A Guide to School Attendance

Ben Whitney

• Publisher: David Fulton Publishers
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9781135226817
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Improving school attendance remains a contentious topic and is a high priority for the DCFS, local authorities and schools. Thousands of sessions are missed every day; a waste of money, resources and, most of all, of opportunity. A school's practice is now subject to scrutiny as never before, with targets and standard procedures required. A Guide to School Attendance provides a detailed practical guide for school leaders and managers, teachers, Education Welfare Officers and other attendance workers in schools and local authorities.

New Registration Regulations have been force since September 2006. All state-maintained schools have a legal duty to combat unauthorised absence, to maintain a twice-daily attendance record for every pupil and have attendance policies and procedures ready for OFSTED inspections. These should define everyday practice in all schools but are not always widely known about by those on the front-line.

Ben Whitney draws together twenty years of education welfare experience to provide a wealth of ideas to benefit any school. The book provides:

• summaries of the legal requirements
• extended case studies
• Question and Answer sections
• group work activities
• model policies and procedures

1 The legal framework

General

Since at least the Education Act of 1870, there has been an assumed consensus that education is compulsory for all children between specified ages. In the early days, this was largely a gradual process of prising them away from the control of their parents or from other activities that might occupy them, and establishing daily supervised instruction as a routine part of their lives. Parents were now to be held legally accountable for ensuring that their children obtained at least an elementary level of knowledge. (This emphasis on the duty of parents, not of children themselves, continues to the present day.) Work, especially farming or other home-based occupations, was the most frequent alternative, but there were also other, more inappropriate activities on offer, many of which would now be seen as child abuse and exploitation.

This process can be seen as the state seeking to increase its influence over what had previously been largely a private family matter or under the primary jurisdiction of the Church. Whether the introduction of legal compulsion was intended to be in the best interests of the children themselves, or served some wider need for greater social control, was a matter of some debate at the time. The quality of much that was on offer through the school ‘boards’, and the frequently poor qualifications and low status of those employed to deliver it, did not necessarily lead to universal enthusiasm in the communities for whom it was intended.

Still today, not all children who could be going to school are actually doing so. A small percentage of parents continue to opt out of the whole system and educate their children themselves, as they have always had the right to do. There is certainly a small, if largely hidden, juvenile workforce that still exists at the margins and keeps some older children from participating in education as they should. Not all children, including some who have arrived from overseas or live in communities that travel, are known to the authorities or are on shared databases. Thousands ‘disappear’ from school rolls during Key Stage 4 or go missing altogether. Other children, like Victoria Climbié (whose murder led to the Laming Report in 2003 and a major national review of child safeguarding procedures), are deliberately kept from the education system by parents or carers who may pose a significant risk to their health and welfare.

Some parents are seeking to avoid their responsibilities or, because of issues arising from their mental health or other family problems, do not see the need to do anything about their child’s absences from school. Some children are caring for their parents or other family members in school-time or have become disaffected from the whole system. Some are at home because the educational system has no place for them or cannot manage their behaviour or meet their learning needs. They may have no school from which to stay away!

Many parents feel that, in practice, they have had little choice over the provision available for their child. As with their nineteenth-century peers, their commitment and that of their children may be similarly limited. It is only a generation or two since large numbers went through the system and straight into unskilled, albeit generally available, work, with little by way of formal qualifications to show for the previous ten years. That was considered sufficient then. For a significant number, school was just what you did until you were old enough to work. The idea that everyone should achieve at school is a very recent concept.

Some schools, especially those for children seen as having the lowest academic potential, achieved little more than 75 per cent attendance in the 1960s and 1970s and very little fuss was made about it. Despite all the current concerns about ‘truancy’, attendance has probably never been higher than it is today. ‘Unauthorised absence’ (the correct term), and the number of parents prosecuted for it, remains extremely low overall. It is in challenging other explanations for absence, previously seen as acceptable, or through targeting the worst-performing schools, that most progress may have been made. But absence has always been an issue, if a largely unacknowledged one until relatively recently.

Trends in absence and attendance

Headlines such as ‘Truancy rate highest since 1997’ (BBC News website, February 2008) give a misleading picture. It is true that a significant reduction in unauthorised absence has not yet been achieved since the current system began. In 2006/7 it was 1.0 per cent of all sessions in England, and significantly higher than that in some individual schools. After years of virtual stability, there has been a very slight increase recently. But it does not necessarily mean more absence; only the classification of more absence as unacceptable.

Overall attendance in England rose slightly in 2006/7 to 93.51 per cent (94.82 per cent in primary schools and 92.13 per cent in secondary schools); levels are historically slightly lower in the rest of the United Kingdom. The fall in the previous year seems to have been at least in part due to factors outside schools’ control, such as the winter flu virus, which was especially prevalent that year. There is now a greater emphasis on reducing overall absence, which to achieve current government targets has to fall by 8 per cent from its level in 2002/3 by 2007/8. Progress had been largely on track until 2005/6, though the figures may not be entirely trustworthy, owing to the level of discretion involved in how they are reported. Unsurprisingly, absence may fluctuate year on year rather than necessarily showing a consistent trend in either direction.

There appears to be a ‘hard core’ of about 2 per cent of pupils (and/or their parents) for whom nothing much works and who are seriously disengaged from education. These are largely the same families as the government’s Social Exclusion Unit has recognised as still being outside most mainstream services. Many of these will be among those classed as ‘persistent truants’, though the current preferred term is ‘persistent absentees’, because of the range of reasons for their absence that may be involved. This small group account for most of the absence; it is not evenly distributed. But that means that about 98 per cent of children are there for most or even all of the time, or absent only with the school’s agreement or for reasons that were unavoidable. Without minimising the problems, especially for those who are effectively ‘lost’, this does not entirely match the picture of widespread anti-social attitudes sometimes portrayed by the media and politicians of all persuasions.

Dealing with absence

However, despite what is arguably quite an impressive level of attendance overall, individual schools are clearly expected to do more to promote it than used to be the case. These levels are not achieved by accident. All school staff across all Key Stages are involved in these responsibilities, even those working in early years. While the attendance of these younger children is not compulsory (and staff must appreciate the distinction to avoid challenging parents unnecessarily and without legal authority to do so), good habits established here can only benefit the child later. School policies are essential for establishing good practice in promoting as high a level of attendance as possible. Addressing the issues in a proactive way is likely to prevent greater problems occurring further on in the child’s educational career. Even if this does not benefit your own school, perhaps it will help your colleagues in subsequent schools. The earlier the intervention, the better for everyone.

As well as the need to deal appropriately with individual cases, the government has placed extensive wider legal obligations on schools:

• recording, reporting and publishing information about absence and attendance;
• a duty to take twice-daily attendance registers, morning and afternoon, using prescribed codes and categories;
• annual absence target-setting according to a national system;
• notifying data to the DCSF (each term and annually);
• providing attendance information for parents and the local authority; and
• assisting in legal action by the local authority where required.

Sticks or carrots?

Critics might suggest that if our schools were good enough, or perhaps if education were not free, everyone would want their children to be there and they would queue up to go! That certainly seems to be the experience of countries in the developing world, where provision is scarce and costly. Some element of legal enforcement has always been retained, and, along with it, the existence of the ‘School Board Man’ (sic) and their contemporary local authority equivalent in the Education Welfare Service (EWS), in order to chase up the reluctant. An elderly acquaintance of mine remembers a man known as ‘Daddy Whitney’ (no relation as far as I am aware), who terrorised the children of Crewe in the late 1930s, complete with a big stick!

If real progress is to be made, reforms of current structures, specifically designed to place the learning needs of individual children at the centre, might need to result in educational opportunities that look very different from the current emphasis on ‘schools’. Perhaps older children even ought to be paid for attending in order to promote an appropriate work ethic in return, as with adults. ‘What’s in it for me?’ has become a question that previous generations might not have considered important, but in today’s consumer culture is crucial. Incentives and positive reinforcement may now be needed, not just sanctions that are unlikely to provide the necessary motivation on their own.

There are, perhaps, more opportunities not to attend school nowadays than there ever used to be: the Internet, 500 television channels all day, year-round theme parks, longer paid holidays, cheap foreign travel, parents out at work, etc. Staying at home has never been easier or more attractive. Perhaps this range of alternatives makes the levels of attendance now being achieved even more impressive. An element of inevitable teenage rebellion makes even the most ordered and functional family vulnerable to occasional unauthorised absences.

So, even the most stimulating and well-organised school needs to be aware of what may need to be done to ensure that all its pupils attend as they should. It is entirely ‘normal’ for a child or young person to test the boundaries and see what happens if they do not fall in with what is expected of them all the time. Such behaviour is not necessarily an indicator of major family problems or evidence of a developing anti-authority attitude in either child or parent.

Some children just skip school occasionally to do something else, perhaps showing an entirely natural avoidance of something difficult or less than exciting, without necessarily repeating the behaviour over again. Some parents have what they see as more urgent priorities to deal with today and school just has to wait till tomorrow. Bullying and other understandable reasons for not wanting to be in school are certainly a factor. Teenagers frequently fall out with each other and with being together all day. Much use of attendance and absence procedures is just a routine pastoral response, and many situations are capable of relatively easy resolution through prompt action by school staff and parents.

However, in some cases of non-attendance, perhaps an increasing number, not being at school is only the presenting problem betraying something much deeper underneath. There are many vulnerable children who cannot be expected to attend school while all else crumbles in chaos around them. These include:

• those whose families are in crisis;
• those experimenting with sex, drugs, alcohol or other abusive substances;
• those caught up in crime and anti-social behaviour;
• those with major mental health needs;
• many children in the public care system;
• the victims of abuse and of discrimination;
• those grappling with the implications of caring for their parents or siblings;
• those who are homeless;
• those suffering domestic violence;
• those suffering poverty and wider ‘social exclusion’.

There are certainly some parents who do not seem to care about the effect that missing school may have on their children in the long run, but they are far from typical of all those whose children are sometimes absent. Assessing the reason for the absence, rather than jumping to any particular conclusion too quickly, is crucial. The law seeks to be realistic in recognising that 100 per cent attendance is not necessarily required, allowing for ‘sickness and other unavoidable cause’ which can justify the child being absent. Some situations, such as children living in families where the nature of the parent’s business requires them to travel from place to place, are given special dispensation in recognition of the fact that regular school attendance may not be practicable.

In another rather odd anomaly, children are also allowed to have as much time off school as they need in order to take part in professional modelling, sport, films, stage shows and TV programmes, etc., which may have to be done during the day. This makes an interesting contrast with the pressure on parents not to take their children on holiday in term-time just because the prices are cheaper then or to keep them off school with minor illnesses. There is considerable discretion, given primarily to headteachers but also, to a limited extent to parents, that enables situations that are less than perfect to be regarded as nonetheless satisfactory. ‘Part-time’ attendance, agreed with the school, is not at all uncommon, especially for some older pupils. Education can take place away from the actual building in other settings or, increasingly, by means of information technology and distance learning, as well as by traditional methods.

But being known to a school, and on its registers so that its staff can keep track of you, is meant to be a significant contribution to ensuring a child’s general welfare. As a result, there are detailed laws and Regulations in place to protect children as ‘registered pupils’ which both parents and professionals are required to follow. Effective management of attendance and absence is not only about the cold enforcement of Regulations, but simple justice suggests that there should be some consistency to avoid any suggestion that certain children and families have been subject to sanctions on an arbitrary or prejudicial basis. In my experience, the legal basis of the judgements that are made by school staff and attendance professionals is not always as clear, consistent and impartial as it surely should be. The law can be both tender and tough but it should not be unjust, discriminatory or ignored just because its implementation raises difficult questions.

‘Registered’ or ‘otherwise’

Whether or not a child is a ‘registered pupil’ at a school is a crucial issue that is explored in detail later in the chapter. This definition is of fundamental importance in knowing what may be reasonably expected of a parent. The right to educate their child ‘otherwise than at school’ if they wish to has always been a principle of the British system. If parents opt to educate their children themselves, they do not have to deliver the National Curriculum, nor spend a given number of hours in formal instruction, provided the education is ‘suitable’ to the child’s needs. Indeed, court judgments in the past have suggested that the test is whether the child is adequately prepared for the community of which they are a member, not necessarily whether they reach a standard of academic attainment that might be seen as the normwithin schools. (Pupils with a Statement of SEN may be subject to rather greater scrutiny, and the LA may have a right to intervene more robustly.)

True empowerment of parents may be about exploring perfectly legal alternatives, but, while their child is a registered pupil, a whole series of obligations apply. Changing this status, whether the initiative is taken by the parent or the school, is of enormous significance. The focus of this book is, of course, on those who make use of schools, but this wider context must always be remembered, especially where any question arises about removing children from the admission register, including permanent exclusion and alternative educational programmes.

The legal framework

The Education Act 1996

The Education Act 1996 outlines the basic legal obligations on parents and replaced the relevant sections of the Education Act 1944 and the Education Act 1993 from 1 November 1996.

Duty on parents

Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 says, ‘The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable –

1. to his age, ability and aptitude, and
2. to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.’

It is assumed for legal purposes that any educational programme provided through a school or a local authority for a registered pupil, including any tuition delivered at home, will meet the necessary criteria. Such provision should be ‘full time’ unless the circumstances are exceptional. But a number of key words are not defined in more detail. What is required for an education to be ‘efficient’ or ‘suitable’? What has to be provided ‘otherwise’? These can all be a matter of some dispute.

If parents take up the ‘otherwise’ option by providing the education themselves (and at their own expense), their provision should theoretically be approved by the local authority as meeting the requirements set out in section 7 of the Act. However, the degree of scrutiny may be very limited. Officers have no right of entry to people’s homes or to see the child studying. Parents do not actually have to produce evidence of work or written timetables for inspection, though many do so voluntarily. Many also access help and advice that may be available to support them. But it is up to the LA to prove that the parent is not educating the child if it is not satisfied with the arrangements, not the other way round.

The Education Act 1996

The parents have a legal duty to ensure that their children of compulsory school age are ‘properly educated, either at school or otherwise’, according to their ‘age, ability and aptitude’ and ‘any special educational needs’, (s.7).

The Act provides a definition of compulsory school age, namely children between the age of fi...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 The legal framework
• 2 Effective registration
• 3 Managing attendance
• 4 Inter-agency working
• 5 Narrative case studies
• 6 ‘Here today, here again tomorrow’
• Conclusion
• Further information