THE HE BYTE: TRACKING THE PROGRESS OF THE BILL

The DfE need to address the reasons why children and young people do not feel safe or respected in schools, and do not feel their learning is meaningful or relevant. Equally, if the DfE ensure that schools work to support rather than penalise those children already struggling to attend, to rebuild connections and a sense of belonging, they are likely to see absence fall and attendance rise.

Davies and Lee (2006, p.208) suggest that school absence as self-withdrawal is evidence of a contractual breakdown. The contract being one where the young person attends and complies at school, and in return the school offers ‘a safe environment, meaningful and relevant learning, opportunities for association with friends, and dignified and respectful treatment’ . This contractual breakdown is occurring when young people do not feel safe, protected, respected, or dignified.  

In recent years school-based harm has become increasingly apparent through various reports expressing concern about the impact of school-based factors which are detrimental to children’s wellbeing in relation to mental health (Mind, 2021); bullying (Ditch the Label, 2020); sexual assault in schools (Lloyd et al., 2021; Ofsted, 2021); provision and support for long-term physical illnesses (No Isolation, 2021); provision and support for pupils with SEND (House of Commons, Education Committee, 2019); and provision and support for autistic pupils (Totsika et al., 2020; Truman et al., 2021). 

The Schools Bill proposals continue to enforce the punitive response to school absence viewed as ‘truancy’.

When parents attempt to resolve attendance problems they often fail because existing policies, systems and attitudes are not supporting their efforts. Therefore, it is inappropriate and ineffective to continue to enforce legal expectations which appear to be largely unachievable in the current context. Instead, it would be more appropriate to establish a different response which acknowledges the complexity and heterogeneity of school attendance problems. This approach should recognise that many school attendance problems reflect instances where our current education system is failing to support the needs of individual children. Where this is the case the punitive response to ‘truancy’ is clearly inappropriate.

"It is evident that the punitive approach leads to harm for parents, children and vulnerable families. It also appears to be ineffective in getting reluctant and fearful children back into the classroom. Our main conclusion and recommendation is therefore that the criminal law should not be applied to parents whose children do not attend school regularly. The distinction between a social welfare and a criminal justice approach is important: in the social welfare system the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, this is not the case in the criminal justice system where the welfare of the child is only one of a number of considerations."  (Epstein, Brown & O'Flynn, 2019)

The DfE need to move away from the notion of mainstream schooling as the only acceptable form of education. We need to embrace different forms of learning and accept that children have different needs and abilities requiring differing types of educational setting and approach. 

The Schools Bill proposals will effectively make elective home education more difficult for families. This means where families have turned to home education as a solution to attendance difficulties, children who have already struggled to thrive in school environments, and those who have been failed by systems which should have supported them, are more likely to be forced back into those same one-size-fits-all environments and systems that have caused them harm and distress. Children and their families need more choice and flexibility, not less.