paper are drawn from parents’ submissions to a parliamentary inquiry in the third largest state in Australia. The inquiry was into a legislative change into homeschooling that would have required all homeschooling families to teach the Australian Curriculum in the same ways as schools. These submitters reported that their child had already rejected the school environment, which centred the Australian Curriculum and not the child. State and non-state schools’ insistence on the Australian curriculum as the main organising principle of the school had led to school can’t. Their experiences of school can’t had left them with no other choice but to homeschool. The submitters argued that school can’t had forced these children into homeschooling. Already, the link to a Familycentric school approach can be seen, where homeschooling, because it takes the child as its central focus and relies on parents as leaders in education, is positively received by the school can’t community (see Fisher, 2023). As such, in line with Independent Schools Australia research (ISA, 2025), it is proposed that Queensland schools should trial a Familycentric approach to ameliorate their current experiences of school can’t.

Submissions that specifically addressed school can’t are analysed below. These data were selected as they show the extreme outcomes of schoolcentric schooling: where young people and their families report feeling pushed out of school altogether. The submitters reported being pushed out of school due to either their child’s trauma responses, the school being unable to meet their needs, their child refusing to enter the school grounds or a combination of these factors. What all these submitters shared was that they had tried to help the school and include their family knowledge in their child’s education to help them stay at school. All submissions that cited school can’t as the reason for homeschooling rejected the government’s approach, which would have forced families to follow the curriculum, not the child.

This paper begins by defining school can’t, which forces families into homeschooling. It is noted that, in the research and in the data presented for this paper, there is a preference for the child to remain in school and a strong desire for schools to better engage parent knowledge (Pushor, 2015a) to ameliorate school can’t. As such, it is a call to Familycentric education. Finally, it proposes what school systems can learn from the experiences of these families and the ways that a Familycentric approach to schooling can prevent the drift to homeschooling and prevent the trauma and anxiety associated with school can’t.

2. School Refusal and (a Lack of) Familycentric Education

School refusal, known in Australia as school can’t (Amin et al., 2024), is defined as severe distress when attending school (Connolly et al., 2022). It is not a new phenomenon, but more attention has been paid to it since COVID-19 (see Duffy, 2023; C. Cassidy, 2025). As the media reports have noted (Duffy, 2023), there is no nationally agreed consensus on what constitutes school refusal, and this situation has created a lack of data on school can’t in Australia. International research (Ochi et al., 2020) has shown it is highly correlated with a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), with studies arguing that up to 40% of students who are school can’t also have a co-occurring diagnosis of ASD; the global prevalence of ASD is 1–2% of the population (Roman-Urrestarazu et al., 2021). It is also associated with mood disorders (Bahali et al., 2011) including depression and anxiety (Tekin et al., 2018), as well as self-harm and suicidal ideation (Mayes et al., 2013; S. Cassidy et al., 2014; S. Cassidy et al., 2022).

In Australia, many families who have a child who is school refusing tend to spend at least some time in homeschooling (English et al., 2023; English, 2021a). Exact numbers are difficult to determine (ISA, 2025) but researchers (Moir & English, 2022; English, 2021a, 2021b) suggest most of the homeschooling population is homeschooling because school has not worked, in particular due to school can’t. As such, it has been argued that most homeschoolers in Australia, as much as 85 or 90 percent, are homeschooling because they are accidental homeschoolers and did not set out to choose homeschooling (English, 2021b; English et al., 2023). The numbers of homeschoolers doing so for ideological reasons is small, so for most parents who choose homeschooling in Australia, the reason is that their child cannot or will not attend school (Queensland Government: Department of Education (Home Education Unit), 2022). These data suggest that the majority of parents would prefer their child attend school and not homeschool.

In research on homeschooling, Neuman and Oz (2020) stated that homeschooling can be understood as part of the wider debates about how to solve what they termed an education crisis. For them, the education crisis was associated with a lack of faith in schools, a lack of trust in teachers and a belief that schools are failing to meet the demands of a twenty-first century citizenry. Neuman and Oz (2020) argued that homeschooling represented what they termed “abandoning the education system” implying “a sharp social criticism of society as incapable of creating suitable, worthy education systems” (Neuman & Oz, 2020, p. 14). One manifest criticism of schools is their failure to accept parent knowledge (Pushor, 2015a) and welcome families’ leadership in schools (see Pushor, 2012).

When parents feel they are unwelcome in the schooling system, where the school is unable to meet their children’s needs despite parents’ attempts to remedy the situation (English, 2021a, 2021b) and parent knowledge is ignored, they may find themselves with no choice but “abandoning the education system” for homeschooling. Homeschooling is defined as the education of the child by parents. In all other models, there is some reliance on teachers interpreting the curriculum and direct learning (see English & Gribble, 2021). In Australia, as elsewhere, homeschooling is usually chosen after parents’ attempts to work productively with the school are not fruitful, with homeschooling left as the only choice (see Fields-Smith, 2020; Kunzman & Gaither, 2020). As noted above, English (2021a, 2021b) calls these families “accidental homeschoolers” because they did not set out to homeschool and have attempted to remedy problematic situations in school before reporting homeschooling was the last choice (see also English et al., 2023). In these cases, the parents wanted to help the school address their children’s problems (see Morse & Bell, 2018; Ludgate et al., 2022) but felt left out of the education process (Cheng et al., 2018). As such, extant research suggests a place for schools to welcome parent knowledge (Pushor, 2015a) and parents’ leadership in the classroom to prevent the drift to homeschooling. This place for families is evidence of the need for Familycentric schools (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005; Pushor, 2015b).

Familycentric schools invite the family to be a co-equal participant in the education process (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005; Chen & Pushor, 2023). The approach sees parents as an equal participant in a child’s education, providing leadership through their position as their child’s partner in the schooling process (Chen & Pushor, 2023) and through their knowledge of that child (Pushor, 2015a). The approach also involves the school, acknowledging the role of parents in the schooling process, beyond academics or a narrow binary between school and home, empowering them to provide leadership in the child’s education (Pushor, 2015a; Chen & Pushor, 2023). It is seen in a variety of ways, from listening to parents talk about their child’s needs and ensuring the curriculum reflects the child’s experience of the world to knowing that child’s interests and how they learn (Pushor, 2012). As such, Familycentric schools may provide a way to prevent school can’t through inviting parents to be leaders and avert the anxiety and trauma correlated with school refusal. Pushor and Ruitenberg (2005, p. 68) noted that Familycentric schools facilitate communication with parents as leaders, “where there is a sense of reciprocity in their engagement with one another”.

3. Methodology

This study involves the analysis of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry in Queensland, Australia’s third most populous state. Submissions were drawn from a variety of sectors within the community with an interest in homeschooling. They were responding to a government decision to legislate the use of the Australian Curriculum in homeschooling in spite of a period of consultation showing the proposal was unworkable. Here, the government can be seen to be failing to listen to parents, linking the wider issues of education that promote schoolcentrism (M. A. Lawson, 2003; H. Lawson & Briar-Lawson, 1997).

The submissions followed the legislative review process; a politician, from an opposition party, initiated a parliamentary petition, in line with the Act, to determine the community’s support for the legislative change. The petition gained 21,977 signatures1 (Queensland Parliament, n.d.) arguing against the legislation, forcing an inquiry into the legislative change. Submissions from the community were invited. Significantly, of the 2090 total submissions that were readable (there were 2113 received), 2 of them supported the legislative change (0.096%). As such, >99% of the submitters rejected the legislative change. Of the 2088 submissions rejecting the change, 32% (n = 687) noted school refusal/school can’t, and schools’ failure to handle the child’s anxiety in the face of school attendance, as the reason they reported being forced into homeschooling and why they did not want to be forced to teach the Australian Curriculum. As such, the data in this inquiry support the findings of previous Australian research on homeschooling choice. Homeschooling in Australia is mostly an ‘accidental’ choice, when families perceive the school has failed to meet their needs (English, 2021a, 2021b). There are many examples in the submissions of how a Familycentric school would have prevented that child from exiting the school system if schools had invited parent knowledge (Pushor, 2015a) and invited parents to be leaders in the school (Chen & Pushor, 2023). For example, as will be seen in the data below, the families know how to help the child cope with classroom noise and want to help schools provide a place for the child to go so they can calm down or stim. In addition, as the professionals who submitted to the inquiry noted, they wanted to come in to the school and provide advice and help the child have a time-out but were not allowed to do so. The submitters who identified school can’t argued their child/ren were only homeschooling because the young person was not supported in school (see also Ray, 2017).

The submissions show a strong desire for Chen and Pushor’s (2023) Familycentric schooling approach. These parents, if they had had the Familycentric experience reported in Chen and Pushor’s (2023) work with migrant and refugee families, would have been able to implement strategies to keep their child in school. As Pushor and Ruitenberg (2005, p. 66) noted:

Leadership is … the subtle work that many parents do—sometimes with only one or two other people, possibly known only to that person or persons, done in the privacy of a quiet exchange—which strengthens and enriches the school landscape for others.

Sadly, for the submitters, and for increasing numbers of Australian families, parent knowledge was said to be unwelcome in the school into which their child was enrolled; submitters reported being forced to take sole responsibility for their children’s education because their child was school refusing. Rather than work with them and their child in the school setting, families reported the school forced their child, and them, into homeschooling (see also Moir, 2024).

It may be that homeschooling in the face of school refusal is the ultimate expression of the breakdown of schoolcentric education and a call for more Familycentric schools. It is generally understood that parents do not want to be forced into homeschooling (see English, 2021a), but this choice is all that is left to them when schools fail to meet their child’s needs (Euka, n.d.). If Familycentric schools were broadly adopted, it may be that the numbers of homeschooling families in Australia would shrink, which appears to be the government’s preference (O’Flaherty, 2024).

4. Data Source

The data were officially submitted responses to legislation2 introduced in Queensland, Australia’s third most populous state and the highest homeschooling numbers by population. Queensland Government data (Department of Education, 2024) show the state has experienced a 194% increase in registrations to the homeschooling authority, the Home Education Unit, over the five years to 2023. The biggest growth has occurred in the secondary phase of learning (ages 12–17) where the numbers have increased by 261% in the five years to 2023 (n = 4796 up from n = 1326).

The study began by hand sorting the publicly available 2090 submissions accessed via a Google sheet3 prepared by participants in the inquiry process. Each was read for the theme of their objection to the proposed bill. A separate column was added to the sheet so that each of the submissions could be coded as either yes or no/not mentioned for school refusal/school can’t. To make the deep reading of each submission easier, the sheet was rearranged so that the ones that were school can’t/school refusal were colour-coded, and the submissions were arranged by the yes in the school can’t column. Following from the reading, hand sorting of the school refusal/school can’t submissions was undertaken, following an amended Braun and Clarke (2006) Thematic Analysis. All submissions were coded as one of the themes inductively. Those themes were set in Leximancer. The themes that were developed for the Leximancer analysis were (1) neurodivergence and (2) behaviour, as well as (3) suicidal ideation and suicide attempts (the submitters appeared to use these two terms interchangeably).

5. Findings

Submitters reported that homeschooling was not the first choice; none of the parents had deliberately chosen to homeschool. Rather, they reported they had to homeschool because they were left with no other choices (see also Queensland Government: Department of Education (Home Education Unit), 2022; English, 2023). As will be seen below, the issues went beyond academic (see Wong et al., 2018), with parents being almost more concerned with their child’s ability to feel safe more than their academic performance at school, or lack of performance.

In each case, parents noted they were desperate for the school to have worked with the family to prevent school can’t. As such, Familycentric schooling may be a model of how to prevent these issues in schools and prevent school can’t. There was significant crossover with other school refusal research. To illustrate, neurodiversity appeared in 216 of the 687 school can’t submissions, supporting the work of Connolly et al. (2022) who found school can’t and neurodiversity were highly correlated. Their work suggested as many as 40% of school refusers also have a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). In a report compiled for the Queensland Education Department, data showed that 64% of homeschoolers reported choosing homeschooling because of a disability or health issue that went unaddressed in school (Queensland Government: Department of Education (Home Education Unit), 2022). Interestingly, the same report suggested that 92% of participating homeschoolers did not set out to homeschool, with 32% reporting they were not open to homeschooling at all but, due to their child’s circumstances experienced in school, it became necessary (Queensland Government: Department of Education (Home Education Unit), 2022).

There was also a significant identification of self-harm and suicidal ideation in the data analysed for this paper. This finding supports the work of scholars who have identified that mentally ill health (Tekin et al., 2018) and mood disorders (Bahali et al., 2011) are correlated with school can’t (see also ISA, 2025). Psychological symptoms of young people who exhibit school can’t (Gonzálvez et al., 2018) are risk factors for bullying, which also leads to school can’t (see also English et al., 2023). Suicide/suicidal ideation appeared in 41 submissions and self-harm in 16 (as noted above, there was some crossover) of the 687 school can’t submissions. The classroom environment was identified as a major problem in the submissions, with submitters (mostly homeschooling parents and grandparents, children who had been homeschooling and professionals who work with homeschoolers) describing struggles with other students’ behaviour (n = 110), noise (n = 21) and being required to sit quietly in class and not move (n = 26).

Three common themes found in the data were:

• Neurodivergent (ND) students (submitters used terms including Autism/ASD/Autistic/AS/ND/ADD/ADHD/PDA) found schooling difficult. Submitters (n = 216) noted how they tried to advocate for their ND child through providing specific examples of work-arounds for the schools (sunglasses, earplugs/headphones that limit noise or a space where the child can go to stim and flap) but were rebuffed. They stated their involvement may have ameliorated some of the disruptive behaviours and help the child stay in school.
• Anxiety was prevalent in the submissions (n = 202) and was associated (n = 55 submissions) with self-harm/Suicide/Suicidal Ideation/Suicide attempt/SA/SI. Submitters identified how, if they had been better able to work with teachers to improve the mental health of young people in schools through providing strategies from their experience and those of the psychologists and Occupational Therapists advising the family, they could have avoided school can’t. For example, the provision of exit cards and the supervision of the child in the playground to ensure that the child was supported in their social interactions were identified by parents in submissions in this theme.
• Classrooms were seen as inappropriate/unwelcome environments, in part because parents’ feelings of unwelcomeness and being barred from the school affected their ability to support the teacher in supporting their child leading to school can’t. These were reported in the submissions that listed school can’t and told their story (n = 418). Parents reported trying to bring in support they had from experts advising the family through the child’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) providers. These strategies included individual learning plan adjustments, which parents reported were not used, and the schools not being able to implement changes suggested by specialists advising the family.

5.1. Neurodivergence Was Not Handled in the Way the Child Needed and There Was No Space Made for Parents to Involve Themselves in the School to Help Meet the Child and the School’s Needs

Submitters (n = 216) noted that neurodivergence (ND) impacted the child’s capacity to go to school. For example, parents of young people with a diagnosis of an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) noted how the school environment, particularly noisy classrooms and issues with lighting and sound (see also Tomchek & Dunn, 2007), disrupted the child’s learning. Despite parental efforts to help the school understand how to meet the child’s needs or provide an environmental solution for the school, the issues remained. To illustrate, one submitter wrote of their child’s struggles in school:

[Nine year old girl] has struggled the last few years in mainstream school for many reasons. [She] is Autistic, has sensory processing disorder and severe anxiety with a speech impediment has trouble processing multiple noises at once, especially whilst trying to concentrate (she says the classroom noise is too much for her to bear and this has proven true at school with her needing to be removed from class multiple times so as not to disrupt the others). [She] is an energetic child who has trouble sitting still for long periods of time—we can allow for this with a variety of supports we already have in place at our home to help her keep focused whilst moving. [She] also STIMS but as hers can be verbal not just physical (making non-word sounds/growls/yelling/shouting) she can come across as disruptive (sometimes scary to other children, even adults) but this not something she has any control over, and she often chooses not to go out for fear of ridicule for things beyond her control.

This transcript clearly shows how the neurodivergence was not compatible with the school environment (see also Tavassoli et al., 2014). The co-occurrences of stimming, not being able to sit still, sensory processing issues and school can’t coalesced to make school attendance impossible for this child. The parents had repeatedly tried to intervene in the school setting, but their suggestions had been refused. Their knowledge of suitable and successful supports that would have prevented this behaviour was evident in the submission. For example, they noted they had ‘a variety of supports we already have in place at our home’ which would have provided solutions to keep the child in school (see Pushor, 2007 for how this approach can be implemented).

Schoolcentrism is evident in this transcript, where parent knowledge could have been called on to ensure the classroom environment supported this child. For the child, ‘the classroom noise is too much for her’ and, for the school, the child’s disruptive behaviour led to ‘her needing to be removed from class multiple times’. The schoolcentric (M. A. Lawson, 2003) approach rebuffed parent’s attempts to intervene, attend and assist, provide knowledge or help the teacher, class and school on behalf of this child. The parent was left with no alternative but removal at the school’s request.

This submitter noted how the school can’t meant her daughter now ‘often chooses not to go out for fear of ridicule’. As such, the school can’t had moved beyond the classroom and into the child’s, and family’s, home and community.

Other submitters shared similar stories. The following submitter talked about her child’s neurodivergence and cited the department’s own research (Queensland Government: Department of Education (Home Education Unit), 2022) into the reasons families had chosen homeschooling.

For many children with disabilities and neurodivergence, homeschooling is not just a choice but a necessity—an opportunity to create an environment and learning style where they can thrive at their own pace and in their own unique way… According to recent research collected by the Queensland Government: Department of Education (Home Education Unit) (2022), two of three home educating families have chosen to do so because of an underlying disability or health issue. … Children with disabilities often face significant challenges in traditional school settings, where rigid structures and standardized approaches do not accommodate their diverse needs. Homeschooling provides a lifeline for these children, offering the flexibility and personalised support they require to learn and grow in a safe and nurturing environment.

The reference to rigid structures and standardised approaches failing to accommodate for children’s diverse needs appears to link with Chen and Pushor’s (2023) work on migrant and refugee families, another group that finds the transition to school difficult. In much the same terms as the families in Chen and Pushor’s (2023) study, these submitters tried to engage positively with the school, share parent knowledge (Pushor, 2015a) and participate in a community of learning. Chen and Pushor (2023, p. 615) found, “the mere presence of a family member in the classroom holds tremendous power” to “create a sense of feeling safe and comfortable, which is essential in young children’s learning”. Further, the Chen and Pushor (2023) study reported how a parent’s presence helped teachers better understand and communicate with their students (see also Pushor, 2012, 2015a, 2015b), which could reduce the distress and trauma seen in school refusing (Connolly et al., 2022), preventing the child from being forced into homeschooling (English, 2021a, 2021b).

5.2. Parents Wanted Help to Manage Feelings of Self-Harm and Suicidal Ideation, but the School Did Not Make Space for Parent Knowledge

Social-emotional issues were heavily correlated with school can’t. For example, “anxiety” appeared in 202 of the 687 total submissions, which created what Connolly et al. (2022) and the submitters themselves (n = 127) termed school trauma. In some cases, this school trauma created an environment where the child was self-harming (n = 41) and was found to have suicidal ideation (n = 16). The following submission linked school can’t, anxiety and suicidal ideation:

My daughter was bullied and also has [Autism], [Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder], depression (with self-harm) resulting from school trauma both from teachers and students. She is much safer at home learning in a style that works for her. She has been able to rebuild her self-confidence and is focused on making quality connections with other home-schooled children in much safer environments … through being able to structure her learning in ways that suit her rather than having to align to a curriculum that didn’t work and resulted in us choosing to homeschool.

This submission appears to suggest the privileging of schoolcentric approaches to education (M. A. Lawson, 2003) that do not consider the leadership parents can provide (Pushor, 2012) and parent knowledge (Pushor, 2015a) led to school can’t and, ultimately, homeschooling. This submitter noted that ‘having to align to a curriculum’ was inappropriate while the school’s lack of interest in the parent’s knowledge of the child’s learning, capacity, needs, abilities and familial capacity to support the child had led to a breakdown of relations with the school. They identified the change in the child that the changed focus of her learning brought, suggesting parent knowledge should be considered in school. The family reported the child was ‘much safer at home learning in a style that works for her’. However, if the school had been more Familycentric (Pushor, 2007), the family could have worked alongside the classroom teacher, providing knowledge and leadership (see Pushor, 2015a), and potentially prevent this instance of school can’t. The submission is a call to welcome those “who hold personal and particular knowledge” of the chid and to “replace old, often stereotypical and judgmental stories, with new stories of school and parents” (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005, p. 3) and keep young people in school.

In addition, the family talked of ‘self-confidence’, ‘quality connections’ and ‘safer environments’, which are all associated with Familycentric schooling. The parent–mentor program reported in Chen and Pushor’s (2023) research shows how seamless connections between home and school can strengthen families’ connections outside of school while welcoming and respecting parents’ leadership. For example, by allowing parents to stay in the classroom, they create a sense of comfort for the child in the classroom, which reflects the home environment. They (Chen & Pushor, 2023) argue that it encourages them to be able to speak in their native languages and helps parents understand the nuances of the classroom. While the parents in the present study were all native-English speakers, they held specialist knowledge of the child’s special learning needs and the ways that learning could be structured for that child and help the teacher make suitable adjustments to that child’s activities to meet the Individual Curriculum Plan. Further, these parents were working with specialists who provided expert knowledge of adjustments that could be implemented to keep the child in school. In the submission above, the child was said to not feel connected, supported or safe at school and school can’t was the final step. A Familycentric approach (see Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005; Chen & Pushor, 2023), which included parent knowledge (Pushor, 2015a), to schooling may have prevented the issue from reaching the level that ‘resulted in us choosing to homeschool’.

The submission reported that ‘school trauma’ was caused by ‘both teachers and students’. Again, a place for Familycentric schools is evident here and is contrasted with the schoolcentric approach seen in the child’s history that led to school can’t. In the submission, the parent wrote about the ‘safer environments’ in the homeschooling groups and the ability to ‘structure her learning in ways that suit her rather than having to align to a curriculum that didn’t work’ as benefits to homeschooling. Homeschool groups encourage and support parents’ involvement (Moir & English, 2022), relying heavily on parent knowledge. These two pieces of data evidence the role Familycentric schooling could have played to prevent children like this submitter’s child experiencing school can’t. As M. A. Lawson (2003, p. 79) noted, where “schools are the unit of analysis”, all that matters is “children’s academic achievement”, so feelings of safety and self-confidence were sublimated to the academic curriculum. H. Lawson and Briar-Lawson (1997) argued that the role of parents is limited to what happens outside the school gate. However, as the positive experience in homeschool groups was contrasted with the school experience, a call to Familycentric schooling to keep young people engaged and prevent school can’t is seen in this submission.

5.3. Classrooms Are Unwelcome Environments for Parents and Young People

Schoolcentric approaches were not only seen by parents as problematic; submissions from professionals who work with school can’t young people were also received, explaining how exiting formal, institutional schools was a last resort for the homeschooling families in their clinics. These professionals included Occupational Therapists, Speech Therapists and Psychologists. The submission below is from an Occupational Therapist working with ASD young people. This submission alludes to schoolcentric approaches’ inappropriateness for their clients and shows how neurodiverse children are required to, as M. A. Lawson (2003) described, adjust themselves to fit the school not the school to fit them and meet their needs. Again, parent knowledge (Pushor, 2015a) appears to be noticeably absent from any leadership within the school to support the child with the demands of school, which may have ameliorated the problems the child was experiencing. The parent knowledge, and those of professionals, were reported to be ignored by the school, which, as the professional in the following transcript argued, would have meant the child could have stayed enrolled in school.

As a therapist of young children working with predominantly neuro-diverse children, I understand that they typically need specialised learning programmes. Many of my clients have individualised learning plans. Two parents have chosen to homeschool so they can choose the educational approach that best suits their child. In both instances these children experience anxiety. Choosing an approach that suits the learning style of the child has seen dramatic, positive results in their ability to engage in therapy, socialise and progress academically.

Using professional discourse (‘specialised learning programmes’) and relying on their professional credibility (‘as a therapist … working predominantly with neuro-diverse children’), the submitter suggested, similar to the previous examples, that the education that ‘best suits the child’ may not always focus on academics and curriculum (see H. Lawson & Briar-Lawson, 1997). They also highlight the role of parent knowledge (see Pushor, 2015a) in keeping young people engaged with education and enrolled in school.

Anxiety is tied to a classroom environment that was unsupportive and failed to engage parents in the work of supporting their child in the classroom. In her 2007 study, Pushor described how parents, when they felt welcome to stay in the classroom, moved from “intruder” to “guest host” with valuable knowledge and a capacity to help the child and the teacher engage positively in the learning experience.

These are only four of the submissions, but they are illustrative of the 687 submissions and the issues faced by the school can’t community that lead to homeschool choice.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper examined the reasons parents cited in a legislative review that had led them to homeschool their children. In each of the cases, they appeared to want to school their children, as each of the submissions identified in this study, whereby 687 of the 2088 total (readable) submissions (32%) had originally experienced school can’t, which started in schools. However, school can’t had prevented school attendance and led to homeschooling as the only choice for families to educate their children. The data here support previous government inquiry data that show that parents enrol in homeschooling when the school is unable to support their child’s learning needs. These issues are well known in parliamentary inquiries conducted in 2022 and 2023 (see, for example, Duffy, 2023) and in schooling sectors (see ISA, 2025). Parents in the inquiry noted that the child’s neurodivergence was highly correlated with school refusal or school can’t. It was noted that 216 submitters had identified that their child’s neurodivergence impacted school attendance and, interestingly, these submitters noted that were it not for the schools’ failure to listen to parents’ voices and implement strategies the parents brought to the school (often via professionals such as occupational or speech therapists, psychologists or paediatricians), they would have been able to ensure attendance.

Parents also identified the issues in school that led to the school can’t and the eventual decision to homeschool had led their child to self-harm or consider/attempt suicide. In 202 of the 687 submissions that identified school can’t as the reason for their child being homeschooled identified anxiety, and a further 127 identified that school trauma had led to the decision to homeschool. Self-harm was noted in 41 and suicidal ideation in 16. In these submissions, families expressed a desire to enter the classroom and assist but their attempts were rebuffed. Parents’ voices were not listened to and strategies they brought ignored. The final theme, which relied on professional discourses, showed that schools were not only dismissive of parents’ voices but of outside professionals as well.

It seems that if the schools had been able to listen to these parents whose submissions were reported here, they would have been able to stay. The data suggest that the main issue was the reported lack of an effective Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) and Curriculum Plans (ICPs) that were used to guide their child’s learning in the classroom. In addition, the families and professionals reported that they offered the guidance of parents and outside professionals but they were not included. Submitters noted that the solution to keeping the child in school was easy, the schools just needed to implement ILPs/ICPs effectively and follow the advice of the professionals supporting that child. It is noted that the school refusal to homeschooling pipeline is known (see Fisher, 2023; ISA, 2025). However, the risk is, once a child is homeschooled, they may never return to school. It is likely the family will forever face the implications of a child’s total refusal to return to school, with impacts on their finances. If the schools had implemented the families’ voices into schooling, by adopting Familycentric schooling approaches, it may be that many of these young people would have been able to remain in school.

Summative Thoughts: Familycentric Schools Can Keep Young People Enrolled in Schools, Prevent Refusal and Reduce Homeschool Enrolments

Governments appear to be concerned by the falling rates of school completion in Australia (Stranger, 2024) and the drift to homeschooling (O’Flaherty, 2024), which has led to a wholesale rewriting of commonwealth education funding arrangements. These new funding arrangements, taken up by all states and territories in 2025 (Black, 2025), tie funding to departments of education implementing policies that will retain school enrolments to Year 12 (Duffy, 2024). The problem with these approaches is that they are not listening to parents and the community. They take a government-centric approach, bigger even than a schoolcentric (M. A. Lawson, 2003) approach, that appears to consider only academic outcomes (literacy, numeracy and completion of year 12 leaving certification qualifications) and takes no account of how the schools can be made comfortable, safe and welcoming to families to encourage attendance, retention and satisfaction with schooling. One way forward that exemplifies the Familycentric approach can be seen in Queensland after this legislative review. The Department convened a group voted on by homeschoolers to negotiate with representatives of government about how to improve their experiences in homeschooling. The further benefit of this approach has been its role in encouraging homeschoolers to engage with government policymakers through regular meetings. The group, known as the HEEG (Home Education Expert Group), met monthly after the legislation was abandoned. On it were parents from a variety of backgrounds (city, regional and remote families/Indigenous and minority families/Neurodiverse and Neurotypical families/a variety of lengths of homeschooling time from a year to more than 10) to listen to them and have them provide advice on homeschooling registration policies.

The data presented here suggest the families would prefer to stay in school, in line with government policy, a finding mirrored in previous studies of homeschooling (see English, 2021a, 2021b). As such, while exact numbers are impossible to determine, most homeschooling families are not ideologically or philosophically opposed to school; in fact, it was their first (and sometimes second or third) choice. It is only when schools are reported to have (repeatedly) failed to meet the child’s needs, leading to school can’t, that they chose homeschooling (see English, 2021a). As such, it is an extensive negative experience that forces families’ hands so that they report no other choice but to homeschool. Familycentric schooling (see, for example, Pushor, 2007; Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005; Chen & Pushor, 2023) proposes many opportunities for schools to attract and retain students.

The question now becomes how can schools keep children and young people enrolled and prevent school can’t?

The data presented here suggests that the first step is to invite parents and families to work with the school to ensure an education that is community centred, embedded in parent knowledge (Pushor, 2015a) and supports them in times of need in line with Pushor’s (2007, 2015b; Chen & Pushor, 2023) work on Familycentrism. This approach is supported by the tiered strategies presented in the ISA (2025) report. This approach involves three tiers.

The first tier is to encourage a whole-school approach to engagement and attendance. This approach may include wellbeing and antibullying programs, encouraging supportive staff and student relationships and effective playground supervision. The second tier is to move to targeted and individual strategies, including hybrid attendance models that include some online learning, staggering assessments and even specialised instruction in Vocational Training programs (for older students) and brain breaks for younger students. The third tier involves intensive interventions such as direct and targeted one-to-one support including parents in that support, bringing in the allied health professionals the students are working with (as the data here supported) and monitoring and review by the school’s counsellor and special education supports. As Pushor (2012, p. 467) noted, we must move away from the one-way engagement with parents that sees them through what she terms “deficit thinking, class and cultural stereotypes” toward partnership with families in the project of successfully educating the whole child. These tiered supports involve parents through regular meetings across all three tiers, negotiating the strategies that will be employed with them to provide reports from outside school support services that help the school plan for learning and curriculum, as well as the social/emotional needs of the child.

Finally, another benefit of Familycentric schools is that they meet the moment we are in. The community has a distinct distrust of education (Milovanovitch, 2019), of schools (Schultz, 2019) and of teachers’ ability to meet the child’s needs (Wescott, 2021). The increasing number of young people enrolling in homeschooling, as Kunzman and Gaither (2020, p. 304) argued, “pushes us to consider … the purposes of education more broadly” because it:

Will continue to challenge modern conceptions of schooling, education, and the family. Conventional categories of schooling, curriculum, and achievement will continue to blur, shifting not only participants’ conceptions of education but very likely broader society’s as well.

(Lees, 2011)

Familycentric schools are another way to conceptualise Kunzman and Gaither’s (2020) call to reconceptualise what education means in the twenty-first century. Familycentric schools facilitate a reconsideration of modern conceptions of schooling because they blur categories between family/community/home/school. Familycentric schools invite parents to be leaders and partners with teachers in the project of their child’s education, conceptualised as more than just academic achievement. Familycentric schools focus on achievement beyond the narrow field of academics. Pushor (2012) argued that schools hold parents at a distance so “parents often do not feel comfortable to speak out or to challenge their marginalized positioning” (p. 477). The effect reported here is that they leave and take education into their own hands, the third way of the Neuman and Oz (2020) study. Familycentric schools offer a pathway forward away from school can’t. Familycentric schools shift the perception of what it means to be an educated citizen in the twenty-first century. Familycentric schools allow us to reconceptualise school and consider what school is for and how can we make it work for all young people.