Severe absence – a warning sign we can’t ignore

Absence from school can have far reaching consequences for a child’s life. How often a child is not present at school has consequences on their attainment, risk of exclusion, and broader outcomes in employment, earnings and crime in later life.  

The Department for Education’s (DfE) latest absence figures show that severely absent pupils – those missing over half of school time – have hit a new autumn term record (autumn 2025) of 151,279, up 195 per cent since 2018/19. After signs of improvement in previous years, these latest figures mark a worrying reversal of progress.  

With GCSE results day upon us, the consequence for attainment is particularly pertinent. 2025 DfE research found that, even when controlling for other pupil characteristics and the school attended, the likelihood of pupils who attended school 95-100 per cent of the time achieving Grade 5 in English and Maths GCSE was almost twice that of pupils who attended 90-95 per cent of the time, and three times that of those who attended 85-90 per cent of the time. 

But these recent figures highlight the impact on those pupils who are severely absent. Pupils who attend school 50-55 per cent of the time still have 60 per cent better odds of achieving Grade 5 in English and Maths compared with those who attend less than half of the time - those who are severely absent. Even for those who are absent far too often, every day counts to an extraordinary extent. 

GCSEs, of course, are not the sole predictor of a successful life, but when absence is associated with other concerning outcomes, the scale of the issue becomes clear. The 2019 Timpson Review found that every extra percentage point rise in school sessions missed due to unauthorised absence was associated with a percentage point rise in the likelihood of permanent exclusion, further exacerbating the likelihood of future hardship. Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) analysis reveals that a persistently absent pupil is three times as likely to become a young offender as other pupils within two years of leaving school. 

School absence also impacts potential earnings. DfE analysis finds that persistently absent pupils are £10,000 worse off by age 28, while each day of absence is estimated to cost £750 in lifetime earnings. 

It is not surprising, then, that absence is also clearly linked with the risk of becoming NEET (not in education, employment or training between the ages of 16 and 24). More than 65,000 absent pupils who have already left school since 2024 are on course to become persistently NEET, according to the CSJ. Persistent absence at school is associated with a 3.9-times greater risk of being NEET between the ages of 16 and 18, and a 6.3-times greater risk of being persistently NEET. If the new Secretary of State urgently reduced absence to pre-pandemic levels, this could see an estimated 40,000 fewer young people set to become NEET. 

And severe absence is particularly concentrated among disadvantaged pupils. Children eligible for free school meals are 3.7 times more likely to be severely absent than pupils who are not eligible. 

The severe absence rate is also higher among pupils with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). 7.4 per cent among pupils with and EHCP and 3.7 per cent among pupils receiving SEN support were severely absent in autumn 2025, compared with 0.9 per cent among pupils with no identified special educational need. 

These figures should therefore prompt us to ask a broader question: why are some pupils finding it so difficult to remain engaged with school in the first place? If severe absence is increasingly concentrated among some of the most disadvantaged pupils and pupils with SEND, then tackling absence cannot simply be about getting pupils through the school gates. It must also be about making sure that school is working for every pupil once they are there. 

Being an adolescent has always been a complex time, but pupils today face unique challenges. This generation has had to grapple with the impacts of the pandemic, with an increasingly challenging online world, and with rising mental ill-health. All of which drive avoiding school together as a response to struggling.  

And perhaps we’re simply not getting school right for all pupils. The last 15 years have seen a focus on examination and assessment, which has worked well for many pupils.  For many others, less of a focus on academia could mean that they get much more out of schooling than is currently on offer. High expectations and broader pathways must go together.  

This is why a commitment to inclusion across the whole sector needs to be part of the response to rising absence. Improving the offer of sport to all pupils, building stronger technical pathways from school into employment and working with families are examples of community-wide inclusive approaches that support reversing rising absence rates. Burnham’s welcome announcement that 14-year-olds would soon be able to access technical education linked to local industries in an effort to tackle rising youth unemployment is a positive step. 

But Burnham should also commit to the CSJ’s Right to Sport for all pupils, as a preventative effort to make education more accessible and appropriate, while also holistically tackling rising mental ill-health among young people. Finally, working with families is essential to inclusion. Some barriers to attendance are beyond the school’s control, so working in partnership with families is key to promoting an inclusive strategy.   

The rise in severe absence is a warning that too many pupils are losing their connection with education. We should respond not only by asking how we get them back into school, but by asking what barriers are preventing participation, and what we can do to remove them. A more inclusive education system - one that recognises both high expectations and different pathways to success - must be part of that answer. 

For detail on the source of the data in this blog, please see Centre for Social Justice analysis, here.  

The IEC blog provides a platform for a range of voices and perspectives. The views expressed are those of the individual author and should not be taken as representing the official views of the Community.