Identifying and responding to the problems that young people face at the earliest opportunity, providing the right support at the most effective time.
There is a growing evidence base that early identification and intervention for school attendance difficulties has the greatest impact on maintaining young people’s wellbeing and engagement in education (Corcoran, Bond & Knox, 2022). When difficulties are recognised early, schools are more able to make reasonable adjustments or initiate referrals that sustain engagement. This reflects the SEND Code of Practice (2014), which emphasises a graduated approach; reviewing and refining support in light of growing understanding of a young person’s needs.
Current school attendance guidance in England, particularly through the Department for Education’s Working Together to Improve School Attendance (2024), emphasises a support-first and multi-agency approach. However, the way this guidance is interpreted and implemented often undermines a genuinely timely response.
These systemic challenges mean that, for many young people, needs remain unrecognised until their difficulties escalate into longer term non-attendance.
Support often begins only when absence reaches formal thresholds (e.g. “persistently absent” <90%, “severely absent” <50%). Overreliance on attendance data means young people who are physically present but masking distress remain invisible until difficulties escalate. By this stage, young people are already struggling significantly in terms of their mental health and wellbeing.
Parents and young people describe this clearly:
Research confirms that withdrawal is often gradual and that young people may appear settled in school while experiencing significant internal distress (Corcoran & Kelly, 2023; SPIRAL Project, 2023). Without safe channels for parents to raise concerns and see them acted upon, opportunities for timely intervention are lost.
Systems based on the use of rewards and consequences for attendance are still embedded at both universal and targeted levels to try and improve attendance data. At the universal level, many schools employ incentive schemes such as rewards for 100% attendance, access to trips or activities, or campaigns warning of the long-term impact of absence. At the targeted level, fines, court action and “back to school” contracts remain common.
These approaches assume that attendance is simply a matter of choice or motivation, rather than the outcome of complex needs. Research suggests that such strategies fail to address underlying barriers and can increase distress (Ofsted, 2023; Corcoran & Kelly, 2023). Families we have spoken with often describe punitive approaches as alienating:
Such measures can delay meaningful identification of need and reduce trust between families and schools.
Many schools prioritise young people who are just below attendance benchmarks or those already severely absent, leaving little capacity for joined-up working across SEND, attendance and external agencies. Teacher wellbeing surveys highlight high stress, limited capacity, and increased intent to leave the profession (Education Support, 2024). Staff shortages and limited specialist training reduce schools’ ability to notice and respond early, even when concerns are raised.
Families and young people reflect this reality:
Research highlights that young people identified as “not school ready” are significantly more likely to face later attendance challenges (Bond et al., 2024). Yet opportunities for co-ordinated early support are frequently missed. Parents often report raising concerns years before attendance declined, but these were dismissed with reassurances that their young person was “fine once in school”.
Despite the intentions of the DfE framework, current attendance approaches remain weighted toward crisis management. Support is triggered once absence hits formal thresholds, leaving little scope for genuine prevention.The Children’s Commissioner (2024) has highlighted how these reactive systems are more costly and less effective than early intervention and we hear about the impact of this from families too:
Although guidance emphasises the importance of listening to children and families, implementation is inconsistent. Families frequently report that their concerns are recorded but not acted upon, or that meetings focus on compliance rather than collaboration. Research by Square Peg (2022) found that parents of young people who struggle with school attendance felt blamed and marginalised, while young people’s views were rarely central to planning.
Taken together, these patterns create a culture in which difficulties are noticed late, responses are delayed, and families feel blamed rather than supported.
Long waiting lists for CAMHS, SEND assessments and Educational Psychologists mean young people and their families often go without support for years. The Children’s Commissioner (2024) reported that nearly 40,000 young people had waited over two years for help, while average waits for CAMHS remain close to six months. Evidence also suggests that as demand for CAMHS increases, thresholds have been raised, with a larger number of young people being turned away without support (PoliticsHome, 2023). These delays increase strain on families, exacerbate difficulties, and place further burden on schools.
Parents and young people describe the impact:
Even where referrals are accepted, services are often siloed. Families describe being passed between school, GP and local authority, repeating their story without clarity about who is responsible. This lack of joined-up working delays action and leaves young people feeling invisible. Research highlights that fragmented pathways are particularly damaging for young people with overlapping needs, as opportunities for early intervention are missed (Children’s Commissioner, 2024).
For some young people, repeated negative experiences mean that by the time support arrives, the school environment itself feels unsafe. Trauma, bullying, sensory overload or prolonged masking can lead to a state of burnout where even significant adjustments feel “too little, too late.” Research on emotionally based school avoidance underscores how pressure to return without addressing these deeper wounds can intensify distress (BMJ Mental Health, 2024).
A prevailing belief holds that school-related anxiety intensifies with each day of absence, driving pressure for rapid reintegration. Yet this view frequently overlooks not only sensory or environmental barriers (such as overstimulation, bullying or unmet learning needs), but also the emotional toll—including burnout, unresolved trauma, or stress—that develops when early difficulties are left unaddressed.
Research has shown that forcing a return without meaningful adjustments often worsens anxiety and withdrawal. A narrative review of school avoidance emphasises that some young people come to experience school as a hostile environment, particularly those who are neurodivergent or already under emotional strain, and that compassionate, early responses are vital to prevent escalation (BMJ Mental Health, 2024). Similarly, studies on school non-attendance highlight that while avoidance brings short-term relief, being pushed back too soon can entrench fear and make re-engagement harder (Effective School Solutions, 2023).
UK data illustrates the scale of this issue: almost three in ten secondary pupils report avoiding school due to anxiety, citing factors such as bullying, exam stress and feeling overwhelmed. These experiences are closely tied to increased mental health difficulties, underscoring the need for early, preventative support rather than late, crisis-driven responses (Guardian, 2024).
For some, by the time adaptations are finally put in place, they come too late. Prolonged struggle and repeated negative experiences mean that school itself no longer feels safe, even if adjustments are made. Recovery in such cases requires time, trust and often alternative provision, not pressure for immediate reintegration. This shorter term recovery enables longer-term learning and attendance.
Young people and families describe this impact clearly:
Research and lived experience show that meaningful change requires a shift in focus. A timely response is not about pushing young people back into classrooms as quickly as possible, but about recognising early signs, understanding barriers, and providing the right support before difficulties escalate.
Young people’s withdrawal is often the cumulative effect of unmet needs long before absence becomes visible (Corcoran & Kelly, 2023). Focusing solely on physical presence risks overlooking those who are in school but unable to learn due to stress, anxiety, trauma, or unmet need.
A recent study by Corcoran and Kelly (2023), drawing on the voices of more than 60 young people with attendance difficulties, found that difficulties with attending school was usually a gradual process. Many shared that if support had been provided earlier, regular attendance could have been sustained. Instead, difficulties were only acknowledged once they had stopped attending altogether, at which point many felt they had been absent “too long” to return.
Young people describe this clearly:
Parents are often the first to notice these early signs, particularly when young people “mask” in school and only show their distress at home. Without safe channels for parents to raise concerns and see them acted upon, opportunities for timely intervention are lost.
Research reinforces this: young people may appear settled in school while experiencing significant internal distress (SPIRAL Project, 2023). Effective communication with families is therefore crucial to identify early indicators and prevent escalation.
When attendance is prioritised over engagement, young people may be physically present but unable to learn. Rigid curricula, zero-tolerance behaviour policies and high-stakes testing can compound stress (Way et al., 2007). Conversely, focusing on wellbeing enables earlier identification of mental health needs, with evidence showing this leads to more effective interventions and improved attendance over time (Kearney, 2008).
Conversations about wellbeing, rather than just attendance, can also broaden discussions and lead to more Holistic Support.
Punitive measures such as fines, contracts and reward schemes not only delay meaningful intervention but can also exacerbate distress (Ofsted, 2023; Reid, 2021). In contrast, restorative and relational approaches (such as building trust, fostering belonging, and addressing barriers)are consistently shown to be more effective in sustaining attendance.
Large-scale UK data has found that supportive, relationship-based strategies improve attendance, while punitive measures were largely ineffective (ImpactEd, 2024). Schools that focus on early identification of within-school barriers, such as bullying, sensory challenges or unmet learning needs, see higher long-term attendance rates (Hodge, 2018).
Parents in our research repeatedly told us that small acts of flexibility (for example adjusted timetables, a teacher who checked in daily, permission to use a safe space) made the difference between crisis and stability. One parent wrote:
Research highlights that data is most effective when used preventatively to identify young people most at risk, including those who are neurodivergent, those with SEND, young carers, and young people living in deprivation (Bond et al., 2024). Early, holistic support coordinated across services is most effective at reducing school absence. Pellegrini (2007) found that timely, tailored interventions are significantly more successful than delayed, generic responses.
Local Authorities are beginning to use local data in this way to explore intersectionality predictors and identify vulnerable groups at transition points (e.g. Oldham Council have used this successfully to improve attendance at the Year 6 to 7 transition, and are beginning to use data intelligently to target support for children starting school). The DfE (2025) is encouraging schools to move away from broad attendance categories and instead use a banded approach; where attendance is broken down into 5% bands, to provide greater insight and understanding of attendance patterns, to inform attendance strategy, and provide finer grained measures of impact (moving between 5% bands is more achievable and motivating than aiming to move from severe absence to full time attendance).
Professional development also matters. Opportunities for whole-school training in prevention and early identification build shared understanding, ensuring consistent, timely responses (Corcoran, Kelly, Bond & Knox, 2023).
Evidence shows that schools using tiered frameworks, such as Response to Intervention (RTI), are more effective in promoting engagement and reducing persistent absence (Kearney & Graczyk, 2014). These models emphasise prevention, with resources embedded at the earliest stages:
A systematic review of 78 school attendance programmes found that those using early, tiered interventions were most effective in reducing absenteeism (Marco et al., 2025). Similarly, the Education Endowment Foundation’s rapid evidence assessment (2022) highlighted that structured, tiered approaches focusing on early and individualised support show the strongest promise.
This tiered model is not only more effective, but also more efficient: by preventing escalation, it reduces the need for costly, intensive interventions later. Recommended interventions within this tiered model are covered in more detail in the following section, Finding a way forward.
Parents, carers and young people have been clear: what makes the difference is not pressure or punishment, but creating the conditions where young people feel safe, understood, and supported to thrive.
Young people themselves describe school attendance difficulties not as a sudden event but as a gradual process shaped by unmet needs and, for some, experiences of burnout and trauma (Corcoran & Kelly, 2023). Where adjustments or support are introduced only after attendance collapses, young people report feeling it is “too late” to return.
Families describe the positive impact when things are done differently:
“Being given permission to have a break from lessons when I needed it helped me feel I could survive school, instead of being trapped.”
A timely response requires going upstream. Instead of waiting until children cross absence thresholds before help is offered, we need systems that notice the early signs of struggle and respond before disengagement becomes entrenched. As the Department for Education notes in Working Together to Improve School Attendance (2022):
This means investment in prevention, recognising that earlier intervention reduces later costs — both human and financial. Families tell us that help offered earlier would have prevented later crisis.
Based on the RTI model (Kearney & Graczyk, 2014), Barriers to Education outlines a three-tiered system (illustrated below) which reflects familiar frameworks such as the graduated response in the SEND Code of Practice (2014) and ensures a systematic approach.
At the universal level, proactive whole-school measures are given priority to increase inclusion and belonging at school and prevent as many young people as possible from experiencing attendance difficulties in the first place. Allocating more resources at this universal level will have a positive impact on young people, their families and wider society (Bond, Munford, Birks, Shobande, Denny, Hatton-Corcoran, Qualter, Wood et al., 2024) and reduce the numbers of young people needing more intensive support (tiers 2 and 3).
Figure 1: Three-tiered model of preventative, targeted and intensive approaches to attendance.
Whole-school, preventative approaches are the foundation of timely support. Universal strategies reduce barriers for all young people, making schools more equitable and inclusive. Frameworks such as WARMTH provide practical ways of embedding safety, belonging and wellbeing into everyday school culture, helping young people feel that school is a place where they want to be.
Families and young people describe the difference when schools get this right:
Helpful Tier 1 practices, to enhance school attendance at a universal level include:
When young people begin to struggle, early recognition and tailored support are most effective. Research highlights the value of systematic screening to identify young people at risk of longer-term attendance challenges (Bond et al., 2024). Parents and carers often notice early signs well before school staff, particularly where young people “mask” their struggles in school and release them only at home. Strong communication channels with families are therefore crucial.
Parents emphasise the importance of timely, targeted help:
“They changed the focus from ‘how do we get him back in tomorrow?’ to ‘what’s making school feel unsafe, and how can we fix that?’ That’s when we saw progress.”
Helpful targeted support to address emerging concerns, or to target at risk groups could include
Ensuring robust transitions between year groups and school phases, working closely with feeder/ receiving schools earlier (Year 4 onwards) to plan ahead
Drawing on local guidance re EBSA/ attendance support (Boaler et al., 2024; Corcoran et al., 2023; Hammond-Price in progress)
For young people who experience long-term absence, the challenge is not just reintegration but recovery. This requires intensive, individualised interventions that recognise trauma, burnout, and the barriers created when support was delayed.
At this tier, collaboration across education, mental health services and family support is essential, alongside recognition that recovery may take time. Forcing rapid reintegration is likely to backfire; instead, trauma-informed approaches that rebuild trust and safety are key.
As one parent concluded:
While recovery can be slow, research and lived experience show that with the right support, young people can and do re-engage in education. Naomi Fisher (2021) highlights that young people in school burnout need time in their “comfort zone” before they can safely venture out and eventually explore learning again. This process is not linear, but once safety and trust are restored, young people’s natural drive to learn often returns.
Families describe this recovery process:
Evidence also shows that early, flexible reintegration tailored to individual needs leads to better long-term outcomes than rigid or rapid returns (Kearney & Graczyk, 2014; Marco et al., 2025). Pellegrini (2007) demonstrated that tailored interventions, even for those with extended absence, significantly increase the likelihood of successful re-engagement.
In other words, time is not wasted: when young people are given the safety, trust, and personalised support they need, their capacity to learn and thrive re-emerges.
Barriers to Education. (2024). Parent and pupil survey on attendance barriers: Findings summary.
BMJ Mental Health. (2024). Emotionally based school avoidance: Pressure, trauma, and recovery. BMJ Mental Health. Advance online publication. https://mentalhealth.bmj.com
Boaler, J., & Bond, M. (2023). Mentoring and inclusive practices for school attendance. Routledge.
Boaler, J., Bond, M., Corcoran, R., Kelly, C., & Knox, E. (2024). Early intervention and attendance support guidance. Routledge.
Bond, L., Munford, R., Birks, M., Shobande, O., Denny, S., Hatton-Corcoran, R., Qualter, P., & Wood, C. (2024). Predictors of school attendance difficulties: Evidence from longitudinal UK data. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.
Children’s Commissioner. (2024). Over a quarter of a million children still waiting for mental health support. Children’s Commissioner for England. https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk
CSJ (Centre for Social Justice). (2023). Lost but not forgotten: A review of persistent absence in England’s schools. CSJ. https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk
Demkowicz, O., Humphrey, N., & Deighton, J. (2024). Developing provision with pupil input: Co-production in schools. Routledge.
Department for Education. (2014). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25
Department for Education. (2024). Working together to improve school attendance. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk
Department for Education. (2025). Attendance strategy: Banded approach guidance. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk
Education Endowment Foundation. (2022). Attendance interventions rapid evidence assessment. EEF. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk
Education Support. (2024). Teacher Wellbeing Index 2024. Education Support. https://www.educationsupport.org.uk
Effective School Solutions. (2023). School avoidance: Understanding and supporting students. Effective School Solutions. https://www.effectiveschoolsolutions.com
Fisher, N. (2021). A safe to learn pyramid: Rethinking trauma, learning, and education. Pavilion Publishing.
Fletcher, J., & Bond, C. (2022). Using telepresence robots to maintain school belonging during absence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(5), 1120–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13190
Hammond-Price, H. (in progress). Local authority guidance on EBSA and attendance support.
ImpactEd. (2024). Understanding attendance: Using data to inform practice. ImpactEd. https://impacted.org.uk/resources
Kearney, C. A. (2008). School absenteeism and school refusal behavior in youth: A contemporary review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(3), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.07.012
Kearney, C. A., & Graczyk, P. A. (2014). A response to intervention model to promote school attendance and decrease school absenteeism. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-013-9222-1
Moynihan, S. (in progress). Alternative provision and attendance: Emerging models of flexible learning.
N8 Research Partnership. (2024). Devon EPS/N8 project on relational and attendance approaches. N8.
Ofsted. (2023). Securing good attendance and tackling persistent absence. Ofsted. https://www.gov.uk
Onslow, J., & Dilkes, R. (in progress). Supporting parental wellbeing in the context of school attendance difficulties.
Pellegrini, D. W. (2007). School non-attendance: Definitions, meanings, responses, interventions. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360601154691
PoliticsHome. (2023, October 5). Thousands of children face record waits for mental health care. PoliticsHome. https://www.politicshome.com
Sawyer, A., & Collingwood, N. (2023). Family support and attendance mentoring: Early help guidance. Routledge.
School is Difficult Survey. (2024). Findings from the 2024 “School is Difficult” survey on neurodivergent young people’s experiences. https://schoolisdifficult.org.uk/research
SPIRAL Project. (2023). School attendance and mental health: Findings from the SPIRAL study. University of Manchester.
Square Peg. (2022). School attendance barriers and mental health: Parent perspectives. Square Peg. https://squarepeg.community
Way, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students’ perceptions of school climate during middle school years: Associations with trajectories of psychological and behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40(3–4), 194–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9143-y
Share your idea, experience or resource to help inspire change, support others and show what really works in breaking down barriers to education.
Unfortunately we are unable to give advice/support on individual cases.