Is attendance recovery reaching pupils with the most absence?

Overall absence fell in state-funded primary and secondary schools and across the total, but rose in special schools: from 12.77 % to 12.86 % for special schools, compared with 5.16 % to 5.13 % in state-funded primary, 8.09 % to 8.01 % in state-funded secondary and 6.63 % to 6.60 % overall.

Persistent absence decreased in every group. The figures moved from 35.21 % to 34.72 % in special schools, 13.31 % to 13.25 % in state-funded primary, 21.86 % to 21.55 % in state-funded secondary and 17.63 % to 17.50 % overall.

Severe absence presents a different picture. It increased in special schools, state-funded primary and the total, while decreasing in state-funded secondary. The earlier and later figures were 6.66 % and 6.88 % for special schools, 0.92 % and 1.05 % for state-funded primary, 3.62 % and 3.57 % for state-funded secondary, and 2.26 % and 2.32 % overall.

These aggregate changes do not establish whether attendance recovery is reaching the pupils with the most absence. They are descriptive statistics, not evidence of causes or individual pupil trajectories. Comparisons cover the same autumn and spring terms, but population composition and attendance recording can change. Overall absence uses possible sessions; persistent and severe absence use pupil enrolments. FSM eligibility is not equivalent to every definition of disadvantage, and suppressed or unavailable values should not be treated as zero.

For leaders, practical questions include: are patterns similar within schools and pupil groups, and what do pupil-level records show about changes in attendance? Are recording practices consistent across periods? How are persistent and severe absence being monitored alongside overall absence? The figures alone cannot answer these questions.