This new government has a unique opportunity to be inclusive. But for this to happen, the impact of policy change on the most vulnerable must be considered carefully.
Take the new attendance codes, for example. I, like many school leaders, support the notion of better attendance tracking but the latest guidance risks confusing schools and families, particularly in relation to remote learning.
The Department for Education updated the Working Together to Improve School Attendance codes last month, and the guidance now contains an unfair penalty for those students who are already vulnerable. There are also additional hurdles for schools going to great lengths to provide equitable learning.
The guidance is definitive yet contradictory. It says that “face-to-face attendance, whenever it is possible, should always be the priority”, but also states that “schools may continue to use remote education”, in recognition of “the value it can add to pupils who might not otherwise be able to access education”.
But it states that if pupils are not physically in the same room as the teacher, they should be registered as absent or unwell.
Why is this a problem? For a start, it contradicts the equalities duty. Where is the reasonable adjustment for those children with protected characteristics? And why should the school’s attendance percentage be affected?
A child can attend an off-site session for work experience or an outward-bound trip and be registered as present. Yet a child who is, for example, in remission from cancer, who is highly engaged with learning remotely, will be registered as absent.
This is completely at odds with the principles of equitable engagement and participation, reducing attendance to mere physical presence. It risks damaging self-esteem and reducing young people’s sense of belonging. We should be removing barriers to re-engagement with school rather than creating them.
It’s also not in line with the advances in technology that support inclusion. In medical alternative provision, hospital schools and other settings, serious progress has been made, with live online lessons reducing the need for expensive home tuition, enabling pupils to make curriculum progress and practise safe socialising before going back into school.
The Department for Education’s own Online Education Accreditation Scheme was set up specifically to ensure that there are Ofsted quality-assured “accredited” providers on hand to deliver high-quality live remote education and robust safeguarding arrangements for these young people.
I understand that attendance is a priority and that the DfE is seeking better data about what is happening with attendance and why.
But where data-seeking alone is the target, Goodhart’s law surely applies: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
A policy that prioritises physical presence over meaningful engagement is fundamentally flawed. It overlooks the root causes of absenteeism, such as inadequate mental health support or significant medical needs.
A better approach
It’s time for a holistic approach to policy planning, one that is equitable by design and considers the needs of all learners. We need to end the siloed decision-making that pits students with SEND against rigid policies on curriculum, behaviour and attendance.
Numerous reports, including those from the Institute for Government, highlight the need for better policy implementation through improved organisational structures.
I recently noted that the DfE’s move to integrate the SEND team from children and families into the schools’ brief was a positive step, representing an opportunity for more cohesive policy-making that serves our most vulnerable learners.
The next step is to look again at the code ascribed to remote learning. A more nuanced understanding of attendance is needed; one that recognises and values participation and effort regardless of where learning takes place.
Education policy should not be driven by political expediency or calls for 100 per cent attendance at all costs.
Instead, it should be grounded in principles that prioritise the needs of all students, especially the most vulnerable. We need a policy design process that is inclusive, collaborative and reflective of the diverse needs of our student population.
Margaret Mulholland is the special educational needs and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders
For the latest research, pedagogy and classroom advice, sign up for our weekly Teaching Essentials newsletter
