THE revelation that a third of Bradford pupils are currently classed as “persistently absent” from school has raised concerns in a Council meeting.

Some councillors felt the label could stigmatise children legitimately off school with an illness, but one feared the issue was not being treated as seriously as it should.

At a meeting on Wednesday, members of Bradford Council’s Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee heard that 33 per cent of children in the district were classed as persistently absent.

This meant that they were off school for at least 10 per cent of the year.

The committee was being given an update on measures to improve school attainment in Bradford.

One programme was a £500,000 scheme to work with children and families to reduce persistent absence. This was currently involved with 400 pupils across Bradford.

Chair of the Committee Councillor Geoff Winnard (Cons, Bingley) said: “What is the need and scale of this problem across the District? This report suggests there is a whole lot of work still needs to be done to address this problem District wide.”

Sue Lowndes, assistant Director for Schools, said: “Yes a lot of work does need to be done. There is an enormous amount of persistent absence, and some fairly extreme absence. Unpicking this will be a lengthy process.

“In terms of investment needed – it would require a lot of money we don’t have.”

Campaign to boost school attendance rates in Bradford

She said as of the past week around 33 per cent of children in the District had been classed as persistently absent for the school year, although this included December and January – months where illness like flu regularly leads to high absence rates.

Councillor Mike Pollard (Cons, Baildon) said: “£500,000 isn’t really going to touch the sides.”

Mariam Haque, Director of Children’s Services, said: “Persistent absence is a broad category – if a child attends school for 90 per cent of the time or less they are classed as persistently absent.

“What we need to focus on is children with very, very low levels of attendance.”

Cllr Pollard suggested there could be different “grades” of persistent absence, adding: “When you say a figure like 33 per cent of children are persistently absent, that is a sitting duck for tabloid headlines.”

Councillor Caroline Thirkill (Lab, Clayton and Fairweather Green) asked for clarity on what leads to a child being classed as “persistently absent.”

Mrs Lowndes said that it was a measure dictated by the Department for Education, and a child could be off with an illness for 10 days in one term and be classed as persistently absent.

Members were told that medical advice to avoid the spread of Strep A this Winter urged parents to keep children with a fever off school. This likely contributed to the high number of absences.

Cllr Thirkill criticised the classification, saying children would be “devastated” to be referred to as persistently absent when they had been off with flu or a similar virus.

But Councillor Jeanette Sunderland (Lib Dem, Idle and Thackley) argued that it was a straightforward calculation, and exceptions should not be made.

She added: “If someone worked for me and they were absent for more than 10 per cent of the time I’d ask them why.

“If 33 per cent are persistently absent, schools are clearly not dealing with it. I feel we’re perhaps not taking this as seriously as we should. If you’re not at school, you’re not succeeding.

“The less children are in school, the more likely they are to end up in the criminal justice system.”

Ms Haque said: “I assure you we are not downplaying it. We do have families where there are short lived issues. At certain times of the year absences do increase.

“It is more important to direct resources at children who really need that additional level of support.”

She said the bigger issue was “severe absence” – when children are off school for 50 per cent of the time or more. She said: “It is a small number of children in the District, but not an insignificant number.”

Mrs Lowndes said there were around 4,500 children in the District “severely absent.” A child who is persistently absent could be due to the spread of an illness. She added: “If you’re severely absent, this isn’t the issue. It’s not down to something like the spread of Strep A. It’s something much more fundamental in the child’s life.”

The committee agreed to look further at the issue of persistent absence at a future meeting.