The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 gave the police in England and Wales new powers to remove truants from a public place. Truancy sweeps began in 2000. Since 2002 the DfES has prescribed two national ‘truancy sweep initiatives’ per year for England, each lasting for about 3 weeks, when Local Education Authorities (LEAs) conduct a series of sweeps between dates set by the DfES. Since 2003 the National Assembly for Wales has made similar arrangements for nationwide truancy sweeps.

This report is a study of the sweeps conducted during autumn 2004. All LEAs in England and Wales were contacted; 120 replied (80%). They reported a total of 1,093 sweeps: an average of 9 per LEA, the number of sweeps ranging from none at all to 63 sweeps in one LEA. Each sweep lasted an average of 3 hours, and there was a reported total of 6,527 police hours. On this basis, two national truancy sweep initiatives per annum in England and Wales would require 16,318 police hours. This is equivalent to the annual working hours of 10 full-time police officers.

Each sweep involves on average two police officers and two education welfare officers (EWOs) or other LEA staff. Community Support Officers may also take part. A sweep requires preparatory and follow-up administrative work, plus staff available to ‘remove’ and supervise truants. There is also the arrangement and staffing of a ‘designated place’ (which must not be a police station) to hold truants who cannot be returned to school.

The government has said that it is not possible to separate out the cost of truancy sweeps from the total figure of £885m spent on truancy initiatives from 1998 to 2004. LEA reports of their staffing and resources indicate that the cost of sweeps is likely to be considerable.

Just over a third of LEAs broadly fitted an average pattern:

for every 2 hours of police time

4 children were stopped;

2.5 had valid reasons for absence, and

1.5 truants were found

Overall the figures ranged from 9 LEAs that found one truant in less than 30 minutes of police time to 1 LEA that found 1 truant in over 10 police hours. (see fig.1)

4 LEAs reported finding no truants at all during a combined total of 22.5 police hours.

Despite government spending of £885m on efforts to improve school attendance over the past 6 years, the National Audit Office (NAO) has concluded that the rate of unauthorised absence from school has not altered:

In response, the Government has stated that the unchanging truancy figures are in fact attributable to around 1% of the total school population - a ‘hard core’ of young people who are known to be persistent truants, and upon whom current truancy initiatives are having no effect. This response does not seem to take account of the fact that school populations change completely over five to seven years.

The survey findings, the views of the NAO and the Government’s response all suggest that truancy sweeps are not an effective way of addressing truancy.

Some officers believe that only a head teacher can define truancy:

"Obviously, on patrols we do stop young people, who are wearing school uniform, are not with an adult, and are truanting. All other young people stopped are usually with an adult and the reasons for absence from school are recorded by us but we do not record whether the reason is valid or not as only the Headteacher can authorise an absence."

DfES guidance deems lateness a category of truancy. Some truancy sweeps were conducted outside schools, and those arriving late were recorded as truants. This raises questions not only about whether being late means being a truant, but also whether it is a problem that should take up police time and resources.

Children and young people who left the school grounds without permission during break periods were often recorded as truants. Although this may be against school rules, there is no suggestion that these children missed any lessons.

If a child who is absent from school because of illness is found at the shops with a parent, this may be recorded as ‘parentally condoned truancy’. As one LEA said: "'Illness' is an invalid reason due to the fact that those pupils who are ill should be at home, not in the community."

The view that a child is either ill or is well enough to attend school full time does not allow for convalescence, nor for the fact that a child with a heavy cold may simply feel too unwell to cope with the demands of a full school day. Should an otherwise healthy child with a contagious ailment such as conjunctivitis stay away from school? What about situations where a parent must get urgent shopping but the child is too young to be left at home alone?

Children out of school for medical or dental appointments were sometimes recorded as truants if they could not produce an appointment card. In other cases the criterion was whether the head teacher had given permission, even if an appointment card was produced.

In several LEAs, home educated children were counted as truants because the child was unknown to the authorities. There is no legal requirement for families to inform an LEA that they are home educating, and a child who is not a school pupil cannot be a truant. Official guidance specifically mentions as a valid absence: "home educated children who may or may not be registered at the LEA".

This was recorded by some authorities as an invalid reason for absence from school. Given that it is a genuine reason given by young people, is it reasonable to add to their difficulties with police questioning at this time? One reason cited: "on way to cemetery – brother’s birthday", may represent an important family ritual on a difficult anniversary. It should also be remembered that losing a pet can be a traumatic bereavement for a young child, particularly if it is their first experience of such loss.

Bullying was amongst the reasons given by children for absence from school. Some children said that they ‘felt threatened’ or had been hit. Is it reasonable to expect a child to remain in an environment that feels unsafe? Would an adult be criticised for leaving the workplace in similar circumstances?

Several children were recorded as truants when they had recently moved into the area and did not yet have a school place. Others were awaiting transfer to another school in the area. If a child is changing school because they cannot cope in their present school, is it fair to expect them to continue to attend until the transfer is made?

Many children have responsibilities within their families for relatives who are disabled or ill. Some gave as a reason for absence the need to accompany a parent who did not speak English to a medical or other appointment. Whatever one’s views about whether children should have such duties, is it fair to penalise them where they are making up for a possible failure of social care provision?

Other circumstances

Housing difficulties were cited several times as a reason for absence from school. In one case, a child’s family had just been evicted from the family home. Others had run away from local authority care placements. To record such events as truancy trivialises the seriousness of the child’s situation.

By including in truancy figures those children who have demonstrable reasons for occasional absence, or in focussing on compulsion, there is a danger of clouding the very serious issue of persistent non-engagement with education. All children have a right to education but, even if truancy sweeps were effective, simply getting children to school and keeping them there does not meet that right. The resources currently concentrated on truancy sweeps would be better directed towards underlying causes, and educational provision that each child enjoys, rather than on dealing only with the symptoms of disaffection.

Our research raises challenging questions about social attitudes towards children, and the level of respect we are willing to accord to their feelings and needs. Children are not simply ‘pupils’: they do have other roles within their families and communities. Sometimes they face complications or personal difficulties that are impossible for them to ignore, and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect children to attend school in circumstances where an adult would be excused from work.

Truancy sweeps are a blunt instrument that cannot cater for the complex range of events in a child’s life. By learning from truancy, we might be able to achieve more effective public services for all children and their families.

ARCH undertook the survey of LEAs by sending requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act to every LEA in England and Wales during the spring of 2005. ARCH is grateful to the educational welfare staff who supplied information, the majority of whom were helpful and courteous.

ARCH is a children’s rights organisation founded in 2001. It is based on human rights instruments, with a particular focus on education, children’s civil liberties and on issues arising out of e-government and the expansion of Information Technology.

More information and copies of the report are available on this site or by writing to:

Action on Rights for Children, 62 Wallwood Road, London E11 1AZ.

©ARCH September 2005

[i] National Audit Office: ‘Improving School Attendance in England’ January 2005

[ii] DfES: ‘Guidance for Truancy Sweeps’  September 2002