📚 Unauthorised Persistent Absence in Secondary School: Which Students Are Most at Risk? | 中学生因未经批准事由长期缺勤：哪些孩子风险更高
Persistent absence is one of the most stubborn problems in secondary education, and the unauthorised kind is the hardest to solve because it is usually a symptom rather than the problem itself. Two students can miss exactly the same number of days for completely different reasons: one is anxious, one is caring for a younger sibling, one is bored, one has been bullied, one simply cannot get to school before the buses stop running for them. If we want to intervene early, we need to answer a sharper question than “why are children absent?” We need to ask “which children are most likely to become absent, and why?”
长期缺勤是中学教育中最棘手的问题之一，而”未经批准”的缺勤之所以最难处理，是因为它往往是症状而非问题本身。两个学生可能缺课天数完全相同，原因却截然不同：一个是焦虑，一个要照顾年幼的弟妹，一个觉得上课无聊，一个正在被欺凌，还有一个只是赶不上能到校的那班车。想要及早干预，我们必须把问题问得更精确：不是”孩子为什么缺勤”，而是”哪些孩子最可能走向长期缺勤，以及为什么”。
1. What Counts as Unauthorised Persistent Absence? | 何为未经批准事由的长期缺勤
Attendance is normally recorded in sessions, and one school day contains two sessions: morning and afternoon. An absence is “authorised” when the school accepts the reason, for example genuine illness or a medical appointment. It is “unauthorised” when the school does not accept the reason, and it is typically recorded with codes such as G for a family holiday that was not agreed, O for unauthorised other reasons, U for arriving after the registers have closed, and N for no reason yet established.
考勤通常以”课段”记录，一个教学日包含上午和下午两个课段。当学校认可缺勤理由（如真实生病或就医预约）时，属于”获批缺勤”；当学校不认可理由时，属于”未经批准缺勤”，通常用代码标记：G 表示未获同意的家庭旅行，O 表示其他未获批准的原因，U 表示在点名册关闭后才到校，N 表示原因尚未查明。
The two headline thresholds matter more than the codes, because they define who gets support and who gets sanctions. Persistent absence means missing 10% or more of possible sessions, which is equivalent to attendance at or below 90%. Severe absence means missing 50% or more, equivalent to attendance below 50%.
比代码更重要的是两条关键界线，因为它们决定了谁获得支持、谁受到处罚。”长期缺勤”指缺课达到全部课段的 10% 或以上，等同于出勤率在 90% 或以下；”严重缺勤”指缺课达到 50% 或以上，等同于出勤率低于 50%。
Attendance rate (%) = (Sessions attended ÷ Possible sessions) × 100
| Attendance band | Days missed (190-day year) | Label |
| 95–100% | 0–9 days | Broadly secure |
| 90–95% | 10–18 days | At risk — intervene now |
| ≤90% | 19 days or more | Persistent absence |
| ≤50% | 95 days or more | Severe absence |
The critical practical point is that the 90–95% band is the intervention window. Once a student drops below 90%, the academic and social costs accelerate, and reversing the pattern becomes far harder.
关键的实操要点是：90%–95% 这一区间就是干预窗口。一旦跌到 90% 以下，学业与社交上的代价会加速累积，而要扭转这一趋势会困难得多。
2. The Scale of the Problem | 缺勤问题的规模
In England, persistent absence roughly doubled after 2019 and has stayed above one in five pupils in recent years, compared with around one in nine before the pandemic. Unauthorised persistent absence alone now affects more than one in ten secondary pupils in a typical year. Severe absence, though rarer, has grown faster than any other category.
在英格兰，长期缺勤比例在 2019 年之后大约翻了一倍，近几年一直维持在每五名学生中超过一人，而疫情前约为每九人一人。仅”未经批准的长期缺勤”一项，在典型年份就影响超过十分之一的中学生。严重缺勤虽然更少见，但增速是所有类别中最快的。
The consequences are measurable. Pupils with no recorded absence are roughly twice as likely to achieve strong passes in GCSE English and mathematics as pupils who miss 10–15% of sessions, and the attainment gap widens sharply for those missing more than 15%. Attendance is not simply a discipline statistic; it is one of the strongest single predictors of examination outcomes available to schools.
后果是可量化的。全勤学生在 GCSE 英语与数学上取得较高等级成绩的可能性，大约是缺课 10%–15% 的学生的两倍；当缺课超过 15% 时，成绩差距会急剧扩大。出勤率不只是纪律数据，它是学校所能获得的最强的单一考试结果预测指标之一。
3. Risk Factor 1: Poverty and Socio-economic Disadvantage | 风险因素一：贫困与社会经济劣势
Socio-economic disadvantage is the single most consistent predictor of unauthorised absence. In England, pupils eligible for free school meals are roughly twice as likely to be persistently absent as their peers, and the gap has widened since 2019 rather than narrowed.
社会经济劣势是未经批准缺勤最稳定、最一致的预测因素。在英格兰，具备免费校餐资格的学生陷入长期缺勤的概率大约是同龄人的两倍，而且自 2019 年以来这一差距是扩大而非缩小。
The mechanisms are concrete rather than mysterious: the cost of uniform, shoes, transport and “optional” trips; unreliable housing or temporary accommodation; parents working shifts with no flexibility for the school run; no quiet place to do homework; limited internet access; and the daily indignity of arriving without the right equipment.
其机制具体而并不神秘：校服、鞋子、交通和”自愿参加”的活动的费用；不稳定的住房或临时住所；父母做轮班工作、无法灵活接送；没有安静做作业的地方；网络接入受限；以及因为缺少必备学习用品而产生的日常羞耻感。
Two implications follow. First, absence in disadvantaged pupils is often a resource problem dressed up as a motivation problem, so sanctions alone rarely work. Second, whole-family support — transport passes, uniform grants, breakfast provision, homework club — frequently moves attendance more than any lecture about values.
由此有两点推论。第一，劣势家庭学生的缺勤常常是被包装成”动机问题”的资源问题，因此单靠处罚很少奏效。第二，面向整个家庭的支持——交通补贴、校服补助、早餐供应、作业辅导班——通常比任何关于”价值观”的说教更能提升出勤。
4. Risk Factor 2: Special Educational Needs and Disabilities | 风险因素二：特殊教育需求与残障
Pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are consistently over-represented among persistent absentees. The highest rates are found among pupils with social, emotional and mental health needs, autistic pupils, and pupils with speech, language and communication needs.
有特殊教育需求与残障（SEND）的学生在长期缺勤群体中持续被过度代表。其中缺勤率最高的是有社交、情绪与心理健康需求的学生、自闭谱系学生，以及有言语、语言与沟通需求的学生。
The causal chain is usually unmet need rather than the diagnosis itself. A student who cannot cope with a noisy corridor, who cannot read the worksheet, or who is repeatedly misunderstood by staff will experience school as a place of failure and humiliation. Absence then becomes rational self-protection.
其因果链条通常是”需求未被满足”，而不是诊断标签本身。一个无法忍受嘈杂走廊、看不懂学习单、或反复被老师误解的学生，会把学校体验为失败与羞辱之地。此时，缺勤就成了一种理性的自我保护。
Two further patterns deserve attention. First, pupils with SEND are more likely to be suspended or excluded, and exclusion is one of the strongest predictors of subsequent absence. Second, some students with SEND are informally moved to part-time timetables or alternative provision, which can mask absence in official statistics rather than resolve it.
还有两种模式值得关注。其一，SEND 学生更容易被停学或开除，而开除是后续缺勤最强的预测因素之一。其二，部分 SEND 学生被非正式地安排为部分时间课表或转介到替代性教育机构，这可能只是把缺勤掩盖在官方统计之外，而非真正解决问题。
5. Risk Factor 3: Anxiety, Depression and Emotionally Based School Avoidance | 风险因素三：焦虑、抑郁与情绪性拒学
Emotionally based school avoidance (EBSA) describes absence driven by anxiety or other mental health difficulties rather than by defiance. It must be distinguished from truancy. Truanting pupils typically skip school without their parents knowing and often spend the day with friends; EBSA pupils are usually at home, with their parents’ knowledge, and feel ashamed, exhausted and guilty about it.
情绪性拒学（EBSA）指的是由焦虑或其他心理健康困难驱动、而非对抗性行为导致的缺勤，必须与逃学区分开。逃学的学生通常瞒着家长不去学校，并且常与朋友在外面度过一天；而 EBSA 学生通常待在家里、家长知情，并且对此感到羞耻、疲惫与内疚。
Since 2019, mental health related absence has risen fastest among adolescent girls, and referrals for anxiety, depression, self-harm and eating disorders have increased sharply. Common triggers include panic symptoms in lessons, fear of vomiting or fainting in public, exam and performance anxiety, perfectionism, and social anxiety after a long period away.
自 2019 年以来，与心理健康相关的缺勤在青春期女生中增长最快，因焦虑、抑郁、自伤与进食障碍而转介的案例明显增加。常见触发因素包括课堂上的惊恐症状、对在公共场合呕吐或晕倒的恐惧、考试与表现焦虑、完美主义，以及长期离校后产生的社交焦虑。
The single most important practical insight is that anxiety is maintained by avoidance. Every day away brings short-term relief and long-term strengthening of the fear, which is why a gradual, supported return usually works better than an all-or-nothing return to a full timetable.
最重要的一个实操洞见是：焦虑由回避所维持。每缺一天课，带来的是短期缓解与恐惧的长期强化。这就是为什么”渐进式、有支持的复课”通常比”要么全上、要么全不上”的做法更有效。
6. Risk Factor 4: Bullying, Peer Conflict and Social Isolation | 风险因素四：欺凌、同伴冲突与社交孤立
Being bullied is one of the strongest school-level predictors of school avoidance. Where a student cannot be safe in corridors, changing rooms or on the walk home, absence is a rational response to an unresolved problem, not a discipline issue.
遭受欺凌是拒学最强的校内预测因素之一。当学生在走廊、更衣室或放学路上都无法获得安全感时，缺勤就是对未解决问题的一种理性反应，而不是纪律问题。
Risk is elevated for students who are visibly different in some way, including those with SEND, LGBTQ+ students, students from minority ethnic or religious backgrounds in areas where they are few in number, students with visible disabilities or medical conditions, and students who have recently moved school and lost their friendship network.
以下学生的风险明显更高：在外表或特征上有明显差异的学生，包括 SEND 学生、LGBTQ+ 学生、在族裔或宗教上属于当地少数的学生、有可见残障或慢性疾病的学生，以及刚刚转学、失去原有朋友圈的学生。
Absence driven by bullying is frequently disguised as recurrent illness: headaches, stomach aches, “feeling sick” on Sunday evenings and Monday mornings. Schools should treat any sudden, day-specific attendance pattern as a safeguarding question first and an attendance question second.
由欺凌引起的缺勤常常被伪装成反复发作的身体不适：头痛、胃痛、周日晚上和周一早晨”觉得恶心”。学校应把任何突然出现、且集中在特定日期的缺勤模式，首先当作安全保护问题来看待，其次才是出勤问题。
7. Risk Factor 5: Family Context, Caring Duties and Parental Attitudes | 风险因素五：家庭处境、照护责任与家长态度
Family circumstances shape attendance more powerfully than any individual characteristic of the child. The highest-risk groups include young carers, children in care and children on a child in need plan, children experiencing bereavement or parental separation, and children in households affected by domestic abuse, substance misuse or parental mental illness.
家庭处境对出勤的影响力，超过孩子任何一项个人特征。风险最高的群体包括：青少年照护者、在托育系统中的儿童及被列为”需要帮助的儿童”的孩子、经历丧亲或父母离异的孩子，以及受家庭暴力、物质滥用或父母精神疾病影响的家庭中的孩子。
Looked-after children and children in need are persistently absent at rates far above the national average, and their absence is frequently compounded by placement moves across local authority boundaries, which disrupt school placement itself.
在托育中的儿童与”需要帮助的儿童”，其长期缺勤率远高于全国平均水平，而跨地区安置变动又会频繁打断学校安置本身，使缺勤问题进一步恶化。
Parental attitudes and capacity also matter. Some parents are openly opposed to schooling; more commonly, parents are overwhelmed, working inflexible hours, or managing their own health difficulties. Crucially, punitive approaches such as fines often worsen the situation by pushing families into avoidance and destroying the trust needed for a joint plan.
家长的态度与能力同样重要。少数家长公开反对学校教育；但更常见的情况是家长自身不堪重负、工时无法调整，或在应对自己的健康问题。关键在于，罚款等惩罚性手段往往会让情况更糟——它把家庭推向回避，并摧毁共同制定方案所需的信任。
8. Risk Factor 6: Academic Struggle and Transition Points | 风险因素六：学业困难与关键过渡期
Academic difficulty and absence form a self-reinforcing loop. A student who is behind finds lessons aversive, avoids them, falls further behind, and finds returning even more aversive. By the time the pattern is visible in the data, it is usually several months old.
学业困难与缺勤会形成一个自我强化的循环。落后的学生在课堂上感受到挫败，于是回避；回避之后更加落后，回归课堂就更加令人抗拒。等到数据上能看出这一模式时，它通常已经持续了几个月。
Gaps in learning → shame and anxiety → absence → bigger gaps → stronger avoidance
Certain year points concentrate risk. Year 7 transition is a major flashpoint because the protective relationships built in primary school disappear overnight. Year 9 options, when curriculum choices narrow and self-image hardens, is another. Years 10 and 11 carry the highest absence rates because of examination pressure, and students who have already disengaged often see little point in attending.
某些年级节点会集中出现风险。七年级（初一）过渡是主要爆点，因为小学阶段建立的支持性关系一夜之间消失。九年级选科时，课程选择收窄、自我形象固化，也是风险点。十、十一年级因考试压力而缺勤率最高，而已经脱离的学生往往认为来上课也没有意义。
Day-specific patterns are diagnostically useful. Absence concentrated on days with a particular subject, a particular teacher, or an assessment indicates a specific, solvable problem rather than general disengagement.
按日期呈现的缺勤模式具有诊断价值。如果缺勤集中在有某一科目、某位老师或某次测验的日子，通常指向一个具体且可解决的问题，而不是全面的学习脱离。
9. Risk Factor 7: Ethnicity, Language, Culture and System Bias | 风险因素七：族裔、语言、文化与制度偏见
Absence rates differ markedly by ethnic group, but the differences reflect systems and circumstances far more than culture. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils, and pupils of Irish Traveller heritage, record the highest absence rates of any group in England, driven by a combination of discrimination, culturally narrow curricula, mid-year mobility and, in some cases, family work patterns.
不同族裔群体的缺勤率差异显著，但这些差异所反映的更多是制度与处境，而非文化本身。在英格兰，吉普赛、罗姆与游民（Gypsy, Roma and Traveller）学生以及爱尔兰游民背景的学生缺勤率最高，其背后是歧视、课程文化视野狭窄、年中频繁迁移，以及在某些情况下的家庭工作模式共同作用的结果。
Some Black Caribbean pupils experience higher rates of exclusion and “managed moves”, which in turn raise absence risk. Pupils with English as an additional language are not inherently at higher risk of unauthorised absence, but newly arrived pupils, refugees and asylum-seeking students may be, particularly when their previous education was interrupted.
部分加勒比黑人背景的学生被开除或”被安排转学”的比例更高，这反过来又抬高了缺勤风险。以英语为附加语言的学生本身并不天然具有更高的未经批准缺勤风险，但新抵达的学生、难民与寻求庇护的学生可能风险更高，尤其是当其先前教育被打断时。
It is essential to avoid deficit framing here. Where schools interpret group-level data as a cultural characteristic rather than as evidence of institutional friction, they tend to respond with surveillance instead of change, and attendance gets worse.
此处必须避免”缺陷归因”。如果学校把群体层面的数据解读为文化特征，而不是制度摩擦的证据，其反应往往是加强监控而非改变自身，结果只会让出勤更糟。
10. How Risk Factors Accumulate | 风险因素如何叠加
Risk factors do not simply add up; they multiply. A student with one risk factor usually recovers from a bad patch. A student with four or five interacting risk factors, such as poverty plus unmet SEND plus bullying plus a caring role, is highly likely to become severely absent without coordinated intervention.
风险因素不是简单相加，而是彼此相乘。只有一个风险因素的学生，通常能从一段低谷中恢复；而当四五个风险因素相互作用时——例如贫困、SEND 需求未被满足、遭受欺凌、同时承担照护责任——若缺乏协同干预，学生走向严重缺勤的可能性极高。
| Risk factor | Typical strength of evidence | Primary lever |
| Socio-economic disadvantage | Very strong | Material and family support |
| SEND, especially SEMH | Very strong | Accurate assessment and provision |
| Anxiety and EBSA | Strong | Gradual exposure and therapy |
| Bullying | Strong | Safety and anti-bullying action |
| Family instability and caring roles | Strong | Whole-family
Published by TutorHao | Exam Prep Revision Series | aleveler.com 更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信） CommentsMore posts |
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导