At half term, prioritise SEND pupils with an acute concern, a worsening attendance pattern, barriers to accessing school or support that hasn't reached them. Act on those needs even below the persistent-absence threshold. Review the pupil's actual sessions, available adjustments and pupil and family views, then assign a next action and review date. A SEND label or percentage alone can't set the order. Where a concern needs urgent attention, use the school's established safeguarding routes promptly.
This is a pupil-level support review for schools in England. Use your school's own half-term dates; there's no single national break date. The question is which pupil needs a response now and what staff can actually change. The absence-measures guide covers definitions in depth, while the early-risk guide covers noticing emerging patterns before this review point.
Eight missed sessions start a question
The following example is invented and uses no pupil or customer data. Rowan has missed eight of 60 possible sessions in the school's chosen period: 13.3% absence, rounded to one decimal place. Six of the eight missed sessions are mornings. Staff check the register entries, enrolment dates and possible sessions before using the figure. They retain the period's start and end dates beside it.
Persistent absence means missing 10% or more of possible sessions, including authorised and unauthorised absence. DfE's Working together to improve school attendance explains the measure and support expectations. Rowan meets that threshold in this example period. The figure doesn't identify a diagnosis, explain an absence or establish which action will help. Compare the same defined windows and check their denominators; a short early-term period and a full-year rate answer different questions.
Support should intensify with severity: the attendance guidance, paragraphs 134 to 137, calls for intensive, coordinated support for severely absent pupils, who miss 50% or more of possible sessions. Another pupil may have fewer missed sessions but a new, concerning pattern or an inaccessible arrangement. That pupil can need attention first. A threshold is useful for identifying a group; staff still need to judge urgency within and beyond it. If Rowan's records raise a safeguarding concern, the school follows its established routes promptly. The attendance review mustn't become a waiting room for that response.
The morning pattern meets the actual support
Rowan's plan records a supported arrival with a familiar adult. Staff now ask whether that arrangement was available on the relevant mornings, who covered absence, and whether Rowan could find and use it. One delivery entry is unclear. It stays unknown while its recorder is asked to check it. A blank or ambiguous entry can't establish either delivery or non-delivery. Being marked present later doesn't settle the question.
The July 2026 attendance guidance, paragraphs 56 to 61, maintains the same ambition for attendance while recognising that pupils with SEND may face additional barriers and need additional support. It describes reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils, agreed and reviewed with pupils and parents. Staff should consider relevant barriers such as transport, routines and lunch arrangements. Those examples invite enquiry; they don't explain Rowan's absences without further evidence.
The SENCo checks the arrival arrangement with the class teacher and attendance lead. A responsible person on a plan is only part of the answer: the meeting place, communication and cover need to work on the day. The six-week SEND review guide covers the broader delivery review. Here, the immediate task is narrower: establish whether this support was accessible when the morning difficulty arose.
Three accounts can change the first action
In this constructed example, a teacher reports that Rowan settles after arrival. Rowan describes uncertainty about which entrance to use when the familiar adult is away. The family reports that a transport change has made the arrival time less predictable. Record each account with its source and date. Use communication that enables Rowan to contribute, and retain disagreement. None of these accounts proves the cause of the eight missed sessions.
Taken together, they change the proposed first action. Before adding another attendance target, staff check the entrance and cover arrangements and clarify the transport question with the family through the appropriate route. A different account could change that decision again. Ask what the pupil can actually access, what the family wants staff to understand, and what needs checking. An unanswered request for views remains outstanding; silence doesn't establish agreement.
The SEND code of practice, paragraphs 6.44 to 6.56, describes graduated support involving the teacher, SENCo, pupil and parents. The class teacher retains responsibility for the pupil's progress. Where an EHC plan is in place, the attendance guidance says schools should communicate with the local authority when attendance falls or needs-related barriers emerge. Follow the applicable plan and involve relevant services as needed.
Where mental health may be relevant, DfE's mental health and attendance guidance describes early conversations and support reviewed with the pupil and family. Attendance records can't diagnose a condition. This example offers no clinical advice or substitute for appropriate professional input.
Leave one decision with an owner
The example review records a proposed action: the class teacher confirms the arrival point and cover staff with Rowan and the family before the next planned attendance day. The attendance lead checks the transport question within two school days. The SENCo asks the recorder to resolve the unclear delivery entry within that period, retaining it as unknown if verification isn't possible. These are proposed responsibilities in an invented record, not reported school outcomes or statutory deadlines.
Staff agree a review after five school days of the revised arrangement. They will check availability and use of the support, the next comparable session record, and Rowan's and the family's views. The example ends with the decision; the review has yet to happen. The EEF attendance evidence summary describes a mixed evidence base, with some promise in approaches responsive to individual barriers and communication. It doesn't guarantee this adjustment will improve attendance or establish its effect from a short before-and-after comparison.
Where enabled and authorised, staff can inspect recorded patterns in Student Radar's Attendance Analytics and provision details in Provision Map. Staff must verify source records and bring relevant evidence together with appropriate access. These views can't diagnose need, establish causation or choose the next action. The half-term handover guide covers keeping that action owned across the break. Use the pupil-level review to decide what needs doing; make sure someone can carry it through.
Sources and further reading
- DfE: Working together to improve school attendance, updated 9 July 2026, especially paragraphs 56 to 61 and 134 to 137.
- DfE and DHSC: SEND code of practice, 0 to 25 years, January 2015, paragraphs 6.44 to 6.56; publication page updated 12 September 2024.
- DfE: Mental health issues affecting a pupil's attendance: guidance for schools, published 7 February 2023.
- EEF: Supporting attendance, summary of evidence, drawing on the 2022 attendance evidence review.