I am talking about state-funded schools. Especially academies, where the tendency towards authoritarian policies is striking (e.g. as discussed in https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/5168466-how-common-are-detentions-at-secondary or also in this article https://thelead.uk/rise-authoritarian-schools )
More recently, academies of the United Learning group (which, let's not forget, are funded entirely by the State) asked parents to sign a "pledge" committing to send pupils to school even when they feel unwell, because there are first-aiders in school. There was a discussion on twitter , with the exact wording https://x.com/AdamHighcliffe/status/1840040564105867522
What the censored ?
I am all for punishing lateness and avoiding holidays during term time. I appreciate that some kids will try to 'pull a sickie' from time to time. But a blanket policy of always sending them to school even when unwell? That's insane.
I suspect that these academies don't care about the pupils. They care only about being measured against a certain set of criteria, scoring well against those, and therefore get more funding. Attendance is one such criterion, so this explains the policy.
The classism of the school is also evident in the wording of "journey to university". Not all kids will go to university. This academy seems to imply that they don't want the poor plebs who won't go to uni.
United is one group of academies that came up with the concept of a "grammar stream". I had asked about it here https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/5172138-grammar-stream-just-a-marketing-buzzword-any-different-from-being-in-the-top-set but it seems like a marketing buzzword meant to trigger a pavlovian response in the parents who hear the word 'grammar'.
I have found a Department of Education document https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66bf300da44f1c4c23e5bd1b/Working_together_to_improve_school_attendance_-_August_2024.pdf stating that
An attendance contract is not legally binding [...]. Parents cannot be compelled to enter an attendance contract, and they cannot be agreed in a parent’s absence
For the record, I am all for punishing lateness and disruptive behaviour.
I strongly support that attendance is crucial, and that taking term holidays is disruptive not just for the child going away but for the entire class. But a "contract" committing to send to school children who are unwell is bonkers.