by Rebecca Thomas
When you work across schools and connect with different communities, you hear a range of strategies unfolding. Attendance has become the latest non-negotiable in strategic plans across the country, with schools being asked—once again—to move the dial on absenteeism.
How do we get students to come to school because they feel seen, valued, and excited to learn, rather than simply because they have to?
Some schools have taken a punitive approach. If students don’t meet attendance targets, they lose the right to represent their school in sports, or attend milestone events like the school ball. Others have opted for extrinsic rewards—class pizza parties, field trips, or movie nights for those who turn up regularly.
Then, there are schools desperately innovating within a flawed system, using what little funding they have to hire community helpers for a "walking bus", or striking supermarket deals to double the value of food vouchers—if students show up, their whānau can put more kai on the table.
And I’m sure you’ve seen other ideas too—different ways to get kids through the door.
But let’s take a step back. Do these methods address the root of the problem, or are they just band-aids on a deeper wound?
At the end of the day, these approaches require time, energy, and money to track, implement, and sustain. The government’s new STAR initiative will produce a tidy set of statistics, making things look healthier on paper.
But those numbers won’t tell the full story.
The real effort—the problem-solving, the relationship-building, the long hours spent calling home or knocking on doors—comes from educators, leaders, and even the students themselves.
So, if attendance rates improve, why weren’t these efforts valued before? Why did schools need a looming political threat to act?
And what happens when the funding dries up? When the pizza loses its appeal? When punishments feel hollow? Will we see attendance sustained—or will we start following the UK's path of fines, court cases, and criminalised parents?
But here’s an even bigger question, is forcing kids into classrooms actually the best path to a better education?
In a world where learning can happen anywhere, anytime, why is "bums on seats" still the gold standard?
Investing in Culturally Responsive Learning
Globally, the most effective attendance initiatives don’t rely on punishment or surface-level incentives. They focus on belonging, trust, and cultural inclusion—because students who feel connected to their education don’t need to be bribed or threatened to show up.
In Canada, many Indigenous communities have rejected Western attendance models in favour of 'The Learning Circle' approach.
How It Works: Instead of forcing students into rigid, test-driven classrooms, this model embraces Indigenous ways of knowing, local language, and land-based learning alongside traditional subjects. Education happens inside and outside the classroom, making school meaningful and deeply relevant to students' lived experiences.
Why It Works: Schools that integrate Indigenous knowledge and culturally grounded learning report higher engagement, attendance, and well-being. When education reflects students’ identities, they want to be there.
Research highlights that students are more likely to attend school when they feel safe, valued, and included in their learning environment. Minero (2023) discusses how a welcoming classroom, where students have a sense of ownership and belonging, can lead to lower absenteeism rates. Rather than relying on punitive measures, fostering engagement through culturally responsive approaches is a long-term investment in attendance and learning.
Most of us agree with this sentiment and know it to be true.
Compare that to the STAR initiative, which essentially functions as an attendance surveillance system—tracking students, reporting absences, and enforcing compliance.
Cost Comparison:
The NZ STAR model: Funding is funnelled into monitoring attendance, staffing enforcement teams, and potential punitive measures for non-compliance. The bulk of resources go towards tracking students rather than transforming learning.
The Learning Circle model: Instead of spending money on surveillance and compliance, funds are directed towards mentorship programs, language revitalisation, outdoor education, and community-led initiatives that foster belonging.
Which investment sounds more likely to genuinely improve engagement and success that can be sustained?
What’s working in your school?
What do we risk getting wrong?
And is mandatory attendance really the key to better education in a world where learning can happen anytime, anywhere?
References
Minero, E. (2023). How a welcoming classroom can decrease absenteeism. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/welcoming-classroom-can-decrease-absenteeism
The Learning Circle: Classroom Activities on First Nations in Canada. Retrieved from Empowering the Spirit
Learning Circles and Indigenous Food Sovereignty. Retrieved from PubMed Central
Comments