In a recent post for FFT Education Datalab, Katie Beynon revisits findings from the Department for Education (DfE) about how absence in Year 11 relates to GCSE (KS4) outcomes. She argues that those findings are potentially misleading because the DfE model didn’t factor in pupils’ attendance before Year 11 – meaning long-standing absence patterns might be key to understanding performance.
Using a sample of roughly 250,000 pupils across 1,500 schools (excluding those who changed schools or had incomplete data), the analysis links Year 11 absence, and crucially, absence in Year 10, with final GCSE performance via “Attainment 8” scores.
What the data shows
-
As expected, higher absence in Year 11 is associated with lower Attainment 8 scores. Students missing under 2% of sessions averaged 56.7, while those absent for 50% or more averaged just 14.7.
-
Translating roughly into GCSE grades (Attainment 8 divided by ten ≈ average grade across eight subjects), missing 5–10% of sessions instead of under 2% amounts to dropping nearly a whole GCSE grade per subject.
-
But once Year 10 absence is taken into account, the gap narrows considerably. For example, among pupils with under 2% absence in Year 10, those who then miss 5-10% of sessions in Year 11 still only average 54.3 (down from 59.1 among those with <2% Year 11 absence) – about half a grade per subject.
-
In other words, some of what looks like a “Year 11 absence effect” on GCSE results may in fact reflect longer-term attendance patterns.
-
The analysis also shows that within a given Year 11-absence group, pupils have a wide variety of Year 10 absence rates and those differences strongly influence their attainment. For example, among students missing 5-10% in Year 11, those previously missing 0-2% scored an average of 54.3, while those who missed 10-20% in Year 10 averaged 42.3, more than a full grade difference.
What to take away
-
The post suggests that absence in Year 11 remains an important signal of potential under-performance – but it shouldn’t be used in isolation. Young people with long-standing attendance issues (e.g. from Year 10) are at even greater risk.
-
For schools and educators: interventions triggered solely by poor attendance in Year 11 may be too late. It is likely more effective to monitor attendance patterns over time and to act early when absence becomes problematic in earlier years.
-
Importantly, the data does not prove that absence causes poor attainment. There may be other factors (socio-economic disadvantage, health, engagement, background) that influence both attendance and results. As the author notes, absence is a risk factor, not a definitive cause.
In summary
Katie Beynon’s analysis for FFT Education Datalab casts doubt on simplistic interpretations of attendance data that focus only on Year 11. Her work shows that long-term attendance history, not just last year’s absences, matters for GCSE outcomes. The implication for schools and policymakers is clear: tracking absence over time, and intervening earlier, may better help identify and support pupils at risk of low attainment.
Sources:
- FFT Education Data Lab – Exploring the relationship between Year 11 absence and GCSE results
- Department for Education – The link between attendance and attainment in an assessment year (PDF)
