To think the Ofsted inspector who blames WFH parents for low attendance is probably just resentful?

I completely agree with the OP.
I was at home, not working (either from home or an office) for 12 years with my young children. Spent every day with my "slippers on" being a SAHM through choice (and i acknowledge the privilege of that choice). My children attended school despite my slipper wearing fetish.
Now my children are 10 and 13 and I have enthusiastically returned to work (4 days) and I do most of my working week from home.
My attitude has always been, and remains, that attending school is in the best interest of our children. If they are ill and cannot attend, then of course we make arrangements between us to ensure they can be looked after. If they are well then they go to school. They have always had attendance well above 95%.
Pretty straightforward stuff and not influenced in any way by my office and bank of monitors being in our home rather than a few miles down the road.
I'm astonished at the reductive nonsense being spouted by someone that has this level of influence in education. That he can put out this drivel without any data to give credibility to his claims simply undermines Ofsted. Given the reputational damage they have suffered recently I'm surprised this interview was given the green light.
This issue is far more complex than Mr Slippers wishes to acknowledge. Those with a background in education/social care will likely agree.

This.
(And Ofsted inspectors say all sorts of things - you have to make your own judgement - I wouldn't describe this as resentful).

@pollymere there is no study!

There's an article with a bloke's opinion and not much to support it.

I WFH 90% of the time, my children have 100% attendance since September. I couldn’t think of anything worse than trying to work with the kids about.

Does he make the same assertions about SAHPs?

The one being discussed in this thread 😂

I’ve yet to come across non WFH who are “resentful” of WFHers. More that they point out, rightly, that lots do take the piss (as evidenced often on MN). And some WFHers seem to get very defensive about that.

I am not saying all WFHers are skiving, but we all know some that are.

What study?

Or maybe we could look at it from a health perspective. Kids with WFH parents have better health care and recovery.
Its all about the framing.
Kids are sick and their health is being given priority by WFH parents because their work isn't dictating the ability for them to stay home and recuperate. Frankly kids should stay home when sick and the main reason they don't is because parents often have no choice to prioritise their kids health and wellbeing over work.
Two sides to the same coin.

And one more idea ...maybe the poor kids suffering Long Covid make up a large number of these absences?
www.longcovidkids.org/

The Study suggested that kids were refusing school because their parents got to stay at home. I'm not aware of it being about parents who are too lazy to take them. I taught quite a few kids who loved online learning when they were given work at 7am and could get it done without disruption, then have the rest of the day for themselves. I found lessons written during lockdown took one and a half to two lessons in the classroom. Why should kids like that have any desire to go to school?

I couldn’t think of anything worse that wfh with kids either, just to save a 10 minute school run 😅 doesn’t seem like a good trade off to me. It’s hard enough when they are poorly and home.

Is the emphasis on WfH actually his or the spin the reporting paper - The Times - has chosen for the story?

@JandamiHash

jesus no
i think he has a very solid point.

"We know there are other issues. We know those other issues have a more profound impact."

But he doesn't say that. All he says is the wfh bit.

If he'd stated it better, implied there were many reasons, and all needed looking into, he would've got a different reaction.

Worth pointing out that we don't actually even know if it's a factor. There's no data, only vibes.

It also is very reflective of general working. I work away a lot and Thursday evening is peak time for travel home because nobody wants to have their flight or train cancelled on a Friday and potentially be stuck into the weekend. It doesn't mean we don't work on Friday, we just do a different type of work.

And that's great. But it isn't being claimed that WFH is the only factor. It's merely being stated that it is a factor, and one worth exploring.

We know there are other issues. We know those other issues have a more profound impact.

There is a massive backlash against WFH at the moment. I am sure there are those that take the piss but it's down to companies to set the culture. In our place I can always get hold of WFH colleagues and we are in calls a lot everyone is fully and professionally dressed, workloads are kept on top of. I just don't recognise the newspaper headlines saying no one thinks people are really WFH on a Friday. If Anything I work later on Fridays if WFH because no commute.

Oh wow! These are the bad apples. No less, chores done and whatever else on top.

There were sahp before but now you have those same people who fought to have a job want to still stay at home and get paid for doing little.

I don't dispute there are hard workers but a lot take liberties and spoil it for others.

DS had a couple of years of bad luck with health from a chronic condition, slow recovery from an injury and a random surgical issue.
The one factor that could have helped with his attendance would be timely access to a GP to stop conditions escalating.

Last year I tried to contact the GP as his chronic condition was aggravating, but the 7 appointments they had for the day across their multiple practices were long gone and they sent a text out saying basically we have nothing, go to a pharmacy, the walk-in or A&E. Sitting in a crowded wating room for hours with contagiously ill people from across the city would not have been great for DS's health, so we carried on using his usual medication to the max dosage (which could have been a likely outcome anyway). A couple of weeks later he had a flare in school that couldn't be settled and it was a 999 call.

Strangely shirty letters from the school/ LA did nothing to improve DS's health.
DS ended up with "unauthorised" attendances for vomiting later in the school year because I didn't attempt to waste mine or the GP's time to make an appointment to prove that DS had a simple illness that required 48 hours rest out of school in line with the school's own bloody policy 🤦‍♀️

The real issues are:
Timely access to health care
Appropriate provision for additional needs
Engaging with a small core of families who do not engage with the education system

Where WFH is a factor, it's in facilitating families to keep children off when mildly ill rather than dosing with Calpol and hoping for the best and risking infecting more children in the class.

Basically, everyone else(teachers and parents )is lazy and not working hard enough, except him and his dad.

He's having quite the week for crap ideas. This comes hot on the heels of extend term times, earlier this week. The teacher and TA recruitment crisis isn't quite bad enough, it would seem.