Separating the truants from the cheap holiday seekers

The schools minister Nick Gibb greeted the latest truancy figures by blaming Labour for failing to get to grips with the problem. And it is true that despite giving schools and local authorities much tougher powers to tackle what is called 'unauthorised absence' the absentee numbers seem relentlessly to be on the rise.

But this is too simplistic a picture. One measure that had a remarkable effect was targeted action on schools with the highest levels of truancy, where such concentrated effort reduced the numbers of days lost to absence in the schools concerned, though it didn't dent the overall figures. This week's statistics (pdf) show that these measures, introduced by Tony Blair in 2006, saw the number of persistent truants (those missing 14 or more days a year) have fallen from 336,935 in 2006 to 260,740 in 2010 with the harder core (those missing 32 or more days a year) falling from 48,080 to 26,750. That is the single most impactful measure on truancy in decades.

But that success story has been obscured by an important change that was made during Labour's time in office to the focus of the data. Instead of simply focusing on unauthorised absence schools were urged to clamp down on term-time holidays, and to reduce overall absence figures, including authorised absence. The result was to drive many cheap term-time holidaymakers into the truants' corner. Indeed a look at the actual statistics (pdf) here confirms this, as the increase is unauthorised absence broadly mirrors the fall in authorised absence. A fifth of all unauthorised absence is due to family holidays. And there has been a fall in secondary school absence with a rise in primaries. I personally was against this change, because I believed the focus should be on persistent truants. But it has driven the data since.

However, the coalition does not appear to be continuing the work on tackling persistent truancy that had this big impact, as it is sceptical of such targeted work. Instead it imagines that the measures in its Education Bill combined with Ofsted inspections will do the trick. Among heads, only the permission for same day detentions is given a thumbs up - the rest is seen as window dressing (as, to be fair, were many similar Labour measures). But there is nothing here that will make the slightest difference either to the number of hard core truants or to the holiday plans of families in search of off peak bargains.

Next time, the coalition will have to start taking the blame if absentee data don't fall significantly. And when the time comes, we need to take a close look at the persistent absentee data. Those are the ones that are likely to become tomorrow's NEETS.

Is truancy really rising?

Today's 'record' figures for truancy show that the proportion of school sessionss missed through unauthorised absence has risen slightly to 1.05%. "Truancy" is on the rise, say the reports, and doubtless this will feature in pieces on "Labour's failure" tomorrow. Much is made of the comparisons with 1997 when 0.7% of sessions were missed. At the same time, the Government reports that days lost through 'authorised absence' are falling rapidly. The two figures are related. When the Government decided to clamp down on term-time holidays and visits to the dentist or on Christmas shopping trips, they created a rod for their own back.

Schools are reluctant to grant permission for such occasions that they might previously have granted, hence the rise in unauthorised absence. Unauthorised family holidays now account for 11% of all unauthorised absences. This has little to do with what might normally be regarded as 'truancy', pupils skipping school on a regular basis often without the knowledge of their parents. And a look at the detailed statistics suggests a more balanced picture.

• First, since 1996/7, the proportion of sessions lost due to all absence has fallen in primary schools from 6.06% to 5.30% - in other words pupils are at school for an average of 1.4 days more than they were when Labour took office. In secondary schools, the improvement is even better, with a fall from 9.06% to 7.25%, suggesting pupils are at school an average of 3.4 days more than in 1997. However, within those figures there have been increases in unauthorised absence that have offset some of the improvements in authorised absence. (Table 2.1)
• Second, the number of pupils defined as persisent absentees - missing over 32 days a year - has fallen from 272,950 in 2006/7 to 208,380 in 2008/9 as a direct result of a programme targeted at this group and the schools where the problem was greatest. This 24% reduction is a remarkable result for an intervention programme and is far more significant than the small rise in overall unauthorised absence. Indeed, persistent absentees are now responsible for 43.4% of unauthorised absence compared with 51.8% in 2006/07. (Table 1.2)
• Third, there has been an 18% drop in persistence absence in academies (from 8.00% to 6.50%) over the last year and an 8.5% reduction in unauthorised absence, again suggesting that targeted intervention does work. (Table 6.1)

None of this is to suggest that there is not a real problem with truancy. Clearly far too many pupils are still absent for too long and more work needs to be done. But if the targeted schools and the academies have been able to make a difference where previous intervention programmes have failed, it would be rather more useful to learn their lessons and share them rather than assuming nothing can be done.

Persistent truancy is falling - but not fast enough

The headline figure for 'unauthorised absence' is at its highest level, even if the increase is marginal. But since a government clampdown on term-time holidays, with heads refusing to back bargain autumn breaks to Spain, that number is not really the one that matters. More significant is the figure for 'persistent truancy': these are the hard-core truants, the ones who are really missing out by not being at school. And the good news is that these figures are starting to fall significantly. This is where we started to focus resources four years ago, on schools with significant problems of persistent truancy, and the signs are that it is beginning to work.

But the fall in those missing at least one day a week from 273,000 to 241,000 pupils, a drop of over 10%, though good news, is not yet good enough. That's 241,000 pupils still missing some 40 days a year of lesons or more. There must be a singular focus on that group, with government resources transferred from pointless lectures about family holidays (as well, perhaps, as some of the money spent in bureaucratic Every Child Matters committees) and a relentless implementation of what successful schools have already done.

I notice that shadow schools spokesman Nick Gibb is criticising the government for the truancy figures: if he is serious about addressing the problem, he must recognise that this is one area where Government can make a difference with the right focus and the right target. The evidence is finally there of what works. It needs to be followed up.

The truth about truancy

The truancy statistics issued by the education department have long been a source of frustration for ministers. For a start, the figures have lacked sufficient precision to tackle the problem. Then the definitions were not terribly helpful: for a long time, unauthorised absence was, improbably, higher among primary school pupils, a figure gleefully interpreted as signalling wilful truancy among ten year-olds rather than too many mums not telling the school when they took their nine year-old to the dentist. Added to that, the only progress that seemed to occur was when 'absence' - including weeklong holidays taken with permission - was included in the figures. So, today's statistics from the DCSF represent a real improvement.

For the first time, we know the reasons for absence. Half are off because they are ill. Many others are on family holidays (in most cases, approved by the school). And primary pupils are three times as likely to be on an unapproved family holiday than their secondary counterparts. But behind the 1% of unauthorised absence there is a hard core of persistent absentees, inevitably given a new acronym that will not be welcome to many super-secretaries - a shocking 11% of all pupils in Year 11 are 'PAs'. These are pupils who should be preparing for GCSEs. They are the ones for whom post-16 compulsion will be especially challenging.

And we now know what works thanks to one piece of remarkably good news: there are clear signs that a programme of targeted intervention first ordered by Tony Blair two years ago to tackle persistent truancy in the 400 schools with the worst problem is having a real effect, with cuts of 20% in persistent absenteeism in those schools over the course of last year. (Academies have seen significant cuts too) This is where most efforts should be targeted, both on tackling existing PAs - if we must call them that - and preventing new persistent absenteeism. Unfortunately, the DCSF departmental press release seems to have obscured this genuine piece of good news in a misbegotten bid to ward off hostile media attention by highlighting changes in the extent of absence overall.

The right target for truancy

News that truancy has continued to creep up is dispiriting given the amount of effort that has gone into addressing the problem over the years. Some targeted schemes have had a real impact on schools, but since a lot of truancy is parent-condoned, it is always going to be a particularly tough nut to crack. Whether or not the government is right to move from national to local targets is a moot point - the real focus needs to be relentlessly on the schools with the biggest problem and on serious and persistent unauthorised absence.

However, it is a bit rich to hear a Tory spokesman upbraiding the government for dropping a national target - given how his colleagues constantly bemoan targets that have successfully cut waiting lists and times for patients. Yet Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, is quoted thus on the BBC website.

The government have failed to get to grips with rising truancy. But instead of working harder to meet their target they have simply scrapped it.

Since scrapping targets is the centrepiece of Tory public services policy - and it is hard to find where else they differ from the government - surely he should be celebrating not carping?