Education-line Home Page

Giftedness and school absenteeism

Theoretical reflections and empirical results to an unusual connection

Prof. Dr. Margrit Stamm

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of
Warwick, 6-9 September 2006

Author contact:

DÉPARTEMENT DES SCIENCES DE L'ÉDUCATION

DEPARTEMENT ERZIEHUNGSWISSENSCHAFTEN

Lehrstuhl für Pädagogik und Pädagogische Psychologie

Rue P.A. de Faucigny 2

CH-1700 Fribourg

Tel +41 (0)26 300 75 58 60 (Mo - Do)

und +41 (0)26 322 07 75 (Fr)

Fax + 41 (0)26 300 97 11

margrit.stamm@unifr.ch

perso.unifr.ch/margrit.stamm/

Summary
This paper aims to discuss unexcused absence from school (truancy or school absenteeism) among gifted
students. Empirical data for this research is taken from a Swiss longitudinal study analyzing the impact of
pre-school reading and mathematical skills on schooling careers and success. Intellectually gifted
students � today 16 years of age � were tested with regard to their truancy behavior compared to non
gifted students. The most salient result this study presents is that the assumption, according to which
intelligence is negatively correlated with school absenteeism, must be rejected. High intelligence can
very well be accompanied by truancy behavior. However, school absenteeism is found to be apparent in
highly diverse manners. Atention is drawn to two types of school absenteeism: The �taking a day of
�are students of highly intellectual profle, among whom school absenteeism poses a structural
problem which primarily tangents extracurricular activities. A second type, the dissociate, refers to
students with irregular schooling careers and a school aversion, sometimes manifest during their frst
school years already. They belong to the risk group that is prominently present in the scientifc discourse.
Hence, giftedness can represent an element in the multi-factorial framework of predictors of school
absenteeism.

School absenteeism in Europe is a recent feld of research. Its object is unexcused absence from school
over a short or long period of time. At frst, special education science (Ricking & Neukäter, 1997) has
concentrated on this subject. In the course of the establishment of projects on school refusal, social
pedagogic science has followed (Reissig, 2001; Thimm, 2000). Even though the debate has been given
fresh impetus over the last years not only from the scientifc but also from the educational politics
perspective, the quality of the contributions "blatantly lacks insight into its own object" (Ehmann &
Rademacker, 2003, p. 9; author�s translation). This applies to the scale of the phenomenon as well as
to its features and causes. In particular, it remains very much an open question whether and to what
extent there exists a correlation between school absenteeism and giftedness. Sporadically however,
publications refer to behavioral disorder of gifted students in relation with school absenteeism (Butler-
Por 1993; Stapf, 2003; Uszkurat, 1986). Thereby, the tenor of the discussion considers the academic
under-challenge to be the main cause that leads gifted students to study not or only inadequately
according to their giftedness. Instead, they react to this under-challenge by dissociating from school and
fnally by refusing school altogether. Such are the issues subject to this research paper: based on a pool
of empirical data taken from a Swiss longitudinal study, this article presents the results of a partial study,
analyzing the correlations of over-average cognitive skills, school absenteeism and performance
processes.

1. School absenteeism: Concept, causes and manifestation

The school absenteeism debate has intensifed remarkably in Switzerland despite the fact that there is
no comparable �scientifc boom� in this domain as is diagnosed for Germany by Warzecha (2002, p.
14). In Switzerland, mere intervention- and prevention concepts dealing with the expulsion of truants
and aggressive school refusers exist (Geel & Kuhn, 2002). The focus on compulsory schooling is mainly
legitimized by the high correlation between the difficult social integration into the labor market given
underachievement in school on one side, and the covariation of school absenteeism and
underachievement in school on the other. For these reasons, the results of the PISA survey have
provoked considerable dismay about the high number of academically underachieving students (17.5%)
who have reached a competence level of only I or II with regard to their reading skills (Swiss Federal
Statistical Office & Swiss Conference for Cantonal Ministers of Education 2002). Thus, it must be assumed
that these students embody certain risk factors that cause school absenteeism, hence they are in danger
to fail to properly integrate into society. Emerging from the international debate, the term
�Schulabsentismus�, depicts, in analogy to the English term �school absenteeism �, the general
term of the phenomenon as a whole. With regard to the etiological classifcation the distinction is
between �Schulschwänzen� (truancy) and �Schulverweigerung � (school refusal or more frequently
school phobia in the Anglo-Saxon research terminology). However, there is widespread agreement that
the two terms are diferent but bear a certain range of overlapping areas. Reviewing the German-
speaking literature in this research domain, the inflationary use of the term �Schulverweigerung �
(school refusal or school phobia) is striking. In general, the term is used in the context of projects
focusing on school-phobic students who do not or only sporadically atend school. This dominance of the
term gives school absenteeism generally a behaviorally pathological connotation, although a majority of
the students in question do not show any clinical symptoms (see critical reviews by Ehmann &
Rademacker, 2003, p. 28; Ricking, 2000, S. 301).

Furthermore, the review on absence from school recurs, depending on the professional, educational or
socio-political context and on the purpose of its use, on various theories (Lamnek, 2001). Hence, there is
barely any consistent method for approaching or interpreting the phenomenon existing. Only surveys of
regional scope are available that lacks of reliable, nation-wide and representative data on school
absenteeism.

However, there is consensus among experts with respect to the understanding of school absenteeism as
a complexity of multi-component conditions, among which are the general academic socialization,
especially the mechanisms of academic everyday life, the school quality and the individual students- and
family characteristics.

In general, the concept of unsuccessful students with frequent class-repetition, lower social class status
and family instability, is prevalent. (Ricking & Neukäter, 1997; Ricking, 2003). On various occasions, a
negative correlation between intelligence and school absenteeism is claimed (Sommer, 1985), yet a few
studies point out the relationship between school phobia and high intelligence (Ganter-Bührer, 1991;
Kaiser, 1983). In general, it is believed that school absenteeism rises with increasing age of the students
(Eder, 1981; Ehmann & Rademacker, 2003) and it is mainly observed to be a problem of low demand
schools levels (Schümer, Tillmann & Weiss, 2002). With a view to gender-related efects, the results
prove ambigous (Ricking, 2003; Wilmers & Greve, 2000).

Taking the methodological constraints of the introductory chapter into consideration, the empirically
signifcant results allow the following conclusions: between one forth and one third of all students play
truant sporadically for a day, around one forth belongs to the group of occasional truants and about 3%
to the notorious absentees (Ehmann & Rademacker, 2003; Fogelman, 1980; Pinquart & Gowert, 2000;
Riccking & Neukäter, 1997; Schreiber-Kitel & Schröpfer, 2002).

2. Giftedness and school absenteeism

Traditionally, giftedness within the ability research domain is understood a disposition to extraordinary
performance in school. It is measured using general intelligence measures (for example Rost, 2000) or
multifactor cluster-variables (Gagné, 1993; Heller, 2000). Even though studies with experts and novices
have questioned this traditional concept to some degree, its understanding mainly focuses on the
intellectual area. For this reason, the explanation is prevalent that intellectual under-challenges and
inadequate extracurricular activities can result in defciency symptoms and manifest in distorted
behavior (apathy, aggression, disintegration) but also generally in underachievement. Those students
who fail to transfer their potential into corresponding academic performance and whose performance
proves signifcantly lower than the average class performance belong to this group. However, in the
scientifc literature, reference to school absenteeism or school refusing behavior are scarce. Seely (1993)
is the sole author presenting empirical evidence for gifted underachiever who drop out of school. More
frequently, such reference is made in publications on counseling of highly gifted students (Feger, 2000;
Wieczerkowski & Prado, 1993; Witmann & Holling, 2002) or within the popular scientifc literature
(Spahn, 1995; Thomas 1997). They refer to the serious problems of gifted students within and with the
institution �school�, which are predominantly linked to intellectual under-challenges. In this context,
internalizing coping strategies (such as concentration problems, isolation, psychosomatic symptoms) as
well as externalizing coping strategies (problems with teaching staf and with social adjustment,
including school refusal and mobbing) are mentioned.

Numerous studies were also published with regard to underachievement itself (Butler-Por, 1993; Hanses
& Rost, 1998; Mandel & Marcus, 1988; Peter et al., 2000). In conclusion, research results can be
summarized as follows: children or adolescents are portrayed as underachiever, if they fail to achieve
outstanding academic performance but instead often reach below average performance, despite their
atested over average intelligence. As cause or efect of this combination, personal characteristics (for
example a lack of performance motivation, unfavorable self-concept) as well as domestic or academic
environment (rigid upbringing or exaggerated performance expectations of their parents, unfavorable
teacher-student relationship, social timidity or scarce peer contacts) are assumed (Hanses & Rost, 1998;
Peters et al. 2002). Underachiever, as in the Marburg survey of Rost (2000) as well as in the longitudinal
study to the efects of acquiring pre-school knowledge of reading and mathematics (Stamm, 2003), are
empirically reliable. In the Marburg survey, they were defned as reaching the IQ level >96 and school
performance level <50, in the Stamm survey as IQ level ≥90 and school performance level ≤50.

What reference to school absenteeism can be expected against the background of these research
results? First, it could be assumed that gifted students are less frequently represented among school
absentees, because, as a general rule, they are academically more successful, more motivated and
determined than gifted students and therefore are less confronted with school failure, which is the most
potent risk factor for school absenteeism (Ricking, 2003; p. 128). On the other hand, some evidence for
school absenteeism is precisely given by the underachievement research results. Academic failure,
rejection by teaching staf or peers or the lack of recognition of capacity can result in aggressive and
disturbing behavior and/or in psychosomatic symptoms and fnally manifest in absentee behavior. Even
more so, absence from school may possibly be recognized early in the schooling career, however
escalate only in advanced school years. In conclusion, various etiologies can be suspected behind the
possible manifestations of school absenteeism of gifted students: (a) unfavorable general conditions that
lead to a lack of academic presence as well as academic failure � or vice versa; (b) general under-
challenge for students in the subjects taught in school, which provokes school fatigue and leads to school
failure; (c) an unfavorable teacher-student-relationship or inadequate teaching arrangements in those
subjects where the students� performance potential is especially outstanding and consequently the
student�s disappointment can lead to their absence from school; as well as in those subjects, where
performance potential is especially weak and can lead to absence from school respectively. Against this
background, the partial study referred to in this context has frst investigated into the extent to which
school absenteeism is an issue among gifted students as well as into how it manifests. Secondly, it was
examined if school absenteeism among gifted students is linked to the development of the student �s
school performance and if a corresponding typology can be established.

3. Methodology

Sample

The sample of the partial study at hand consists of 366 adolescents, today 16 years of age, of eight Swiss
cantons and the Principality of Liechtenstein. The sample is divided into an examination group (n=185)
and a comparative group (n=181) of a survey originally including 399 test persons (panel mortality: 8%).
Those probands, who passed the standardized reading and mathematics test in fall 1995, six weeks after
school entry, without any mistake, were classifed within the examination group.

Each child from the examination group was assigned a gender-corresponding child from the comparative
group that had no corresponding knowledge however followed the same class. Even though the sample
is gender-balanced (49% boys, 51% girls), the boys are overrepresented in the pre-school-mathematical
skills group (PM, 63%) and the girls in the pre-school-reading group (PR, 66%), unlike the group of pre-
school-reading and- mathematical skills (PRM), which is balanced.48.6% of all adolescents in the sample
belong to a middle-class milieu, 24.9% have a working-class background and 26.5% belong to academic
family milieu. The workers as well as the academic milieu are slightly over represented compared to the
Swiss working population (academic environment: 22.2%; industrial environment: 47.7%, working
environment: 30.1%, see Swiss Federal Statistical Office 2003, p.9). The percentage of foreign-language
adolescents of 13.2% is below the nation-wide average (23.1%, see Swiss Federal Statistical Office 2003).
27% of the sample (99 students) show intelligence quotients ≥120 (min.: 88; max. 146 points, according
to the CFT 2 (Weiss & Osterland, 1980) and the CFT 20 (Weiss, 1987). Given the normal distribution of
academic intelligence of 15% over the total population showing an intelligence quotient of 120 points or
above, the presented percentage in this survey of one quarter must be regarded as exceptionally high.
This askew distribution can be explained by the fact that the sample consists to over one half of
preschool reading-and mathematically skilled students, who, to a large extent, show high intellectual
potential. Gifted students are found in the examination as well as control group, which means that
within the PR, PM and PRM not only gifted students, but also non gifted students are represented. The
same accounts for the comparative group. It is for this reason that the extent of school absenteeism shall
only be described for the entire sample.

Focus of inquiry of the longitudinal study and research design of partial study

The longitudinal study inquires into the question of schooling careers and development processes that
were followed by these adolescents who had reading and mathematical skills at the time of school entry
already; so to say on the efects of preschool reading- and writing skills with regard to school success,
choice of profession and social development. The project at hand applies the giftedness model of
Munich (Heller, Mönks, Sternberg & Subotnik, 2000), that departs from the assumption of innate
giftedness factors, which, given the availability of favorable cognitive and non-cognitive personal
characteristics as well as environmental factors, can be transformed into outstanding academic
performance. According to this underlying giftedness model, data of fve survey phases were gathered in
the relevant areas (1995: school entry; 1996: midterm frst class; 1998: midterm third class; 2000:
midterm ffth class: 2003: midterm eighth class).
On the occasion of the last data gathering in summer 2003, all students were asked to give retrospective
information on their satisfaction and presence in school. The interviews were conducted during the
regular school schedule and with the entire class. In order to register school absentee behavior, an
indicator scale was developed that consists of four scales: (a) scope and school year, (b) extent, (c) type
of absence and (d) reasons. The items were usually adjusted to truancy and school absenteeism
respectively. With the exception of two items, four standardized options for answers were given.
Following is a documentation of the indicators in a condensed form. Cronbach �s alpha is pointed at a
satisfactorily internal consistence for short scales.

Scope and school year: four items designing truancy and school refusal respectively, based on the
diferent class grades of the type �In this year (in the frst two school years � in the third to ffth school
year� in the sixth and seventh school year) I have never refused to go to school (truancy α=.60; school
refusal: α=.62).

Extent: two items regarding truancy and school absenteeism respectively, based on various grades of the
type "in this school year (in the frst three school years � in the third to ffth grade.. in the sixth and
seventh grade) I have played truant approximately one to two hours, four hours, six hours, ten hours and
more. � In this school year (in the frst three school years � in the third to ffth grade � in the sixth and
seventh class) I have refused to go to school once or twice, three to four times, fve times or more."
(truancy: α=0.58; school refusal: α=0.59).

Type of absence: six items that referred to various class grades, of the type: "I have only missed certain
classes. I have only missed a certain subject. � I have refused to follow the classes of a certain teacher."
(truancy: α=.67; school refusal: α=.65).

Reasons: six items, that referred to a the corresponding grades, of the type: "I was absent from school
without permission/excuse, because I overslept. � I have refused to go to school because I did not get
along with the teacher" (truancy: α=.67; school refusal: α=.62).

Next to these newly gathered data, the partial study could rely on the longitudinal data relevant to the
focus of inquiry at hand. Based on the giftedness model of Munich, these were: (a) the intelligence
quotas that were gathered in the three phases (school entry, third class, ffth class) through the CFT 1
and CFT 20 (Weiss/Osterland, 1980; Weiss, 1987), (b) the gathered grades in mathematics and German
in all fve phases, whereas the teachers were asked to transfer these grades to a rating scale from 1 to 4
respectively. The analysis was then standardized within the class and an average value was generated.
Finally, (c) the performance positioning of the students in German and mathematics in all fve phases
(top student in class, frst performance third, average, lowest performance third) were gathered.

Analysis

The frst step of analysis aimed at analyzing the diferences across the groups of gifted students by
applying t-tests. With a view to generate a typology of students by means of a cluster analysis, the
relevant variables (the performance measures emerging of the four examination phases) were chosen
and combined with the data on school performance, school absenteeism as well as cognitive values. The
cluster analysis aims at identifying a hierarchic system of constructs, that show a maximal internal- and a
minimal relation to other clusters. Subsequently, these groups are joined with other groups in order to
flter maximal similarities or dissimilarities. Applying the ward-methodology, the sum of squared
deviance is minimized within one cluster, as well as maximized between the clusters respectively. The
application of an agglomerated cluster analysis following the ward-method with the relevant variables
led to a solution of fve clusters. The clue to the identifcation of the number of clusters was given by the
number of students within as well as the reasonable split of clusters. Table 1 depicts the split and
number of clusters for the resulting clusters 1 to 5.

fgure 1: partition of clusters applying the Ward-Method

4. Results

Overall results

The extent to which students are absent from school in our sample can be described as follows: 48% of
the adolescents have been absent from school already in the year 2002/2203 (in the eighth grade),
whereas 31% have played truant up to half a day and 15% one day or longer. 2.0% must be labeled
�notorious truants� because they repeatedly avoided school in regular time intervals. Only 31% have
stated that they have never been absent from school without authorization over the entire school
period. Reasons given were mostly referring to the boredom in class (given by 43.5%), stress with the
teaching staf (26.5%) and fearing exams (23.2%). With a view to school refusal, the picture is diferent:
school refusal was barely accounting for the student �s absence from school during the eighth school
year being only at a rate of 3%, however 24% of all adolescents were stating to have once refused to go
to school over their schooling career. For 4% this was the case more than once even.

Compared to the results of other studies, the proportion presented in this data must be considered
�high� for one fourth of all explored students. One of the reasons for this is � as shall be shown in
detail is to be sought in the fact that gifted students were over-proportionally represented in this sample
and a high number of students stated to have faced problems with regard to the regular school
atendance during their enrolment in school. In this respect, it was a mater of fear-induced avoidance of
school (fear of separation form the mother, fear of peers at school or on the way to school).

Group Variance

Of specifc interest is to investigate into the extent to which the groups of intellectually gifted students
difer from gifted students with regard to the specifc variables.

According to table 1, variance was found neither with reference to truancy nor to school refusal.
However, according to expectations, with a view to the class-placement in performance as well as to
school performance (German and Mathematics) signifcant variance was shown. Gender issues shall not
be developed further in this context. The variance is not signifcant, neither with regard to school
performance nor to school avoidance, even though in tendency, girls play truant more excessively than
boys, who belong more often to the school refusers.

table 1: group deviance (oder deviation?) (gifted students versus non gifted students, means and
standard deviation)

Criteria

≥ 120

(n = 99)
< 120

(n = 267)

SD

SD

school absenteeism

truancy

1.24

.69

1.34

.61

n.s.
school refusal

1.34

.72

1.28

.56

n.s.

performance

classplacement

2.24

.56

2.66

.67

**
german

2.13

.62

2.40

.53

mathematics

2.21

.58

2.48

.68

*
note: range of items: truancy (1-4), school refusal (1-4), performance situation (?) (1-4, 1= best student
in class, 2 = frst performance third, 3= average performance, 4 = last performance third), school
performance (1-4)

School absenteeism typology

By means of the cluster analysis, fve types of diferent confgurations of school absenteeism were
fltered with a view to school performance, cognitive profle and school refusing behavior. By this
clustering, 35% of the total variance can be explained with regard to the included variables. The z-values
shown in table 2 depict the expected negative relation between high/low cognitive profle and high/low
school absenteeism behavior quota in type I, II and III respectively in tendency, however not in type IV
and V. Type III and V constitute the most distinct clusters.

fgure 2: cluster and z-values according to the factor decomposition of fve clusters; (with number,
consistence coefficient cc of the cluster and percentage of allocated students)

Cluster I was found in 85 cases (23.5% of the sample). Adolescents with CFT-values of ≥120 and
outstanding school performance are represented in this group. They play truant, however only every
now and then, or as was expressed by one student: �.just to play truant or when I am very busy, I need
a couple of hours free for myself� or �because certain subjects are just too boring for anything to be
missed�. Among the students in this clusters are by no means endangered or risk embodying students,
but active students showing stable performance. Since 75% of them have followed the gymnasium at the
time of the investigation, this type of �playing truant � must be assumed to present a structural
problem for the academic middle-class. As expected, the majority of students are found in Cluster II
(n=161; 43.9%). They are the ones who mark �presence �, have rarely been absent from school
without excuse, show over-average CFT-values and average school performance. Cluster III ( �the regular
truants�) presents a description of students who play truant on a regular basis and are labeled in the
literature as �notoric truants� (Schreiber-Kitel & Schröpfer, 2002, p. 82). Those 31 students of this
cluster show rather low CFT-values (≤100) as well as low school performance. With this they belong in
tendency to the risk group of school absent students, because it is to be assumed that their habitual
absence from school is linked to their declining academic performance. This assumption is to be justifed
on the ground that this cluster contains the majority of students who were forced to repeat class during
their schooling career. Cluster IV refers to those 59 students (16.1%) who form the type �avoidance
through truancy�. They show a clear tendency for absence from school in particular when exams were
connected fearing bad results. Since the aim of absence was to avoid such unpleasant academic situation
in a day specifc way, they remained absent from school mostly for a few hours only. Their low CFT-value
combined with a satisfying academic performance represent two characteristics that have repeatedly
been described as the phenomenon of over-achievement (Flammer & Keller, 1992). Finally, cluster V,
labelled �school dissociates� depicts the opposite to cluster 1. For this type of 29 students (7.9%) it is
symptomatic that their high intelligence values with a simultaneously under-average school performance
as well as a signifcant and manifest dissociation from school. This however cannot be interpreted as
school aversion, a case in which the close future � as was characterized by one student � can only be
�one more year of school and then never again �. An obvious tendency for school absenteeism in this
cluster sustained from the very frst classes during the schooling career, however was rarely distinct in
the current period of examination. In total, in this type of underachievers (45%), the results of school
absenteeism research today is scarcely reflected.

School absence and school career

What schooling careers are hidden behind this absentee typology? Table 3 depicts the performance
process over the fve diferent examination phases, operationalized as means of the student �s grades in
German and mathematics. At frst, the high variety of schooling careers springs to mind. Being overly
positive for cluster I (�blue maker�) and II (�presence �), they are negative for cluster III ( �regular
truants�). The types IV (�avoidance through truancy �) and foremost type V ( �school dissociates �)
are marked by explicit downgrading processes.

fgure 3: performance processes of fve absentee types: means of grades in german and mathematics

It is of specifc interest to investigate into the age classes in which school absenteeism occurs. In the
following table, the percentage of each cluster giving a specifc characteristic is shown. A look into table
2 confrms that the clusters difer signifcantly with a view to school refusal on the occasion of school
entry only (cc=.24). Type IV stands out with 35%, yet type V shows a concentration between the second
and ffth grade (42%). However, truancy (table 3) is a phenomenon not occurring in any group at the
time of school entry. It is for this reason that the clusters only just difer at the secondary class level I
(cc=.29). Here, mainly cluster III (51%) and IV (30%) catch atention. In general, the longitudinal study
clarifes that in our sample truancy is a phenomenon of secondary class level I, school refusal however a
phenomenon of elementary school. Still, restrictively interpreted, those adolescents who have fully
withdrawn from school over a longer period of time, are not represented in our sample.

table 2: cluster and extent of school refusal in the longitudinal perspective (allocation coefficient (?) cc
shows the extent of the diferences) cluster I: playing truant, cluster II: being present, cluster III: regular
truancy, cluster IV: avoidance through truancy, cluster V: school dissociate) - school entry, second to ffth
grade, sixth to eighth grade

cluster

school entry

class 2 to 5

class 6 to 8

I: playing truant

5%

0%

3%

II: being present

0%
0%

0%

III: regular truancy

2%

8%

8%

IV: avoidance through truancy

35 %

0%

0%

V: school dissociate

8%
42 %

2%

cc

.24

.18

.10

table 3: cluster and extent of truancy in the longitudinal perspective (allocation coefficient (?) cc shows
the extent of the diferences) cluster I: playing truant, cluster II: being present, cluster III: regular truancy,
cluster IV: avoidance through truancy, cluster V: school dissociate) - school entry, second to ffth grade,
sixth to eighth grade

cluster

school entry

class 2 to 5

class 6 to 8

I: playing truant
0%

8%

24 %

II: being present

0%

5%

8%

III: regular truancy

0%

1 2%

51 %

IV: avoidance through truancy

0%
14 %

30 %

V: school dissociate

0%

10 %

23 %

cc

.11

.29

5. Discussion

Truancy is as old as compulsory schooling, which was established in Switzerland on the occasion of the
revision of the Swiss Federal Constitution in 1874. Hence, the knowledge of this widely spread
phenomenon is available in cantonal educational departments as well as in the schools themselves.
Nevertheless, the approaches of dealing with the phenomenon vary considerably. Either, school
absenteeism is tabooed or mitigated by so called �joker days � that are established in various school
laws, with a view to conform unauthorized absence from school. Furthermore, a clear trend to strict
interventions as well as preventive measures is beginning to show in Switzerland for those adolescents
who extensively play truant, disturb or refuse to go to school. In particular, legally legitimized exclusion
strategies, referring to the New Yorker �zero tolerance � model (Geel & Kuhn, 2002) are found among
these. Partially, corresponding adjustments in school laws have been efected. Yet, the aim of this study
was not to portray the strategies to manage irregular behavior in the sense of unexcused absence from
school, but the detection of the relationship between school absenteeism and intellectual giftedness.
Our sample could confrm such relationships in a clear way. In retrospective, the following points shall be
highlighted:

The school absenteeism ratio in this sample leads to the assumption that in Switzerland school
absenteeism exists in various forms, and in many cantons the official joker days are not sufficiently
efective to manage this irregularity. Forms of school absenteeism embodying risk factors, as well as
those forms of easy going absenteeism looking for autonomy and self determination are both
represented .

The assumption that intelligence simply correlates negatively with school absenteeism has to be
rejected. Even though this result applies to a litle more than half of our sample, for the other half the
reverse conclusion applies: high intelligence can very well correlate with school avoiding behavior. In
this, two types are to be diferentiated: truants are adolescents with high intellectual profle. In these
cases, school absenteeism is rather a structural problem that tangents the school- and teaching quality
as well as the activities outside school. Contrary to the dissociates, who, according to their explicit school
aversion and their frequently fractured academic biographies are prominently represented in the
discussions about risk groups of school absent adolescents. However, with a view to their giftedness they
have, until now, scarcely been analyzed. Since within this type of absenteeism, school refusing behavior
has already been prevalent in their frst school years and was paralleled by an obvious decline of
academic performance, school refusal could efectively be labeled a �self-damaging strategy �
(Schreiber � Kitel & Schröpfer, 2002, p. 17; authors translation), because it has probably sustainable
influence on their academic career.

However, it has to be considered that a certain percentage of highly gifted and highly performing
students often plays truant despite the joker days or some other lenient rules for absence from school.
Of course this result can be questioned by the belief that education cannot always strive for added value
and efficiency only. Against this background the question is asked whether a gymnasium � 72.5% of all
gifted students followed this schooling type in summer 2003 � can aford such absentee quota or if this
comes useful merely a legitimization for the giftedness programs. In this respect, frst accelerative
principles have to be considered, such as self-steered learning or organizational models like curriculum
compacting (Wand & Lindvall, 1984), but also a shortening of high school years, as implemented in the
Baden-Würtemberg G-8 model, have to be rethought (Heller, 2002).

Considering the strong representation in cluster I and II (23.5% or 43.9% of the sample respectively), it
has to be concluded that in the research on school absenteeism a pathologization of adolescents
showing school absentee behavior cannot be replicated in this study. Our results show the danger of
hastly labeling in these cases when truancy is interpreted in an undiferentiated way as a symptom of
dissocial- and school refusal as symptom of emotional defect.

However, our results emphasize to focus in the frst place on those students of high intellectual
potentials, early school refusal and under-average school performance. Furthermore, atention has to be
paid to those adolescents who consider absence from school as an option of their autonomy and
independence. They do not belong to the risk group of school absent adolescents, but they show the
potential structural problems of the institution �school �. Rather than simply raising demands for more
restrictive absence control or the expansion of joker days in consequence, it has to be asked for the
processes that precede such behavior as well as provoke or accompany it. Students in our sample
frequently report on their difficult relationships to teaching staf, on boring lessons and on being fed up
with school in general. Considering the development psychological conditionality of such statements, the
frst two aspects have to be considered: if adolescents, despite their high potential, increasingly drift
away from school and develop a school aversive attitude, or if they avoid boring or under-challenging
classes by remaining absent from school, this absentee type leads to the conclusion that the factors
influencing the school environment, especially the paterns of relationships and teachings, are
conditional to their behavior.

Against the background of the leading introductory question � to investigate into the extent to which
giftedness and school absenteeism correlate � such school- and teaching related factors point atention
to the question of school quality. This can be measured according to two questions, that Ricking (2000,
p. 307) has expressed when reasoning about the pedagogic coping strategy to school absenteeism. Here,
they are broadened with a view to gifted adolescents:

(a) What actions a school is inclined to take so that even intellectually gifted adolescents and those in
marginal positions can fnd a challenging as well as stimulating environment for studying, where they can
optimally reach their chances for development and are adequately supported by the teaching staf? (b)
What is the quality of the teaching in this school, so that there is a beneft to follow from it? (c) What
actions does a school take against this background to reduce the absentee rates?
It should be one objective of pedagogic quality work to allow all adolescents, even the highly gifted ones,
to follow a school where they know that it maters whether or not they are present and where
performance requirements for individual needs and skills are seriously implemented. Maybe this
question of school quality is for now only of secondary interest, because the problem has to be
discovered as such in a frst step.

References

Bundesamt für Statistik (2003). Wichtigste Ergebnisse der Schweizerischen Arbeitskräfteerhebung.

Neuchâtel/Bern.

Bundesamt für Statistik & Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren (EDK) (2002).
Für das Leben gerüstet? Grundkompetenzen der Jugendlichen: nationaler Bericht der Erhebung PISA
2000. Neuchâtel/Bern.

Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks & H. A. Passow (Eds.).
International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 649-668). Oxford:
Pergamon.

Ehmann, C. & Rademacker, H. (2003). Schulversäumnisse und sozialer Ausschluss. Bielefeld:

Bertelsmann.

Feger, B. (2000). Begabte Schüler und die Schule: Wo ist das Problem? In H. Wagner (Hrsg.). Begabung
und Leistung in der Schule (S. 25-38). Bad Honnef: Bock.

Flammer, A. & Keller, B. (1992). Overachievement and underachievement. In K. J. Klauer (Hrsg.).

Handbuch der Pädagogischen Diagnostik (S. 1037-1044). Düsseldorf: Schwann.

Fogelman, K., Tibbenham, A. & Lambert, L. (1980). Absence from school: Findings from the National
Child Developmental Study. In L. Hersov & I. Berg (Eds.). Out of school (pp. 25-48). Chichester: Wiley.
Gagné, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Heller, F. J.
Mönks & H. A. Passow (Eds). International handbook of research and development of giftedness and
talent (pp. 69-87). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Ganter-Bührer, G. (1991). Wenn Kinder nein zur Schule sagen. Zürich: Pro Juventute.

Geel, A. & Kuhn, M. (2002). Schulausschluss als Reaktion auf Abweichung und Ausdruck des Wandels
vom Sozialstaat zum strafenden Staat? Bern: Edition Soziothek.

Hanses, P. & Rost, D. H. (1998). Das �Drama" der hochbegabten Underachiever - �gewöhnliche" oder
�aussergewöhnliche" Underachiever? Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 12, 53-71.

Heller, K. A. (Hrsg.). (2000). Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Heller, K. A. (Hrsg.). (2002). Begabtenförderung im Gymnasium. Ergebnisse einer zehnjährigen

Längsschnitstudie. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Heller, K. A., Mönks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J. & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of
giftedness and talent. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Kaiser, H. (1983). Schulversäumnisse und Schulangst. Frankfurt: Lang.

Lamnek, S. (2001). Theorien abweichenden Verhaltens. München: Fink.

Mandel, H. P. & Marcus, S. I. (1988). The psychology of underachievement: Diferential diagnosis and
diferential treatment. New York: Wiley.
Peters, W. A. M., Grager-Loidl, H. & Supplee, P. (2000). Underachievement in gifted children and
adolescents. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.). International handbook of
giftedness and talent (pp. 609-620). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Pinquart, M. & Gowert, M. (2000). Verlauf und Prädiktoren des Schulschwänzens. In R. K. Silbereisen & J.
Zinnecker (Hrsg.). Entwicklung im sozialen Wandel (S. 221-238). Weinheim: Beltz.

Reissig, B. (2001). Schulverweigerung � ein Phänomen macht Karriere. Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten
Erhebung bei Schulverweigerern. München: Deutsches Jugendinstitut, Arbeitspapier.

Ricking, H. (2003). Schulabsentismus als Forschungsgegenstand. Oldenburg,

Diss.htp://docserver.bis.uni-oldenburg.de/publikationen/bisverlag/2003/ricsch03/pdf/ricsch03.pdf

Ricking, H. & Neukäter, H. (1997). Schulabsentismus als Forschungsgegenstand. Heilpädagogische

Forschung, Vol. XXIII, 2, 50-70.

Rost, D.H. (Hrsg.). (2000). Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche. Münster: Waxmann.

Schreiber-Kitel, M. & Schröpfer, H. (2002). Abgeschrieben? Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung

über Schulverweigerer. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Schümer, G., Tillmann, K.-J. & Weiss, M. (2002). Institutionelle und soziale Bedingungen schulischen
Lernens (S. 203-218). In Deutsches PISA-Konsortium (Hrsg.). PISA 2000 - Die Länder der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland im Vergleich. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Seely, K. (1993). Gifted students at risk. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.). Counseling the Gifted and Talented (pp.
263-275). Denver: Love.

Sommer, B. (1985). What's diferent about truants? A comparison study of 8th graders. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 14, 5, 411-22.
Thomas, W. (1997). Mein Kind ist hochbegabt. Düsseldorf: Econ.

Spahn, C. (1997). Wenn die Schule versagt: Vom Leidensweg hochbegabter Kinder. Asendorf: Mut.

Stamm, M. (2003). Frühleser und Frührechnerinnen werden erwachsen. Leistung, Interesse und
Schulerfolg ein Jahr vor dem Abschluss der obligatorischen Schulzeit. Aarau: Institut für Bildungs- und
Forschungsfragen.

Stapf, A. (2003). Hochbegabte Kinder. Persönlichkeit - Entwicklung - Förderung. München: Beck.

Uszkurat, B. (1986). Schulische Förderungsmöglichkeiten für Hochbegabte. In W. Wieczerkowski, H.

Wagner, K. K. Urban & A. J. Cropley (Hrsg.). Hochbegabung, Gesellschaft, Schule (S. 158-171). Bonn:
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Wissenschaft.

Wang, M. C. & Lindvall, C. M. (1984). Individual diferences in school learning environments: Theory,
research, and design. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.). Review of research in education. Washington DC: American
Educational Research Association.

Warzecha, B. (2002). Der schwierige Umgang mit den �Schwierigen". Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 1,
14-17.

Weiss, R. & Osterland, J. (1980). Grundintelligenztest CFT 1. Braunschweig: Westermann.

Weiss, R. (1987). Grundintelligenztest CFT 20, Skala 2 mit Wortschatztest (WS) und Zahlenfolgentest (ZF).
Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Thimm, K. H. (2000). Schulverweigerung. Münster: Votum.

Wieczerkowski, W. & Prado, T. (1993). Spiral of disappointment: decline in achievement among gifted
adolescents. European Journal for High Ability, 4, 126-141.

Wilmers, N. & Greve, W. (2000). Schwänzen als Problem. Report Psychologie, 7, 404-413.

Witmann, A. J. & Holling, H. (2001). Hochbegabtenberatung in der Praxis. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

This document was added to the Education-Line database on 13 March 2007