Agenda item

The Panel received a report which provided up to date information about school attendance in Slough schools.

The Service Lead Inclusion introduced the report and informed Members of an amendment to report in that 992 fines were issued in 2013/14 and not 481 which referred to 2012/13.

The Attendance Team Manager highlighted that school absence was monitored using indicators for overall absence and persistent absence. Performance was above the national average for primary and special schools but below across secondary schools. There was an increase in the number of fines year on year. From September 2013 a regulations amendment clarified that term time leave could only be granted in exceptional circumstances. 

In response to questions regarding strategies to improve unauthorised absence, it was noted that:

·  the primary focus was on enforcement with the majority of schools working in partnership with the Council. Each school had a named officer and every half term the statistics were reviewed. The schools’ internal response process is to make contact on the first day of absence and then follow up as appropriate;

·  the target was that overall persistent rates, authorised and non-authorised absence, were in line with the national average;

·  whilst the £60 fine could not be considered a deterrent when compared with the saving for a holiday during term, the fine for unauthorised absence was set by the Department of Education. It was noted that regular school assemblies which showed the correlation between results and attendance had an impact and sent a message regarding good attendance;

·  the large special school in Slough which included those with very complex needs was not statistically comparable to special schools in general;

·  liaison with public health officers would be required to ascertain whether there was a correlation between Slough’s air pollution and the incidence of tooth decay and sickness absence. If such a link was found it could be seen if there was anything strategic that could be done;

·  schools had a duty to inform the Local Authority if a child was removed from school to enable checks to be done. It should be noted that Slough was an area of high mobility and the vast majority of children taken off register was due to legitimate reasons. Ofsted were happy with the processes undertaken by Slough. A child could lose a place due to unauthorised absence when family moved and the child could not be located;

·  the attendance team did not maintain a breakdown of absence by ethnicity and the officers would check whether the schools recorded such information. Each school would take into account their communities, for example religious observance, and any particular issues presented at the school;

·  wilful absence could be prosecuted but there could be a range of reasons why families required support to try and address issues that prevented school attendance;

·  elective home education was not required to follow the national curriculum but a visit was made to ascertain the education provided.

A Member referred to the information that in Slough in 2017/18, 1083 pupils took between 5 and 9 days unauthorised holiday, and 501 pupils took 10 or more days of unauthorised holiday and enquired what was the average and longest absence of those taking 10 or more days. It was agreed that this information would be made available to the Panel.

Resolved: That

1.  the information be circulated to the Panel on the average and longest absence of those pupils who had ten or more unauthorised absences

2.  the report be noted