A review by the children’s commissioner warns that a sizeable group of 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds are attending college so infrequently that they are effectively obscured from official counts of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET).
Attendance gaps in further education
The report, compiled from attendance information supplied by 262 college groups across England, finds that absence rates among this age group are markedly higher than those typically recorded in schools. By the thresholds used in school monitoring, just over half of 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds in the sample — an estimated 52.2% — were classed as persistently absent, defined as missing at least 10% of sessions.
Within that group, around 42,000 students (about 5.9%) were described as severely absent, meaning they missed at least half of their college sessions.
| Measure | Figure |
|---|---|
| Persistent absence (missing ≥10%) | 52.2% |
| Severe absence (missing ≥50%) | 42,000 (approx. 5.9%) |
| DfE estimate of NEETs aged 16–17 | 57,000 |
Hidden NEETs and causes
The children’s commissioner argues that those persistently absent from college ought to be treated as “hidden” NEETs in the same way as young people who are formally not in education, employment or training. The Department for Education (DfE) currently estimates about 57,000 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds are NEET; the report suggests tens of thousands more may be effectively disengaged despite being enrolled.
Interviewed for the report, Dame Rachel de Souza identified a range of drivers behind the low attendance figures. They include the financial pressures of travel, the lure or necessity of part‑time work and long‑term effects from the Covid pandemic. She emphasised that while some students miss sessions intermittently because of earnings and logistics, the most worrying cases involve young people with greater vulnerabilities who are absent most of the time.
"It's under the radar and these kids are not getting the support that they need," the children’s commissioner said, lamenting that the issue had been overlooked because the DfE did not collect college attendance data centrally.
Response from the Department for Education and colleges
The DfE said it intends to assist colleges to track attendance more effectively and move towards central collection of that information. The absence of a statutory requirement for further education and sixth‑form colleges to record and report attendance — a duty that schools have long carried — is at the heart of the commissioner’s critique.
College leaders contacted for the report described the profile of students missing large amounts of learning. Liam Sloan, principal at Bolton College, said that while relatively few students skip more than half of their sessions, those who do commonly face mental health difficulties or balance education with part‑time employment.
- Policy gap: Unlike schools, most further education providers are not required to submit attendance data centrally.
- Scale of concern: More than half of 16–17s sampled were persistently absent by school standards.
- Potential consequences: Students who are formally enrolled but rarely present may miss support, qualifications and pathways into work or training.
Implications for policymaking and practice
The findings present a practical challenge for ministers and colleges alike. Better attendance data from post‑16 providers would allow local authorities, colleges and national agencies to identify young people who need targeted support — from travel bursaries and mental‑health services to flexible timetables that accommodate caring or employment responsibilities.
For classroom practitioners and college managers, the report underlines the importance of early identification and tailored interventions to prevent young people slipping into long‑term disengagement. For policymakers, it sharpens a question about whether current statistical measures capture the reality of young people’s participation in education after 16 — and whether the definition of NEET should be expanded to reflect sustained absence as well as formal non‑enrolment.
Any change to data collection or the concept of NEET will carry resource implications, but advocates say that without better visibility many vulnerable teenagers will continue to fall between services and miss the support that could help them complete qualifications and find routes into work.
