Agenda item

The Chair opened the item by stating that it had been bought to committee in light of the work being conducted by officers regarding the new codes and was an update of the work undertaken to date to inform schools.

• Officers stated that statutory guidance had been received in September 2024 which included a revised set of attendance codes. Of the 34 codes, 12 were new.
• Officers stated that the updated codes provided greater flexibility in recording attendance and allowed schools to differentiate authorised and unauthorised absences more effectively.
• Officers stated that many codes now had sub types allowing for more accurate coding.
• In the category for when students were attending a place other than school, but statistically present the only new code was the K code and all others remained unchanged.
• The B code had been retitled to specifically include reference to attending other approved supervised activity. Officers stated this was because of historical misuse nationally, wherein some schools were assigning students work to complete at home without supervision.
• Officers stated there were three new codes in the leave of absence category, including C1 which was for pupils participating in regulated performance or regulated employment abroad. Previously this would have just been coded C. J1 was a sub code for the purposes for attending interview for employment or another education institution. The C2 code was for a part time or reduced timetable of some description.
• The T code had been generalised to now refer to parents travelling for occupational purposes.
• Officers stated there were also new codes for pupils unable to attend for unavoidable causes, with seven underneath the Q code, replacing the single Y code. 
• Officers stated that nationally there had been research on listening and learning from parents in the attendance crisis, from which a key finding was that there had been a relationship breakdown between schools and families, primarily attributed to the accuracy of school attendance data at end of the school year. Officers stated that while Islington should endeavour to ensure there was greater accuracy in the recording of attendance, it was not the fault of schools, who were following the DfE guidance.
• Officers stated as an example, that schools would previously have to code a student absent for the entire morning, when a student may have only missed an hour of school, but that it was now at schools’ discretion for pupils to be marked present from when they arrive at school and override the codes. This primarily affected those with early morning appointments who would have previously been marked absent for the morning for missing registration, as opposed to those that had mid-morning or mid-afternoon appointments and would be counted as present. Officers further stated that being marked as present affected a pupil’s attendance rate, regardless of whether the absence was authorised, but it could be that children with regular CAMHS appointments were accessing appointments that may facilitate their education to begin with, adding to the strain in relations between families and schools.
• Officers confirmed that at both primary and secondary schools, children that arrived after registers have closed without reason, would be assigned a U code for unauthorised absence and that this remained unchanged with the revised guidance. It was clarified that what the code revision sought to address was where children were being inadvertently punished for absences beyond their control and to make the statistics more accurate.
• In response to members questions regarding benchmarking, officers stated that as part of the statutory guidance, local authorities are required to provide targeted support meeting termly to schools and that officers were looking at the process to ensure it was consistent, regardless of who was present. Officers further stated that they were conducting two visits a day between now and the end of term regarding the revised attendance codes.
• The Chair asked if there was a possibility that the absence data could be cross-referenced to pick up on themes such as young carers and parental mental health.
• In response to members questions regarding whether schools could give amnesties to students commuting from further afield, officers stated that under the revised guidance schools were being asked to use their judgement and discretion in each individual circumstance. Officers stated that there were codes to cover transport issues and circumstances beyond the student’s control, but not specifically for homelessness or temporary accommodation.
• In response to questions for the public regarding schools not marking children as unwell for mental health without consultants letters, officers stated that there was not a blanket approach to the marking of absences, that under the statutory guidance it was for the headteachers to determine what was an authorised or unauthorised absence and that the local authority was only in a position to advise schools.
• In response to questions from the public regarding mental health and wellbeing support being captured within the scrutiny review, the Chair advised that it was within the committee’s work programme to speak with these support services and young people directly.
• In response to questions from the public regarding whether the use of attendance codes was a matter that could be escalated to the local authority, officers stated that there were regular meetings between the local authority and school leaders and that there was no blanket approach but that if there was a public perception that these codes were widely being misused locally, then those views would be shared with leaders.

RESOLVED

That the update is noted.