Schools to be Graded on Attendance (About Time?)
At last Ofsted is going to be focused on things that make a difference to young people and their life chances.
No longer will we have the unfair, demoralising and simplistic one word judgements. Now we can reintroduce proper nuance and grade the full scope of a school’s impact, ethos and responsibilities. Ofsted will now report on 10 areas, one of which is attendance.
About time, right? Attendance is in post pandemic crisis. The government proved to parents and their children that learning could happen online, or even that not learning online, but simply staying at home, was a social norm. Mental health suffered everywhere. And so mental health days became the norm for many.
Now persistent absence is at epidemic levels. Students will fail. So schools need to step up; it is a moral imperative.
And you know, I bought into this narrative. Schools can sell themselves, become increasingly inclusive, devolve more and more resources to pastoral support - we care, because we care, because we care.
If Schools Were a Business
But picture any other business with 1000 employees. They have an attendance problem. The line manager meets with their staff.
“What reasonable adjustment can we make to help you come to work?”
“How can we make your work more engaging?”
“Would it help if we rang you up every morning to invite you to come in?”
Difficult to imagine, isn’t it? No attendance, no job.
Government statistics show 4% of adults over 16 are out of work. 1.39 million. There are 841,000 job vacancies. 3.4 million adults claim PIPs because illness, disability or mental health.
The crisis in attendance may not be something school can cure. What incentive is there to come to school when the state has such an all encompassing support network, or where there are so many jobs available?
The Counter Argument
Who are these students so traumatised by schools that they cannot attend? Not the children from the leafy suburbs, grass fed and watered on Evian and frappuccinos. Not the EAL children of aspiring immigrants, brimming with dedication and hope.
No. They are the white working class, and boys of all classes. Not just the disadvantaged, but those so unlucky to be born into only the 6th richest economy in the world.
These pupils attend the coastal schools, or those in towns and small cities like mine. A whole swathe of schools destined to become the underclass, because the problems are too great for a school to tackle.
But what if they didn’t?
What if they took no extra pains to take on the role of parents, or indeed take on the parents themselves? What if the families who chose to fail were allowed to do so?
What would happen?
The same 30% would still get below grade 4. Ofqual will prevent any increase in those gaining grades 1 or 2 or 3, so, at least to the naked eye, standards will never fall.
In other words, if 20% of students have persistent absence, no more of them will fail than if all of them turned up to school, every day. The results would look exactly the same.
Do no more to increase attendance and no one will do any worse. Their absences will have no impact on grades, and no impact on the jobless figures, or indeed on those claiming the benefits they currently receive.
But the children who turn up to school would have more teachers, with more time to devote to them. What might the school do without the tens of thousands each one is spaffing up against the indifference of the 21.5% of families with persistent absence?
Why not raise standards by spending that money on the 78.5% who want to do well?
Now that would raise standards. That would make a difference. That would satisfy what Ofsted claims is their mission statement:
“Ofsted aims to improve lives by raising standards in education and children's social care.”
Do your job, Ofsted, and help schools to do theirs.