Batshit attendance policies

[sunhasgotthis]

Hmmm WTAF?!

x.com/trumpetlill/status/1825815386085859379?s=46&t=G9BWOZlYGPa1_pR7aKkbHQ

These policies are more likely to increase rather than reduce absence in my experience. If parents feel they can't trust the school to send their child home when genuinely quite ill, because they're so focused on attendance stats, they'll keep them off when there is any doubt. It creates ill will - not trusting parents - and I trust one of my DC's schools a lot less because they are a bit too attendance, rather than safeguarding, focused. There has been at least one occasion where DC1 got quite ill in school and went to the office and they didn't send home when they absolutely should have phoned me. Had a very high fever and didn't feel well enough to walk to get the bus so I had to go and pick up. Very angry they didn't call me. Have said next time to turn phone on against school policy if needed, call me and I'll be happy to come in and have a robust discussion with the school about their safeguarding responsibility and informing parents.

I also think sending children in when very ill could be classed as neglect so you could argue the school is pushing for parents to actually treat their chlldren badly and in an unsafe way (the screenshots are against NHS advice which is to keep children off as long as they have a temperature: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/is-my-child-too-ill-for-school/).

There is no way near enough support for SEND children in state schools. Maybe all the staff time spent going around to see sick kids with temperatures on day 2 should spend time helping make reasonable adjustments for children with actual disabilities for whom good attendance is a challenge?

I know several parents with disabled children who've been hassled so much about attendance - when there is literally nothing they can do to magically make their child's disability disappear, they of course would if they could - that they've opted to homeschool. I can't blame them.

Plus of course forcing kids in when not properly well will spread disease as well as creating much more risk for vulnerable children with compromised immunity.

I'd also be behind air filtration. That would make a much bigger difference than hassling parents about something (illness) they can literally do nothing about.

These policies are achieving the opposite of what they want and they're not based on any medical advice at all. Public health doctors would be appalled. You could argue these policies could put children's safety and wellbeing at risk.

This is the guidance we use when we get the “my child has x condition how long should I keep them off” phone call.

https://www.publichealth.hscni.net/sites/default/files/Guidance_on_infection_control_in%20schools_poster.pdf

Some diseases are notifiable. That didn’t go down well when a mum told us her child had measles and we had to report it whereupon the school nurse (this is not a nurse IN school, it’s a nurse in our area who covers many schools) checked with GP and then made a home visit. Neighbour told her the family were on holiday.

This is so wrong.

I would be fuming if the school spoke to the school nurse who then spoke to the GP who then spoke to my neighbours? About my child. I mean what?

Some sort of glee that the child was 'on holiday' catching them out... But actually the child could actually have measles and be on hols (and unable to fly home, travel back)... Have measles and be staying elsewhere to be cared for as vulnerable person lives in the house.

The measles notification is to protect the rest of the population, not to punish the person with measles. It's notifiable because (I think) 3 in 1000 die of it - even completely healthy children - and there are often also severe complications and they want to prevent or minimise an outbreak. It's not about 'catching anyone out' it's about trying to prevent the spread of a potentially deadly disease that can also leave children disabled. What they'll be trying to establish is who else could have been exposed and take action to minimise spread - the affected child should not be going out and about until I think 4 days post rash.

The notification is nothing to do with attendance and absolutely is the right thing for PP to do. I had measles as a child and was seriously, seriously ill. It's a very serious disease and any case needs a public health response.

We HAVE to tell the school nurse if one if our pupils has a notifiable disease! We told the caller this but they insisted the GP had diagnosed measles. If a GP identifies measles they also HAVE to notify whatever agency it is they have to notify. The nurses and GPs HAVE to do their jobs. We (the school) did not ask the nurse to attend the home - that is the procedure she has to follow. The GP had not diagnosed measles, the GP hadn’t even seen the child. The nurse knocked on the door (as per her job) and neighbour saw her and said words along the lines of “they’re not there, they’re on holiday”. There is no sense of glee - just relief that we did not have a child with measles who could have infected many other children with a potentially dangerous disease. The child did NOT have measles, the child was not unwell, the child was at Centre Parks.

The overarching reason for all of this is the poor attendance in UK schools since Covid. Poor attendance seriously affects the child's education and consequent life chances. I'm pretty sure that most parents want their children to have the best opportunities for their futures and so the government are introducing policies to raise attendance in all schools. The new government attendance guidance does not insist on children being visited on second day of absence as this is not reasonable and totally untenable for most schools who are chronically underfunded. However, safeguarding children sits underneath all of this so reasonable welfare checks must be done if deemed necessary and on a regular basis if the child is a non attender. The new guidance favours a supportive approach with the emphasis on good communication between parents and schools, to try to unpick the reasons some children are not in school. This attendance policy is definitely not the norm.

All other reasons aside including lockdown etc, why would attendance improve since covid arrived on the scene? We have wave after wave where it spreads through schools, with varying degrees of (known) impacts, so of course there's going to be a higher absence rate, just due to the impacts of that virus alone. On what planet does 'we have a new virus in high circulation, so expect higher attendance' make a modicum of sense?

The problem is that all the graphs that show children in school more do better academically show correlation, not causation. It definitely doesn't hold for all children, and it doesn't address the root causes.

I know several children with chronic conditions. Yes, they spend less time in education, and their lives are limited in a myriad of ways which mean they have less time studying (and also feeling well enough to do all the things other kids get to do). It's not the time in school which is the problem it's the health condition. And instead of helping and supporting those children to do the very best they can with the cards life has dealt them, schools are browbeating parents about attendance.

I am sure the most genetically robust children have lots of advantages in life. How lovely it must be to only rarely get ill and bounce back easily. I am sure this makes focusing on education much easier. But this isn't something we can magically think ourselves into.

Attendance policies in schools come very close to - if not actually being - disability discrimination, and in some cases risk chldren's safety (if the school is obsessed with attendance to the point of not sending children home when they need to).

The range of 'normal' (and that's before you get to chronically ill or disabled kids) in children is very wide in terms of days of sickness per year. As long as children recover within a normal time frame for each illness (usually about 2 weeks) the GP won't be worried. Why do the schools think they know better?

Yes, those who win the genetics lottery do better in almost every aspect of life - brains, health, fitness. Big surprise. It goes against all the purported school values to punch down on people for being ill a lot and that is the effect of these policies.

For children who have attendance problems not related to illness (though often it's related to anxiety, or SEND) then the school usually knows who these are, and they need time and support to make any difference, and maybe - even then - they won't get up to the mythical, plucked from the air figure of 97%. I know SO MANY parents who've resorted to homeschooling because they struggled with attendance and the school did nothing to practically improve the child's life, just kept on putting pressure on already struggling parents make both the parents and child's life a misery and ruining their wellbeing.

The best schools resist this push for attendance no matter what. But not all of them do.

You're right. But nothing about attendance policies makes sense or is backed up by evidence though. It's completely against public health policy and any public health doctor would do air filtration in schools as a means to reduce absence, not forcing kids in when sick, which will increase absence overall.

Frankly IMO absence policies like the one at the start of this thread go against safeguarding. I'd be challenging that policy on safeguarding grounds. It doesn't follow NHS guidance which is to keep e feverish child off school. The only thing it will do is reduce trust between schools and both parents and their children and force some parents (who can't afford fines) to send very poorly children into school, risking their health. Very sick kids won't be able to pay attention to lessons - so they might be in school, but they won't benefit from education.

It's so completely illogical and nonsensical, it's at the point of really almost making you think the people implementing these policies can't possibly be qualified to teach your children if they have such a poor grasp of evidence and logic.

And that's before you get to the SPAG mistakes noted upthread!

I've been in education for three decades.
I honestly think life would be better off for all if families were allowed to take holiday when they needed to - this would be levelling up for those that can only afford to go in term time. I'll get shit for this, I'm sure, but they don't miss that much that can't be caught up. The only exception would be GCSE cohort.
I also think life would be an awful lot easier if families were all given an allocation of Duvet Days they could use in the year.
If these two things were done as authorised, you'll see your stats go up tenfold.
The government could allow both. They won't because of the research.
It is the ones under 85% without a long term condition, who need the draconian measures - and even then, it's support not a stick those families need.
Kids who are struggling or school refusing need reasonable adjustments, whether that's a part-time timetable or a placement/mixture of college and school.
Again, what the government spent on Ofsted, could have been used to support these kids. They now have an explosion of mental health needs they only pay lip service to. We ought to be asking what education is for, what we need to learn for the future, what jobs can't be replaced by AI/Industry 4.0 and what we want for our planet.
Until someone actually looks at all of that, and what it might look like, we're just throwing plasters on haemorrhages.

In terms of our school, we look at all reasons as to why a child isn't in school and do what we can to make reasonable adjustments. If a child has an ongoing health condition, we understand that this child will never have 97% attendance and the parents will not be prosecuted. We want to help get the best outcomes for the children and our aim is to always support parents. However, schools must also follow government guidance, some of it statutory of course. We are just doing the best we can for the children in our care.

The awful thing is that teachers and schools are wasting time on this stupid, nonsensical, not evidence-based tick box exercise which will achieve the exact opposite of it's stated objective.

I once had an attendance meeting with my DC as attendance at 90%. DC had come from small primary to massive secondary and had caught a whole load of nasty illnesses, was just after covid restrictions lifted too; covid, D&V, a nasty virus, tonsillitis.

We had a pointless meeting with a member of SLT, wasting their time and ours. Had to take time off work to go to the school. They asked DC how they'd have felt in school during the periods of illness and DC replied 'I wouldn't have been able to focus on the lessons, I was too ill and spent my time mostly sleeping in bed, I would have been utterly miserable and in pain'. Then there was silence. I offered to contribute to any funding for air filters in class. Again tumbleweed. Nothing more happened. What a waste of time all around.

I followed up with an email laying out the evidence for air filtration and again offering a donation towards this - ignored. I'd much rather my kids be sick less, less time off work for me and less chance of me catching it! But actual solution - oh, no. Just pointless attendance meetings and threatening emails when they've just been off sick and we've been doing what is best for our child's health.

Oh and the time spent on needlessly hassling us could have been spent supporting a family with real difficulties, not just a badly timed string of illnesses.

DC said they felt hassled and they feel as if the school prioritises attendance stats over their wellbeing. Say it's well known you can go to sick bay and stay there all day (so not learning) because they 'never call parents unless you've obviously broken something'.

Unfortunately your child is right. Evidence is smacking them in the face.
'DC said they felt hassled and they feel as if the school prioritises attendance stats over their wellbeing. Say it's well known you can go to sick bay and stay there all day (so not learning) because they 'never call parents unless you've obviously broken something'.'

Agreed

I was about to say the same. I'm a Grandma and will be doing childcare for any sickness on my granddaughters part, and at my house. I'm a retired teacher, but I still wouldn't accept a visit from her school on day 2. I won't have signed anything, so tough.

I never thought I'd join a parental rebellion, but no, just no.

@samarrange You beat me to it! My eyes were bleeding reading that. I sincerely hope whoever wrote that is not responsible for teaching any pupils at that school 🥴

Also I had a horrible strain of viral conjunctivitis a couple years ago where I could hardly open my eyes, was wearing sunglasses indoors to make the daylight tolerable, and my whole body felt like I'd been hit by a bus. It's not always just a case of red, slightly sore eyes!

A home visit on day 2 of my child vomiting and having diarhorrea? Absolutely, come on in, in fact I've brought him downstairs and he wants a cuddle with you!

You have to admire the sheer brainpower involved in making a policy to REDUCE absence by sending sick children into school to mix with healthy children.

Why does Unauthorised absence effect overall attendance, but being marked absent affects overall attendance? What's the difference between 'No exclusion required', 'No exclusion needed', and 'No exclusion necessary'?