Elton (1989)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Contents, Foreword, Membership, Summary
Recommendations
Chapter 1 The enquiry
Chapter 2 The nature of the problem
Chapter 3 Teachers
Chapter 4 Schools
Chapter 5 Parents
Chapter 6 Pupils
Chapter 7 Attendance
Chapter 8 Police
Chapter 9 Governors
Chapter 10 Local education authorities
Chapter 11 Government
Appendix A Written evidence received
Appendix B Witnesses
Appendix C Visits
Appendix D(i) Teachers and Discipline Part I
Appendix D(ii) Teachers and Discipline Part II
Appendix E Selected bibliography
Appendix F Behaviour policies

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1989
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Chapter 7 Attendance
[pages 165 - 169]

1 The Secretary of State set up this Enquiry in response to strong concerns about pupils' behaviour in school. Many of those submitting evidence to us suggest that standards of behaviour have deteriorated in recent years. Our evidence does not show similar perceptions of an attendance crisis. Although national attendance statistics are not kept, evidence from individual LEAs and from HMI indicates that attendance levels have remained fairly stable for at least the last five years, and probably for much longer, though there has been some deterioration as a result of the teachers' industrial dispute.

2 We are aware of very few LEAs which carry out regular authority-wide surveys of attendance. We looked in some detail at the analysis provided by the ILEA. The results of its annual one day surveys from 1978 to 1987 show a very consistent overall attendance rate for primary schools of about 92%. The pattern for secondary schools shows a marginal decline from about 85% in the late 1970s to just over 83% in 1987. The ILEA figures also illustrate two aspects of attendance which are confirmed by HMI as being consistent features of the national picture. They are:

2.1 significant variations in attendance rates between different schools. The highest secondary school attendance rate in the 1987 survey was 94.3% and the lowest was 63.6%. The recent HMI survey report covering 185 secondary schools identified differences of a similar order. HMI comment that poorer attendance was by no means confined to schools serving disadvantaged areas; and

2.2 lower attendance rates among older secondary pupils. In 1987 the rate for 11 year olds was 90.3% and the rate for 15 year olds was 70.9%. A variety of explanations can be suggested. In chapter four we point out the difficulties of motivating lower achieving fourth and fifth year pupils. Some may therefore be 'voting with their feet' against the curriculum. Others may be working illegally, or have domestic responsibilities such as caring for younger brothers and sisters, which they or their parents regard as more important than attending school.

4 Unjustified absence and internal truancy are forms of misbehaviour which are damaging to the pupils involved because they hinder their educational progress. They also fall within our terms of reference because they affect the progress of other pupils and the atmosphere of the school as a whole. It has been suggested to us that the non- attendance of certain pupils may actually help to improve general standards of behaviour in some schools. We believe this view is rare and, in any case, we reject it as a basis of policy. While some persistent absentees behave disruptively when they actually come to school many do not. The occasional reappearance of regular absentees can however be disruptive in other ways. Teachers have to give absentees special attention to help them catch up with the work they have missed. This may affect the progress and behaviour of other pupils who become frustrated by the repetition of work or by its slow pace. We believe that high levels of unjustified absence and internal truancy also have a damaging effect on the atmosphere of a school. Some persistent absentees may encourage others to follow suit. The presence of unsupervised pupils about the school during lessons is clearly a disturbing influence. The damaging effect on school atmosphere can be amplified if staff are not seen to be making determined efforts to maximise attendance. Lack of effort in this area may suggest to pupils that teachers do not really care whether they attend or not. This is one of the most negative messages that a school can transmit.

5 It has also been suggested to us that there is a link between unjustified absence from school and juvenile crime. A recent Home Office review of research findings on the links between schools, disruptive behaviour and delinquency concludes that no clear connection has been established in this area (Graham 1988). There is however concern about non-attending pupils becoming the victims of street crime.

6 Our evidence indicates that fourth and fifth year pupils from certain kinds of home background are much more likely than others to become persistent absentees. Research indicates that the majority of persistent absentees come from families which are badly housed and have a multitude of economic, social and health problems (eg Galloway 1985). But while the social and economic characteristics of a school's catchment area may be a strong influence on its attendance rate, they do not rigidly determine it. Schools can and do make a difference.

ACTION AT SCHOOL LEVEL

7 We believe that an important first step is to reject the idea that unjustified absence can be treated as in any way helpful to schools. Heads and teachers should therefore recognise the potentially unsettling effects of any absence, and particularly of unjustified absence, on the atmosphere of schools and on pupils' behaviour. They should also recognise that the quality of a school's atmosphere and curriculum is an important factor in encouraging regular attendance.

8 We suggest that schools should develop positive strategies for receiving back frequent absentees. Such strategies should have two objectives. The first should be to help absentees catch up with the work that they have missed. The second should be to minimise the negative effects of this catching up process on other pupils.

9 Since lower achieving fourth and fifth year pupils in secondary schools have the highest rates of absence, we believe that the kind of 'alternative curriculum' approaches designed for this group which we refer to in chapter four may be particularly important in encouraging their attendance. So may work experience, compacts with employers and records of achievement, which we discuss in chapter six.

10 In cases of absence, schools should ensure that parents provide notes explaining reasons for absence and that these are collected and checked. When truancy is suspected, parents should be notified as quickly as possible. Education welfare officers have an important part to play in working with parents to deal with cases of truancy and condoned absence. The regular dialogue between education welfare officers and headteachers of primary schools or pastoral staff of secondary schools, which we recommend in chapter four, is particularly important in this connection. We therefore recommend that headteachers and teachers should make full use of education welfare officers to maximise attendance. (R99)

11 Good information systems are an important aid to securing maximum attendance. These can be developed and used at classroom, school and LEA level. We consider that regular checking is the most effective means of eliminating internal truancy. In secondary schools, particularly in the fourth and fifth years [now Years 10 and 11], a pupil may be in several different groups during the course of a day. Secondary teachers should keep group lists and check them regularly. We recommend that senior school staff should carry out frequent random attendance checks on individual lessons. (R100)

12 Governors are responsible for ensuring that attendance registers are kept as required by law, for making them available for inspection, and for making returns to the LEA in certain circumstances. We consider that governors should develop their role in monitoring attendance. We recommend that governors should obtain regular reports on attendance, including internal truancy, with a view to encouraging and supporting action by the school. (R101)

ACTION AT LEA LEVEL AND NATIONAL LEVEL

13 In chapter 10 we recommend that LEAs should monitor standards of behaviour in their schools. The main purpose of such monitoring would be to ensure that the consultancy and support services provided by the authority are properly targeted. Maintaining detailed attendance statistics enables an LEA to identify schools in difficulty and, for example, to use this information to give priority to the areas of greatest need when deploying its education welfare service. We understand that at present few LEAs monitor attendance at all their schools on a systematic basis. We recommend that all LEAs should regularly gather data on attendance at their schools and should use this information to plan the deployment of their resources in the most effective ways to improve attendance. (R102)

14 On our visit to the Netherlands we were impressed by the computerised attendance monitoring system being used by schools in Rotterdam. We were told that the computerised system meant that schools could check on absent pupils more quickly and consistently, identify patterns of non- attendance and significantly reduce the number of unjustified absences. Computerised attendance monitoring systems are not uncommon in colleges of further education in this country, but they are as yet rare in schools. We recognise that there may be considerable practical problems involved in introducing such systems. We are aware, however, that many LEAs and schools are now involved in the development of computerised information systems. We therefore recommend that those designing school-based computerised information systems should take account of the possibilities of including programmes for monitoring attendance in them. (R103)

15 Parents are required by law to ensure that their children are educated. They can be prosecuted for their children's non-attendance at school, unless education is provided by other means. LEAs decide whether or not to prosecute depending on individual circumstances. We are not convinced that there is a case for changing existing practice by recommending more prosecutions. Although no national statistics exist, evidence from expert witnesses suggests that there is no clear relationship between the willingness of individual LEAs to prosecute parents and levels of attendance in their schools.

16 The role of education welfare officers is crucial in following up cases of unjustified absence. It has been suggested to us that, in some areas, education welfare officers may have such large case loads that they cannot perform all the necessary aspects of their job effectively. There are certainly large variations in the number of education welfare officers employed by different LEAs. Statistics published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for 1987/88 show ratios of education welfare officers to pupils aged five to 16 ranging from about 1:500 to about 1:8500. The average is about 1:2000. It seems to us that education welfare officers in LEAs at the bottom of the range are likely to be hopelessly over-stretched. We therefore recommend that all LEAs should maintain adequate numbers of education welfare officers to ensure that cases of unjustified absence can be followed up systematically and promptly. (R104)

17 We believe that there may be opportunities for collaboration between LEAs and local police forces to reduce unjustified absence. We have seen accounts of 'truancy sweeps' in Birmingham, Bradford and Bedfordshire which involved the police approaching children of school age seen in the street during school hours with the aim of returning them to their schools. The Bedfordshire sweep involved teams of police officers and education welfare officers working together. This seems to us a promising approach, which may serve not only to get the children back into school but also to prevent them from becoming the victims or perpetrators of crime. However we do not have enough information about the results of these exercises for us to recommend them as general practice. We therefore recommend that LEAs and chief officers of police should jointly consider the use of 'truancy sweeps' as a means of maximising school attendance and reducing juvenile crime in local circumstances. (R105)

18 It has been suggested to us that a number of persistent non-attenders are working illegally when they should be at school. It is possible that, as the number of school leavers falls, it may become more tempting to employ children illegally. The current penalty for this offence under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is a fine at level three on the standard scale, which currently stands at £400. We do not consider this to be an adequate deterrent for unscrupulous employers who profit from illegal child labour. Any employment of school age children beyond what is permissible in law is likely to have harmful effects on their education as well as having the disruptive effects on the work of their classmates which we have described above when they are employed during school hours. We consider this to be a more serious offence than illegal employment out of school hours. We therefore recommend that the government review the penalties for the illegal employment of school age children with a view to substantially increasing penalties for employers, especially those who make use of illegal child labour during school hours. (R106)