Agenda item

Officers provided a briefing note with an update regarding the current situation regarding persistent absenteeism in the academic year. The data showed a current absenteeism rate of around 19.5%. While this was slightly lower than the national average of 20.6%, on the current trajectory the figure for the end of the year would be around 26-28%. While this would be higher than desired, this rate would still be an improvement from the previous year's nearly 34%. This meant that there was some initial positive impact of the work that officers had done.

Officers planned to delve deeper into the data concerning vulnerable groups of children in the future.

There had been several initiatives undertaken since November to address absenteeism, including implementing a revised borough-wide protocol for penalty notices. However, recent changes in government guidance regarding penalties may necessitate further revisions. This showed that what the Committee had chosen as its review topic was being scrutinised nationally.

Officers had undertaken EBSA training for team members and lots of colleagues across the Local Authority. This had also been offered to key colleagues in schools.

Four members of the Attendance Support team were now doing training for working with children with complex trauma – this was a seven-day training course that took place over six months. This would help officers working with families with adverse childhood experiences and intergenerational trauma, which was linked to potential persistent absenteeism.

Attendance hubs in Hillingdon had been launched. These were also known as clusters and were located in West Drayton, Hillingdon and Ruislip, with an additional hub planned for later in the academic year. These involved getting clusters of schools together to talk about common issues and to think about how to tackle them together.

A newly recruited project manager worked in the Virtual School looking at work around children with the social worker. This project manager had been recruited for 12 months and was currently in their third month. Officers were also currently advertising for a 12-month education project manager who would focus on attendance. These project managers would help with deep dive analysis which would aid with the review.

Members thanked officers for the briefing note.

Members asked about having some geographical analysis around data on vulnerable cohorts. Members further asked about having some historical analysis around the number and type of penalty notices, and around the size of the attendance team. Officers noted that penalty notices would be a big feature of the report that they would ask the project manager to pull together. Penalty notices could be issued for holidays or for non-attendance. Officers noted that they would be able to pull together a historical picture of this. This was a big part of the issue of persistent absenteeism as Hillingdon issued a lot of particularly holiday penalty notices. Officers would also be able to provide some geographical analysis. The size of the team had remained very similar but its functions had changed. The team was previously called the Participation Team and used to have other functions such as Children Missing Education, tracking children who were Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET), and child performance licences. Over the past 18 months, some of these functions had been taken out of this team, which was now solely focused on attendance support.

Members noted that it would be good to understand if fixed penalty notices were effective. Members asked where the penalty notice money went. Officers noted that this money was used to pay for the penalty notice officer who administered all of this work.

Members asked and officers noted that it would be possible to get a summary of the discussions that take place at the attendance hub cluster meetings.

Members referred to children coming back to school after an absence, noting that young people may experience an apprehension in returning to school, which may lead to further absences. Officers noted that there were two main cohorts of persistent absentees, those who were absent for extended periods, who would then need support in reintegration, and a larger group of those who were absent on ad hoc days that built up over time. Members noted that on average a persistent absentee would be absent for one day per fortnight across the year. Ad hoc absences were more difficult to support as the reasons may be less clearcut.

Members referred to ensuring that penalty notices did not penalise the most vulnerable children or families experiencing difficulties, and asked if consideration of mitigating circumstances was given prior to issuing a penalty notice. Officers noted that within the new Working Together guidance there was the need to consider all of the context around the child and the family situation. It was important to note that the decision to issue a penalty was the school's decision, the Council just acted on their behalf by issuing the penalty. It was possible to hear an appeal in some instances where a parent felt there had been mitigating circumstances or evidence not submitted that should be considered. Ultimately, the decision rested with the head teacher. It was confirmed that there was no use of debt collection, though it was potentially possible to prosecute legally.

Members highlighted the issue of parents taking their children out of school for cheaper holidays and asked how the Council educated parents on the importance of children being in school every day. It was noted that this would form part of the wider government initiative, in that every moment counts. This was related to the decision to increase the fines given via penalty notices as this was a national issue. There had been some instances of parents thinking that it would be cheaper to pay a fine and to go on holiday during term-time, than to go on holiday outside of term-time. There needed to be a focus on how the Council worked with schools to reiterate that every day counts, both in terms of the educational impact but also on the social impact.

Members asked about the percentage of fines paid to not paid. Officers noted that they could supply this information outside of the meeting.

Members asked if there was a programme of engagement with parents and an education of parents around the importance of children being in school. Officers noted that there was, but it was individualised to each school and what was relevant to their families. Every school can take a child and their parents to the attendance panel process, this was a supportive mechanism where the attendance support officer would meet with the child and family and with the school to try to uncover the issues and barriers and work together to address those issues. An agreement would then be made such as to provide training or to refer to external partners such as Brilliant Parents to get support for the parents as well as the child. Members asked whether there was a need for more generalised support, linking this to intergenerational deprivation and parents who may have missed out on education themselves. Officers noted that it was difficult to influence change in parents’ mindsets. What was possible, however, was to interrupt the intergenerational cycle and so the work done with children was important because within school is where there can be an influence, as children are in school for several hours each day. This could potentially be addressed through the clusters as they were location-based. It was also important for different teams within the Council to be on the same page when in contact with schools.

Members referred to the timeline of witness sessions and asked if there was an update relating to other Local Authorities or schools as potential witnesses. Members noted that June/ July may not be a suitable time for school representatives to attend a witness session. It was noted that this would be ongoing.

RESOLVED: That the Committee asked questions of officers as part of its review.