A referral is not yet support: the next step in the attendance story

01 / What has changed

A broader evidence base does not become a school league table

The report assembles measures of outcomes, service quality and access from several bodies and the Commissioner's own requests. It warns that the picture is not a rating of local-authority performance. Services operate across different boundaries, and the measures cover different periods. Missing data also constrains comparison. These qualifications matter before any local figure is used in a school improvement discussion.12

The evidence annex illustrates the timing issue: its mainstream unauthorised absence measure uses 2023/24. A report published this week therefore cannot be described as showing this week's absence. Our earlier feature considered more recent DfE attendance evidence separately. Keep those observation windows distinct rather than joining them into an apparent live trend.2

For leaders, local context helps frame questions about transport, housing, health and access to help. It does not explain an individual pupil's absence by itself. Begin with what that pupil and family describe, then test the account against relevant school information and professional advice. A postcode should never become a shortcut for a judgement about motivation or parenting.

02 / The immediate review

Replace a broad category with a barrier someone can act on

Select a manageable group of persistent or severe absence cases for review, using the school's existing secure process. For each, state the barrier in plain language: an inaccessible journey, difficulty entering a crowded environment, a health-related need, missing provision or another evidenced issue. Record uncertainty rather than forcing every pupil into one explanation. Several barriers may interact.

Ask the pupil and family what has changed since the last meeting and what support has actually been experienced. Check whether the school has completed its own agreed actions. A family may have received several contacts without a workable change to the day. The review should distinguish an offer, an accepted referral, an appointment and support that has begun.

Keep the current statutory attendance guidance as the reference for responsibilities, support and interventions. Local context does not remove those responsibilities, and an attendance percentage does not determine the right response without understanding the circumstances. Where a concern is safeguarding-related, use the established safeguarding route rather than waiting for the next scheduled attendance meeting.3

03 / Between organisations

Give every unresolved handoff an owner and an escalation point

For each external dependency, record the service contacted, the question asked, the response received and the next action. Identify a school case owner and, where available, the named contact in the other service. A referral reference number is useful, but it does not establish that the service has accepted responsibility or agreed a plan.

Agree what happens if there is no response or the request is declined. That may involve clarification, another appropriate route or escalation through the responsible body's arrangements. Avoid repeatedly asking a family to retell the same information without explaining why. Share relevant information through authorised processes and restrict access to staff who need it for their role.

The Commissioner recommends stronger strategic collaboration, including a proposed statutory duty involving health, education, social care and police. These are recommendations, not a newly enacted duty or a new funding entitlement. A school can improve the reliability of its existing handoffs now, without representing those proposals as obligations already imposed on local partners.1

04 / While help is awaited

Do not let the waiting period become the whole plan

Ask what education and support are available today. For a pupil experiencing mental health-related attendance difficulties, the appropriate response depends on their circumstances and the relevant guidance and professional input. A place on a waiting list is not itself an educational plan. Establish who reviews the interim arrangements and how the pupil and family can raise a worsening difficulty.5

Within the school's role, review the practical experience of arrival, trusted adult contact, transitions and access to lessons. Our 16 October feature examined belonging; DfE's selected-school case studies can inform questions about relationships and participation. They do not prove that copying a particular routine will cause attendance to improve in a different setting.4

Make adjustments and support plans coherent across staff. A carefully agreed arrival arrangement can fail if the colleague at the entrance has not been briefed. A pupil returning after absence may face accumulated work that makes the next day harder. Identify who coordinates these practical details and check that the pupil understands what will happen, rather than relying on adults' agreement alone.

05 / What governors need

Report whether action moved, not just whether absence moved

A board needs the attendance picture, but also assurance about the response. A proportionate anonymised report can show unresolved barriers, overdue actions, external dependencies and whether agreed support is being delivered. Protect small groups and sensitive personal information. Governors should challenge the process and resourcing without receiving a case file of identifiable health or family details.

Check data quality before interpreting change. Confirm periods, denominators and coding, and distinguish overall, persistent and severe absence rather than treating them as interchangeable. A short improvement may be encouraging but insufficient to establish a sustained effect. Look alongside participation, access to education and the pupil's experience of the plan.

06 / The practical outcome

Close the loop at the next review

End each case review with an action that can be checked: who will do what, by when, and what would count as completion. At the next meeting, begin with that record. If the planned support did not arrive, establish the reason and revise the response. Repeating the same referral is not progress unless something in the route has changed.

The outcome is a clearer, more accountable support pathway around the child. Schools cannot resolve every local service constraint. They can make those constraints visible, complete the actions within their control and escalate unresolved needs with a coherent record. That gives the new research practical value without turning an area-level finding into an explanation it cannot provide.

Leadership questions

Questions that turn the development into a governing conversation.

What we are monitoring next

Publication is the beginning of the watch.

• Formal government responses to the Commissioner's recommendations, including any enacted duties or confirmed funding.
• Updated local service information and the actual observation periods behind new statistics.
• Whether the school's agreed actions, interim support and escalation arrangements are completed and reviewed.

Continue the evidence trail

How this develops our earlier coverage

• Our 16 October feature: severe absence and school belonging ↗
• Earlier analysis: attendance is a system signal ↗
• Connect the support plan to actual inclusion capacity ↗