Collaboration on student follow-up within schools and between schools and external services: A scoping review
Mapping review
|Published
This scoping review aimed to examine what synthesised research shows about how well-functioning collaboration is understood and practised in the follow-up of pupils, both internally within schools and in collaboration between schools and external services.
Key message
The Norwegian Education Act gives children and young people the right to education and requires schools to facilitate cooperation concerning pupils’ education and follow-up. The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to examine what synthesised research shows about how well-functioning collaboration is understood and practised in the follow-up of pupils, both internally within schools and in collaboration between schools and external services.
We conducted a scoping review of systematic reviews. We carried out systematic literature searches, screened the references, assessed the methodological quality of the included reviews, and summarised the findings. We included 13 systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2025.
Main findings:
- Collaboration is practised through pedagogical and practice-oriented work in schools, relational support and involvement of pupils and parents/guardians, as well as coordination between schools, homes, and external services.
- Effective collaboration required clear roles, dedicated time, shared meeting arenas, trust-based communication, genuine involvement of pupils and parents/guardians, leadership support, and competence development across professions.
- Collaboration is hindered by unclear responsibilities, lack of time and resources, professional boundaries, confidentiality requirements, different funding systems, long distances, and limited access to services.
The findings indicate that effective collaboration in and around schools requires clear structures, trust, relevant competence, leadership support, and genuine participation. Collaboration should be adapted to local needs and contexts. Further research is needed on collaboration in the context of school absenteeism, particularly in Nordic contexts.
Summary
Introduction
School is a central arena for children’s learning, development, relationships, and sense of belonging. When pupils have high or persistent absence, this may affect their academic development, psychosocial health, and risk of exclusion and dropout. School absenteeism is often complex and may be related to factors concerning the pupil, the family, the school, and the services surrounding the child.
Prevention and follow-up of school absenteeism may therefore require collaboration between several actors, both internally within the school and between the school and external services. Effective collaboration can contribute to a shared understanding, clear division of responsibilities, better coordination, and more holistic support for the pupil. This is also reflected in the Norwegian Education Act, which gives all children and young people the right to public primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary education. The Act also states that municipalities and county authorities are responsible for following up pupils with absence. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, cf. Section 24-1, schools shall facilitate collaboration concerning pupils’ education and follow-up, including for pupils with different forms of school absenteeism, both internally within the school and between the school and other services.
This scoping review examines how collaboration within and around schools is understood and practised in the follow-up of pupils. Knowledge about collaboration around pupils with complex academic, social, psychological, or health-related needs may be relevant and transferable to schools’ work to prevent and follow up school absenteeism.
Aim and research questions
This scoping review aimed to examine what synthesised research shows about how well-functioning collaboration is understood and practised in the follow-up of pupils, both internally within schools and in collaboration between schools and external services. We addressed the following research questions related to collaboration in the follow-up of pupils:
- What systematic reviews are available on collaboration concerning pupils, both internally within schools and with other services?
- According to this research, how is collaboration practised, what characterises effective collaboration, and what hinders collaboration?
Methods
We conducted a scoping review based on methodological principles as described in international methodological standards and guidelines. We carried out systematic searches for systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2025 in eight databases. References were first screened by title and abstract, before two researchers independently assessed relevant full texts. We used machine learning as a tool for more efficient title and abstract screening processes. The reviews’ methodological quality was assessed using an appropriate checklist, and the assessments were calibrated between researchers. Data were systematically extracted and synthesized from the included reviews based on predefined criteria, with support from AI tools for targeted extraction, structured summarization, and preliminary coding, followed by manual quality assurance. We did not conduct any meta-syntheses or assessment of the certainty of the evidence (e.g. with tools such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).
Results
The scoping review included 13 systematic reviews that addressed different forms of collaboration within and around schools. All reviews had a mixed-methods design. The number of included primary studies varied considerably, from 4 to 137 studies per review, with a total of 443 included studies. The studies were mainly conducted in high-income countries, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States. Only three reviews included studies from Nordic countries. Eleven of the reviews addressed pupils with special needs. Only one review focused on collaboration concerning pupils with school absenteeism.
Across the 13 reviews, collaboration emerged as both an organised and relational practice. Collaboration was rooted in roles, routines, and meeting arenas, and developed through trust, dialogue, and shared responsibility. The findings can be grouped in three overlapping categories: pedagogical and practice-oriented collaboration (joint planning, classroom-based practice, and competence sharing); relational and supportive collaboration (trust, individual adaptation, and genuine involvement of pupils and parents/guardians); and coordinating and bridge-building collaboration between schools, homes, and external actors.
The prerequisites for effective collaboration were largely consistent across the reviews: clear roles and division of responsibilities, regular meeting arenas and dedicated time, trust-based communication, active leadership support, and shared competence development across professions. Clear routines for referral and information sharing were highlighted as particularly important in cross-sectoral collaboration. Barriers to collaboration mirrored the facilitating factors: unclear roles, lack of time and resources, professional cultures that protect their own areas of responsibility, and structural barriers such as confidentiality requirements and different funding systems. In rural areas, these challenges are intensified by limited access to services and long geographical distances. Tokenistic user involvement, where input from pupils and parents/guardians does not meaningfully influence decisions, stood out as a particularly important barrier. Overall, the findings indicated that lasting improvement in collaboration requires systematic measures at both organisational and system levels.
Discussion and conclusion
This scoping review shows that collaboration within and around schools is a broad field of research that includes various forms of internal school collaboration, collaboration between schools and external services, professional networks, and whole-school approaches. Across the 13 systematic reviews, several key prerequisites for effective collaboration recurred: clear roles and division of responsibilities, shared goals, regular meeting arenas, dedicated time for collaboration, trusting relationships, a shared understanding of pupils’ needs, and active leadership support. In collaboration between schools, health services, and social services, the importance of clear collaboration structures, defined contact points, established referral routines, shared competence development, and good coordination was also emphasised.
The results are likely transferable to collaboration concerning pupils with school absenteeism, although only one of the included reviews specifically addressed absenteeism. The other reviews examine collaboration around various challenges that may affect pupils’ participation, well-being, learning, and need for support. School absenteeism often has complex causes, related to factors such as mental and physical health, family and life circumstances, financial strain, the school environment, and access to support. Such challenges indicate a need for holistic, interdisciplinary, and individually adapted follow-up. It is therefore reasonable to assume that many of the same basic prerequisites for effective collaboration also apply to work with school absenteeism: clear routines, clear division of responsibilities, good collaborative relationships, and access to relevant knowledge and competence.
At the same time, it is important not to overinterpret the findings from the 13 reviews. Collaboration was often described at an overarching level in the included reviews, and it is unclear how the different factors highlighted specifically affect pupils’ situations and outcomes. This is particularly the case for pupils with school absenteeism. The relationship between collaborative processes and pupil outcomes is rarely documented systematically, making it difficult to determine with certainty which forms of collaboration are most effective.
This scoping review has several strengths, including a systematic literature search across multiple databases, clear predefined inclusion criteria, and assessment of the included reviews’ methodological quality. At the same time, it has limitations. The work was conducted within time and resource constraints, and because this is a scoping review, we cannot draw definitive conclusions about the findings of the reviews. Four of the reviews were assessed as having low methodological quality. In addition, we did not assess overlap between the primary studies included in the reviews. Our use of artificial intelligence as a support tool may involve a risk of simplification or loss of nuance, although we manually checked the material.
This scoping review suggests that collaboration in and around schools involves structures, trust, competence, leadership support, and participation. The collaboration can be adapted to local needs, but more research is needed on school absenteeism and students’ situations.