AIBU? DS was ill and the school have marked it as an unauthorised holiday and are threatening to fine me!

[WeAreEternal]

A couple of weeks ago DS (7) had an upset stomach, he D&V over night and most of the next day.
First thing in the morning (a Thursday) I called the school and let them know he was ill.
He was feeling better by the evening but as he had D&V school policy is 24 hours off, so I kept him off Friday too.

I received a letter from to school yesterday saying that those days have been marked as an unauthoried holiday as "although we received a phone call from you stating that (DS) was ill, we are led to believe that DS was in fact on a holiday to XXXX on these two dates"

The letter goes on to say that if he was genuinely ill they expect me to provide evidence such as a doctors appointment card, a prescription, a medication receipt or something simmilar that can "verify my version of events".

I am a medical professional, I know when when my DS needs medication or to see a GP or when he just has a bit of a stomach bug and needs rest and fluids.
Who would take a child to the GP or buy medication for D&V anyway?

How on earth can I prove that DS was ill?
And why are they even querying this?
AIBU to think this is bloody ridiculous?

Anyone have any ideas?

Well it depends how you prove it doesn't it. If a school is close to the threshold then they will need to be more careful than one that won't. And I have to say a lot of OFSTED inspectors don't show the slightest understanding of the world of special schools & judge them very much in the same way as they judge mainstream schools. Of course you can sometimes strike lucky, but you can't guarantee your inspectors will have any understanding about the particular issues.

I'm aware the OP isn't talking about holiday, but the conversation had become rather more general. My point was a general one. If you attend a school where attendance rate is close to the 85% then they will be under a lot more pressure than one where the attendance rate is close to 98%. We are given the attendance rate for each week in a weekly newsletter - and that's partly because it's an issue for the school - even though the absences reflect the nature of the school population. My understanding is that if it goes below the 85% then the bottom drops out of everyone's world and OFSTED fall in through a hatch from above causing problems. I'm taking the piss of course, but my understanding is that it is very problematic for a school to go below 85% - even with good reason.

Merry - ours said LEA as well. And both letters (different schools) were word for word the same.

Yes, I'm sure the LEA sent out a standard letter for the schools to put on their own paper.

So, friday16, why are penalties being enforced now?

But they are being almost universally enforced NOW.

There's been a new set of regulations that remove the 10 day holiday thing. A lot of heads were agreeing to those, and it was becoming an increasing problem. Now they can't (and, in many cases, are quietly pleased that they can't, as the educational effects in secondary, in particular, are significant). Parents aren't happy about it, and are removing their children anyway. A two week unauthorised absence leaves the school without a lot of choices.

That's not a justification for a school getting arsey over a one day sickness absence, and were they to attempt to progress that to a penalty notice the recipient would be wise to tear it up and go to court.

Fixed Penalty Notices are widely mis-understood. The school cannot fine people; what it can do is demand payment of a penalty to prevent a prosecution. You can still go to court, and in this circumstance (and many that have been mentioned above) you would clearly win. A school would have to have a death-wish to take a case like this to court.

Crap like the OP is experiencing is certainly not universal (hence the gasps from people here) and is about one power-crazed admin assistant, I suspect.

OK I found ours online. It came from the LEA. And it refers to a case where OFSTED downgraded a school (from outstanding to good) for behaviour and safety because 'attendance was no better than average' due in part to some children being taken out for holidays.

So according to OFSTED you have to be better than average with attendance (WTAF?) and so schools go a bit loopy. Note the average attendance was only in part due to holidays. So if you have a school with low attendance due to high rate of illnesses you can forget the head teacher having any discretion at all.

Hope the letter works op. Let us know how you get on.

That makes more sense of it all, saintly.

Firstly, the OP's case is nothing to do with "headteacher's discretion". It's to do with being called a liar over a sickness absence.

Secondly, I'd want to see the actual Ofsted report that used average attendance, alone, to take a school down from Outstanding. The September 2013 assessment framework mentions attendance once, as half of one of the eight objectives for behaviour and safety, in paragraph 57 bullet point 4. If doing only OK in a measure which forms only part of an objective which only forms one eighth of the overall area is sufficient to downgrade a school, then it has other problems.

I've found one school which might be the one cited (there are six reports which talk about "attendance no better than average", but this is the only one talking about holidays). It's a report from six years ago, and the school in question is now in special measures. Yes, the special measures inspection does say "Leaders are not doing enough to improve low attendance." but if you read it, imagining that sentence were not there, it wouldn't make a lot of difference, would it? If you were the leadership of that school, would you focus on (a) attendance or (b) "Achievement is inadequate because teaching is not good enough to enable pupils to make sufficient progress. Consequently, pupils do not reach the standards they are capable of in English and mathematics."?

Which school is referred to?

Precisely, jimjams.

Saintly - Which school did the letter refer to? There's no confidentiality issue here, all correspondence and Ofsted reports are public. I'd be interested to read that. Mind you, having re-read your post I suspect context is important there. I'd like to read the Ofsted report.

The extra push from LA's and Heads is a result of Government directive.

Yes, our Heads (the Infant and Junior) used to authorise, for example, 3 days off at the end of the summer term as many of our school's families are from abroad and it made the flights to visit family a huge amount cheaper. (And let's face it, what schoolwork is actually done in the last 3 days of school?).

Now they will not do that anymore, even though it is perfectly reasonable and will not affect academic results whastoever. Obviously this is very different from 2 weeks off in the middle of term, which they would never have authorised anyway.

I think the Head's 'discretion' has actually been removed from them very recently.

I think the Head's 'discretion' has actually been removed from them very recently.

I've cited the regulation change above. Indeed, provision to authorise holidays has been removed from heads. That doesn't explain crap like the OP is going through.

I think it often puts head in a difficult situation where even reasonable heads are forced to refuse something, that with no OFSTED/LEA/DofE pressure they would happily authorise.

Or, alternatively, that being able to point to LEA pressure allows heads who wanted to refuse permission for things but found it difficult to deal with stroppy parents now have the backing to do so.

Such a leap to positive accusation of dishonesty though. I wonder what possessed them to put that in a letter and just fire it off? Should have invited OP to a meeting to discuss it, really.

I still can't believe no one from the school has had the courtesy to contact the OP about this. That is appalling communication.

That doesn't explain crap like the OP is going through.

It doesn't excuse it, but does explain it to some extent.

There is a heavier emphasis on attendance despite what friday may claim (Head's ability to authorise reasonable holiday has been removed)
Head's become (ridiculously) heavy handed in these matters

No excuse OP for why there has been no communication from the school since, but I think some explanation as to why schools have their knickers in a twist about attendance.

Not read all of the posts. Cannot get my mind around getting an appointment the same day with a GP. I have had to wait 3 weeks for an appointment for myself and 6 days for ds.

Doctors generally don't want people trailing their kids who have D and V into their surgeries. The advice is to give plenty of fluids, not drag them to the doctors - same with chicken pox.

I didn't think they expected a doctor's letter unless the absence had been 4 days or longer.

Friday - as I said way back the op's situation is outrageous. My comments were in response to the broader questions about why things have changed.

Watching this one with interest.

I had issues with the Local Authority at one point trying to get my DS into a (any!!) school. I emailed everyone (big cheeses at the LA, Gove, Chukka Umana (our MP), Cameron (MIL's MP)), and eventually someone senior rang me up and said, "You're the woman who has emailed everyone. We want to sort this out."

Oh goody. If that is what it takes, I will keep on emailing...

Good luck.

Our primary in East Sussex recently had an ofsted inspection, one of the governors told me that one of the reasons they did not get outstanding was the average attendance (I think it was around 95%). This was not mentioned in the report.

one of the governors told me that one of the reasons they did not get outstanding was the average attendance (I think it was around 95%). This was not mentioned in the report

Hmm. Governors are hardly disinterested observers. What else was in the report?