Why are Schools so obsessed with Childrens attendance?

[Darren2134]

Last Month, a parent told me something that really unsettled me: their child had received a letter branding him a “persistent absentee”. The kicker? If his attendance improved by 5%, he’d be invited to a party.
Let that sink in. A 5-year-old—just starting school life—is being incentivised to “try harder” to attend. But this isn’t really about motivating the child, is it? It’s a covert attempt to pressure the parent—using the child’s disappointment as leverage. The message is: Get them in, or they’ll be left out.
But who are these so-called “persistent absentees”? Often, they’re the kids who’ve been sick repeatedly—maybe with covid or other bugs. They’re the ones with unstable home lives, whose families might be struggling with poverty or mental health. Maybe the child is deeply anxious, overwhelmed by the transition to school, or dealing with SEN.
What good is a party to a child who is unwell, exhausted, or afraid? A glittery invitation doesn’t cure illness. It doesn’t magic up a bus fare. It doesn’t suddenly make school a place where a child feels safe.
This isn’t motivation—it’s manipulation. It weaponises disappointment. And it risks making vulnerable children feel ashamed, excluded, and “less than” for things utterly beyond their control.
The way we talk about attendance needs to change. Education should be accessible—but for some children, 100% attendance is simply not realistic. We should be asking why a child is struggling to attend, not punishing them for it.
We need to move away from blame and shame. Instead of pushing attendance as the end goal, how about asking how we can support children who are struggling? What would it look like if schools were funded and resourced to genuinely include all children, even those who can't always make it through the gates?
Curious what others think. Has anyone else experienced this kind of thing?

My elder boy obsesses with 100% attendance medal, a particularly violent vomiting bug was so Ill received at the thought of losing his award, still makes him cry. Younger son, inpatient due to severe asthma/ breathing difficulties,a week's schooling lost really out of his control. So sad. Children have zero control over their primary school attendance. FU LEA

OP is talking about supporting children rather than punishing them as with her example of a 5 year old not allowed to an attendance party. A pp even talked about a child with cancer who was excluded from an attendance reward.

When children fall into 'persistently absent' attendances normal circumstances are rarely going to apply. Be it a chaotic homelife, a cancer diagnosis or unsupported SEN.

Totally yes!! We’re talking in normal circumstances. The OP gives no indication they’re an exceptional case, and so anything below 95% is PISS POOR.

My kids managed 97% including time ‘sick’ for holiday shoulder.

If you’re getting warnings from school without proper extenuating circumstances (which is thankfully rare - sort of you’re one of those) then get the kid to school.

*sorry if you’re one

They shouldn't be. It's very unfortunate that some kids are. I didn't say that no child needs more than 10% of time off, because sometimes, children are extremely ill, which requires medical attention. I've just said I spent a lot of time in hospital before diagnosis and effective treatment. You absolutely shouldn't be getting migraines more than 10% of the time, that needs investigation.

a child who had time off for cancer wouldn’t be excluded though - this odd about teaching children that good things like attendance are rewarded.

children with cancer are obviously not excluded - talk about a straw man to make a point

Exactly. Any child (outside serious illness) shouldn’t be taking more than a day a month off which is what the benchmark is - and to get a letter home you need to be materially missing that so a day a fortnight/ 3 weeks.

It’s always the same kids who ‘miss out’ at my kids schools, and I can assure you it’s never those with any chronic/ potentially terminal illness - they’re always included.

The thing is, the vast majority of kids with poor attendance aren’t in normal circumstances, hence the low attendance!

Except that's exactly what a pp said happened. Or are they lying?

Even then, just the OP's example with the 5 year old. They shouldn't be punished for not getting to school, especially at that age when they can't get themselves to school.

Ofsted sets 95% attendance as the benchmark. If attendance is below that it is a cause for concern.

Attendance forms par of the Ofsted grading.

Nearly everything that schools do is aimed at maintaining or improving their Ofsted grading.

it depends on the reasons for their poor attendance. Some people’s poor attendance will be as a direct result of policies allowing children to attend with some horrible illnesses - if we were genuinely worried about education, health, life chances etc, we’d be a bit wiser about such blunt metrics. There were an additional 50,000 children with long covid in England for example just between 2023 and 2024 (ONS). Heaven knows what it is now another 18 months on.
Teacher absence has also risen since 2019 - do they need attendance awards too?

What additional support does a young carer taking a sibling to school and arriving half an hour late actually get, other than an absent mark, despite being there most of the day?

Some schools encourage children to have/make health appointments after registration has been taken - that’s not looking at education, it’s just highlighting that appearance matters over substance. A child working at half mast all week, rather than taking an extra day off to recover is the same. It’s just presenteeism.

Why is it so vital that an ill six year old attends and ruins Christmas plans for some of their classmates?

I’m a believer in education, but the whole ‘one day off equals x future pounds’ just doesn’t sit right. It assumes all days are equivalent - they’re not. It assumes attendance is the reason rather than a symptom. It assumes presenteeism is more important than actual learning. It assumes that school is always the most important thing - if a parent of a seven year old takes a couple of days off at the end of term to make a holiday affordable or because they’re in between health treatments or because it’s the only time they can go away as a family etc, it’s a shame that Billy will miss a movie and some Christmas crafts and that that will apparently impact his future earnings forever, but missing a holiday is also a shame.

Teachers are buckling under the pressure of their role, they’re struggling with continual high exposure to viruses too as shown in the stats. Some kids will buckle under that pressure too.

Lots of kids are left to coast, some for years. Funding to ensure all kids were challenged appropriately should matter.

Attendance awards are awful and ableist.

I wouldn't know where to start with ChatGPT, do you have to be so rude? Just scroll past if you don't wish to read my experience of my ds education.

And again, they’re not the ones excluded from anything. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that because of the very very tiny numbers of children in this position that school shouldn’t even promote good attendance!?

Some people are professional complainers on here.

You’d better go and rest the post again…. There’s NOTHING to suggest the ‘friend of a friends aunties cousin’ the OP refers to had a legit reason to be off.

its just a rant about schools generally rewarding good attendance - which absolutely they should - in general.

the outrage of ‘but what about those 2 unfortunate kids in the school with cancer’ really has nothing to do with this post. Those kids will get looked after (in most decent schools) regardless of general attendance policy.

It's true the attendance rules are different for 16-18 but government education policy is a very blunt instrument and they themselves often don't distinguish between 5 and 16 year olds!

The whole theme of this post is about not being mean to 5 year olds, but attendance isn't necessarily even about the 5 year olds.

Of course they should promote good attendance but what they shouldn't do is exclude five year olds who aren't the ones making the decision to be late every day or take days off willynilly.

Shame that actually doing their best for kids isn't their number one aim. Shows why Ofsted ratings need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

@TheignT agree.

But school’s never been about what’s best for children (I’m an ex primary teacher). It is about the economy. About creating workers and about enabling workers (ie adults) to work.

It was hormonal, maybe you think they should have put me on the pill at ten. You didn't say anything about extreme illness, you said no child should be ill more than 10% of the time. You obviously realise that isn't true as some children very much need to be off more which is sad but true.

Have a look at what you said yesterday at 21.39, no caveats about serious illness then just a blanket no children should be off for long periods.

Because I was addressing the OP that talking about general attendance. You’re spewing out whataboutery fringe nonsense or extreme illnesses (which I agreed subsequently can - and usually is) accounted for.

go stalk someone else you pillock - I stand by every comment on this thread - stop taking individual bits and adding or changing the context for the sake of a fight.

You think children should be ill? How odd.

I don't. I recognise that some are. I was. I shouldn't have been. No child deserves that in my opinion, maybe you think they do.

I think in the rare incidences where a child is genuinely ill more than 10% of the time, that needs to be investigated and treated.

If a child missing chunks of their education due to hormonal issues then they need to be treated, with the pill if that's the best option.

Correlation.

Precisely as I said.

Not causation.

I have set out some of the reasons why it is obvious there would be a correlation in a variety of cases in my previous responses to you. Yet you have repeatedly tried to imply - with no evidence to support this - that low attendance causes lower grades and that the attainment gap that does exist for some students with lower attendance would be closed by forcing very sick into school or forcing children suffering immense trauma from the school environment to continue attending anyway rather than making appropriate provision for them so they can attend without such distress.

It is extremely concerning if you work in education that your posts have exposed that you don’t understand very basic principles regarding the application of statistics and of scientific method/ logical inference and keep repeating the same bogus claims ad infinitum.

Your posts exemplify the typical arrogance encountered by many parents who have to deal with school/ Local Authority staff who will do anything they can to deflect blame for their own failings and continual circumvention of their legal and statutory responsibilities to children. It’s always someone else’s fault, allegedly, that they are failing children. So tiresome to try to blame the parents and I’m afraid nobody buys it.

Often it is a reflection on the school and LA failing to make the legally required provision so that the child can attend school safely, and failing in their legal duty to provide a full time education outside school to any child who has to miss more than 15 consecutive school days for medical reasons.

You think parents are somehow making their children unwell “by choice”?!

Perhaps you ought to have a look at the waiting lists for treatment before spouting nonsense about “just get medical treatment”. The NHS is utterly useless! I’ve had to pay for all of my children’s treatment and operations privately as well as paying tax to fund this useless service. Not everybody can do that.