School asking for flight details after unauthorised term-time absence abroad

[PersonalData]

We went abroad mon-thu last week, ds (10) was in school the week before and went back on Friday. We let them know and obviously knew it would be unauthorised. As it was 8 sessions we don’t qualify for a fine. His attendance is usually 100%.

They asked on friday before and after for us to provide proof of the flights and other details for ‘safeguarding’ but he was back in school and clearly fine ?? We declined as this is private personal data. They replied back that we must submit the evidence by the end of tomorrow?

Is this usual ?

There was even one poster who’s job was in safeguarding calling those suggesting it had to do with safeguarding talking out of their behinds

What do they mean you won't have a choice?
What will they do?

Escalate
social services

We trust these school to educate our children 5 days a week

but when the school asks for some information - some seemingly jump to assume they’re cheeky fuckers and doing this to piss the Op off or spite her

I respect and value my kids schools. I trust that if they ask for information - it’s for a damn good reason and I don’t want to waste their or my time with a silly back and forth

each to their own I guess

I'm sure it is to do with safeguarding on the part of the school. I just don't see how the flight details help in any way.

Honestly, some people make their lives so much harder than they need to be. Schools hold so much info about our children - addresses, DOB, family members, doctors details, medical details, etc… but God forbid they ask for some arbitrary details about a flight a child has taken that means absolutely nothing after the child is back in school because they’ve been told that they need to collect this info for their reporting duties to the local government and no, that’s overstepping the line and we should fight them all the way 🙄

Or just said no and left it at that.

Its not to do with safeguarding, in that it doesnt safeguard

The school 'have to state it is for safeguarding'.

Those of us who work in actual safeguarding know that this is not safeguarding.

Its an overused word

Whats the threshold for referral?

(this was done much earlier in the thread by the way)

Being told to say it's for safeguarding is not the same as being for safeguarding.

And yet there are many people on the thread who can see exactly how this would be for safeguarding and have given examples.

The alternative would be that this information is now being asked for just to harass parents, and that I don't believe.

Yes exactly they didn’t elaborate! Sounds more like the LA using ‘safeguarding’ as a single word to force compliance !

The examples dont hold water and as has been set out many times in the thread, what a school thinks is 'safeguarding' is just arse covering because they've been told something. Its ok, just to admit that, but parents dont have to comply.

Its not being asked for to harrass anyone, its a policy brought in like many which is somewhat purposeless when you drill down and really unpick it, but looks fairly plausible on the surface. Schools, public bodies, social services, the NHS, are full of those sorts of things. Time wasters.

They hold water for the people who wrote them and for others who read them.

Thats still a choice.
No i won't, let social services come.
Then show the stuff to social services if needed, assuming thry can give a better explanation than but safeguarding.

Theres still a choice. I am interested in why the school said they had no choice.

Do you generally not regard this school very highly @PersonalData ?

What is there to apology about?

It is a box ticking exercise - a new form from LA which doesn't even have any practical explanation aside of the vague "we were told we should say safeguarding"

There wouldnt be a threshold for referral on the basis that a parent says they're going on holiday and Jonny will miss school. Jonny comes back with a tan talking of Benidorm, full of beans. Parent refuses to give over flight details

No threshold for referral.

On the other hand, parent says Jonny is going on holiday. There are already worries and concerns about the child's attendance, sometimes he is hungry, sometimes subdued, sometimes clothes are dirty. Jonny comes back after a week looking pale and wan, dirty hair, tired, nervy and skittish, withdrawn. Unclear where the child has been, Jonny doesnt talk about 'a holiday'. Parent wont provide details

Theshold for referral is that neglect is suspected. Flight details are irrelevant in any case. Parent could give over flight details but the child's presentation is what triggers the referral, not the presence or absence of flight details

which is why all the talk of flight details or holiday details being needed for SAFEGUARDING is a pile of tosh.

That is how it used to be yes

but now, since recent stories, there has been a seismic shift to no risks at all.

You are a social worker @likelysuspect ??

Surely you are aware of this massive recent shift to a no risks policy - pretty much everything referred is looked in to

The alternative is, that someone decided this is the easiest way to look that they are doing something.

And using the word safeguarding to fob off people questioning whether it actually does anything usefull.

--
Yes, attendance is important, but the way how it has become a religion in England doesn't seem to deliver stellar results compared to everywhere else.

Conversely Im the one in meetings being very blunt that 'no risks' does not exist and we have to learn to live with risk and accept that some is present. Managing risk does not mean risk disappears.

Lots of agencies are highly risk averse yes. Driven by the public I think who live in a fantasy world of 'no risk'.

And no, not everything referred is looked into, the example given by the OP, unless there are any other factors present would really not be taken anywhere.

I agree

No one actually thinks no risks is possible

but with the recent failings - there’s been a seismic shift to an INCREDIBLY cautious approach. Everything is checked, double and triple checked.

So yes - this will be a safeguarding exercise. Whether or not that is genuine concern or
not is irrelevant.

Yes, it is an exercise. An exercise showing they are taking incredibly cautious approach.

It doesn't mean it does any real good from safeguarding perspective.

The whole attendance cult, harrasing parents over simple parental decisions and issuing fines for what is a normal family life, doesn't bring the expected results. So the system adds more harrasment to show that they are doing something. And, it won't deliver the results either.