This week’s news that the DfE has paused its newly launched AI-generated attendance reports, just days after release, has prompted plenty of discussion across the sector.
The idea behind the tool was clear enough: offer schools quick summaries of their attendance data and highlight potential areas of concern. But within hours, schools were reporting that the early summaries didn’t quite match what they were seeing on the ground, leading the DfE to sensibly pause, gather feedback, and review the approach.
What Happened?
The new tool was intended to provide automated insights drawn from the data schools already submit. For some leaders, however, the output raised questions about how the summaries were being generated and whether they reflected the real-time picture they work with every day.
None of this is unusual when testing new digital tools. If anything, it reinforces an important principle: improvements to attendance systems work best when developed collaboratively with the schools expected to use them.
Do Schools Need Another Summary of Their Own Data?
Many leaders questioned the underlying purpose. Schools already have live tracking systems — MIS dashboards, LA returns, internal analysis, and their own detailed daily oversight. These tools aren’t perfect, and many would welcome further innovation. But any new system should meaningfully enhance what schools already have.
As one head put it:
What possible use could this tell us that we don’t already know or need?
And they have a point.
Technology is most helpful not when it repeats existing reports, but when it supports the detail — spotting micro-changes, reducing admin, helping staff intervene earlier, and ensuring nothing slips through the cracks.
Targets vs. Systems: What Really Improves Attendance?
Attendance isn’t solved with targets, digital or otherwise. Targets may provide focus, but meaningful change relies on strong systems: processes that ensure nothing is missed, every concern is acted on promptly, and communication with families is consistent and timely.
AI might eventually support parts of this work, but it cannot replace the human understanding, professional judgement and relational work that sit at the heart of attendance practice.
A Pause That Might Be Helpful
Viewed positively, this pause offers an opportunity. It creates space for:
- genuine co-design with schools
- clarity about what the tool is meant to add
- better alignment with real-world attendance workflows
- improvements that help schools manage complexity, not duplicate it
It also reinforces an important message: technology in education works best when it enhances professional expertise, not when it attempts to interpret it from afar.
Why This Matters
Attendance is a nuanced, relational, child-centred area of work. Any tool — AI or otherwise — must respect that complexity. Schools don’t just need more dashboards; they need support that helps them act, communicate, and understand what’s changing beneath the numbers.
If this experience leads to better collaboration, clearer purpose, and technology that genuinely lightens the load, then the pause may ultimately be a very welcome one.
Source: First reported by Schools Week on the suspension of the DfE’s AI attendance reports.