National Assembly for Wales Children and Young People Committee
Inquiry into Attendance and Behaviour January 2013
This paper from Estyn, the inspectorate for education and training in Wales, has been prepared in response to a request from the Children and Young People Committee.
Introduction
This paper argues that it is often poverty and disadvantage that underlie the more serious attendance and behaviour issues in our schools and in the education system more generally. Disadvantaged pupils are more likely to be absent from school, they are more likely to behave in a challenging way, to be excluded and to end up being educated other than at school. As a result, they are more at risk of underachieving.
This paper sets out some of our inspection findings in relation to attendance and beahviour. It also outlines how successful schools deal with issues of poor attendance, behaviour and disengagement . Appendix 1 contains examples of case studies of schools that have overcome obstacles to do with poverty and disadvantage to engage and support pupils so that they can benefit fully from their education and achieve the outcomes they deserve.
Attendance
While attendance is good in many of the schools we inspect, it is the weakest aspect of pupils’ wellbeing. In about a third of secondary schools, attendance is not good enough and 16% of primary school inspection reports in 2011-12 had a recommendation to improve attendance.
There is a big difference in attendance rates between schools in the least and most deprived areas. In many schools we inspect, there is a correlation between the proportion of pupils entitled to free school meals, the rate of absenteeism, and the standards pupils achieve. In general, schools with a higher proportion of pupils entitled to free school meals have higher absenteeism rates. The following data tables illustrate this relationship between the proportion of pupils entitled to free school meals and the rate of absenteeism.
Figure 1: Absenteeism by pupils of compulsory age in all maintained secondary schools, by proportion entitled to free school meals, 2011-2012[1]
Figure 2: Absenteeism by pupils of compulsory age in all maintained primary schools, by proportion entitled to free school meals, 2010-2011[2]
Attendance is inspected as part of our inspections of a local authorities’ statutory duty to promote social inclusion and wellbeing. This duty also includes services that prevent pupils from being excluded from school, support vulnerable groups of learners and provide all young people with access to appropriate guidance and advice.
In the fifteen local authority inspection reports published to date, we award one excellent, four good, nine adequate and one unsatisfactory judgement for the quality of social inclusion and wellbeing services.
Attendance rates have been highlighted as an area for improvement in around half of the local authorities inspected in the current cycle.
In the authorities where arrangements for wellbeing are good:
- pupils respond well to professional support, guidance and counselling, which have improved their wellbeing and outcomes;
- pupils’ attendance in schools compares well to that in other authorities that have a similar social and economic background; and
- pupil engagement is good and fewer pupils are excluded from school.
Even where authorities have appropriate initiatives to improve attendance and reduce exclusion, the majority of authorities do not evaluate these initiatives effectively enough to bring about further improvements to benefit learners. In half of the authorities inspected, strategies and projects to improve attendance have not yet had enough impact.
All the cases in which we have seen attendance improve have involved better use of data to challenge under performance and to target support more effectively where it can have the greatest impact. The fact that attendance figures are factored into the Welsh Government secondary school banding calculation has also meant that all secondary schools now pay much greater attention to improving attendance rates.
Support for attendance works most effectively when local authority officers work closely with schools and a range of partners to share responsibility for improving performance. In those authorities judged to be good or better, effective co-operation between statutory and voluntary partners has led to the establishment of multi-agency and multi-disciplinary teams to focus on the specific needs of learners and their families. In a few cases, this has led to coordinated support and intervention designed to meet identified social and educational needs. One of the key success factors has been the targeting of difficult-to-reach families and the use of ‘first-day response’ to contact families. This strategy has improved both attendance rates and standards for the pupils concerned in secondary schools but has yet to be used to full effect in primary schools.
The table below shows rates of pupil absenteeism by local authority. It illustrates how some authorities manage to sustain relatively good attendance rates in spite of their rates of deprivation.
|
Figure 3. Absenteeism by pupils of compulsory school age in all maintained secondary and special schools by local authority |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
All absences Unauthorised absences |
||||||||
|
Local Authority |
|
2011/12 |
|
|
|
2011/12 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Isle of Anglesey |
7.8 |
0.7 |
|
||||||||
|
Gwynedd |
7.9 |
0.9 |
|
||||||||
|
Conwy |
7.3 |
1.5 |
|
||||||||
|
Denbighshire |
7.1 |
1.5 |
|
||||||||
|
Flintshire |
7.0 |
0.5 |
|
||||||||
|
Wrexham |
7.2 |
1.7 |
|
||||||||
|
Powys |
7.1 |
0.4 |
|
||||||||
|
Ceredigion |
6.3 |
1.1 |
|
||||||||
|
Pembrokeshire |
7.4 |
0.5 |
|
||||||||
|
Carmarthenshire |
8.6 |
0.6 |
|
||||||||
|
Swansea |
8.0 |
1.4 |
|
||||||||
|
Neath Port Talbot |
7.7 |
0.5 |
|
||||||||
|
Bridgend |
8.1 |
1.6 |
|
||||||||
|
The Vale of Glamorgan |
7.3 |
1.0 |
|
||||||||
|
Rhondda, Cynon, Taff |
9.4 |
2.1 |
|
||||||||
|
Merthyr Tydfil |
7.6 |
1.0 |
|
||||||||
|
Caerphilly |
8.3 |
1.8 |
|
||||||||
|
Blaenau Gwent |
9.6 |
2.4 |
|
||||||||
|
Torfaen |
7.7 |
1.2 |
|
||||||||
|
Monmouthshire |
7.0 |
0.6 |
|
||||||||
|
Newport |
8.1 |
2.1 |
|
||||||||
|
Cardiff |
8.3 |
2.7 |
|
||||||||
|
Wales |
7.8 |
1.4 |
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Source: Pupils' Attendance Record, Welsh Government |
|
|
||||||||
In many local authorities the links between the education welfare service (EWS) and school improvement services are not strong enough. Although in some local authorities the EWS function actually sits within the school improvement service, traditionally, attendance and education welfare have not always been seen as priorities for school improvement services. The Welsh Government’s secondary school banding system has started to change this attitude. Nevertheless, the quality and use of data to inform the planning of the work of education welfare officers (EWO) are variable across the authorities that we have inspected.
One of the more effective authorities uses a combination of initiatives including:
· training and raising the awareness of school leaders and managers;
· adopting new attendance follow-up procedures;
· reviewing the work of the education welfare service;
· setting up new joint working arrangements between the school improvement service and EWS; and
· improving data collation and analysis.
These initiatives have enabled officers to target support to vulnerable pupils with very low attendance rates through working more closely with Family First, the authority’s looked-after children (LAC) coordinator and support unit for Gypsy Travellers. In addition, the education department works well staff in other council departments or voluntary organisation who work in the community, such as street scene officers and housing association staff to improve the reporting of truancy.
The analysis and use of data have helped several authorities to identify where attendance is low and to target those schools. Transparency in the use of data means that every school in the authority is given the data for all schools in the authority and this data is colour coded to show which quartile each school is in. The data is also shared with local authority officers and elected members.
In another authority, officers have identified schools with good attendance and are using these schools as case studies of good practice to help other schools to improve. This has been effective in those schools with poor attendance that were targeted first and the approach is now being implemented more widely across the authority’s schools.
Behaviour
Behaviour is the least positive aspects of responses to the questionnaires that Estyn asks pupils to complete before each inspection, with only three-quarters of primary pupils and two-thirds of secondary pupils believing that other pupils behave well.
Even so, behaviour is generally good in most primary schools. Most pupils are attentive and enthusiastic. In a very few excellent schools, nearly all pupils are highly motivated and fully engaged in their learning. In very few schools do pupils regularly disrupt lessons or daily routines. Only one school of the over 200 schools inspected last year had a recommendation to improve behaviour.
Behaviour is also good overall in most secondary schools. Most pupils are courteous, get on well with each other and show positive attitudes to learning, school and each other. In schools where wellbeing is excellent overall, the high standards of behaviour and outstanding willingness to learn are particularly evident. In a minority of schools, even though behaviour may be good overall, a few pupils either spend too much time off-task or engage in low-level disruption.
Where issues relating to poor behaviour are managed well, schools keep detailed records of specific incidents and maintain logs to record the length of time during which pupils are removed from normal lessons without being formally excluded. These schools analyse and evaluate regularly the progress of pupils who are removed from lessons or formally excluded.
Many authorities are strengthening the way they implement strategies for behaviour management and support. In the three authorities judged to be good in 2011-12, these arrangements help schools and staff from different agencies to work together to help families to improve children and young people’s capacity to learn. These authorities focus their support for particular individuals’ needs by helping families to set consistent boundaries and bedtimes or to understand why good attendance at school is important. Many authorities are also improving the way they use data to plan services so they can be more customised.
In a minority of authorities there isalready more consistent reporting of exclusions, better preventative work with those at risk and reductions in requests for support when interventions have been ineffective.
Three local authorities out of the two-thirds inspected in the current cycle were given a recommendation in their inspection to address the high level of pupil exclusions.
The ENGAGE initiative is a joint initiative to support young people who are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) or at risk of NEET which involves Swansea, Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and Neath Port Talbot, who were the lead authority, as well as six further education colleges. It is funded through the European Funding Office (WEFO). The initiative engaged some 12,000 participants, targeting young people aged 14-16 who were at risk of disengagement and 16-19 year olds in further education and at risk of dropping out. A range of techniques is being used such as vocational training, one-to-one intensive support and activities to raise self-esteem will encourage young people to remain in education and improve their skills. The scheme also assists those who are not attending school or college by supporting them back into education and it also works with Pupil Referral Units, care leavers and young offenders, providing additional learning support for those who are not in mainstream education. An interim evaluation carried out by external consultants for Neath Port Talbot authority noted that the initiative appeared to be having a significant impact on the incidence of NEETS and secondary school exclusions.
Education other than at school (EOTAS)
There is a link between poverty and behavioural difficulties. The table below shows that a disproportionate percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals are educated other than at schools (about two-thirds, compared to a fifth if they were represented proportionately).
Figure 4: Pupils whose main education is other than at school, by free school meal entitlement[3]
There are many reasons why pupils are educated other than at school. In many cases, it is because they have been excluded from a school, often because of their behaviour. The chart below shows that, when pupils are taught other than at school, the highest proportion (nearly 40%) of them are taught in a pupil referral unit.
Figure 5: Pupil enrolments of those taught other than at school, by educational provision, 2011-2012[4] (all-Wales figures)
Pupil referral units (PRUs)
Pupil referral units (PRUs) should be short-stay centres that provide education for vulnerable and challenging pupils with the aim of re-integration into mainstream schooling or other appropriate education, training or employment. However, the success ofPRUs in re-integrating pupils or in offering a broad curriculum varies unacceptably, even between sites of the same PRU. Pupils on one site of a PRU we inspected recently only attend part‑time and do not gain useful qualifications, while at the other site of the same PRU, pupils have a full-time programme and access to a varied curriculum, and gain appropriate qualifications.
In many PRUs, pupils do improve their reading, spelling and social skills and gain a range of suitable qualifications. Pupils learn to manage their behaviour and many, particularly at key stage 3, make a successful return to their school. In a minority of PRUs however, pupils do not develop their literacy and numeracy skills well enough, do not regularly contribute to decisions about the life and work of the PRUs and stay at the PRU for long periods.
Teaching staff in PRUs do a difficult job with pupils whose behaviour can be challenging. Many do it well. PRUs generally have appropriate policies in place to help them in their work with vulnerable pupils. This year, we visited several PRUs to evaluate their behaviour management strategies, and how they apply restrictive physical intervention and restraint. Six of the seven PRUs visited have adopted suitable behaviour management policies. Staff in these PRUs are well trained and confident in using these techniques to defuse potentially confrontational situations.
In the best practice, PRU staff teach pupils how to manage their own behaviour and use agreed behaviour management plans and individual pupil risk-assessments to help them. However, in most cases, pupil-planning systems do not address the management of difficult behaviour with individual pupils well enough. Frequently they do not use individual pupil risk-assessments or off-site risk‑assessments well enough to safeguard pupils and staff adequately. PRUs do not do enough to monitor the impact of their day‑to‑day practice on pupils’ wellbeing and behaviour. Record-keeping is not always detailed enough to allow analysis that would help staff to evaluate how well their strategies and practices are working.
Poverty and attendance and behaviour
Poverty and disadvantage are associated with poor attendance and behaviour in schools. Pupils who are disadvantaged in this way are at risk of underachieving. At all key stages in Wales, pupils who are entitled to free school meals[5] perform significantly less well than those who are not eligible and the gap in performance betwee the two groups widens during schooling. The performance of both free school meals (FSM) and non-free school meals (non-FSM) groups of pupils improves each year, but the gap between the two remains too wide. The gap widens further in secondary schools, as shown in the chart below.
Figure 6: Gap in percentages of FSM and non-FSM pupils attaining the core subject indicator at each stage between 2009 and 2011
Improving attendance and behaviour - breaking the cycle of disadvantage
If schools do not tackle the impact of poverty and disadvanatage early enough and with enough determination, disengagement from learning can become cyclical: poor attendance, and behavioural difficulties or exclusion, lead to underachievement, which in turn results in further disengagement.
The impact of poverty is not, however, inevitable and this section describes how the most effective schools have broken this cycle of disadvantage.
Although the charts below show a strong link between poverty and the performance of each secondary school in Wales at key stage 4 (in terms of attaining the level 2 threshold), they also show that schools facing similar challenges perform very differently and some schools succeed despite facing challenging circumstances. For example, some schools with a free school meals figure of around 40% (around twice the Welsh average of 20%) perform relatively poorly, with only 30% of pupils gaining the level 2 threshold, while in similar schools nearly 90% of pupils gain the same level of qualifications.
Figure 7: Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving the level 2 threshold in 2012
Figure 8: Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving the level 2 threshold including English / Welsh first language and mathematics in 2012
What do effective schools do?
Estyn recently published a survey report (‘Effective practice in tackling poverty and disadvantage in schools’) that identified a number of best practice case studies from schools that have raised the achievement of disadvantaged learners in challenging circumstances by dealing with poor attendance rates and behaviour. The performance of the secondary schools with case studies is indicated by the red squares in Figure 7 and 8 above. The black line indicates what the ‘expected’ performance of a school would be taking into account disadvantage (the level of free school meals for the school). Schools above this line perform better than would be expected. These case study schools are performing well against the more challenging performance indicator of the level 2 threshold including English or Welsh first language and mathematics.
These schools not only do what all successful schools do to secure better behaviour and attendance of learners, but they also create an outstandingly positive ethos that allows disadvantaged learners to achieve well. These schools employ strategies specifically designed to combat the factors that disadvantage learners. In particular, effective schools in challenging circumstances take a whole-school, strategic approach to tackling disadvantage – they have a structured, coherent and focused approach to raising the achievement of disadvantaged learners.
These effective schools have a persistent focus on good attendance, punctuality and positive behaviour. They encourage learners’ intrinsic motivation. They have suitable sanctions, but find that reward systems work particularly well, especially to improve attendance. Another key feature of these effective schools is that they have developed their ‘inclusion room’ into a positive learning environment or a refuge for vulnerable learners.
See Appendix 1 for case studies from Cefn Hengoed and Cwrt Sart schools.
Teacher training and development
These effective schools also develop the expertise of staff to tackle poor behaviour and attendance – they have a culture of sharing best practice, provide opportunities for teachers to observe each other, and have performance management targets that are related to raising the achievement of disadvantaged learners.
Lack of staff commitment to improving behaviour and attendance is a key barrier to overcome in tackling issues of poverty and disadvantage. Staff training and development are needed to tackle this issue. Most successful schools invest significantly in developing the skills of leaders, teachers, support staff and governors to improve outcomes for disadvantaged learners.
Many of the successful schools have a strong culture of sharing good practice, both within and outside the school. These schools provide plenty of opportunities for teachers to observe one another and to share approaches to planning across the school. They have spent time on developing whole-school approaches in such areas as teaching literacy skills, promoting emotional wellbeing and raising boys’ achievement. They have also identified training opportunities for staff to develop specialist skills, such as those in play therapy or anger management.
Nearly all of the successful schools use performance management to improve the standards and wellbeing of their disadvantaged learners. In these schools, all staff have specific and measurable improvement targets that relate to the school target of raising the achievement of disadvantaged learners. This makes all staff accountable for raising the achievement of disadvantaged learners.
Collaborative working arrangements in community-focused schools
Nearly all schools see themselves as community-focused. However, schools do not have a common understanding of what it means to be community-focused. A few schools have identified challenges in their local community and have strengthened community links to, for example, raise attendance rates, improve behaviour, and raise the level of parental support.
Although learners are offered a range of out-of-hours learning in many schools, only in the few best examples are these extra activities carefully designed to increase learners’ confidence, motivation and self-esteem. Where schools have had the greatest impact on raising learners’ achievement, staff plan out-of-hours learning to match the needs of learners and to complement the curriculum. Although most schools work with a range of agencies, school leaders do not co-ordinate multi-agency working systematically enough to ensure that disadvantaged learners are supported in the most effective and timely way. The few schools that engage most effectively in multi-agency working have established protocols and processes for this work, including setting up multi-agency panels.
Most schools identify engaging parents as the biggest challenge in tackling the under-achievement of disadvantaged learners. Many schools, especially primary schools, have a good awareness of the range of problems facing the families of their learners, and a few schools work with parents strategically to improve outcomes for disadvantaged learners. However, a significant minority of schools do not employ a broad enough range of strategies to engage parents.
Additional activity that has the potential to have a positive impact on attendance and behaviour is being developed through the Families First programme. The strength of this work often lies in how well agencies coordinate their work with a family. However, this work is not always well connected with school improvement services at a strategic level.
Please see appendix 2 for a link to further relevant Estyn
reports.
Appendix 1 Case studies
Appendix 2
For further information on attendance and behaviour please click on these links to relevant reports by Estyn:
Behaviour in Wales: Good practice in managing challenging behaviour, 2006
Improving attendance, 2006
An evaluation of performance of schools before and after moving into new buildings, 2007
Evaluation of the implementation by schools and LEAs of guidance on exclusions, 2007
Good practice in parental involvement in primary schools, 2009
Tackling poverty and disadvantage in schools: working with the community and other services, 2011
Effective practice in tackling poverty and disadvantage in schools, 2012
A survey of the arrangements for pupils' wellbeing and behaviour management in pupil referral units, 2012