Do children attend school?

The latest DfE repot of parent and student views contains some data that are at odds with the general perception of schooling. The data on attendance in the ‘voice’ results are so at odds with the general perception that it raises questions about who completes this sort of questionnaire. Parent, pupil and learner voice: May 2025 – GOV.UK

Generally, the perception is that fewer children are attending school on a regular basis. But here is the DfE’s evidence from their survey.

Across previous academic years, the proportions of pupils and learners who said they had been to school every day or most days were:

WaveKey stage 3 pupilsKey stage 4 pupils16-19 pupils and learners
2025-0596%95%84%
2025-0395%93%92%
2024-0997%96%
2024-0395%95%
2023-1296%94%

And for the parents the data are even more out of line with reality

Across previous academic years, the proportions of parents who said that their child had been to school every day or most days were:

WavePrimary parentsSecondary parentsSpecial parents
2025-0599%95%93%
2024-0998%96%91%
2024-0398%95%93%
2023-1299%95%91%

Would that 99% of primary pupils attended school that often. The reduction of only one per cent for the secondary sector parents between September 2024 and May 2025, from 96% to 95% even with sample sizes of more than 3,000 for both pupils and parents does seem a little out of line with the views coming from schools more generally about attendance.

Sickness or study leave were the two reasons given most frequently for absence by pupils and learners, followed by other reasons, where 16-19s had the highest percentage at 30%. Interestingly, 6% of the 16-19 cited the cost of travel, something this blog has highlighted as an issue.

Percentages for bullying s a reason for absence were low, at 5% of KS3, and 3% of KS4 pupils, compared with one per cent of KS3 parents, but 8% of KS4 parents: a big difference between pupil and parent responders.

Similarly, only 4% of KS3, and 3% of KS4 pupils, cited suspension or exclusion as reasons for missing school. Interestingly no parents of KS3 pupils, but 5% of KS4 pupils, cited suspension or exclusion as a reason for missing school.  

Tables 8 & 9 of the Technical Document on the Methodology contain the information about the percentage of parents and pupils that completed each wave, although no other information about their characteristics is forthcoming. This is despite the careful sampling frame developed to take account of a large number of different variables.  Parent, Pupil and Learner Voice Technical Report: September 2025

This does raise the question around who completes questionnaires and might the missing groups have had different responses? I cannot help but wonder whether the issue of response rates might have been more prominently discussed.  However, we all know persuading those sent questionnaires to return them is always a tricky task, so any responses are better than none.

Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils?

The DfE published the annual data for exclusions and suspensions from schools during the 2023/24 school-year this week. Suspensions and permanent exclusions in England: 2023 to 2024 – GOV.UK Sadly, there are more pupils being excluded than in recent years, and my post from July 2018 Bad news on exclusions | John Howson reflects much , at least at the national level, of what is contained in the latest report on 2023/24. Boys on free school meals, and with SEND, and from a minority group are at highest risk of being excluded, especially when they are in Year 9, and, as ever, the reasons is most likely to have been ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’.

With the worsening recruitment crisis in schools, allied to a challenging financial environment, an increase in exclusions and suspensions was to be expected. What the data doesn’t tell us is whether schools with high exclusion rates are linked to specific academy trusts, and also to high levels of teacher turnover.

I wrote a blog about policies for reducing exclusions in May Reducing exclusions from schools | John Howson and I would hope that if the staffing situation does settle down, so might the number of pupils being banished from school.

As ever, I am struck by the funding issue. London, the best funded part of England has some of the lowest rates for exclusion and suspensions. There are 17 London boroughs in the list of the 25 local authorities with the lowest rate of suspensions in 2023/24, and 19 in the similar list for secondary exclusions. In the list of ten local authorities with the highest rates of exclusion are five authorities in the North East. I think that there may be something in this data that needs further exploration, especially as I would expect teacher recruitment to be easier in the North East than in London.

Interestingly, in view of the debate about mobile phones in schools, the number of suspensions for ‘inappropriate use of social media or online technology’ only increased from 11,419 to 11,614, an insignificant change between 2022/23 and 2023/24 especially compared with the increase in exclusions for ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’ from 446,676 to 569,921 over the same period. Of course, much comes down t how a decision on which box to tick when the exclusion is being reported and the latter category may hide suspensions that actually belong in one of the other categories. This is the risk when there are too many choices for a school to make.

The increase of around 25,000 in assaults leading to suspensions must be very worrying, although I wonder whether most are ‘common assault’ rather than ‘assault leading to actually bodily harm’ or ’GBH’ to use the criminal code levels of violence against another.

Some numbers are so small it is a wonder that they are still collected. Were only 69 pupils – up from 50 the previous year- permanently excluded for theft. Perhaps schools have nothing worth nicking these days.

I hope that next year, we might read of at least a levelling out of the rates of exclusions and suspensions and perhaps a return to a downward trend, especially if there is a relationship between funding and how schools can cope with disruptive pupils.  

Why do some schools suspend more pupils than other schools?

The levelling up debate seems to have somewhat been overshadowed recently by the concerns about Ofsted, and the issues with worker’s pay and conditions. However, the problem of how to increase success rates for some schools hasn’t disappeared.

As I have written before on this blog, the lack of any local ability to intervene in the absence of government funding stream for levelling up, means that improvements are often haphazard, if they even happen at all. Academy chains could shunt pupils out of their schools, and leave others to cope, and failing schools have limited support outside of opportunity Areas or other places with special funding.

For a long period of time, part of Oxford city – that city of dreaming spires – has been divided into two; the generally, affluenct and successful North and West of the city, and less well-off south and east, as the ONS data from the 2021 starkly reveals. Not so much a case of the wrong side of the tracks, but the wrong side of the river Cherwell – not, note, the river Thames.

As a result, it is perhaps not much of a surprise to find that two of the state-funded secondary schools within the city – both located in the south of the city – have places in the top 200 secondary schools by the rate of suspensions during the Spring term of 2021/22 school-year. Fortunately, neither is in the top 100 schools, and for both they are probably faring better than they were a few years ago.

This an issue that the government’s Social Mobility Commission Social Mobility Commission Quarterly Commentary: March 2023 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) might wish to explore in some detail.

Five of the 20 local authorities with the most schools in the top 200 secondary schools are authorities with selective secondary schools. One is a south coast unitary with a disproportionately large number of its non-selective schools in the list of the top 200 schools. Like Oxfordshire, it is an authority unlikely to attract extra funding for its schools under levelling-up, but there must be an issue to explore as to why so many of its schools are in this list?

A few years ago, University Technical Colleges used to feature strongly in this type of list, but closures and presumably some better understanding of transfer at fourteen has reduced their number to four, two of them being the only schools in their authority in the list.

The extent to which feeder primary schools for these 200 schools also feature in the list would be an interesting exercise to undertake. Also, it might be interesting to ask why one county has only one school in the list, whereas an adjacent unitary has three schools?

There is something of a north-south divide in the list and relatively few schools in London are in the list: an interesting turnaround from the last century, when I am sure that there would have been more of the capital’s secondary schools in the list. No doubt, the strength of some of the academy chains located in the capital has made a difference.