Absence patterns by FSM eligibility and SEN provision

Overall absence

For pupils with an EHC plan, overall absence increased, from 12.74 % in the earlier period to 12.99 % in the later period. For FSM-eligible pupils, the displayed rate was unchanged: 10.29 % in the earlier period and 10.29 % in the later period. The underlying unrounded rate decreased slightly. For pupils not eligible for FSM, it decreased from 5.23 % to 5.12 %. Among pupils with no identified SEN, it decreased from 5.66 % to 5.52 %; among pupils receiving SEN support, it decreased from 9.63 % to 9.53 %.

Persistent absence

Persistent absence increased for pupils with an EHC plan, from 33.82 % to 33.84 %. It decreased for FSM-eligible pupils, from 31.03 % to 30.77 %, and pupils not eligible for FSM, from 11.92 % to 11.50 %. It also decreased for pupils with no identified SEN, from 14.30 % to 13.88 %, and those receiving SEN support, from 26.84 % to 26.46 %.

Severe absence

Severe absence increased for pupils with an EHC plan, from 7.30 % to 7.74 %, and for FSM-eligible pupils, from 3.98 % to 4.03 %. It decreased for pupils not eligible for FSM, from 1.10 % to 1.09 %; pupils with no identified SEN, from 1.11 % to 1.06 %; and pupils receiving SEN support, from 4.18 % to 4.14 %.

These are aggregate descriptions, not evidence of causes or individual pupil trajectories. The comparison covers the same autumn and spring terms in each period; exact dates are shown separately. Overall absence uses possible sessions, while persistent and severe absence use pupil enrolments. FSM eligibility is not equivalent to every definition of disadvantage. Population composition and attendance recording can change, and suppressed or unavailable values should not be treated as zero.

For leaders, useful questions include whether the groups and recording coverage are comparable across periods, and whether local attendance information helps clarify the patterns. The figures alone cannot answer why absence changed or describe individual pupils’ experiences.