Fewer pupils in Swindon skipping school

Councillor David Renard Councillor David Renard

THE number of children across the town who are persistently absent from school has fallen.

A total of 1,405 pupils in primary, secondary and special schools missed more than a month of school last year.

That number was down from 1,490 in 2010/2011.

Overall absence, which includes both authorised and unauthorised absences, is also down across Swindon, with 5.0 per cent of pupils missing school sessions each day compared to 5.5 per cent the year before.

Coun David Renard, the Swindon Council cabinet member for children’s services, said: “There is a lot of good work that goes on at the council to work with schools to reduce absences and it seems to be working.”

In primary schools in Swindon the percentage of persistent absentees was this year was 2.7.

This is an improvement on the previous year, which saw persistent absentees in primary schools standing at at 3.7 per cent.

There was a marginal rise in secondary schools, up to 8.0 per cent from 7.5 per cent; and in special schools, up to 17.7 per cent from 16.6 per cent.

The statistics are in line with national figures which show almost 60,000 fewer children across the country were persistently absent from school last year compared with the year before.

Last year, 333,850 students were persistently absent from school – down from 392,305 in 2010/11.

The decline follows the Government’s decision to lower the persistent absence threshold from 20 per cent of school missed to 15 per cent of school missed so that heads can step in earlier to tackle problems.

In secondary schools, 7.4 per cent of pupils were persistently absent in 2011/12 – a decline from 8.4 per cent in 2010/11.

In primary schools, 3.1 per cent of pupils were persistently absent in 2011/12 compared with 3.9 per cent in 2010/11.

Overall absence is also down across all schools in England.

Last year, an average of 327,000 pupils were out of school each day. This compares to 370,000 pupils in 2010/11.

Children who attend school regularly were four times more likely to achieve five or more good GCSEs including English and Maths than those who are persistently absent.

A spokesman for the Department For Education said: “If children are not in school they cannot learn.

“Too many children are still missing too many lessons.

“We must continue to tackle poor attendance and make sure every pupil gets a good education.”

Comments(8)

house on the hill says...
1:38pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Good to see something working for a change. Still not a good figure but going in the right direction.

Tim Newroman says...
2:02pm Thu 21 Mar 13

I notice from this week's 'In Court' round-up on the Adver site that around half the 'criminals' cluttering up our court rooms are parents who are being convicted of not sending their children to school.

OK, nobody is saying it's responsible not to make your kids go to school, but while they seem to completely overlook - or do everything they can do let off - serious and violent criminals, it does seem a bit odd.

Bobfm , says...
2:45pm Thu 21 Mar 13

You do realise that the only reason they're in court is because they chose not to pay a £50 fixed penalty fine (like a speeding ticket eg not a criminal record).

And, no, most of the parents have been given umpteen warnings before it got to this stage.

Plus these cases are only ever heard at Magistrates' Court. The violent offenders are nearly always sent to Crown Court.

Tim Newroman says...
3:51pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Which makes it all the more ridiculous. It's fairly obvious why they don't pay the fines and all they get is more fines for not paying the fines. The law prevents anyone who is 'vulnerable' from ever having to pay out anything that leaves them in 'financial hardship' - which means anything they ever might pay back is done at the rate of about £1 a week.

A complete waste of everyone's time, effort and money.

And the kids still won't go to school.

Plenty of violent offenders are dealt with by the magistrates, who are often even more clueless and lenient than the fancy dress wearing judiciary.

Bobfm , says...
6:51pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Again, you state as fact things that are just your opinion. And you are incorrect.

Following the first prosecution, subsequent failure for the child to attend attracts an aggravated offence punishable by custodial sentence. And, before you ask, yes parents have genuinely gone to prison for a continued offence. Attendance improves in the vast majority of cases after the first prosecution, thus proving the value of education welfare officers.

Your views on the failure of the criminal justice system are well-documented (you state them regularly enough) but it is disappointing when you try and state with authority matters that you haven't experienced or researched properly.

Localboy86 says...
9:46pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Bobfm , wrote:
Again, you state as fact things that are just your opinion. And you are incorrect.

Following the first prosecution, subsequent failure for the child to attend attracts an aggravated offence punishable by custodial sentence. And, before you ask, yes parents have genuinely gone to prison for a continued offence. Attendance improves in the vast majority of cases after the first prosecution, thus proving the value of education welfare officers.

Your views on the failure of the criminal justice system are well-documented (you state them regularly enough) but it is disappointing when you try and state with authority matters that you haven't experienced or researched properly.
Brilliant post

1 2 Could B says...
10:00am Fri 22 Mar 13

Yes.
Nice one Bob.
Totally agree :-)

Tim Newroman says...
11:00am Mon 25 Mar 13

Bobfm , wrote:
Again, you state as fact things that are just your opinion. And you are incorrect.

Following the first prosecution, subsequent failure for the child to attend attracts an aggravated offence punishable by custodial sentence. And, before you ask, yes parents have genuinely gone to prison for a continued offence. Attendance improves in the vast majority of cases after the first prosecution, thus proving the value of education welfare officers.

Your views on the failure of the criminal justice system are well-documented (you state them regularly enough) but it is disappointing when you try and state with authority matters that you haven't experienced or researched properly.
You remind me very much of itsamess3. Always posting what everyone knows is the stated and proper procedure (ie, the theory) and implying that's how it all works in reality.

If only that were the case.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree