To qualify as regular attendants, pupils must be at school for 90% of the time.
The percentage of Otago/Southland pupils meeting that requirement was 63.6 % last term compared with 61% for the same term in 2023.
The Otago/Southland percentage was higher than the national rate of 61.7% (up from 59.5% last year).
Irregular absence, moderate absence and chronic absence have decreased slightly, but these are still higher than they were in 2019 pre-Covid days.
Regular attendance in primary schools at 65.6 % is more than 10 percentage points above that of secondary (55.2%).
The official report on the term one figures says short-term illness and medical absences continued to be the main driver of non-attendance, associated with the continued incidence of Covid-19 and other seasonal illnesses.
North Otago Primary Principals Association chairman Brent Godfrey says children are missing school because of more serious illnesses which are taking them out for longer.
He would like to see more analysis around illness but it is unclear whether associate education minister David Seymour’s enthusiasm for gathering data on absences will lead to that.
Earlier this year Mr Seymour seemed worried too many parents were keeping their children home on flimsy health grounds. Part of his plan to address the poor attendance was to issue new health guidance to help parents and schools decide whether a child is well enough to attend school.
It would be unfortunate if this is having the effect of encouraging parents to send sick children to school to infect their peers and teachers.
There have been recent reports of several schools having to close or roster certain classes home as they struggle to find enough well staff.
New Zealand is not the only country struggling to lift school attendance.
The Government has set a bold target of ensuring 80% of pupils are regular attenders by 2030.
Daily reporting of attendance will become mandatory for schools from the beginning of next year.
But, as some commentators have pointed out, this daily data, while it has shown such things as increased absences on Fridays and around public holidays and the end of terms, is just a snapshot.
The whole of term data is better quality as schools have reviewed the daily attendance information and established more detail about the absences, how long pupils were away and why.
He wants to get a much better understanding of the drivers of non-attendance through data so effective interventions can be targeted.
However, his Cabinet paper on the attendance issue earlier this year acknowledged existing research showed there were many and varied reasons for not attending school.
We do not hear much from him about some of the factors listed in the paper including bullying and discrimination, lack of resources for transport, food or school-related materials, family violence, insecure housing, and poverty.
Does he know what impact the removal or reduction of public transport subsidies may be having on attendance and whether changes proposed to the school lunches programme Ka Ora, Ka Ako for older pupils might be expected to lower attendance, particularly for the most disadvantaged?
Overseas experience is that increased punitive approaches do not work, but part of Mr Seymour’s plan is a proposed traffic light system which could lead to fines for parents. Details have not yet been revealed, but Act New Zealand’s policy was to change the law to introduce infringement notices similar to speeding fines.
Without better recognition that poor attendance is the symptom of complex problems rather than the problem itself, it is hard to see the Government making real progress towards its ambitious target.
