Earlier this week, the Children’s Commissioner published her report ‘The Voices of England’s Missing Children‘ – an audit into attendance in England’s schools.
Whilst identifying some of the issues surrounding school attendance and the challenges thrown up by experiences of many during the covid pandemic, the report calls for 100% of children to be back in school at the start of the new school year in September. Perhaps best regarded as a “call to action”, this will be impossible to achieve between now and September and carries significant risks for children and young people with SEND.
If the schools’ system focuses crudely on attendance, the wrong solutions will be pursued and punitive measures used to coerce families to make their children attend school when they are not ready, not properly supported, enrolled in an appropriate setting or in some cases not even assigned to any school. The report has its sights only on school attendance, not the very valid
reasons why many children are not attending school and the steps necessary to support schools and families in getting a child into school – for example a whole school approach or the strategies adopted by the autism in schools project
The report lays out six recommendations for the system relating to attendance covering a wide range of reasons why children may be out of school from exclusions to children who cannot attend because of caring responsibilities at home. We are very supportive of some of the recommendations in the report,
most notably the recommendation that decisions about children’s education need to be made “with children, their families and other adults in their lives.”
However, we have serious concerns about other aspects of the report:
- Whilst we agree that school is the right place for the majority of children, for some children this is only true if they have access to the right school and / or the right support. The shortage of suitable school places means that many children with SEND are not in the right environment and the well documented issues with the SEND system mean that even those that struggle because they cannot access the right support from education, health and social care services.
- The report talks about “exclusion as a trigger for intervention” – this is far too late. By the time a child is excluded, the damage is done. The NNPCF have consistently argued for a clearer framework that guarantees early intervention when families identify concerns – NOT when a child reaches crisis point. This principle has formed the basis of our input into the SEND review.
- The report asks for school leaders to have a “relentless focus on attendance”. This puts the cart before the horse. All system leaders, school, health and social care need to have a relentless focus on the right support – for many children, poor attendance at school is a symptom of poor support. Moreover, additional pressure on children to attend when they are not able to will do nothing but further damage relationships between schools and families and amplify any existing anxieties children may have.
- Throughout the report, the emphasis seems to be on the child and family to change with little attention given for the need for the school or health and social care services to change, make reasonable adjustments or step up earlier to provide the right support. The Equalities Act is unequivocal that schools must not disadvantage children with protected characteristics, sadly too many do just that
For more of our representations on school attendance see Attendance, behaviour and exclusions – National Network of Parent Carer Forums C.I.C
Voices of England’s missing children – a response
The report claims to be the voices of England’s missing children, yet would appear to be based upon a limited deep dive.
We have listened to voices of other families where the child, if asked, would have communicated a vastly different picture.
It is troubling the Commissioner based these findings on such a small sample of children.
Page 5: “I have spoken to children who feel that their school has saved their lives”. We have heard from families and have direct experience indicating that the opposite of this statement is true.
One parent said:
“Despite a diagnosis, a Statement of Education in place and being part of a SEN unit attached to mainstream, my child experienced exclusions for their behaviours. Autistic flight, fight, freeze behaviours which were not understood. At reintegration each time, they were expected to apologise and not repeat the behaviour. Without any change or self-reflection from the school staff. This resulted in my child losing their self-esteem and becoming extremely anxious about everything. They expressed that they wanted to die.”
The inference in the report is that children are unsafe outside of school. That really isn’t the case for some children. School based anxiety is on the increase with notable absences on Emotional Based School Avoidance. The report reflects on children being traumatised – either from home situations or from recent COVID measures. However, there is no recognition within this report that sometimes the school environment causes this trauma and that some children feel/are safer at home.
“My child has really struggled with anxiety throughout the pandemic. The past few years have seen an increase in OCD behaviours. They will still insist on wearing a mask, using hand sanitiser, wiping surfaces, still counting when washing hands etc. The anxiety has become too intense for them to cope, even where they have a school that understands them and with teachers my child trusts. Sadly, my child has not been able to transition back into school and we are all faced with ceasing the placement and having home based education, being the only place they feel safe.”
Ambition 1.
Ask, Listen, Communicate: decisions about children’s education need to be made with children, their families, and other adults in their lives.
We agree with the ambition statement but believe that this is severely let down by the first bullet point:
We do not need schools to ‘obsess’ with attendance. Some schools already do this, and it becomes borderline discrimination with measures such as requiring 100% attendance to go to the ball, prom, outings etc. Some of our children have medical conditions which impact attendance. Others may need to have an attendance plan with an intervention of staggered starts or part time attendance. This is especially true for those who are struggling to re-engage post lockdown. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a staged planned intervention like this, providing this is a temporary measure that works at the child’s pace and is not being used to unlawfully exclude/suspend.
It would have been worth the commissioner putting a reminder in bullet point three that schools have a duty to ensure their policies do not disadvantage/discriminate for those with protected characteristics, inc. SEND – in other words, making policies accessible should be about the actual content of those attendance & behaviour policies, not just accessibility of reading those documents.
Ambition 2
Meet children where they are: all children receive support in school, through families of schools.
‘Children’s voices need to be at the heart of these reviews and our response to the Government’s SEND Green Paper will do just that.’
We feel that this is a lofty claim. We were not aware that the Children’s commissioner had conducted a SEND review consultation with our/any children. Indeed, page 30 indicates this is still to occur: “The Commissioner will bring the voices of children to the heart of the SEND reforms, by carrying out further research with children and young people to seek their views on the consultation and the proposed measures.”
The bullet point that recommends the SEND green paper is implemented fully is also curious. The green paper is still out for consultation. It ought to be anticipated there might be challenges to its recommendations that may lead to changes post consultation. Otherwise, the exercise should not be called a consultation.
The green paper is lacking detail in many areas on how the proposals will be implemented. It seeks to amend the Children & Families Act without first bringing in the desired accountability that most stakeholders are asking for.
With the above in mind, it is premature to be stating the proposals ought to be implemented fully.
Ambition 3
Exclusion as a trigger for intervention: children should receive a fantastic education, regardless of setting, always and receive targeted support following exclusion or suspension.
“…too often the children we spoke with had not received any intervention or support to prevent further exclusions happening in the future or to make sure that exclusion from school didn’t mean exclusion from education altogether.”
We agree that intervention or support from schools is often lacking. However, the emphasis throughout this report appears to be around changing the child. Little to no consideration has been included around how schools need to self-reflect on their own part in the antecedence to a suspension or exclusion.
For example, questions like ‘might there be a need for staff training to understand & support SEND?’ and ‘maybe there are environmental impacts on the child (sensory processing difficulties) – is there a better way to educate & include the child?’ should be considered.
Without thinking about these, the school staff will be setting the child up for repeated internal exclusion or fixed term suspension which, in turn, may lead to permanent exclusion. Each and every one of these sanctions impacts on the child and can cause harm.
“Where schools saw an exclusion as a moment for intervention and the reasoning behind decisions was explained to the young person and parents, children felt more supported and able to reflect on their behaviour and reengage with their education.”
Exclusion should only ever be used as the last resort. We have heard from some families who have experience of suspension/exclusion, where they did not perceive that any or all preventative measures had been taken. They did not feel that the sanction was fair nor were the family supported. The system is set up in a way that means families often feel powerless to challenge decisions made by schools. They can see little value in doing so and many would rather try working with the school to improve inclusion than challenge them, which they fear would worsen the situation.
“When a child is removed from the classroom, whether through internal exclusion, suspension, permanent exclusion, a managed move, or implementation of a ‘part time timetable’, an assessment of what support or intervention might be needed is undertaken and that support be implemented quickly to limit the time out of education”
In reference to this bullet point, such support should already be common practice and, as stated above, if schools reflect upon the support needs of their pupils early on, sanctions may not be necessary. This bullet does seem to suggest a “closing the stable door”-style approach.
“AP needs to be to consistently be an integral part of the wider education system so that children can transition smoothly into and out of this provision. All AP should be high quality with a focus on outcomes – we need a race to the top rather than minimum standards, building on some of the great practice already out there.”
This bullet point is really concerning. It would appear to suggest a ‘revolving door’ approach, almost using alternative provision as a correction facility. Many with SEND struggle with transitions, even from classroom to classroom.
There are some high-quality APs who offer the low impact environment that helps some SEND pupils to flourish. It should not be seen that they are ‘turning the child around’; rather, they are offering the right support and environment for the child to learn. Moving the child back into the original setting – without taking onboard where and why the AP worked well for the child – is highly likely to lead to failure. Repeated movements in and out of AP will have a negative impact upon a child and their anxiety. In fact, we have heard from families in the past who wanted to name the AP as their school of choice.
“Where a child with a social worker is excluded, be it temporarily or permanently, they should be in AP from the first day, so that no child where there is aa safeguarding vulnerability is not in school. we should consider naming schools within CIN plans”
Regarding this final bullet point under ambition three, it is a concern that the implication here is the pupil with a social worker would not be safe at home. Many children who have a social worker also have a loving and safe home, foster home etc. Having a social worker does not necessarily mean there are safeguarding concerns. Looked after children are more likely to move regularly from school settings, each move will have an impact. Any suspension/exclusion should be treated in the same way as other families rather than add yet another provision into the mix.
What may have been more helpful is to highlight that many looked after children also have SEND which can often be overshadowed by their looked after status. Where a suspension/exclusion is given to a looked after pupil, it would be helpful to ensure there is a reflection upon possible SEND and review of support in place. Indeed, this should be the approach for all suspended/excluded pupils.
Ambition 4.
Letting children be children: no child should feel that they need to miss school to support or care for their family
Attendance is not the only area that can be impacted by caring and not all carers have responsibilities, although may still need support. Siblings of disabled children are considered young carers. The stresses and limitations that a disabled child can place on family life can negatively impact a child.
We agree that identification and appropriate support/understanding should be in place. Not all would qualify for section 17 targeted support however, we would make a further recommendation that schools recognise the impact on siblings of SEND youngsters and how this might look in the school setting. E.g., sleep may be disrupted, access to family days out might be limited, family finances lower etc. A sibling may have to miss school trips because the family budget may be stretched due to supporting SEND. This can be the case even if families are not on the lowest income. Sleep deprivation will impact learning, so even if a pupil is attending school, they might not be attentive. Some siblings will struggle to complete homework with their SEND siblings around.
Trips, homework, wellbeing etc are important considerations when ensuring children do not miss out on their education.
Ambition 5.
Attendance is everyone’s business: school leaders have a relentless focus on attendance and work together with LAs to ensure children are supported to be in school and to attend regularly
As mentioned earlier, attendance needs to be supported with a holistic view. Attendance alone does not equate to a child being fully included and ready to learn.
We do not agree that Ofsted should make attendance a top priority in its inspection framework. Rather, we would recommend that Ofsted look to see how inclusive the school environment and staff are.
When inspecting, they should look at those with low attendance to access what support is in place and if this is appropriate. E.g., a SEND child with heightened anxiety may need a gentle approach to physical attendance at school, led by their pace. This does not mean the child, by not attending, misses schoolwork. A hybrid solution might be the answer.
Likewise, we would like Ofsted to inspect inclusion and the school’s practices. Each situation should be viewed on its own merits with the focus being on whether the approach is leading to desired educational outcomes for the individual.
We welcome the team around the school idea, to assist schools in delivering the necessary support.
Ambition 6.
No more ‘known unknowns’: lack of information should no longer be the reason why children are not receiving a suitable education.
We welcome the unique identifier as this will help highlight a pupil’s journey through the school system. There could be better data available to track ‘excluding schools’ or pick up where a pupil is regularly changing settings.
The way forward
We welcome the need to have a plan in place to support pupils who are struggling to return to school, however, this must be worked at the child’s pace. An aim for the beginning of September is ideal but it must be recognised that trying to enforce a beginning of September start could be counterproductive. Attendance plans need to be individualised and the appropriate support in place.
“We also need to make sure that professionals working with children know what they can do to help, from supporting families to identify a suitable school place, to using available funds to purchase uniforms.”
SEND families would welcome support to find a suitable school place as opposed to the impasse that often occurs. Sadly, all too often the professionals are looking at costs rather than child’s needs when securing placements. The number of tribunals that fall in favour of the parental preference evidence this.
We also know that many SEND youngsters do not even have a placement secured for September. We would like professionals to be prioritising that situation.
‘Now, after the pandemic.‘
Covid infections remain within the community (currently looking to be rising) and therefore some SEND pupils, and their families are at risk, or they perceive a risk. These families need support to find the right solution and their views should be respected. A child’s mental health is as important as their physical health. Children have experienced great uncertainty and upheaval over the past couple of years. Some will have been hugely impacted by all this as the rise in those seeking mental health services evidence.
We would like to learn more about the proposed campaign of engagement for this summer, including how SEND families will be included, listened to and supported.
“Over the course of six weeks in February and March, the team spoke to nearly 500 people including over 300 children, over 40 parents and carers and around 100 professionals in LAs, health, schools and family hubs”
Whilst we welcome the deep dive, we are concerned that the report recommendations have been based upon the statistically small number of views sought. The commissioner did also reflect upon the ‘Big Ask’ survey, which captured many pupil voices. However, we suspect there were few disengaged families represented in that survey.
SEND families will often report a very different picture of the school experience for their SEND youngster than they do for non SEND children. The SEND system is fractured which is why there was a SEND review. We do not feel this attendance report truly captures the barriers our families face, yet it is SEND families who are statistically more likely to be excluded, suspended, experience poor inclusion or struggle with attendance.
We would like a separation to distinguish those who are choosing to home educate as a preference and those who have no other suitable option. Provided the home educated child can be seen to be safe and progressing with education, those families opting for this style of education should be afforded a light touch from services.
Conversely, those who feel that home education is their only option need to be listened to and offered appropriate support. That may mean the child continues to be educated from home as the point for successfully integrating into the school community has passed. These families have the experience to share which should be used to reshape services and support so that other children do not also follow the same pathway. i.e. the systems need to learn from their mistakes.
“As was clear from The Big Ask, and in our focus groups the vast majority of children view school as a positive space, and a place to learn and grow. 3 Sadly, the team also spoke to some children who have not had a positive experience in education or who felt let down by a fractured system.”
Those falling into the majority who see school as a positive place are also likely to be those without attendance or inclusion difficulties. When seeking to address a problem it is best to address those experiencing the problem. The focus should really have been on looking at those who ‘have not had a positive experience in education or who felt let down by a fractured system’, even if these are in the minority.
The way the report is set out may lead some to only read the precis of the six recommendations. In the part where those recommendations are expanded under ‘Six ambitions to account for every child’, there is a more balanced approach.
We welcome the recommendation to truly involve and listen to pupils and their parents. This needs to be done at the earliest possible point, well before sanctions are considered. Regarding SEN pupils, both the pupil and their parents should be an integral part of the Assess, Plan, Do, Review cycle. They should also be allowed to share what a reasonable adjustment might look like. Have a move away from the mantra of ‘if we do that for you, it will be unfair on others’. A reminder of equality duties might also be beneficial.
“It envisions a system where every child that experiences changes to their education journey (through suspension, a managed move or exclusion) is communicated with and understands what this means for them.”
As already detailed above, there needs to be much better communication ahead of any sanction, with pupils’ and parents’ views informing this. Sanctions really do need to be considered carefully as just one suspension can cause harm to the pupil. Even internal exclusion can set the child apart from their peers and disadvantage relationships, self-esteem etc. This is not about letting pupils get away unsanctioned, it is about careful consideration on how to support pupils away from sanctions being necessary.
“In the interviews and focus groups, it was clear that many children who had experienced an exclusion, suspension, managed move or move to a part-time timetable or AP did not understand the reason behind the school’s decisions”
This should never be the case for suspensions or exclusions if the process is followed correctly. It’s more likely that families do not agree with the reasons given for exclusion/suspension, or that they feel a sense of unfairness (even discrimination) on how the sanction has been applied. Most notable is the lack of consideration on what led up to the sanction and the impact of others’ actions/inactions.
One parent said:
“My child had a diagnosis of autism and was attending a unit provision attached to a mainstream school. Often, they were triggered into a meltdown because support/teaching staff placed demands on my child at a point where they were clearly struggling. Staff would state they never saw it coming, even though other SEN pupils had noticed (remarked upon) my child’s raised anxiety. Where a meltdown resulted in my child hitting out or pushing people away, fixed term suspension would follow. This was made worse by my child being asked to promise not to repeat their behaviours. A cycle of increased anxiety ensued”
Parents appreciate that actions have consequences but feel frustrated when a child is set up to fail in the way outlined above. An autistic child should not be made to promise ‘not to have a meltdown’, which is out of their control. What should happen is a reflection on how the school staff might better support a child to prevent the meltdown. This includes supporting the child to recognise their own rising anxiety and allow support strategies they can use to help calm them.
As one parent said:
‘It’s like pulling a pin out of a grenade, throwing it and then berating the grenade for exploding’
We welcome the NHS Autism in Schools project in helping promote better understanding of autism. This needs to be supported with the same level of understanding as those with physical needs
“Schools used a variety of different rules and rewards to deal with attendance. Children (at an outstanding secondary) for example, told us that their school would reward children with 100% attendance with being able to jump the lunch queue, and with an iPad at the end of the year.”
This approach places SEND children at a disadvantage, setting unachievable goals with no chance to have a reward. Also, attendance does not equate to attentiveness or being in a condition to learn.
“The stress of just being in the building, with all the noise, smells along with unpredictable behaviours of others exhausts my child. They have little reserve for learning as well”
We welcome that you noted how some children felt about school attendance policies, rewards & fines. We would like it to be recognised that rewards for full attendance may make a child feel absence is wrong and something to be punished or avoided at all costs.
The North Shore Academy initiative to share good practice on what has worked well regarding improving attendance sounds promising, as do the examples of a worry box and the opportunities to talk. We ask that the models of good practice are holistic and look at how each approach has improved a child’s experiences/outcomes. It would be damaging to share models which only served to bring attendance numbers up, without necessarily improving inclusion. This is especially the case with 100% rewards
“A website, ‘Every Minute Counts’, has been created and will soon be launched, to demonstrate the concept of a national attendance resource. The website will offer case studies written by schools, and other stakeholders, who are particularly effective in managing attendance in challenging circumstances.”
We understand this is a pilot with intention of sharing widely across schools. We would ask that before this is done, the NNPCF and other SEND groups are included in reviewing the website and case studies. This should hopefully help avoid sharing attendance practices that might negatively impact on SEND families. We would welcome the opportunity to speak with the commissioner on this.
The report has heard from LAs that the key is about building relationships:
“The secret to building trusting relationships with children and families was clearly reliant on the professional discretion and commitment of the individual staff members.”
We wholeheartedly agree on this, however, were disappointed that the commissioner went on to have a narrow focus on this being achieved solely through attendance officers. This ethos should be developed across school staff.
“For example, even during the pandemic, many inclusion managers worked with families to pick up and drive children to and from school”
Whilst this example of commitment is laudable, it should be recognised that many of the attendance issues run far deeper than transporting to school.
Quote from one parent:
“My child became anxious about being within the school building. We tried driving to the school gates but each time it was like a cloud had come over them. My child would become rigid with fear, crying out, pulling their own hair at the distress of just entering the building”
Having an adult within the school who the child trusts helps, but this is not automatic through a job role. i.e. a child will feel more comfortable sharing with a person of their choosing. This may be the office staff, a teacher, a caretaker or even the head teacher. An attendance officer role might be helpful too, but this would not guarantee they can build the relationships needed.
“Children and their families need to be able to understand the attendance guidance which is currently only aimed at LAs and school staff. The Children’s Commissioner has committed to working with the DfE to produce a child friendly version of this guidance so that children are equally able to access this information. A child-friendly version will also support greater access to parents with additional needs.”
We welcome any guidance coming out to be accessible, including Easy Read. Certainly, any documentation intended for children to access should be in an accessible format. Whilst a child friendly format may ‘…support greater access to parents with additional needs.’ We would recommend that other SEND accessibility needs are considered. This should be done in coproduction with families.
Understanding the attendance rules is not enough in itself to make a difference e.g., families with school refusers often are aware of the rules but that does not mean they can apply them.
“My child wants to go to school but once there, just cannot cope with the environment. My child knows what the rules are and the prospect of sanctions adds to their anxiety, but none of that overrides their fear of being in school”
“Make all attendance policy documents child friendly. Schools should produce their own tailored children’s version of key attendance policies that families, children and young people agree with and understand. This can include video content as well as written policies. Policies could be co-created and updated with students and their families. DfE should also produce accessible parent and children’s versions of attendance guidance documents”
We agree that school policies should be co-created with families and tailored so all parties agree with the content. This should be wider than attendance policies i.e. include uniform, rewards & sanctions, behaviour policies. This is not an exhaustive list. Also, any policy needs to be viewed to see if it meets statutory obligations around those with protected characteristics, in SEND.
“Attendance should be prioritised in the ‘Parent Pledge’, announced in the Schools White Paper alongside current proposed topics, such as the quality of teaching, and the focus on reading and writing.”
We do not see why attendance needs to be included in this pledge. The White Paper pledge is around ensuring children who fall behind in maths and English are picked up, quality teaching is embedded etc. Attendance and behaviour do not in themselves ensure educational attainment or quality teaching are in place. Whilst attendance is important, we do not how this sits as a priority with the pledge.
“Many children felt that there wasn’t always good understanding of their individual needs within schools, and many parents and carers told us about a lack of provision and services in their local areas and their struggle to access the right support for their children.”
It was good to see that the commissioner had picked this message up, along with messaging around mental health needs and how the pandemic has exacerbated existing issues. However, the recommendations are slanted towards a perception that school is the best place to be.
“School as a nexus of support. In The Big Ask children told us that they want to receive support in school, be it mental health support, SEND support, bullying support or safeguarding. We have seen that children thrive at schools that provide holistic support that is built around genuine understanding of children’s individual needs”
Quote from a parent:
“Prior to the pandemic my child always struggled to keep things together in school. Despite being in an understanding & nurturing environment, my child found it hard to cope with school based anxiety. During lockdown my child thrived with online working, making educational progress and producing probably their best work yet. However, the pandemic broke my child and anxiety around being back in the school setting has proved too hard to bare leading to attendance issues that were never seen before. Clearly, an online/hybrid solution might be the best way forward”
“Many schools and LAs have felt alone in having to deal with a growing crisis, in some cases experiencing multiple suicide attempts per week and have called for more investment in NHS mental health care, both in terms of early help, specialist children’s mental health provision and Tier 4 mental health beds.”
We agree that there needs to be more investment into mental health services along with support for schools in helping pupils facing these issues. The recent NHS led Autism in Schools project shows great promise in helping develop that early support and understanding within schools, which in turn will help this situation. As well as considering autism, there needs to be better understanding of what has driven the decline in mental health. There must be recognition that for some of these the MH decline has been due to pressures around attainment (perceived or real).
We are alarmed at the mention of schools and LA’s calling for more tier 4 beds. This is counter to the NHS Long Term Plan. We would urge that schools & LAs are helped to understand the impact of tier 4 admission and how this can often be counterproductive and/or inappropriate. The autism in schools project was in response to the evidence that many of those inappropriate long term stays had a back history of not getting the right support and understanding in schools. Furthermore, we want to see interventions focused on the earliest possible point, not leaving support until the crisis. Our recommendation would be to treat autism support and understanding in schools as a priority. This will not resolve all the mental health, behaviour or attendance issues but would go a long way towards reducing these.
“The Commissioner will continue to research what children need, to inform the open consultation on the Mental Health and wellbeing plan.”
We would welcome including the voices of SEND families in the commissioner’s further research.
“Supporting staff to support SEND students. All teachers are teachers of children with additional needs, and it is vital that they receive the support and training to do this effectively. By locating professionals such as Education Psychologists, Emotional Learning Support Assistants, and Speech and Language Therapists within schools or a family of schools, this increases teachers’ and pupils’ access to this support in an immediate way that embeds this additional professional expertise within the school’s existing education offer.”
This recommendation would be very welcome and could be further enhanced with compulsory continual professional development for all school staff on SEND. Regular refresher training would also help.
“The Commissioner will bring the voices of children to the heart of the SEND reforms, by carrying out further research with children and young people to seek their views on the consultation and the proposed measures.”
We would be happy to help link the Commissioner with SEND families to increase reach.
“Any form of exclusion, including internal exclusion, is an urgent signal that further intervention is needed. All children who are excluded or suspended should have their needs assessed, and a plan should be put in place for those needs to be met.”
We agree there needs to be an assessment of needs and a plan post exclusion to support the child. However, it is rare to reach that point without any forewarning. Support plans ought to be looked at as a preventative measure rather than wait for exclusion/seclusion/suspension to occur. There is also a real need to fully assess if there might be a training need to successfully deliver an intervention. As stated earlier in our response, there needs to be proper assessment/reflection before such sanctions (the A part of the ABC antecedent, behaviour & consequence approach is often missing yet the most important consideration).
“Finally, there must be a plan is in place for how the child will be supported to access their learning and transition back into the classroom. No part-time timetable or AP placement should be considered a permanent solution.”
There should only ever be interventions that have a plan for assessing their impact and with a view to the next step. However, we believe this should not necessarily be a return to the classroom. There needs to be an assessment of what has worked, why it has worked and how can this be maintained if a child returns to the classroom. Remember it could be the support around a child that needs changing rather than the child.
“DfE should explore further guidance on the assessment of needs of children who have been excluded. This would help ensure exclusion becomes a trigger for a package of support around the child”
Please consider rephrasing this and ask that:
“DfE should explore further guidance on the assessment of needs of children who are at risk of being excluded. This would help ensure a package of support can be in place around the child to prevent incidents becoming a trigger for exclusion.”
Remember exclusion should be the last resort.
“Improve research on the impact of caring on young people to inform policy. The Children’s Commissioner’s Independent Family Review will enhance the research and information available on the needs of young carers and their families to inform policy decisions.”
We would like to offer to help the Commissioner fully explore the impacts on siblings of a child with SEND, which can affect attendance even where the sibling is not in an active caring role. See earlier for more on this.
“In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of children in elective home education (EHE), from 60,544 registered home educated children in England in 2019 to 81,200 in October 2021.”
The recommendations went on to consider how to better capture the data on numbers missing from school (not necessarily missing an education). We would recommend a review on why there has been such an increase in EHE and also to create a system that better distinguishes those who are successfully receiving an elective home education and those who are at home because there are no other viable alternatives.
“Of course, relying on existing data systems does nothing to find the children who are missing from the data altogether. These children are often the most vulnerable, such as those who have been trafficked into the country, those in families who have migrated illegally, children in families who are classed as ‘no recourse to public funds, and those living with families who do not want their children known to the system. No LA within the Audit had identified a solution to finding these children”
A common identifier would be useful to help track children. A one-time register of those electing to home educate would give the numbers – beyond this point, there should be a soft-touch approach to monitoring. As the Commissioner has noted, there is no obvious practical solution to capturing the data of those who are not already known to services. Scrutiny of attendance for home education beyond a one-time register will still not help you pick up the ‘missing children’.
“Addressing attendance codes. The DfE should conduct a review of the application of attendance codes at a school level, with a view to providing further guidance to schools on how these should be used.”
We would welcome clearer guidance for schools on how to correctly use attendance codes. We would also welcome guidance that children who have medical appointments or who are sick are not penalised in terms of ‘100% attendance’ (i.e. as an adult people would still receive pay for hospital/sick leave). There are two things to consider here. The first is the capturing of multiple sick absences to help inform if more support is needed. The other consideration is to ensure that schools do not discriminate against a child who has had multiple medical interventions when it comes to attendance awards. Maybe it should be seen as 100% of achievable attendance?
We would also welcome the government taking a more holistic look at children’s health services so that medical appointments can be better scheduled to avoid overlap with school hours.
One parent said:
“The clinic supporting my child only operates between 10 and 12, Monday to Friday. A half-hour appointment in the middle of the school day impacts the whole day.”
“As a first step, this is the moment to start looking forward to September and have a plan in place for every child who has not yet returned to school or is attending inconsistently. If a child doesn’t attend on the first day of term it is much harder for them to re-engage.”
We would like the DfE to prioritise making sure that all children have a school placement to attend in September (or other arrangements that have been agreed, e.g., EOTAS, EHE etc.). We have heard from several SEND families who are still without a placement.
We would also like the DfE to provide schools with guidance on supporting those who are out of school to return at a pace that is right for them ( embracing the ethos of the Children and Families Act by acting in a ‘child-centred way’).
“It is paramount that we work together as an alliance to ensure that the whole system is working at pace to prepare for the start of autumn term so that every child is supported to start, and stay in, school”
We would appreciate agencies working at speed to address the placement issues and to secure appropriate support. It is paramount that school pupils are not made to feel under pressure purely to meet attendance targets and that the pace of return is guided by them.
“Schools should identify where they can improve their approach to attendance in preparation for September. This could be through improving family engagement over the summer appointing an attendance worker or improving their relationships with the LA and other community services in preparation for September.”
We cannot see how schools will realistically be able to engage with families over the summer, nor how doing this would improve relationships. Consideration for dedicated staff such as an attendance worker and improving relationships with the LA are welcome – however, as stated earlier, child relationships need time to develop with an adult of their choosing (this may not be the attendance officer).
“Social workers should be considering good school attendance as a key outcome metric and working to identify potential barriers to attendance for children in their care.”
Attendance in itself is not an outcome. However, we welcome greater joined up working across social care, health, education and the wider partners.
Finally, we recognise that the recommendations in this report are for all children, not just those with SEND. We would recommend that all ideas on attendance and behaviour are first viewed through the lens of those with SEND, as often that provides solutions that work more widely. We would welcome a meeting with the Commissioner to discuss our response in more detail.
