A working hub for the people around schools: local authorities, health, social care, safeguarding partners, commissioners, housing, youth justice and the voluntary sector.
Attendance remains an education priority, but the causes of absence frequently cross service boundaries. A public-health approach combines population intelligence, prevention, early identification, targeted support and specialist intervention.
System question: What is driving absence in this population — and what can the wider system change?
A concise assurance reminder, not legal advice. “Must” should be reserved for a legal requirement in the source; “expected to” reflects statutory-guidance expectations. Always check the current source before making individual case decisions.
Use local attendance data to identify priorities, cohorts and schools requiring support and address area-wide barriers.
Provide the expected core attendance-support functions free of charge to schools and use Targeting Support Meetings to coordinate action.
Maintain robust referral, tracking and reasonable-enquiry arrangements for children not registered at school and not receiving suitable education otherwise.
Where Section 19 is engaged, ensure suitable education is arranged for children who would otherwise not receive it because of illness, exclusion or other reasons.
Use statutory attendance interventions where appropriate, proportionately and in line with current law and guidance after support considerations.
Connect exclusion, admissions, fair access, alternative provision, virtual school, SEND and safeguarding responsibilities rather than allowing silos.
Use this as a commissioning and partnership lens. The aim is to avoid a system that only acts once a child has already become severely absent.
Use neighbourhood and cohort data, school nursing, family hubs, transport, housing and community assets to reduce predictable barriers.
Combine attendance signals with health, SEND, safeguarding and family context; create rapid access to advice before thresholds become barriers.
One plan, named lead, family voice, child voice, shared outcomes and a clear review date.
Use specialist health, social care, SEND, alternative provision or legal routes when needed while maintaining an active education plan.
Ask whether pathways, waiting times, clinic scheduling, communication and reasonable adjustments are unintentionally creating barriers to education.
System question: Is attendance visible in child-health commissioning?
Use attendance as a wellbeing signal, support early assessment and connect children to universal, targeted and specialist health support.
System question: Which cohorts show both health inequality and absence?
Make education attendance and engagement explicit within assessment and planning, recognising school as both an entitlement and a potential protective factor.
System question: Is attendance owned in family plans?
Identify disruption caused by temporary accommodation, moves, travel distances, overcrowding and instability; ensure rapid education information sharing.
System question: Do housing moves trigger an education continuity check?
Link education engagement with exploitation, offending, contextual safeguarding and prevention work. Avoid disconnected plans.
System question: Is education re-engagement part of risk reduction?
Bring trusted relationships, practical support and community intelligence into plans. Surface barriers families may not disclose to statutory services.
System question: Are community partners designed into the pathway?
Agree the barrier, the education response, the wider-service contribution, one named lead, a review date and the outcome you expect to see for the child or young person.
Practical school tools, templates, training and strategic resources for tutors, attendance teams, senior leaders and governors.
Open School Hub ↗Connect system-level partnership work with trust leadership, governance, comparative intelligence and attendance assurance.
Open Leadership Hub ↗Link attendance with participation, engagement, retention, transition, course fit and learner support.
Open FE/Post-16 Hub ↗Build one evidence-led multi-agency record with chronology, pupil/family voice, interventions, agency roles, actions and review.
Open tool ↗Explore underlying barriers before deciding which school, health, family or wider-service response is most appropriate.
Open tool ↗Turn assessment into a time-limited plan with named actions, review points and evidence of whether support is working.
Open tool ↗Bring SEND, safeguarding, disadvantage and other vulnerabilities into attendance review rather than treating them as separate issues.
Open tool ↗Support respectful, evidence-led conversations with families where attendance concerns are complex or contested.
Open tool ↗Test whether written communication is clear, supportive, proportionate and likely to strengthen family engagement.
Open tool ↗Organise evidence on attendance, inclusion, vulnerable pupils and impact for leadership assurance.
Open report ↗Move beyond counting activity and test whether interventions are producing meaningful change in attendance and access.
Open engine ↗Connect wider-system action with organisational accountability and governance challenge.
Open evaluation ↗External links open in a new tab so this embedded hub remains in place.
These tools work directly on the page. Use them in a partnership meeting, local-authority review, commissioning discussion or leadership session.
Score eight domains. You will receive an instant maturity result and priority prompt.
Tick only where you can point to current evidence.
Create a concise agenda and action frame that keeps the child, barriers and ownership at the centre. Avoid unnecessary personal data.
Turn a partnership discussion into three measurable priorities rather than a long action list.
Use these prompts to reduce the risk of children with physical or mental health needs becoming lost between school, NHS and local-authority thresholds.
If no — or access is becoming materially inadequate — establish responsibility for securing education and whether Section 19 considerations are engaged. Health referrals should not replace an education plan.
Consider medical-condition support, SEND duties, reasonable adjustments, phased or adapted approaches where appropriate, and a clear reintegration goal.
Agree what school can do, what health services can do, what the family needs and how attendance will be supported during treatment or waiting periods.
Check whether services are waiting for each other. Name one lead, define the immediate education offer, set a review date and record escalation if suitable education is not in place.
Ask what makes attendance harder, what makes it more possible, which relationships matter and what a tolerable next step looks like.
Tick the links that are genuinely operational in your area — not just represented on an organisation chart.
For a quarterly partnership meeting, bring a small set of indicators rather than dozens of disconnected measures.
Use when a case has been discussed repeatedly but the child’s education has not improved.
Official and statutory sources are prioritised over commentary. External resources open in a new tab.
Use these to move discussion from “schools need to improve attendance” to system-level accountability.
Run the diagnostic, complete the statutory assurance check, build a 90-day plan and use the guidance library in the same meeting. The value is in turning evidence into collective action.
This version intentionally has no “Go to toolkit” or “Back to top” internal jump buttons. That removes the iframe navigation problem when the page is embedded in Squarespace.