I have addressed your first point twice already. The entire point is that you make such generalisations without recognising the enormous variance amongst the children who struggle with regular attendance which will be for a wide variety of vastly different reasons therefore the appropriate remedy and expected outcomes for them - and indeed whether forcing them into that environment will do more harm than good - will also be wildly different.
By definition the children who struggle most with attendance are the outliers so applying statistics from the general population of children to one of them as an individual and stating that X approach will work for all children who struggle to attend school is nonsense.
Furthermore, it shows a misunderstand of correlation vs causation. As pointed out, many children who struggle to attend regularly have SEND. Others have a chaotic family life or severe medical issues so miss much school due to being in hospital etc. Of course - given the appalling, discriminatory and unlawful refusal of the legally required SEND provision by schools and Local Authorities across the country causing immense trauma to children, or impoverished/ abusive backgrounds which prevent children having a normal childhood, or being so unwell they are fighting for their basic health and have less capacity to learn - such children are likely to underperform compared to peers who suffer none of these issues.
This does not mean that their lower performance is because of their lower attendance, especially not in all cases which by making these oversimplified generalisations you imply to be the case.
It seems that those designing education and schools policy could do with a basic grounding in mathematics and statistics, child development, and logic inference so that they become capable of implementing anything vaguely resembling functional policies.
As I said all parents say their reasons for letting their children miss school are valid - sadly they aren’t at all.
Yet another blanket generalisation when in fact the data shows that in many cases the reasons ARE completely valid. What evidence do you have that they “aren’t [valid] at all” i.e. ever? You alternate between these disgraceful comments blaming parents in all cases and then saying “oh, but we didn’t mean you…”. Well sorry, many of us have seen this nonsense and deflection in action and undeniable data shows it is rife across the country - again, 99% of SEND tribunals are won by parents so when parents and a school disagree a court finds the school is legally wrong in 99% of cases. Therefore, if there is a dispute between a parent and school about the provision a child needs to attend it’s an almost certain assumption that the school is wrong, not the parent.
In terms of my comments above in response to your first point, the first case I mentioned (inappropriate provision for children with SEND preventing high attendance rates) is 100% the fault of schools and Local Authorities so they should be fixing this before slinging mud at anyone else.
The second case is not something soluble by schools because there will always be some useless and irresponsible and/ or abusive parents but schools can try to support the children as best they can so they at least have a supportive environment at school if not at home and want to attend.
The third case often involves LAs breaching their legal duty to provide a full time education to children who are unable to attend school for medical reasons and make appropriate provision for them so that they are able to learn while off school and return without delay.
In all of these examples, therefore, it’s quite clear that very different approaches are required to address the issue and this means schools communicating openly with families, and that the most obvious steps that can be taken to improve things (because sadly you will never eradicate the feckless parents in the second case) would be for schools and Local Authorities to do their jobs properly and comply with the law. Then, perhaps, fewer children with any of these very different problems would achieve lower than average results. Lumping them all together and pretending the parents just “don’t care about education” or “don’t want to send them” is damaging and false and absurd.
Slinging mud at parents because your profession is so incompetent that you’re seemingly incapable of accommodating anybody who isn’t “average” is a shameful failure and won’t wash, I’m afraid. Try working in any properly regulated profession and blaming the customer/ client/ patient for your failure to comply with the legal and statutory requirements of your profession and you’ll rightly get your arse handed to you with a large personal fine, removal if professional qualifications and - in cases if repeated or serious and harmful or deliberate breaches of the law - a prison sentence, and rightfully so.
The sheer audacity of trying to blame those using a service for its inadequacies is quite shocking and completely unacceptable, particularly where vulnerable minors are involved and the harm being caused by this incompetence is lifelong in many cases.