raising school attendance: a case study of good practice in monitoring and raising standards

Raising school attendance:a case study of good practice inmonitoring and raising standards

Ken ReidSwansea Institute of Higher Education, Swansea, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to discuss the issue of managing and reducing schoolabsenteeism and truancy.

Design/methodology/approach – The article proposes the development and implementation ofsome long-term strategic approaches to tackling truancy and other forms of non-attendance fromschool. This article focuses on the innovative School-Based Scheme (SBS).

Findings – The article proposes methods which are relatively easy to organise, implement, monitorand evaluate. It can be used in both primary and secondary schools and/or throughout all schoolswithin a local education authority.

Research limitations/implications – Preliminary evaluations suggest that it has improvedattendance rates by over 4 per cent throughout all schools in one local education authority (LEA).

Practical implications – A high proportion of schools throughout England and Wales are belowthe Department for Education and Skills (DfES) targets either for overall levels of attendance, or forlevels of authorised or unauthorised absence within both the primary and secondary sectors. Theapproaches proposed would address such issues.

Originality/value – It is hoped that the article will be of particular interest and help to headteachers, senior and middle management in schools, learning mentors, classroom assistants,home-school liaison officers, principal and senior education welfare officers and appropriate localeducation authority staff, especially those pastoral and management staff who have day-to-daydealings with pupils like absentees and truants.

Keywords Schools, Absenteeism, Standards

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionSuccessive governments have been attempting to raise standards within schools and toimprove the quality of pupils’ education. There is clear evidence however, that raisingthe level of pupils’ overall attendance has proved stubbornly difficult. For example, theNational Audit Office Report (National Audit Office, 2005) found that levels of overallabsence had changed very little over the last 20 years, despite the considerable range ofinitiatives attempted by the Department of Education and Skills (DfES), local educationauthorities (LEAs), individual schools and education welfare teams.

Between 1997-1998 and 2003-2004, the National Audit Office (NAO) estimated thatthe DfES had spent around £885 million in initiatives designed to reduce absence from

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

The author would like to thank Paul Halliwell, the former Deputy Head of School A and WendyMiddlemas, Principal Manager – Social Inclusion as well as other colleagues within the LEA andacknowledge their contributions in carrying out the processes utilised through the School-BasedScheme and their achievements in raising attendance throughout the Authority.

Raising schoolattendance

199

Quality Assurance in EducationVol. 14 No. 3, 2006

pp. 199-216q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0968-4883DOI 10.1108/09684880610678531

state schools. Despite this, rates of unauthorised absence have not only declined butstarted to increase once again. In fact, 36 per cent of pupils are now starting theirhistories of non-attendance within primary schools and levels of absence are rising foryears 7, 8 and 9 pupils in some LEAs.

The NAO Report suggested that although LEAs and schools do much good work intheir attempts to improve attendance, “best practice should be more widely adopted.Whilst absence from school arises from a range of causes, there is much scope forachieving further improvements in attendance at a national local and individual schoollevel” (National Audit Office, 2005, p. 1).

Factors influencing absence from school include: parental attitudes to education;holidays taken during term-time; familial and home background issues; transportationdifficulties; frequent school changes; the unattractiveness and lack of relevance of thecurriculum; the management of behaviour within schools; bullying (in and out ofschool, in the community ad on-the-way to school); parent-school relationships; schoolpolicies and practices; pupils with special educational needs; learning difficulties andpersonal problems; peer pressure; and, particularly of concern, the influence of drugs,alcohol and child abuse. Some studies have reported that boredom at school is alsorelated to underachievement, disaffection and non-attendance (Malcolm et al., 2003).

The NAO study was confirmed by research undertaken on behalf of NewPhilanthropy Capital (NPC) by Boyle and Goodall (2005a, 2005b). They also reportedthat there had been little improvement, if any, in overall rates of school attendance inEngland despite the government investing huge sums of money annually. The cost ofsupporting a truant throughout his or her life could amount to around a quarter of amillion pounds through such supportive networks as income support and housingbenefit. It can cost also an additional sum of around £63,000 per pupil in the attempt toretain persistent absentees and truants in school through a range of multidisciplinaryand interdisciplinary support (Boyle and Goodall, 2005a, p. 3).

Evidence from research indicates that some schools have disproportionately highlevels of truancy and other forms of non-attendance (O’Keefe, 1994; Reid, 1999, 2002).Some schools have experienced these problems consistently over a 30 year period,despite all their best endeavours, (Reid, 2002, chapter 2). Therefore, it has becomeapparent that in order to combat truancy and other forms of non-attendance withinsome schools, it is first necessary to change pupils’, parents’ and teachers’ attitudeswithin some of these schools as well as the pervading culture and ethos.

Without pupils regularly attending school, it is difficult to raise the quality,standards and achievement levels of both pupils and schools alike as measured byperformance league tables, assessment targets (SATs), external examinations and byinspections conducted by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), (Reid, 2005a).In fact, research undertaken in Scotland has shown that the attendance is the single,most crucial variable in measuring pupils’ achievement levels. The Scottish Council forResearch in Education Study (Scottish Council for Research in Education Study, 1995;Malcolm et al., 1996) manifestly showed the clearest possible link between attendanceand performance at every phase of schooling from the infant and primary stages to thelater years of secondary education. If therefore, schools wish to raise the quality andstandards of their provision, they must first ensure that their pupils attend.

In 2004-2005, 286 schools in England were placed in special measures by the Office(Ofsted). Of these, over 70 per cent were placed in special measures for a reason/s

QAE14,3

200

associated with attendance, whether because of rates of attendance which were belownational targets (92 per cent for secondary schools, 95 per cent for primary schools) orbecause of the poor management of non-attendance within these schools (Reid, 2005a, b).

Therefore, the evidence provided in the remainder of this article will be especiallyimportant for those schools and LEAs with a known or burgeoning problem ofnon-attendance; not least because of recent changes in Ofsted’s (2004b) inspectionprocesses. Some schools appear to have too few rational ideas about how to overcometheir major attendance difficulties. This paper presents evidence of how one LEA and aparticularly poor attended school within this LEA, have turned things round throughthe adoption of a long-term strategic approach. This scheme is known as theSchool-Based Scheme (SBS). Hence, the evidence contained in this paper should beespecially important for head teachers (primary or secondary), senior staff, middlemanagers, form tutors, governing bodies, education welfare officers, education socialworkers, learning mentors, classroom assistants, personal advisers, LEA support staff,school improvement officers, behaviour and attendance consultants, school inspectorsand policy advisers and all those with an interest in pupils’ levels of attendance, raisingacademic standards as well as improving the quality of provision within schools.

Previous researchRaising attendance within schools is never easy. Despite this there is clear evidence ofmore good practice taking place within LEAs and schools than ever before. Most LEAsand schools promote sound policy documents for managing poor attendance,monitoring pupils’ attendance and endeavouring to improve existing standards. Withinsome schools, post-registration truancy, specific lesson absence and parental-condonedabsenteeism are the three most significant causes of non-attendance. However, reasonsfor non-attendance vary significantly between schools.

The Chief Inspector for Schools has found that throughout England procedures formonitoring and improving attendance are better than they used to be, but remainunsatisfactory in one in 12 despite the best efforts of many schools. A minority ofparents, often with poor experience of education and low expectations of children, donot do enough to ensure that their children attend school regularly or to support theschool in taking action on truancy (Ofsted, 2004a, para. 159). Despite most schoolshaving appropriate policies on school attendance, many of these are deficient in certainaspects. In particular, a range of schools do not have appropriate reintegration andreturn-to-school strategies in place (Reid, 2002; Ofsted, 2004a).

Raising standards and attendance are a key part of the government’s strategies forschool improvement, fresh start, schools facing challenging circumstances and specialmeasures; indeed, for all schools in the state sector. Raising standards and attendanceare mainstream features and aims of several DfES-led initiatives. These include suchmajor funding initiatives as Education Action Zones (EAZ), Excellence in Cities (EiC),Connexions, Sure Start, the Behaviour Improvement Programme, amongst a range ofothers (Ofsted, 2004a, paras. 329, 335, 339-49).

Evidence is mounting that schools in England which have participated in the EiCand EAZ initiatives have been improving their attendance faster than schools whichhave not participated in these schemes (DfES, 2001; Ofsted, 2004a, 2005). In particular,schools which employ learning school mentors (LSMs) are outperforming those schoolswhich do not utilise these services, both in terms of attendance and achievement(Ofsted, 2004a, 2005). However, schools tend to vary in terms of their catchment,


201

socioeconomic and pupil intake variables. For example, schools with above averagelevels of pupils on free school meals often under-perform and have lower rates ofpupils’ attainment and attendance (Zhang, 2003, 2004).

Morris and Rutt (2004, p. 1) found from their research which obtained pupil-leveldata from over 60,000 students in Excellence in Cities (EiC) schools that:

(1) The majority of incidents of unauthorised absence were accounted for by aminority of pupils. Nearly half of the recorded sessions of unauthorised absencewere attributable to just 2 per cent of the pupils.

(2) Nearly 5 per cent of the pupils in the EiC schools, and more than 5 per cent ofthose in year 10, had authorised absence periods that equated to approximatelyhalf a term (80 half-day sessions).

(3) Once pupil and school background characteristics for young people in years 9and 10 were taken into account there were higher than average levels ofauthorised absence amongst:. girls;. those with special educational needs;. those in receipt of free school meals; and. those in 11-16 comprehensive schools[1].

There were similar higher than average levels of unauthorised absence amongst:. pupils with special educational needs;. those in receipt of free school meals;. girls in girls’ schools in year 9;. year 10 pupils in Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP) status schools;. low performing schools; and. EiC schools located in South West England.

Similarly, the support given to schools by parents in high and low attendance schoolstends to vary. The critical role of parents’/carers’ attitudes towards school attendanceshould never be underestimated. Dalziel and Henthorne (2005) reveal in their researchhow starkly the views and attitudes of parents/carers of good attenders differ fromthose who are parents/carers of poor attenders. Specifically, they identified four typesof parents who are involved with poor attenders and/or truants. These were: those whotry hard to tackle poor attendance; those who describe themselves as feeling powerlessto tackle poor attendance; those who appear to be over-protective or dependent upontheir child; those who are either apathetic about tackling poor attendance or whoappear not to engage with the school or with other support professionals (see McNeal,1999; Reid, 2002, chapter 9).

On the role of LEAs, Ofsted (2004a, p. 89) have reported that some “are doing moreto promote attendance” although “support for behaviour has weakened”. In a third ofLEAs, support for attendance “is good”. Increasingly, LEAs have clear service-levelagreements with schools and clear objectives for providing support. Truancy sweepsand collaboration with the police is proving effective, although another recent study(Arch, 2005) disagrees. LEAs also provide improved data information support to

QAE14,3

202

schools. “However, rates of attendance remain stubbornly low in many LEAs” (Ofsted,2004a, p. 96).

Malcolm et al. (2003) conducted their study based on seven LEAs in England where:. Reasons for absence differed between who was asked. Parents perceived the main

cause of truancy to be bullying, problems with teachers and peer pressure to stayaway from school. By contrast, truants said the main reason for missing schoolwas boredom. Other reasons included problems with lessons or teachers, beingbullied, peer pressure and social isolation. LEA staff thought that non-attendancewas related to attainment, disruptive behaviour and pupils’ safety.

. LEAs staff thought that too many school staff were over ready to accept thereasons given for absence and also authorised too many absences because theywere under pressure to reduce unauthorised absence.

. A total of 27 per cent of primary school children claimed they had truantedwithout the collusion of their parents. Worryingly, in 17 per cent of these cases,the primary pupils stated they could leave school without being detected.

. A total of 16 per cent of all secondary school pupils admitted to truanting fromschool.

If these latter two statistics are correct, there are clear signs that more primary-agedpupils and more of those in years 7, 8 and 9 are beginning to truant which suggests thatexisting government-led schemes are not working effectively.

The growth of disaffected behaviour amongst boys and girls is another area ofconcern. Smith (2004) found that in Scotland more girls than boys now truant. As manygirls as boys are engaged in criminal activity. Nevertheless, boys continue tooutnumber girls by a ratio of six to one amongst those who commit serious crimes andmisdemeanours.

Another project has focused on the link between poverty and poor schoolattendance. The extent of poverty in for example, South Wales can be endemicamongst the adult population. This, in turn, influences parents’ and pupils’ attitudestowards schooling. One project found:

. drug and alcohol abuse amongst children and adults were significant factors inpupils’ non-attendance;

. teenage pregnancies were well above national levels;

. low expectations and low morale were endemic amongst the community (seeReid, 1982);

. there was a lack of basic facilities and amenities such as shops, public services(e.g. doctors, chemists, swimming facilities) and public-access spaces within thelocal community;

. there were significant tensions amongst residents within the community,including a fear of crime, anti-social behaviour and bullying;

. a lack of respect for the police;

. young people feeling little optimism for their long-term future; and

. well above average numbers of pupils needing free school meals, having mobilityissues or special educational needs (BRCS, 1999).


203

For all these reasons, it is important that schools, especially low attendance schools,consider introducing appropriate organisational structures to support, monitor andimprove their rates of attendance. There is little previous research having beenundertaken into the utility of these schemes, although early evidence is encouraging(Reid, 2003a, b, 2004). One study found that the implementation of out-of-school hourslearning strategies on top of appropriate attendance and behaviour policies could proveespecially effective (Reid, 2003c).

In fact, the potential of these longer-term, strategic and school change approachesfor providing a structure to implement and improve school attendance is important. Ofparticular benefit is the fact that these schemes provide a structural basis formonitoring and tackling the issues, focusing upon individual students’ needs andthereby, raising standards and the quality of the provision of pupils’ learning andsupport requirements in as empathetic manner as possible. Whilst the initial planning,conceptualisation and implementation of the schemes are important in the early stages,once the structure is established and in place, the processes gradually becomeautomatic. The procedures are also transparent. Long-term strategies are especiallyeffective as part of individual school’s improvement and enhancement processes. Theyalso help to raise and assure the quality of the provision of the learning supportprovided to students.

MethodologyIn order to address its attendance difficulties, an authority in north-west Englandorganised a two-day conference for all its schools. Those included were head teachers,senior school staff, education welfare officers and LEA-support staff. In addition, twoseparate professional development events were held for education welfare officers,attendance support staff and learning mentors. There followed further staffdevelopment events for specific whole-schools, especially those with seriousattendance difficulties. For example, a special event was held for staff in school A(see later case study) which, at the time, had the lowest overall rate of attendance forany secondary school in England and was bottom of the performance league table foroverall attendance in 2003-2004.

Presentations with practical examples were given of some possible short andlong-term solutions to tackling non-attendance and truancy (and, by so doing, raisingstandards of pupils’ achievement) by the author. Thereafter, the LEA and school staffdetermined to implement an entirely new long-term strategic approach to tackling theirpupils’ attendance difficulties. This scheme is unique. Whilst it adapted some of thekey principles used in other approaches (Reid, 2003a, b, 2004), it introduced an entirelynew and radical format. This approach became known as the School-Based Scheme(SBS) (see earlier).

After a process of induction, which included rewriting LEA and school policydocuments, informing parents and pupils alike, and training all staff, SBS wasimplemented into every primary and secondary school within the LEA.

The aim was to set the LEA and individual schools targets to improve their overallrates of attendance within a five-year period. This was specifically undertaken in orderto:

. help them to improve their position in national attendance performance leaguetables; and

QAE14,3

204

. help them to improve the attendance rates in specifically-identifiedlow-attendance/performance schools.

Prior to the staff development events, the particular LEA had identified seriousattendance issues. For example, the Office Ofsted had judged the management of itsattendance to be ‘unsatisfactory.’ Since the introduction of the SBS, a follow-up OfstedReport praised the LEAs new procedures, processes and improved outcomes (see later).

The location of many schools in the LEA meant that it served a broadly deprivedarea in north-west England where rates of social, economic and health deprivation arewell above national averages. A disproportionate and higher than average number ofpupils receive free school meals. Parts of the LEA have large numbers of pupils withspecial educational needs, mobility issues, high numbers of pupils speaking English asa second language as well as pockets of second and third generation truancy. In someways, part of the LEA, and, in particular, School A, is located in a similar location tothose identified in the BCRS (1999) study reported earlier.

The SBSThe advantage of the SBS is that it provides a format for monitoring pupils’ attendancewhich is compliant with all recent legislation. This specifically includes suchlegislation as: Human Rights, Health and Safety, Disability, Equal Opportunities, RaceRelations, Data Protection and Freedom of Information. It also conforms particularlywell to the DfES’ fast-track prosecution initiative, the regulations and implementationof The Children Act of 2004 and the need to meet DfES targets on school attendance.Presently, the latter are 92 per cent for secondary schools and 95 per cent for primaryschools. The LEA contained a large number of primary and secondary schools whichfailed to meet these national targets as well as the national averages for bothauthorised and unauthorised absence.

The SBS was introduced into the LEA by agreeing a whole-school, zero toleranceapproach for dealing with pupils’ non-attendance at each of the five stages (seeFigure 1). The process involved placing absentees into an appropriate monitoringgroup for action. The action taken was dependent upon whether a pupil’s attendancehad either improved or deteriorated. Pupils involved in changes of school within theLEA take their attendance level and stage with them to their new school.

Stage 1 includes all those pupils who are making regular school attendance andwhose attendance is not a cause for concern. Typically, it included all pupils whoseattendance is more than 92 per cent.

Stage 2 is for pupils whose attendance is beginning to cause concern. This wasintroduced for pupils whose attendance was between 85 and 92 per cent. Stage 3 is forpupils whose attendance was becoming a cause for serious concern. It includes, forexample, all those pupils whose attendance had dropped to levels between 75 and 84per cent. Stage 4 is used for those pupils whose attendance has fallen to between 74 and65 per cent. Finally, stage 5 procedures are introduced as soon as pupils’ attendancefalls below 65 per cent.

Pupils are selected for the group stages depending upon their individual rates ofattendance. Pupils’ rates of attendance were initially examined in detail after six weeksof the autumn term. Thereafter, as a result of the subsequent monitoring exercise,positive action was taken to improve every absentee’s attendance. The process


205

involved placing absentees into an appropriate monitoring group for action. The actiontaken was dependent upon whether a pupil’s attendance had either improved ordeteriorated.

When the SBS was first introduced into each primary and secondary school, it wasnecessary to wait for an initial period of six weeks to enable each pupil’s pattern ofattendance to settle down. A pupil’s attendance is automatically referred by half-termof the first term of the school year once, and if it starts to fall below the 92 per centthreshold unless there is clear supporting evidence to justify the absence (e.g. illness).In subsequent years, pupils have re-commenced their position in the process dependentupon their previous years’ attendance. Once the scheme was introduced, pupils’attendance was monitored throughout the remainder of their school lives byappropriate staff by using the following five-stage processes (see Figure 1).

Stage 1 pupils make consistently regular attendance at school and require little orno support. At stage 2, the parent and student are sent an initial warning letter andreminded of the importance of making regular school attendance, their parentalresponsibilities and the possible consequences of failing to fulfil them. Pupils’attendance is at this point monitored by the form tutor and director of studentperformance or an equivalent position (see Table I).

At stage 3, the parent and student are asked to attend an attendance panel. Theattendance panel was comprised of three key staff. Often, dependent upon a school’s

Figure 1.Pupils’ attendance

QAE14,3

206

management structure and the LEA’s policy and practice, these consisted of a deputyhead or assistant head in charge of attendance, the school attendance officer oreducation welfare officer, the director of student performance or head of special needsas appropriate. Panel meetings were usually held between two and seven o’clock in theevening to facilitate single mothers, parent/s with pupils at primary schools or thosewho work unsocial hours (e.g. shift work). Records of meetings were maintained. At themeeting, the pupil’s attendance, behaviour and academic progress was discussed.Parents were warned of the impending next two stages if their child’s attendance didnot improve. Parent/s and pupils were asked to sign the record of discussion andagreed action plan before leaving the meeting.

For stage 4 cases, the parent and pupil attended a governors’ attendance panel. Thisnormally consists of a school governor (chair), deputy or assistant head (although someschools especially primary schools introduced the head teacher at this point to signifytheir concern), attendance officer and/or education welfare officer and either thedirector of student performance or head of special needs as appropriate. The agendawas similar to stage 3 although the school issued a final warning to the parent at theend of the meeting.

At stage 5, the parent(s) and pupil attended an LEA panel. This was chaired by anassistant director of education or his or her nominee (e.g. head of attendance andbehaviour support). Other panel members included a school’s chair of governors (ornominee), either the head teacher, deputy or assistant head i/c attendance, arepresentative from the education welfare service or social services. At this meeting,the panel members, parent(s) and student explored all the possible reasons and contextfor the repeated absences from school. They issued the parent with a final warning inwhich the pupil’s attendance was monitored daily over a six-week period during whichtime the student’s attendance was expected to be 100 per cent. As soon as, or, if andwhen, pupils having reached this stage, allow their attendance to drop again, the caseis forwarded for consideration for possible prosecution.

Monitored by Action Stage

Form tutor No action Stage 1Form tutor and director of studentperformance

Daily checking: parent and studentstart to become involved

Stage 2

Deputy head/assistant headEducation welfare officerDirector of student performanceHead of special needs

Daily checking: parent and studentattend a term attendance panel

Stage 3

School governor (chair)Head teacher/deputy or assistant headEducation welfare officerDirector of student performance/head ofspecial needs

Daily checking: parent and studentattend a governors’ attendance panel

Stage 4

Assistant director of education (chair)Head of attendance and behaviour supportSchool’s chair of governorsHead teacher/deputy or assistant headPrincipal education welfare officer ornominee representative from social services

Daily checking: parent and studentattend an LEA panel. Case sent forpossible prosecution and familyassessment

Stage 5

Table I.The five-stage process:

monitoring results


207

Evaluating the progress and success of the outcomes of the SBS is comparativelysimple. Attendance rates are measured by year, gender, form, subject and school oncethe scheme had been implemented over fixed periods of time. It is possible to compareand contrast attendance patterns weekly, monthly, every six months or on an annualbasis as appropriate. This monitoring takes place within individual schools by seniormanagement teams (SMT) and throughout all schools within the authority by thecreation of an LEA management group. It is also possible to adjust and amend theattendance performance targets in each of the five stages (see Figures 2 and 3) to suit aschool’s changing circumstances following the first year review. For example, asattendance improved, it may be desirable to raise or lower the stage 5 threshold toseventy per cent. Similarly, panel membership is regularly reviewed depending uponoutcomes. Some schools decided to review their panel membership after the first year.For example, some schools preferred to continue to involve head teachers in stage 4and 5 processes; others decided not to do so. Equally, learning mentors, home-schoolliaison officers, attendance officers and classroom assistants were used in some schools

Figure 2.Alternative approaches: alighter touch

QAE14,3

208

during the stage processes; in others the preference was to use more senior staff fromthe onset. It is also important to ensure that groups at each stage have appropriateterms of reference.

FindingsIt is worth exemplifying the outcomes of this process first, through the use of a casestudy of the secondary school in the LEA which had the lowest rate of daily attendancein England and second, through an examination of progress made by the localauthority. The particular school raised its overall attendance by nearly 10 per cent in

Figure 3.Alternative approaches:

being harder


209

its first year of usage. Its rates of unauthorised absence were also significantly reduced.Monthly comparative statistical meetings on attendance returns were introduced bythe senior management team as part of the monitoring exercise.

Case study: School ASchool A is located in a significantly deprived neighbourhood. The school’s externalappearance and building estate requires both modernisation and substantial repair.The school has had serious attendance and behavioural problems for at least twodecades and its pupil performance data makes it one of the worst performing schools inEngland in several externally published league tables.

School A introduced the SBS in line with its LEA’s new policy on attendance aftertheir overall school attendance fell to 79.27 per cent in session 2002-2003 from 83.65 percent in session 2001-2002; a decrease of 4.38 per cent and well below the Ofstedthreshold. Unauthorised absence increased in the same period from 6.22 per cent to13.17 per cent. Authorised absences however, fell from 10.12 per cent in 2001-2002 to7.56 per cent in 2002-2003. Attendance rates by year varied from 88.02 per cent in year7 to 87.86 per cent, 83.54 per cent, 74.97 per cent and 65.36 per cent for years 8, 9, 10 and11 respectively. Unauthorised absence rates ranged from 4.75 per cent in year 7 to 5.39per cent, 7.84 per cent, 17.49 per cent and 26.95 per cent between years 8 to 11. In thefirst term of using the SBS, 55 pupils were identified initially as requiring stage 2processes. Thereafter, 26 pupils were referred to stages 3 to 5. Within its LEA, SchoolA was bottom of the league table both for authorised and unauthorised absence. All theother ten secondary schools within the LEA had overall attendance rates of between 87and 91.88 per cent indicating that the school’s performance was worse than peerinstitutions locally and nationally.

School A’s philosophy, as part of its equal opportunities and attendance policy, is totake appropriate measures to encourage regular and punctual attendance at school andat all of its lessons. The principles of the school’s attendance policy are outlined in thelist below. School A gives a high priority to conveying to parents and pupils theimportance of regular and punctual attendance. The school uses an up-to-date,dynamic and progressive school policy document on attendance which promotes awhole-school approach. The school’s policy is to authorise absences on the basis ofgenuine illness, unavoidable medical appointments, bereavement and for recognisedreligious festivals. The school does not authorise unexplained or parental condonedabsences (such as for shopping or visiting relatives). Family holidays can be authorisedfor up to ten days a year if this has been requested in writing and is approved by thehead teacher before the holiday begins.

Principles of the school’s attendance policy. ensure that all staff are aware of the registration processes;. efficiently and accurately register all pupils both in the morning and in the

afternoon sessions;. establish and maintain effective communication between the school and the

home, keeping each appraised of attendance issues;. ensure that pupils and parents are aware of the implications of absence on their

child’s educational success;

QAE14,3

210

. offer a range of interventions and support aimed at overcoming barriers tolearning, of which irregular attendance is key;

. operate an efficient referral system to the LEA’s Education Welfare Service, forsuch cases as appropriate with efficient feedback to staff, pupils and parents asappropriate;

. liaise with external agencies (e.g. social services) as necessary;

. display attendance rates in tutor rooms and remind students constantly ofindividual and group targets;

. set appropriate targets for groups, individuals and the school;

. reward pupils for good and improved attendance;

. act upon parental, staff and agency requests for support with attendance issues,exploring and responding to issues raised in a flexible manner;

. put in place preventative procedures whenever possible;

. promote innovative return to school and reintegration strategies;

. keep procedural policy under constant review;

. make sure that learning and teaching strategies are relevant for all pupilsirrespective of ability, gender, religion or racial origin; and

. write an annual report for the SMT and Board of Governors.

Shortly after introducing the SBS, the school’s attendance significantly improved. Theattitude of some parents towards their children’s attendance also changed positively.The school reported an improvement of 5 per cent in its attendance rates during thefirst term of its inception. The LEA, which decided to pioneer the scheme throughoutall its secondary schools, also reported an overall rise of approximately 4 per centduring the same period. The emphasis that attendance matters was beginning to makeits mark with parents and pupils alike. The improvement was so marked that the DfESsent a panel to explore the LEAs overall marked improvement. This panel reportedback positively. Subsequently, the LEAs and some schools’ improvements inattendance rates was commented upon favourably in their LEA Office for Standards inEducation (Ofsted) report carried out in 2003.

The school has found that as its attendance began to improve, so its academicperformance correspondingly also showed similar gains. Currently, the school hasimproved from 9 per cent of its pupils gaining five or more grade C or better GCSEpasses in 1993 to 24.8 per cent in 2002-2003 and more than 35 per cent in 2003-2004.These gains have further increased in session 2004-2005 and the school is no longer onthe Department’s (DfES) “hit list” for closure. Whereas 30-plus per cent of pupils leftthe school with no formal qualifications in the early 1990s, this fell to less than 10 percent between 2002-2003 and 2004-2005.

The LEAPrior to the LEA’s re-inspection in June 2003, attendance within the authority wasdescribed by Ofsted as being “unsatisfactory.” Their Report stated: “Attendance inprimary schools was below the national average, and in secondary schools it was wellbelow”.


211

The Report went on to state that “The LEA gave poor support to schools inimproving pupils’ attendance at the time of the last inspection. The main weaknesseswere in the management of the LEA’s support and, particularly, the failure to deploysupport to those areas of greatest need.”

One year after commencing the SBS, Ofsted found “Those weaknesses have beenovercome and very many other improvements made. This aspect of the LEA’s work isnow good. Ofsted reported that “support for school attendance” was now “a particularstrength”. Positive features included: “detailed casework with pupils and parents”;“a well-designed, staged and benchmarked model for intervention”; “robust legalaction” and “the appropriate cautioning of offending parents”.

Ofsted went on to report that: “The authority has done much to improve itsprovision . . . As a result, a corner appears to have been turned. Most schools haveachieved improved attendance over the last two terms when compared with a similarperiod last year . . . There are indications that the LEA’s actions have led to increasedstringency by schools overall . . . The authority’s plans for further developmentindicate a satisfactory capacity for further improvement.”

Since session 2003-2004, the LEA has continued to improve its rates of overallattendance through the full range of its primary and secondary schools. By September2005, School A had climbed close to the half-way point of national league tables onoverall attendance; an improvement of approximately 15 per cent in two academicyears. Similarly, the LEA has risen significantly in its own performance league tableson attendance. There have been significant rises in attendance in most primary andsecondary schools averaging out at over 6 per cent for improvements in overallattendance.

Implications and conclusionsUtilising and implementing the SBS is relatively easy to organise and manage. In someways, it is much less demanding than its sister schemes, the PSCC and SSTG[2] Models(Reid, 2003b, 2004). It can also be adapted for electronic registration and monitoringpurposes by using the Traffic Lights[3] (TL Scheme) format onto a school’s electronicregistration and monitoring arrangements using the colour-coded concept (Reid,2003a).

Establishing the SBS needs careful thought. It requires a whole-school approach inthe fullest meaning of the term. Parents need to be briefed on the scheme as part of thepreliminary process before their pupils start at their primary schools or transfer totheir secondary schools. So do all the pupils. The “caring” message given to the parentsand the pupils and how this is put across are crucial to favourable long-term outcomes.

Ideally, schools will utilise a few short-term approaches alongside this majorlong-term strategic initiative. Reid (2002) has provided considerable details of 120short-term strategies on attendance for schools to select from. Three of the mostpopular, apart from first day contact, tend to be mentoring (however this isimplemented) and appropriate alternative curriculum and out-of-school learningsupport (Reid, 2003c). Other popular ideas include utilising such schemes as premierleague, “asthma” clinics, buddy systems, parental help projects, return toschool/reintegration strategies like the formation of social inclusion units, prioritylists, second chance opportunities, truancy buster, spot checks and linked vocationalcourses (Reid, 2002). The causes of non-attendance are so varied and diverse that

QAE14,3

212

finding similar solutions which work effectively in every school situation is not easyand most schools try a wide variety of different approaches (Reid, 2000).

Some schools need to raise the profile of attendance on their agendas. In far toomany schools, attendance is too low a priority on school development and in schoolimprovement plans (SIHE, 2003, 2004, 2005). However, variations in practice abound.The SBS gives schools a simple and convenient way of raising the profile of attendancein a caring and empathetic manner. The potential gains of the scheme far outweigh thedisadvantages as the benefits offer schools and their pupils far more than a simplereduction in non-attendance and an improvement in authorised and unauthorisedattendance. It can be used as part of a school change strategy and can help to improveand foster better home-school relationships through the increased dialogue betweenparents and schools. It can also be a useful tool for improving pupils’ attitudes towardsattendance by making it clear that their attendance matters and the school cares aboutit. It can help to promote positive learning climates within schools. The sessionsinvolving discussions with parent(s), carers and pupil can lead to the school obtainingbetter information about a student’s needs which, in turn, can help a school todistinguish between authorised and unauthorised absence and fit in well with therequirements of the new Children Act.

The SBS is totally compatible with the DfES recently-issued guideline on fast trackprosecutions (DfES, 2003). It is also ideal to be used in conjunction with and alongsidethe introduction of LEA-based panels which form part of the new Anti-SocialBehaviour legislation. This legislation was introduced in early 2004 and requires allLEAs to monitor the attendance and behaviour of all pupils above the age of ten whoare a cause of concern. Therefore, the stage 5 process could either be adapted toconform to the requirements of this Act or simply used as part of the overall process.

The SBS is as effective within primary and secondary schools. Within primaryschools, it is especially useful in implementing early intervention strategies. In bothprimary and secondary schools the outcomes of the panel-based meetings are crucial inpromoting return-to-school and reintegration strategies. The SBS can be implementedby individual primary or secondary schools by themselves providing appropriate staffdevelopment and implementation guidelines are followed. However, by far its greatestutility is through whole-LEA managed approaches.

The SBS provides all those primary and secondary schools whose overallattendance is below the Ofsted threshold with a golden opportunity. They can also beused to show Ofsted inspectors clear evidence that the school is not only meeting theDfES guidelines and criteria, but doing everything possible to rectify the situation andimprove their overall attendance rates.

Finally, the great benefit of the SBS is its flexibility. Figures 2 and 3 provide twoalternative approaches to the implementation and practice of the scheme. Thus, thescheme could be tailor-made to the needs of the participating school. Figure 2 is asomewhat “softer” approach to the one outlined in Figure 3. How schools set their ownbenchmarks will be as much influenced by their own internal experiences and need asmuch as through the rigours of applying the concept itself. Schools with fewattendance problems may favour the Figure 2 alternative approach. Schools withserious attendance problems will probably need to start using the format as outlined inTable I and Figure 3. What really matters is having an appropriate attendance strategyin place.


213

Parents and pupils alike need to understand that not only is regular attendanceimportant but that erratic attendance can lead to much poorer academic performance,prosecution and, in far too many cases, a drift into antisocial behaviour and crime(Reid, 2000). Using the SBS as a whole-school attendance strategy signals to pupils,parents and carers alike that attendance matters. If and when pupils are not in school,irrespective of cause, staff will treat the matter seriously in accordance with the DfES,LEA and the school’s own guidelines. It is recommended that the SBS could readily beadapted and implemented for use by other LEAs and schools with similar attendanceproblems. The monitoring and collection of the data throughout these processes couldbe the subject of an interesting and innovative further research project. At present, allthe evidence suggests that as pupils’ attendance improves, so does their correspondingacademic performance (see SCRE, 1995; Malcolm et al., 1996).

Glossary

DfES Department for Education and Skills

EAZ Education Action Zones

EiC Excellence in Cities

GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education

LEA Local Education Authority

LSM Learning School Mentor

NAO National Audit Office

Ofsted Office for Standards in Education

PSCC Primary Secondary Colour-Coded Scheme

SBS School-Based Scheme

SCRE Scottish Council for Research in Education

SSTG Secondary School Three Group Scheme

Notes

1. Comprehensive schools (either 11-16 or 11-18) is the normal title given to typical statesecondary schools throughout the UK.

2. The Primary School Colour Coded Scheme (PCSCC), the Traffic Light scheme (TL) and theSecondary School Three Group Model (SSTG) are alternative long-term strategies forimproved school attendance which have been previously developed by the author.

3. The full details of these approaches and their application can be found in a book written bythe author in Tackling Truancy and School Absenteeism: Short and Long-term Solutions(see references)

References

Boyle, D. and Goodall, E. (2005a), School’s Out, New Philanthropy Capital, London.

Boyle, D. and Goodall, E. (2005b), The Financial Cost of Truancy and Exclusion, New PhilanthropyCapital, London.

QAE14,3

214

Bryncynon Community Revival Strategy (BCRS) (1999), Community Consultation Document:Summary Report and Business Plan, The Society, Cynon Valley.

Dalziel, D. and Henthorne, K. (2005), Parents’/Carers’ Attitudes towards School Attendance,DfES Publications, London.

DfES (2001), DfES Good Practice Guidelines for Learning Mentors, DfES Publications,Nottingham.

DfES (2003), DfES Ensuring Regular School Attendance, DfES Publications, Nottingham.

Malcolm, H., Wilson, V., Davidson, J. and Kirk, S. (2003), Absence from School: A Study of ItsCauses and Effects in Seven LEAs, Research Report 424, DfES Publications, Nottingham.

McNeal, R.B. (1999), “Parental involvement as social capital: differential effectiveness on scienceachievement, truancy and dropping out”, Social Forces, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 117-44.

Malcolm, H., Thorpe, G. and Lowden, K. (1996), Understanding Truancy: Links betweenAttendance, Truancy and Performance, Scottish Council for Research in Education,Edinburgh.

Morris, M. and Rutt, S. (2004), Analysis of Pupil Attendance Data in Excellence in Cities (EiC)Areas: Interim Report, HMSO Research Report No. 571, HMSO, London.

National Audit Office (2005), National Audit Office Improving School Attendance in England,HMSO, London.

Ofsted (2004), Ofsted Standards and Quality 2002/2003, The Annual Report of Her Majesty’sChief Inspector of Schools, Ofsted, London.

Ofsted (2004), Ofsted Ofsted: Future of Inspection, Ofsted, London.

Ofsted (2005), Standards and Quality 2003/2004, The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s ChiefInspector of Schools, Ofsted, London.

O’Keefe, D. (1994), Truancy in English Secondary Schools, HMSO, London.

Reid, K. (1982), “The self-concept and persistent school absenteeism”, British Journal ofEducational Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 179-87.

Reid, K. (1999), Truancy and Schools, Routledge, London.

Reid, K. (2000), Tackling Truancy in Schools: A Practical Manual for Primary and SecondarySchools, Routledge, London.

Reid, K. (2002), Truancy: Short and Long-Term Solutions, Routledge Falmer, London.

Reid, K. (2003a), “Strategic approaches to tackling school absenteeism and truancy: the TrafficLights (TL) scheme”, Educational Review, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 305-21.

Reid, K. (2003b), “A strategic approach to tackling school absenteeism and truancy: the PSCCscheme”, Educational Studies, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 351-71.

Reid, K. (2003c), “An evaluation of an out-of-school learning project in South Wales”, Mentoringand Tutoring, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 331-48.

Reid, K. (2004), “A long-term strategic approach to tackling truancy and absenteeism fromschools: the SSTG scheme”, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, Vol. 32 No. 1,pp. 55-72.

Reid, K. (2005a), “An evaluation of inspection reports on the management of secondary schoolattendance”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 117-35.

Reid, K. (2005b), “A comparison between inspection reports on the management of schoolattendance throughout the education service”, Pastoral Care in Education, Vol. 23 No. 4,pp. 31-41.


215

Scottish Council for Research in Education Study (1995), Understanding Truancy: Links btweenAttendance, Truancy and Performance, SCRE, Edinburgh.

SIHE (2003), Improving Attendance Strategies within Sefton, Swansea Institute of HigherEducation, Swansea.

SIHE (2004), Improving Attendance Strategies within Walsall, Swansea Institute of HigherEducation, Swansea.

SIHE (2005), An Evaluation of the Education Welfare Service in Cardiff, Swansea Institute ofHigher Education, Swansea.

Smith, D. (2004), Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime, University of Edinburgh,Edinburgh.

Zhang, M. (2003), “Links between school absenteeism and child poverty”, Pastoral Care inEducation, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 10-17.

Zhang, M. (2004), “Time to change the truancy laws? Compulsory education: its origin andmodern dilemma”, Pastoral Care in Education, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 27-33.

Further reading

Action on Rights for Children (2005), An Evaluation of Truancy Sweeps, The Society, London.

Ofsted (2004), Framework for the Inspection of Local Education Authorities, Ofsted, London.

Reid, K. (2004), “An evaluation of strategies and professional development needs on attendanceissues within an LEA”, Pastoral Care in Education, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 15-24.

QAE14,3

216

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

raising school attendance: a case study of good practice in monitoring and raising standards

Documents