As the government pushes ahead with its latest attendance initiative, schools across England are being asked to steer yet another ship of targets: the so-called Attendance Baseline Improvement Expectations (ABIE), a new best practice toolkit, and a major expansion of the attendance and behaviour hubs. On paper, the intentions seem worthy – but the deeper questions remain: Will these changes genuinely shift the dial on absence, or simply ratchet up the pressure on school leaders? And crucially: will this become an additional lever for the regulator, Ofsted?

What’s being rolled out

There are three core components:

1. New minimum attendance improvement targets for every school – Under the ABIE scheme, each school is to receive an AI-powered report that sets out a minimum attendance improvement expectation for 2024-25 and beyond. These targets will take into account a school’s context (location, pupil needs, deprivation levels). Schools Week+3Schools Week+3GOV.UK+3 The official government announcement states: “From this month, every school will be issued with AI-powered minimum attendance improvement targets … based on schools’ circumstances … including location, pupil needs and deprivation.” GOV.UK
2. A best-practice toolkit for schools – Recognising that transition points and intrinsic student engagement are key to attendance, schools will also be given a toolkit aimed at critical transition moments (e.g., primary to secondary, Years 7-8). Examples include enriched provision, breakfast clubs, limiting branded uniform items to reduce financial burden. GOV.UK+1
3. Expansion of Attendance & Behaviour Hubs – The government is launching 36 new attendance and behaviour hubs in November (on top of those already in operation) with more planned, aiming to support thousands of schools. GOV.UK+1

The stated aim is to restore attendance to pre-pandemic levels and beyond. The Guardian+1

What’s good about this?

On the face of it, the initiative has several positive features:

• It acknowledges that attendance remains a persistent challenge post-Covid – the government notes that while overall attendance improved last year, one in three schools failed to improve. The Guardian+1
• The use of data and contextually-sensitive targets means (in theory) that schools serving more deprived communities or with higher barriers are not simply compared to high-performing, low-barrier settings.
• The best-practice toolkit and hub network point to more systemic support – not just more monitoring. If used well, hubs could help share effective strategies rather than simply applying pressure.
• The emphasis on transition points and enrichment recognises that attendance is not just a numbers problem, but one of belonging, school culture, and student engagement.

Why scepticism is warranted

However, there are significant concerns and unanswered questions that merit caution:

1. More targets = more pressure?
   Both the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) have voiced caution. “Setting them individual targets doesn’t resolve those issues, but it does pile yet more pressure on school leaders and staff who are already under great strain.” The Guardian+1 The risk is that rather than enabling improvement, the ABIE targets may become another layer of accountability burden—especially in schools already dealing with complex barriers (deprivation, SEND, mental health, transport) that lie partly outside their direct control.
2. AI-generated targets – transparency and fairness issues
   The fact that targets are generated by an AI report (which takes into account deprivation, location, pupil needs) raises questions about transparency and acceptability. Will schools have enough clarity about how the target was set, what expectations are, and what the “floor” really is? Schools Week reported that the targets “will not be published, nor shared with Ofsted.” Schools Week While the lack of Ofsted involvement may sound reassuring, in practice this may mask what becomes a de facto expectation: if a school fails to meet its target, what happens next? The risk is mission-creep.
3. Will this become part of Ofsted inspection?
   A central question: although the government currently says the targets will not be published externally or included in Ofsted reports, could they nonetheless become part of future inspection frameworks or performance management regimes? Schools are understandably sceptical. There is no guarantee that the absence of immediate linkage means “never,” especially since attendance is already one of the indicators of school effectiveness. If schools perceive the targets as the next “tick-box” exercise—“did you meet your ABIE?”—rather than as genuinely supportive, the outcome may be unintended gaming, narrowing of the curriculum, or pressure on pupils/families, rather than improved attendance for the right reasons.
4. Support vs. sanction – where’s the balance?
   The rhetoric emphasises support: hub networks, toolkit, matching with high-performing schools. But the framing of “minimum targets” and referral to support via regional improvement teams for “schools that fail to meet the new attendance expectations” suggests a lean towards accountability. Schools Week If the support does not match the challenge (i.e., socio-economic issues, transport, mental health, parental engagement) then the new burden could simply shift from one area to another.
5. Underlying issues may be unaddressed
   Attendance problems are multi-layered: child health, transport/attendance barriers, parental attitudes, trauma, SEND, welcoming school climate, peer relationships, transitions. Targets alone will not solve these root causes. Indeed, the Schools Week article quotes a union leader as saying “The reality is that schools are already working tirelessly [to improve attendance] … the government issuing them with yet more targets will not help them with that work.” Schools Week

What should schools consider / questions to ask

For school leaders and governors, this is a moment to engage with the initiative critically, not just implement it passively. Some key questions to ask:

• How was our school’s ABIE target generated? What were the data inputs, the comparator schools, the assumptions?
• What support will our school receive (via hubs, toolkit, peer matching) and when? Is it sufficient and timely?
• How will this target influence our school culture and priorities? Will it risk narrowing the focus to “attendance numbers” rather than “students engaged and present for good reason”?
• What happens if we don’t meet the target? What does “referral for support” really mean in practice? Could this create unintended pressure on staff, pupils or families?
• How will this link (or not) to inspection frameworks and external accountability? Can we clarify our position with governors/trustees so that the target does not become a hidden performance measure?
• Are we blending the toolkit’s best-practice guidance (e.g., transition strategies, enrichment, belonging) with our own context and student voice – so the intervention feels owned and relevant, not just imposed?
• How do we monitor not just attendance rates but also reasons for absence, student engagement, belonging, support for SEND / mental health – so that improving numbers does not become the tail wagging the dog?

Final thought

On one level, the new ABIE targets, toolkit and hub expansion may well help further drive the national change of culture that the government says is needed: getting children back into school, feeling valued, engaging, belonging. But the devil will be in the detail. If this becomes another set of metrics to chase, with limited support and high pressure, then schools – already stretched – may view it as one more burden rather than a genuine opportunity. Most critically, schools will want clarity about how these targets link (or don’t) to inspection and performance management. Without that confidence, the initiative risks being seen less as support and more as underlying threat.

Attendance matters. But meaningful attendance—for the right reasons—should not be reduced to simply hitting a government-set minimum number. The real challenge remains: making every school a place where students want to be, and where barriers to being there are systematically and compassionately addressed.

Sources

• Department for Education (2025). Roadmap to Improve Attendance Levels. GOV.UK.
• Schools Week (2025). AI to Set Minimum Attendance Targets for All Schools.
• The Guardian (2025). All Schools to Receive AI-Generated Attendance Targets.
• DfE (2024). Working Together to Improve School Attendance.
• Leeds Beckett University (2025). The Crisis in School Attendance.