Will I get in trouble with the school?

[wanderingtopographer]

DS13 has been ill this week with a bad cold and has had 4 days absence. Nothing serious enough for the GP but in bed for the duration with Calpol and feeling generally unwell - I've also caught it and am feeling rubbish so it's clearly contagious. I have called the school every morning to keep them updated. For what it's worth, He performs very well academically and his behaviour at school is excellent so there are no other causes for concern.

I was on the sofa in my PJs when there was a knock on the door and two people from the attendance team were on the doorstep to do what they called a welfare check. I told them what i had said before - he's tucked up poorly in bed. They then asked if he could come down or put his head out of the window!

I was quite taken aback, as well as being slightly out of it, and said that no, he is poorly in bed, I am his mum and that feels like a big overstep on their part. I didn't raise my voice and said it politely but it feels absolutely wrong to have him forced to present himself as proof when he is feeling ill and not even dressed. We have never had any issues with the school that I think could warrant them disbelieving me or being otherwise concerned about his welfare - he is a nice, happy, well adjusted kid who happens to have a stinking cold!

They didn't push the matter and went away, but am now worried that it will be a mark against my name or they will raise it in school. Does anyone know if they will take this further?

The didn’t demand
They asked
The Op said no
they left

It would confirm that the child was being properly supervised or not. It would confirm if he was actually present in the home. Surely you can see that is useful information from a safeguarding perspective?

You need to understand that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility. It’s not something that can outsourced to one agency that isn’t joined up with the school. The Victoria Climbie case changed that approach - she was failed because of a lack of joined up oversight of what was happening to her. Safeguarding only works if everyone contributes. Attendance is part of that bigger picture. You seem to think that there’s some magical beacon that goes off above a child’s head when they’re being neglected so schools can tell straightaway. It doesn’t work like that. Every tiny piece of the puzzle matters. Sure, it’s a system that generates false positives - very tedious but better than not catching someone in need.

I think we may be posting at cross purposes. The teachers haven't checked. They tried to, but they haven't been able to because they don't have the authority to demand it.

Yes
The assumption is if there isn’t a problem… then the overwhelming majority of parents would have no issue with this.

So the very fact the Op gave a blanket no, will likely pique interest at the very least

In case anyone is still thinking the attendance team were heavy-handed, here’s a real case study. A girl I taught, 12 years old. Hardworking, neatly dressed, excellent attendance. Suddenly not in school. Mum called to say she was sick - this went on for a week. Turned out she’d been r@ped and the mum had actually kicked her out. She was staying with her gran in Brighton.

But yeah, attendance teams are the devil.

If your DS usually has good attendance, you probably haven’t known that this is normal safeguarding now. I don’t understand why he couldn’t wave at the window.

Different situation, for which the bit of the visit OP received that she thought was inappropriate would not have been required. And for which there were other factors that could have meant a lack of contact was a particular concern.

OP hasn't said welfare checks in general are a bad idea. She's saying the threshold that seems to have triggered something somewhat intrusive is inappropriate.

OP didn't say he couldn't. She didn't think it was in his best interests to, and it's hard to see what benefit he'd have got from it.

I really don't understand why you reacted the way you did.

It's hard to discuss this here, it is emotive and complicated. I'm just going to say again - my preference would be for much greater investment in more robust child protection.

It's hard to see what benefit he get from not doing it.

Proclaiming that walking the few steps to the window was not in your son’s best interests is just plain ridiculous, don’t you think?
It wasn’t necessary for him to derive a direct benefit from it.
Some people really are astounding.

You won’t get into trouble but the school has a duty to check. Imagine if they hadn’t and the worse case happened.

They are just doing their job (safeguarding) so if you have nothing to hide and your son was safe, why would you not get him to show his face at the window. He only had a cold for goodness sake (according to you).

Those who are complaining are the exact same people who would be up in arms when a child is abused and died and social
services and/or the school missed the signs.

You’re making a false distinction. “More robust CP” cannot be separated from “having an idea who is in school and who isn’t and why”. You’re talking as if the two things are totally different things, because you don’t actually understand how CP and safeguarding (two different things) works. But if you’re not interested in finding out, I can’t help you.

Viruses are hugely varied. Cold's aren't just one thing, they are a huge range of viruses that cause a wide range of symptoms with wide variety in severity. Most don't put healthy people in bed for a week, but some do. And It might not technically be one of the many cold viruses, if might be flu or covid, etc. All of which, in a healthy 13 year old, are best treated at home with bed rest and won't benefit from risking infecting the GP, their staff, or other patients unless there are complications.

What you’re saying is that they should make a presumptive calculation. The current system is not silly, it’s factual. The attendance will rise. Up until now, in your example, it is only 70% at that time.

Edited to stop this being circular.

Pleasing the welfare officer may make their system work better, but it is at a cost of the boy's comfort and of no benefit to him. So no, it's not in his best interests.

Fgs, it was the child’s own mother who said he had a cold!
She can probably distinguish it from flu or covid perfectly well.

Ok fair enough. I didn't know. I just thought maybe he'd feel better quicker if he took something a bit stronger.

What are you on about? Why should he “benefit”?

People are always outraged about child abuse cases until there’s some suggestion of concern thrown in their direction and then they’re all offended. They came to the house with a question mark looking for an answer and rather than helping them with that you sent them away with the questions unanswered. ( because you were offended that anyone could think YOU’d be abusive ). Well guess what… abusive and neglectful parents don’t generally announce it. So the next time he gets a cold and you keep him off for four days they’ll have that little niggly thought that you weren’t that co-operative.

I've stepped away because I could write an enormous essay explaining more but you're probably not likely to be swayed and it's a chat thread not a debating society.

I was just attempting to back out quietly.

No one can accurately distinguish between a cold, flu and covid, without testing.

Oh, I’ll just bet you could…