To wonder where the school get off?!

[Gossipmonster]

School have sent home a letter outlining new rule tightening around lateness, uniform etc for September. Fair enough (although I can see the skinny trouser ban being a PITA for all parents of girls).

They also state that if your child is off sick they need to be looked after by yourself or another adult - and spot checks will be made. WFT? I (will) have a 16, 14 and 12 yr old (youngest maybe fair enough), work full time and am on my own.

So evey time one of them is ill I am expected to take a day off work?

I think this is ridiculous esp when observing the 48 rule with V and D.

Do the school have a right to stipulate this? .

How exactly is it worded?

They also state that if your child is off sick they need to be looked after by yourself or another adult - and spot checks will be made. WFT? I (will) have a 16, 14 and 12 yr old (youngest maybe fair enough), work full time and am on my own.

How on earth do they propose to police that one? I can't see that they have a leg to stand on to be honest but I'm sure someone with some legal knowledge will be along soon.

And who will be conducting 'spot checks'?

I can't see that happening - kids dont open the door, no answer = up the doctors/dentist/hospital. Sorted.

And how, exactly, do they plan to do their spot checks? Children off sick wouldn't necessarily be being looked after at home, would they? Sounds like en empty threat to me.

Says it is "legally required that they are at home being cared for by yourself or another adult. Spot checks are likely to be made in order to be certain this is the case".

Is this maybe an attempt to check up on potential truants?

If they check up and ask to speak to the "responsible adult" then at least they can gauge whether its genuine?

I have no idea by the way - just posing a suggestion

Sounds like utter bollocks to me. They have absolutely no say in what happens to children outside school. That is quite odd, and no, I don't think they have any right.

I guess if they check and you aren't there it will be unauthorised

I can only think that it is like Salmotrutta says and relates to truanting

Legally required where? I didn't think there was an age, in law, at which a child could be left alone. I thought the law just stated that if anything happened to a 'home alone' minor you could be held responsible in a court of law?

They legally should be at school though I guess.

I would interpret that as being poorly worded, but an attempt to explain to parents who don't already think this, that if a child is ill enough to not be at school, then they are not well enough to be wandering round the local town centre. It's pointing out the truancy angle I suspect, rather than the childminding one (but I agree it's not really been thought through with that wording).
Personally I'd just ignore it. If my teens are ever at home on my work days, I can't take time off to be with them, sickness or snow days or broken boiler days or INSET days or 'review days' etc.

I think it's fair enough for a 12/13/14 yo. If the school is having problems with children who are supposed to be sick being out and possibly causing trouble, then they have to do something.

I'd have thought that the school will know which children they have to worry about and ones they wouldn't even consider bothering to spot check.

The lateness and uniform rules are ones that should be enforced by a school, so this is a good thing.

They cannot possibly have the time/resources to 'spot check' pupils off sick. Especially at 16 (year 11 I take it, please don't say sixth form?).

If the intention is to stop truancy, they could have said there needs to be an adult to phone up to confirm illness, but the way they have worded it sounds most odd. Very out of touch too, you won't be the only single parent and I would NOT have been taking time off work to look after a secondary school student unless they were very ill indeed.

Why would you leave a child at home on their own anyway

What Laurie says. If my child is sick enough to be off school then I'd want to be with them (or an adult I trusted.)

i would have thought a 15 year old with a severe cold sore throat could be home alone no problems

LaurieFairyCake-Because a 14 or 16 year old are old enough to be at home by themselves. Particularly if the reason they are off is to adhere to the 48 hour rule.
I think you should call them and just ask them about it - also ask where they found the information about "legally required"

Would you really take the day off to look after a 16yr old?

Well you may well leave a 14 or 16 year old at home if they were a bit poorly mightn't you? I can't imagine taking a whole day off work when Dd is that age unless she is very poorly.

I would have thought anyone with a cold sore or a sore throat can get themselves to school (or work for that matter)

Children under 16 should have an adult at home IMO (and the states obviously)

If they were very ill I would, but for D&V rules, x3 children and a bad bug goes round I doubt you'd have a job to go back to if you took that much time off.

The school will probably have had target families in mind when they sent the letter.

Obviously 16 year olds don't need an adult at home as they're adults.