You can’t seem to go a day without seeing an article in mainstream newspapers, not just the Education press, talking about the low attendance levels in Education.

We know it has always been a challenge, and post-Covid, it seems a higher priority for schools than ever. In the starkest terms of safeguarding children, we know that if they attend, they are alive.

The tragic, real-life cases detailed in Safeguarding Child Practice reviews show that if they don’t attend, they are often at higher risk, whether from those in the home environment, or contextual safeguarding wise from those in the local area. 

The FFT Education Data Lab has crunched the numbers to look at how many pupils risk falling below the government’s new thresholds for attendance. In short – has looked at how many more families face fines for their children not being in school.

Given the opening paragraph, the fact that number looks higher than under current guidelines could seem a good thing, as the importance of keeping children in education is well-publicised.

However, the report delves more closely into the realities of who would be fined and in safeguarding terms it opens up some interesting links. 

Essentially the proposed thresholds would lead to two groups of students being at a higher risk of triggering the threshold – which is set to be 10 or more unauthorised absences in a rolling 10 week period. These two groups are amongst the most vulnerable (or susceptible) children – children living in disadvantaged households (so eligible for FSM) and children receiving support for SEN (with or without an EHCP).  

The data, when broken down by year group and disadvantage, shows a significant increase in triggering the new threshold compared to peers in non-disadvantaged households. This variance is different for different year groups and secondary pupils show the highest difference. In year 10 over 40% of disadvantaged pupils would trigger the fine threshold compared to 16% of their non-disadvantaged peers. The data difference for children with SEN is less drastic, but still disproportionate to peers in terms of reaching the fine threshold. 

So, whilst schools have some discretion in how they apply fines (or not), this still is a safeguarding concern. We know that children in households in poverty might also be at a high risk of types of neglect – consider the family trying to earn more money so parents are working more hours, and the teenage child is left unsupervised. How much more likely is it that this child is going to be late or not attend? Poor mental health in adults can be prevalent in areas with high deprivation – this can lead to reductions in appropriate parenting capacity. So consider the likelihood that attendance doesn’t become a priority for that parent, who might even struggle to leave the house. 

So, whilst schools have some discretion in how they apply fines (or not), this still is a safeguarding concern. We know that children in households in poverty might also be at a high risk of types of neglect – consider the family trying to earn more money so parents are working more hours, and the teenage child is left unsupervised. How much more likely is it that this child is going to be late or not attend?

Poor mental health in adults can be prevalent in areas with high deprivation – this can lead to reductions in appropriate parenting capacity. So consider the likelihood that attendance doesn’t become a priority for that parent, who might even struggle to leave the house. 

These are just two scenarios where attendance is affected – and you will have plenty more. A fine in a household that already faces more challenges than average is not going to help (and the fine value will increase under the new proposals). It doesn’t keep a child safe. One might go so far as to say it is a public shaming measure rather than a supportive measure – and families usually know their child would be better in school, they just need the right support to make that happen.   

So what can we do in our settings?   

We need to ensure our attendance officers are an integral part of our safeguarding team in order to fully support children and families. We need to ask ourselves, how often do you meet with our your attendance officers, in protected meeting time, to discuss safeguarding concerns?   

It’s time to ask yourself those hard questions; Are you offering a variety of Early Help procedures to support attendance for these vulnerable families? For example, offering breakfast for the child (and potentially the family) can be a massive support. Are we working on any anxiety or challenges in children and families following procedures – is there neurodiversity and we need to be creative in how to support the child with routines and change? Are you recording any support other than Universal Support offered to the family and child? This is really helpful to then evidence why a fine might not be appropriate.   

However, it is also worth remembering you also have to follow your Local Authority’s attendance procedures – and some LAs might offer more discretion than others, only time will tell. You can also consider resources – if you need to be more vigilant than previously in chasing up reasons for absence to prevent unauthorised absences leading to fines – is there the staffing capacity for this currently?

Long term, this may really help to keep children safe.   

About the Author

Jo Perrin - Adviser, Services For Education

Jo Perrin is a seasoned Education Adviser with a strong background in safeguarding. She has held key roles as a Designated Safeguarding Lead and pastoral lead in the education sector. Facilitating training to enhance the knowledge and skills of professionals working directly with children and young people is her passion.

With a wealth of experience in teaching PSHE and expertise in childhood trauma from her time as a foster carer, Jo is dedicated to supporting organisations that work with children and vulnerable adults on safeguarding issues. She is actively involved in professional safeguarding groups in the West Midlands and is currently collaborating on a research project with colleagues from the University of Birmingham and the NHS focusing on FGM awareness within communities. Jo’s has worked as a West Midlands' Adviser for national PSHE resources, presented at the Sex Education Forum National Members' Event and authored an advertorial for PSM magazine and an article for SEND magazine.

Jo's expertise extends to training on topics such as Safer Recruitment and Mental Health at Work. She is also a facilitator for the nationally recognised NPQSL qualification, supporting senior leaders in education. Her contributions to publications and development of resources for RSE provision have been well-received by schools nationally and internationally.

With her extensive experience and dedication to professional development, Jo Perrin is a highly respected figure in the field of education. Her guidance on safeguarding, mental health awareness, personal development, and relationships education is highly valued within the industry.

NEED SAFEGUARDING SUPPORT AT YOUR SCHOOL?

Our expert advisers can provide in-school visits to deliver sessions on any specific safeguarding issues that are relevant to your setting. We also offer consultancy and a detailed safeguarding audit. We will work with you to understand your exact requirements.

Get in touch with us today if you’d like to discuss bespoke Safeguarding training for your school.

find out more